Women Worship Leaders - Just a Few Thoughts

May women lead in worship?

The answer to such a question should be obvious, but unfortunately the church has been influenced by the world and consequently the answer to what should be an easy question is no longer obvious to so many Christians.

Worship is often led by women even in churches that believe only men may be elders. Such a worship practice if consistent with the unique teaching role of elders presupposes that worship is not to be accompanied by biblical instruction. In other words, if women may lead worship yet not teach the congregation, then worship may be void of biblical instruction. Yet then how can women lead God’s people in biblical worship that engages the emotions through the mind? Is to lead worship simply a matter of hitting the right note? No, and women “worship leaders” appreciate that much, which is why they so often step out of their God-given comfort zone in order to exhort in their leading. Accordingly, when women lead in worship any adherence to the unique teaching role given to men is undermined.

The elders, if they do their job, will protect the congregation, including their women, from such an unnatural, demeaning practice. Yes, demeaning. It’s demeaning for a woman to do man’s calling, just like it would be demeaning for a man to submit to his wife in all things. Gender confusion is always ugly.

It is the pastor, in the representative service of the Lord, who is ultimately responsible for leading congregational worship on earth. The pastor who operates in the name of Christ is the worship leader. It's an indicative. It comes with the job. A worship leader should be prepared to exegete hymns and Psalms for the congregation, which a woman simply may not do even if she can. A great worship leader can be tone deaf but that is because he is not merely to lead the music but rather is to direct the hearts and minds of the congregants to the triune God who receives congregational worship in Christ.

The answer to the question should be obvious. Women may not lead worship because women may not lead God’s people. Let's be loving to our sisters in Christ and in humble obedience lead them out of such roles.

Manhattan Declaration (a *very* few thoughts)

I noticed that Turretin Fan had provided a link to this post of mine on the Manhattan Declaration.  When I clicked on the link from Turretin Fan's site I learned that it was a broken link. The broken link was due to my taking the post down shortly after having put it up. It was my intention then to modify the post, which I never ended up doing. What is below is the original. The post is old and in some respect yesterday's paper yet with abiding principles. Other responses to the declaration, including this one, can be found here. These include responses by Al Mohler, Alistair Begg and R.C. Sproul.
RD
----

I was recently asked my opinion on the recent "Manhattan Declaration".

My "off the top of my head" response:

It is my understanding that individual Trinitarians have joined together across denominational lines to "affirm [their] right - and more importantly, to embrace [their] obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths." (Emphasis theirs!)

I am grateful that men and woman are willing to speak their minds in times such as these. Notwithstanding, two less sanguine thoughts come to mind.

1. Now of course, I do believe that every Christian has a right to speak out against oppressive government. I also believe that individual Christians have the liberty to unite on such matters. However, I find it troubling when such people imply that it is obligatory for the Christian to speak out on these or any other particular political matter. One man's Christian liberty should not bind another man's conscience.

2. What we have here are three branches of Christendom: Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Evangelical. Why aren't all these branches "evangelical"? Well, I would suppose it is because they do not all affirm the gospel message of how a man can have peace with God and avoid an eternity in hell. Given the blurring of that truth, I choose to exercise my Christian liberty, which I find personally obligatory in my own conscience, not to participate in defending those truths in that unified manner; though I respect the liberty of those who feel led to do so. Fair enough?

Sundry observations:

1. I so appreciate the wisdom of the Divines. The Westminster standards teach that the organized church is not to intermeddle with civil affairs that concern the commonwealth unless dire circumstances prevail. I don't know whether the Manhattan Declaration has underscored the point, but they might do well to make clear that their declaration carries no ecclesiastical power and that the organized church's mission is first and foremost the gospel, which in turn will transform the world. (Of course most evangelicals are so rapture-ready that they have no expectation that Jesus will make all his enemies his footstool.)

2. It's interesting to me that there are some who disagreed with the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) dialogue and associated pronouncements yet have participated in the Manhattan Declaration. I think that is fine because ECT implicitly denied the gospel by affirming Rome's magical view of water baptism, whereas this new document does not try to bridge theological incongruities. For that we can be grateful, but I am still not comfortable with what is implied (and can be inferred) when such communions put aside their differences for some other cause, which all to often is seen as a "greater cause".

3. We may not let doctrinal purity be an excuse for us to do nothing!

4. Finally, doctrinal differences aside, I find it a bit passing strange that Rome can remain so vocal on the abortion front without giving equal time to the public acknowledgement of their abuses in the area of child molestation. May they be pleased to sound both trumpets.

5. "It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty." That statement is very problematic. The gospel is not being proclaimed in the declaration, nor can it be because two of those communions are on a collision course where the gospel is concerned and the third group (Eastern Orthodoxy) hasn't been on the road course in about fifteen hundred years.

Carl Trueman & A Need For A Contemporary Polemic Against Romanism

Carl Trueman (CT) in “Another thing needful” misses wide the mark. My issue with CT is three-fold. (a) I don't think there is any need whatsoever to engage Romanism (i.e. the official Roman Catholic teaching) further (at least not in any fresh way), or has something changed within their system of doctrine that I haven't heard about? (If she has changed, then she's not infallible. If she contradicts herself, then she's not infallible.) There is already a preponderance of fine polemics out there against Romanism - the true teaching of Roman Catholicism (as opposed to movements within  Rome.) When I speak of Rome I mean the communion that defines herself in her official statements. To miss that is to miss my complaint. We even find it in the Fathers as David T. King has nicely cataloged for the church. What about the plethora of Reformed dogmatics? Is CT complaining that Calvin, the Hodges, Hoeksema, Berkhof et al., weren't respectful enough? To borrow from Rhett toward Scarlet when she said he was no gentleman, I say a minor point at such a time. That CT says that Boettner is pre-V-2 would seem to suggest that Romanism has changed, which undermines her battle cry of Semper Eadem. At the very least, if Vatican ii contradicted the exhaustive dogmas of Vatican i and Trent, then Rome is no longer Rome and the discussion is over; they're false prophets. (This doesn't, of course, mean that we need not declare the gospel to those in the Roman communion or that we ought not to come along side Romanists and explain to them in love the teachings of their communion for what they are, sometimes heretical. Notwithstanding, there is simply no need to find new innovative ways to repudiate official-Rome because she is, well, always the same.) (b) Who does CT wish to engage? Certainly not the magisterium because they don't engage. CT could be confusing Rome with e-pologists who don't speak for Rome. Kung doesn't even speak for Rome; just ask Ratzinger! (c) CT thinks that Protestants are "converting to Rome" all the time, which simply is not true - not even close. Maybe CT has fallen into the spun web of the Called to Communion crowd that write across the sky each time they make a confused sinner possibly twice the child of hell as themselves. (Protestants do still censure those who embrace thoughtfully and without remainder  Roman dogma don't they? Accordingly, are there really a lot of Christians converting to Rome, or just apostates who have been purged from Christian roles?) The converts to Rome are few and far between and what CT is not seeing is that it is the Protestant pulpits, sessions and pews that are filled with ex-Romanists. It is the church that is growing. But more to the point, although Rome could, at least by her own statistical standards, be beating population growth by a nose - when one considers her laws regarding contraception, which all Romanists being obedient to the pope of course obey (ha!) or else they wouldn't be numbered among true "Catholics", one would think that Rome would be growing at an even higher rate than reported. If they were to be honest though and purge their roles from delinquent members, they'd have much less than that which they show as true "members", and they wouldn't be growing but even shrinking. (I'm still a member- just a separated one in their eyes.) Even if Romanism grows though, so what? Islam is growing too. When one is added to the roles of apostate or infidel communions all that is occurring is the relabeling of an unbeliever. In the final analyses, Rome has not changed. Rome does not engage. And Rome is not growing by converting Protestants.

Finally, and maybe I should have said this first, I do not take CT's observations as some have - that he is complaining about what he perceives to be a need or about how bad things are, but rather, as he said, I simply see him voicing a perceived need so that someone out there might be stirred to take up the challenge. I'm fine with that sort of thing in principle and can even applaud the intention. That one's plate is full would not seem to preclude him from letting legitimate needs be known. No, my concerns run in another direction altogether. That CT is not able to recognize the already timeless polemics against the same old Roman heresies demonstrates to me that he doesn't quite understand the debate, but I'm hopeful that one day he will.

Confusion Over a Reformed View of Baptism

Just as it is hazardous to build a doctrine of baptism from Scripture simply by examining verses having to do with water, it is equally dangerous to try to build a robust view of baptism by simply looking at one chapter in the Confession.

Whenever union with Christ is present, so is saving faith (and visa versa). The WCF teaches that saving faith is “ordinarily” wrought by the ministry of the Word. The Confession most unambiguously steps out and discloses a view on God’s ordinary means of conferring the instrumental cause of justification, which is always accompanied by all the benefits of Christ’s work of redemption. There is no mention of the sacraments in this chapter on saving faith, other than teaching that the sacraments (along with prayer) strengthen, but do not produce, that which we receive by faith (not baptism!). Even more significant is that in its chapter on effectual calling, the Confession also indexes effectually calling not to baptism, but to Word and Spirit. In effectual calling, wrought by Word and Spirit and not baptism, the Confession teaches that God replaces the unbelieving heart of stone with a regenerate heart of flesh, the very work that many want to attribute to the rite of baptism. In a word, the Confession attributes that which baptism signs and seals not to the sign and seal of baptism but to the effectual working of Word and Spirit. The sacraments along with prayer serve to strengthen these realities (that are effected by other means than baptism).

At the very least, those with FV tendencies have irreconcilable differences with the Westminster standards. That is because they will not make conscience of the Confession’s teaching that sacraments in general and baptism in particular are “efficacious” in that they “confirm(!)” our interest in Christ, which we inherit through the effectual working of Word and Spirit, which together unite us to Christ. The chapter on the sacraments plainly teaches that baptism is a confirmatory seal and not a converting ordinance. Baptism confirms that which Word promises and Word and Spirit effect. The role of the sacraments are not intended to effect that which the Confession teaches is offered in Word and effected by Word and Spirit, but rather they are to effect the confirmation of what is effected by Word and Spirit. In other words, the Confession teaches that together Word and Spirit effect the reality (union with Christ), and the sacraments effect the confirmation of that effectuated reality.

All of that is not to say that conversion cannot be accompanied by baptism or that baptism cannot be given increase by the intelligible Word, resulting in Word-Spirit conversion. Notwithstanding, the Confession explicitly states that the gift of saving faith is ordinarily wrought through the administration of the Word (as opposed to baptism) and that the precursor to faith, effectual calling (wherein a sinner is recreated in Christ) comes not by baptism but by Word and Spirit. The place of baptism in particular is that by Word and Spirit it “confirms” that which is granted to us in our effectual calling etc. So, in sum, when we read in chapter 28 of the Confession about the efficacy of baptism, we must interpret “efficacy” according to chapter 27 on the sacraments, which states that the role of baptism is to confirm our interest in the offered promise, and not to effect what the promise contemplates. We must interpret Confession by conmparing it with Confession, no less than we are to interpret Scripture by Scripture.

Sacraments effect confirmation, plain and simple. They are not given to make effectual the reality of what is confirmed in the sacrament. Sacraments don’t create; they by grace sustain. Again though, baptism may certainly accompany the converting work of Word and Spirit, but it need not even do that in the life of the believer.

John Frame on Michael Horton's "Christless Christianity"

I have thought for quite some time that Westminster Seminary California (WSC) is not only theologically incorrect on many issues, but often historically mistaken as well. WSC is wrong on Natural Law; wrong on Two Kingdom theology; wrong on the Covenant of Works; wrong on Redemptive Historical preaching; wrong on Molinism; wrong on Law-Gospel; wrong on John Frame – yet had they got Frame right, they probably would not be so wrong on so many things. They would probably draw finer distinctions than they do. (NOTE: Natural Law, Two Kingdoms and Covenant of Works are all biblical ideas. WSC simply misunderstands them. Redemptive Historical is an excellent manner of preaching. WSC simply places undo emphasis upon it. Molinism implies heresy. WSC simply has little appreciation for what distinguishes it from Open Theism, let alone the metaphysics implied by libertarian freedom. Law should be distinguished from gospel regarding the way of salvation, but not dichotomized into mutually exclusive messages. In a word, WSC knows enough to be dangerous about many things.)

That WSC is wrong on so many issues wouldn’t be as bad if the seminary didn’t fancy itself as the keeper of the Reformed faith, another thing they’re wrong about.

In any case, in 2009 John Frame reviewed Michael Horton’s book: Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church. Although I have not read the book and, therefore, cannot comment on truthfulness of the review, I provide the link as information. My only hope is that those young, impressionables out there who have placed their trust (if not also their tuition dollars) in any institution, whether in Moscow, Idaho, Escondido, California or Glenside, Pennsylvania would consider all they are taught with a critical mind.

In summary, Frame contends that Horton’s criticisms of the American church presuppose more than ten major principles that although he says Horton does not maintain with utter consistency, they are necessary for Horton’s case. Not only does Frame observe that Horton does not maintain with consistency his own critical strictures, Frame also asserts that “Horton’s argument depends on ideas that cannot be justified by Scripture, or by the classic Protestant confessions.” In short, “Horton measures the American church with a defective theology” says Frame. Frame concludes that “Christless Christianity is essentially an evaluation of the American church, not from the standpoint of a generic Protestant theology, but from what I must regard as a narrow, factional, even sectarian perspective.”

Below are the unvarnished “ten points” that Frame argues are foundational to Horton’s thesis:

1. Attention to ourselves necessarily detracts from attention to Christ.

2. We should not give attention to the way we communicate the gospel, or to making it relevant to its hearers.

3. God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are a zero-sum game. The idea that man must do something compromises the absolute sovereignty of God.

4. God’s work of salvation is completely objective, external to us, and not at all subjective, internal to us. (Here he backtracks some.)

5. God promises us no earthly blessings, only heavenly ones, and to desire earthly blessings is a “theology of glory,” deserving condemnation.

6. Law and gospel should be utterly separate. There should be no good news in the bad news and no bad news in the good news.

7. Preaching of the gospel must never use biblical characters as moral or spiritual examples. Nor must it address practical ethical issues in the Christian life.

8. A focus on redemption excludes a focus on anything else.

9. In worship and in the general ministry of the church, God gives and does not receive; the congregation receives and does not give.

10. Analysts of the church must compare the Church’s focus on Christ with its focus on other things, rather than considering that many of these other things are in fact applications of Christ’s own person and work.

Willful Desertion, Divorce & Ordained Servants

Under the gospel of Christ there exist two permissible reasons for divorce: adultery and willful desertion. (Matt.19:8, 9; 1 Cor. 7:15) In the world we live in today elders often have to judge whether certain acts of the flesh constitute adultery. In the like manner, elders also have to ascertain whether certain manners of life constitute willful desertion. This blog entry is concerned with (a) the latter provision for dissolving the marriage contract, willful desertion, along with (b) an ecclesiastical abuse of the provision.

If a professing Christian were willfully to desert his or her spouse, the guilty party would be worthy of being declared an unbeliever. The declaration of unbelief that would accompany willful desertion would not be the innocent party’s ground for divorce, but rather ground for divorce would be willful desertion of a spouse. (1 Cor. 7:12, 13; 1 Cor. 7:15)

Willful desertion by an unbeliever cannot be accompanied by an ecclesiastical judgment on the unbeliever because God, not the church, will judge those outside the church. (1 Cor. 5:12) Accordingly, whenever a believer is loosed from the marriage bonds due to an unbeliever’s willful desertion, the believer is free to remarry even though the guilty party, by the nature of the case, is beyond the pale of ecclesiastical censure (being an unbeliever). Such should never be the case (under the willful desertion provision) when both parties are professing believers, though again, the ground for divorce is not that the guilty party has been declared an unbeliever but rather willful desertion is what may loose a spouse. (So, even if the elders fail to discipline a member for willful desertion, the willful desertion condition will still have been met.)

It has become increasingly more prevalent in the Reformed church today to approve of divorce between professing Christians for spousal abuse – particularly verbal abuse. The thinking is that verbal abuse can automatically constitute “abandonment” [see footnote] of the marriage obligation, and abandonment is deemed sufficient ground for divorce. Although excommunication is never ground for divorce - in cases in which a professing believer willfully deserts a spouse we would expect to see the guilty party censured to the degree of unbeliever. Unfortunately, that is not what we always see, even within churches that practice biblical censures. Instead what we can find is an unbiblical accommodation for the offended party (usually the wife) who has suffered under verbal abuse, which ironically turns into a situation in which she deserts her husband without cause, or else is not granted the official ecclesiastical backing of the church. In other words, one of two unbiblical accounts too often occurs. Either the suffering wife is given "permission" to divorce yet without her husband having sinned enough to be censured, or else she is given "permission" to divorce when her husband should have been censured by the church but was not. In the first scenario the abused wife is denied both the testing and the privilege of sanctifying suffering, and in the second scenario she is denied the peace that the church was to have provided her by declaring in the name of Jesus Christ that the husband broke the marriage covenant to such a degree that placed the marriage beyond the remedy of the church. 

The thinking of many elder boards or sessions (same thing) is that an abused spouse is free to divorce without any ecclesiastical censure of the guilty party. In those cases of approving divorce without ecclesiastical censure an unbiblical restraint often accompanies such ministerial approval: no future-privilege for the allegedly abused wife to remarry, which is an unbiblical restraint whenever there is biblical ground for divorce. (I will not address that point in this post.) Ordained servants are sometimes willing to tacitly approve the desire of an abused spouse (usually the wife) to divorce her husband yet without there being enough evidence to constitute the husband an unbeliever (or else the evidence is ignored(!) and no censure is pronounced). Yet ground for divorce is to have been the husband's willful desertion of the wife, which is always a sufficient condition for the husband to be censured as an unbeliever. Consequently, it stands to reason that if the husband cannot be constituted an unbeliever, then he has not yet willfully deserted his wife – in which case the wife has no biblical grounds for divorce.

It’s also interesting to note that the apostle Paul refers only to unbelievers who depart. Never does Scripture suggest that a believer ever departs. Accordingly, a professing believer who would depart must be declared outside the church and consequently regarded as an infidel, for only those outside the church depart! To deny this is to introduce a category of willful deserters foreign to Scripture.

If a spouse commits adultery and repents, it can be biblically consistent for the innocent party to "sue out" divorce without an accompanying pronouncement of unbelief upon the guilty party. The reason being, adultery is sufficient for divorce and repentance is sufficient to regain one’s standing in the church. Accordingly, one can truly repent prior to being excommunicated yet notwithstanding the transgression may allow the innocent party to sue out divorce “as if the offending party was dead”. (WCF 24.5) Yet in cases involving desertion, no husband is to be considered having willfully deserted his wife to the degree in which she may be loosed unless there is such “willful desertion as can in no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate” (WCF 24.6) In other words, whether willful desertion comes in the form of verbal abuse or literal abandonment, it presupposes that the dissuasion of ecclesiastical and civil authorities has come to naught. Consequently, willful desertion presupposes that one is not in the church, for how is it possible that one in the church - a Christian, can be beyond remedy?!

(Assume the verbal abuse was toward Sally from Bill.) It was noted above there can be an accommodation of prematurely approving Sally's divorce. Such accommodation can ironically end up turning into her desertion of her husband, Bill; which if it had been done in the face of direct ecclesiastical instruction that she not divorce, the result would entail willful desertion on the part of Sally, demanding a pronouncement of unbelief upon her, hence the irony. What is most unfortunate is that when a session or elder board does not discharge its pastoral oversight properly by issuing warnings against willful desertion to women like Sally when Bill is not censurable, such women either can be denied their privilege of sharing in Christ's sufferings as they progress in sanctification, or else all interested parties are denied the manifestation of the reality that the "faithful obedience" of the suffering spouse is not truly saving – for the abandonment of the marriage in the face of ecclesiastical warnings not to, even under hard providence, would be a sign of unbelief. And when Bill indeed should be censured, then Sally deserves to be vindicated(!), which is part-and-parcel with Bill being censured for willful abandonment that could not be remedied by the church. 

In the final analyses, the standards teach that the only non-adultery grounds for Sally to divorce Bill must entail Bill being beyond remedy, which may not be considered the case as long as Bill is to be regarded a believer, indwelt by the Spirit. If Bill is in the church receiving the means of grace, then he is no way to be considered "beyond remedy", which means that Bill may not be regarded has having willfully deserted the marriage, which in turn means that Sally has no biblical grounds for divorce and if she does divorce, then it is she who has abandoned her husband. Yet if Sally truly has grounds for divorce, then Bill must be censured for willful desertion for Sally’s vindication and the glory of God.

The only question now is whether ordained servants will be faithful to their ordination vows and challenge head-on those who would pursue unbiblical divorce. Indeed, God-appoints difficult providences for all who are in union with Christ, but we must expect God's grace to be sufficient for all his people to keep the marriage vow of "for better or for worse" unless one of the two exception clauses can be met (adultery or willful desertion). Elders are to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. They are to love their flock according to knowledge, which sometimes means they are to encourage the sheep under their care in the life of the cross to which we all are appointed for our profit and God's glory. We must come along suffering wives - labor with them if we must, but we must never allow them to pursue unbiblical divorce without first declaring to them the ecclesiastical woes that accompany sin with a high hand. Neither should we not censure censurable-husbands, which is the church’s duty toward both innocent wives and guilty husbands.

Robert Letham points out in his review of Andrew Cornes: "Divorce and Remarriage...", which was published in the Westminster Theological Journal (Spring 1995), that there are pitfalls for viewing marriage with an "individualistic slant" that ignores marriage as "structured by covenant" - in particular in light of "marriage and the covenant of grace" alongside the "relation between Yahweh and Israel, Christ and the church", which is an "indissoluble covenant bond of love." Letham notes that "Apostasy is thus cutting oneself off from covenant with God. In turn, willful desertion involves a person cutting himself off from the covenant bond of marriage." Finally, "desertion is itself an act of unbelief" is Letham's interpretation of Bucer on 1 Cor. 7 with respect to this particular matter. Letham translates Bucer:

"But some will say that this is spoken of an unbeliever deserting. But, I ask, has he not rejected the faith of Christ by what he has done?..."

Yes, willful desertion is sign of unbelief. The task of ordained servants is to discern who is the one deserting the marriage. Let us not be deceived, even by a suffering wife for whom we must have compassion. And might ordained servants vindicate innocent wives and discipline husbands who destroy the covenant of marriage. 

Footnote: I think part of the confusion comes from the vague and subjective term “abandonment”, which has been substituted in the minds of ordained servants for the precise confessional phrase - “willful desertion” which connotes no remedy and presupposes a formal ecclesiastical standing of unbelief. May God be pleased to grant increase to this message.

Keith Mathison on Theonomy

Keith Mathison of Ligonier Ministries reviewed David VanDrunen’s Living in Two Kingdoms. In that review Mathison demonstrated his ability to reaon fallaciously by drawing a gross and obvious hasty generalization. Mathison impugns a class of people, theonomists, of having a tendency of being guilty of a practice that is not integral to theonomy, nor a trajectory of theonomy. What's worse, most theonomists, being Reformed, actually confess a doctrine (liberty of conscience) that opposes that which Mathison hastily indexes to theonomists (conscience-binding tendencies).

Mathison writes:

Van Drunen’s emphasis on Christian liberty is also to be appreciated. Many transformationists, particularly of the theonomic stripe, have a tendency to bind Christians’ consciences on a whole host of matters that the Word of God does not clearly address. I remember to this day one of the first debates I heard in a student break room after transferring to Reformed Theological Seminary. Two students, one of whom was strongly influenced by theonomy, were having a lengthy and heated debate over infant feeding practices: demand feeding vs. schedule feeding. The theonomist participant insisted that schedule feeding was the biblical view and required of all Christians. But does the Bible really give us a clear answer to this question? No, but there are some who would love to bind our consciences with a Christian Mishnah.

That one theonomist in the hearing of Mathison defended scheduled feeding for babies is hardly evidence for the erratic assertion that theonomists have a tendency to bind Christians’ consciences, let alone on a whole host of matters. Now, of course, I trust that Mathison might be able to reach back into his experience and find another such dubious example, but is it at all rational (or charitable) to index a tendency to a position that nicely comports with the opposite tendency, in this case liberty of consicence? At the very least, if the conscience-binding theonomist was debating a Muslim, wouldn't it be equally irrational for a Buddhist to attribute such legalism to Trinitarians?

Theonomists are generally Reformed in their theology and without contradiction affirm a robust doctrine of liberty of conscience as found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Amusingly enough, probably the furthest Christian “stripe” from theonomy is dispensationalism and as far as I know, the greatest emphasis on scheduled feeding that has come forth in the evangelical church was brought to us by the “Growing Kids God’s Way” curriculum created by dispensationalists Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo while attending Grace Community Church, whose pastor is Dr. John MacArthur. Since I have known several dispensationalists that would passionately defend “scheduled feeding” as the biblical position and since we can trace the roots of this idea to a dispensationalist, maybe we should attribute this one theonomist's tendency to his living within a kingdom that is filled with dispensationlists. No, that would not be right. In fact, it's always wrong to arbitrarily pin sinful tendencies on groups of people with whom we have some apparent axe to grind. Shame on you, Keith Mathison.

Mathison also writes:

VanDrunen is right in his rejection of theonomy and in his rejection of the misguided practice of confusing Christianity with civil religion (American or otherwise).

Mathison describes “civil religion” thusly:

There are far too many Christians who are confusing biblical Christianity with civil religion. The Patriot’s Bible is merely one of the more recent and disturbing (if not blasphemous) examples of this kind of confusion. I have been in church services where the American flag surrounded the pulpit, the Pledge of Allegiance rather than the Creed was recited, the National Anthem rather than a Psalm or hymn was sung, and a political platform rather than the Word of God was preached. I love my country, but this kind of thing is a serious problem. I appreciate the insistence of two kingdoms proponents that these things should not be confused.

Mathison is at best uninformed and is not being truthful. Theonomy does not embrace what Mathison calls “civil religion”. Nor does the theonomic thesis lend itself to any tendency of substituting man's opinions for God's; though I can understand such a tendency of substituting man's opinions for God's word springing from a radical 2K theology given its emphasis on the wax nose of natural law.

In the final analyses, Mathison has simply demonstrated himself to be careless if not also uncharitable, but it would be hasty of me to conclude that all non-theonomists are as muddled as Mathison has demonstrated himself to be, at least on this particular matter.

On a somewhat related matter:

For a more thoroughly presuppositional treatment of natural law as it relates to culture, see John Frame’s article. I’d also recommend John Frame’s critique of Van Drunen’s work on natural law.

It remains a mystery to me how this natural law craze can attract mature Christians, but it has always been mysterious to me how a mature believer could favor an outright autonomous approach to apologetics as opposed to the nuclear strength approach that entails a revelational epistemology and presuppositional defense of the faith. I'm convinced that these matters cannot be ones of pure intellect, but rather I find them to have grave spiritual implications.

Radical 2K & Theonomy

In Reformed circles there is a growing infatuation with “natural law” and radical two kingdom (R2K) theology. The soil from which this weed grows is in my estimation Escondido, California, but like the kudzu, it's growing everywhere.

There's a discussion on 2K and civil law on GreenBaggins, which can be found here. My contributions to that discussion are contained below. I have bowed out of the discussion. Dr. Darryl Hart is one of the persons I interact with in the thread. I also interact a fair amount with someone who for all intents and purposes seems to share the typical R2K thinking that is infecting portions of the Reformed church. The comments of those I interact with are indented.

For example, it is worth considering that the 2k position is more consistent with our (biblical) doctrine of justification by faith.

David, would you mind, or anybody for that matter, fleshing that out a bit more. Darryl wrote me something that sounds very similar to that today if I may say.

Ron, Doug’s last couple of entries I think help make a point. On the one hand, you re-produced (#813) what was evidently a response to me in September which rightly lamented the Christian Nation stuff that eminated from Coral Ridge. On the other, you’re getting plaudits from Doug who seems to sound pretty Christian Nation-y in a Coral Ridge-ish sort of way. So it becomes hard to see how the outlook you basically champion doesn’t give rise to that which you also lament. I trust you see the conundrum from a pc-2k point of view.

Zrim,

I’m glad I went back and saw that post of yours on the other thread. I trust I’m to try to address it here rather than there.

I’ll begin with an analogy. If it doesn’t work for you, please let it go. It’s only meant to help clarify a point; I’m not trying to build a case upon it. There are 5-point Calvinists out there that believe witnessing is a waste of time and that when a believer receives Christ he is merely bringing his eternal justification to his consciousness, but I wouldn’t want to impugn TULIP with such silliness and neither would you. People run head strong into error though they begin with true doctrine. In the like manner, the Coral Ridge Christian-nationalism does not represent my position on the civil law as it relates with the rest of Scripture. Frankly, it infuriates me to put it mildly. I don’t see that as a conundrum though, at least not for me. It might be something that must be explained a bit more, but how many times have we Calvinists had to explain why we pray and witness in light of God’s eternal, unchangeable decree? Enough with the analogy.

I believe these are compatible theologies, (a) our Kingdom is not of this world and (b) rapists ought to be put to death. Mind you, I’m not defending theonomy here. I’m merely pointing out that upholding the equity of the case law is not at odds with the primacy of the gospel, the mission of the church.

More about me.. In brief, I take great comfort that our kingdom is not of this world. I live in the re-creation, the church, and by God’s grace enjoy with you the inaugurated kingdom that awaits consummation. In that context, in the church that is (and hopefully in our respective homes too!), we see and enjoy God’s display of unity and plurality (i.e. harmony) progressively maturing and reflecting the Trinity and our ultimate Sabbath rest. This realty is fact, not fancy. It needs to be reckoned as fact and seen through the eye of faith, but it is there to behold for all whom God is pleased to illuminate. Naturally then, I am deeply saddened (you have no idea how much so) when Christians think and even try to usher in the kingdom through a concerted effort to restrain evil and reconstruct Washington. I’m saddened along with you that the pure message of the church is at sundry times and in various places at best hidden and at worst exchanged for another, which is not another but no message at all. What is equally sad to me (and I hope for you too) is that these Christians are not enjoying the wonders of the kingdom. As a Christian and elder, that breaks my heart.

Moving on… yes evil is to be restrained and although some evils can be curbed, I suppose, through the Falwell, Robertson and Kennedy types, these sorts of ministries clearly jettison the Christian message in their efforts. Consequently, ministries such as these do more harm than good. Let me repeat that. They do more harm than good! By the nature of the case they mislead, because in a very real sense they are promoting another gospel. My defense of that assertion is that if the church is to preach the gospel, then their message is to be perceived as the gospel; so when it’s not the gospel that is being preached – then naturally they mislead those who would look to them for the gospel message. Make sense?

Wrapping this up… in an effort to make disciples of all nations, we aren’t to lead with the civil law but with the moral law (as a backdrop) and the gospel (as the solution). That doesn’t mean we ought not to vote for candidates that will govern according to biblical principles so that we can live peaceable lives in the Kingdom. Indeed we should, but that’s very secondary and it is certainly not the church’s place to stand behind any candidate or party, as if any candidate or party could represent the Christian church. With all that as absolute bedrock for me, when it comes to the question of what types of laws I think ought to be legislated, my views are clear and need not be rehearsed here. Yet notwithstanding, my convictions on what ought to be the case has little bearing on my day-to-day life as a husband, father, elder, friend, or business man. (It doesn’t even dictate my eschatology, for “ought” does not imply “will”.) The only reason I speak up on these matters (and on matters having to do with apologetics) is not because these are high on my fun / priority list (they’re far from it in fact), but rather it is because I believe that the church is in need of spokespeople who love and embrace the general equity of the civil case laws while also realizing that those doctrinal distinctives pale insignificant to the already-not-yet reality that pertains to the Kingdom from which the gospel of reconciliation and forgiveness is to go forth. The two views are compatible, but unfortunately they are not always regarded as such.

Finally, I don’t believe that Coral Ridge shares my view of the civil case laws. Not in the least. I think they’re arbitrary nationalists that would never dare justify civil code with OT precepts. I do believe that there are many Christians out there that do agree with me on the place for the case laws, but should they choose to lead with reconstruction over gospel transformation I will run for cover just like you. Again, our Kingdom is not of this world and that’s where I live my life (my family, ministry and fellowship). That being said, if someone asks me should a rapist get ten years (or 180 years!) and a chance for parole, I’ll say no. I’ll plead with such a criminal to be saved and labor with him in his cell, but at the end of the day I’ll be the first to call for his execution. Strange – maybe, conundrum – I don’t think so. I believe God’s precepts require death for such a transgression and that settles it for me. I, also, believe such sanctions will deter other would-be rapists. Finally, I believe such a penality is a means to protect other would-be victims. But again, my sole reason is not the good I believe might come from it, though that can be a comfort, rather it is because with all my heart I believe that God’s precepts require that a rapist be put to death, just like his precepts require that we try to win such a one to the Savior before throwing the switch. My brother, I’m tired and not inclined to discuss this too much further, but I wanted to give a more exhaustive answer to what I think is a confusing point for so many Christian brothers (and sisters).

I’ll end with this… I witnessed to this man in prison; with my wife visited and prayed with his wife and children; and I attended his funeral. My love for Mr. Miller was, I believe, consistent with what I believe he deserved. I’m quite certain that serving a 180 year prison sentence was not God’ revealed will.

Grace and peace,

Ron

The fact is that we have to do this work of promoting justice with those who do not recognize special revelation.

Zrim,

My point is that all men are to desire such laws because they reflect the thinking, precepts and wisdom of God. You find a logistical problem at work, but that problem pertains to the implementation of such laws, which is not germane to the question of whether such laws ought to be desired by the Christian and legislated by congress. You’re saying with that particular rejoinder that the laws are no good because they aren’t feasible, whereas I’m arguing that they should be our desire whether they’re feasible or not. It’s not a question of whether we think such ideas can make it into law but whether individuals should desire to be governed by such a standard.

And, again, as I’ve argued in the other thread, this isn’t at all to say that special revelation mayn’t be referenced. But it does seem to me that God has provided sufficient material in general revelation to do this work without having to pull out special revelation.

Your point, to quote you from the other thread, is that general revelation offers enough revelation in order for us to live in a “non-chaotic” world, which I’m afraid misses the point of the theonomist. For one thing, your standard of what is non-chaotic and mine are different, so degree of chaos can never answer the dispute over whether general revelation relieves chaos. In passing I’ll note that there will be chaotic government in hell but won’t there be a general revelation of God? Consequently, general revelation doesn’t relieve chaos so let’s not attribute non-chaos to general revelation. For what it’s worth, what deters chaos is not general revelation but providence. In any case, even if everyone agreed on what defines chaos, it is irrelevant to the question of how things ought to be. It’s not a question of what one thinks can be pulled off, or whether the degree or lack of chaos suits our subjective sense of balance. Rather, it’s a question of what men are to aspire to with respect to God’s precepts. You keep speaking of what is sufficient to meet your subjective view of “good enough”, but the question we’re to be asking is not what our opinion is but rather what is God’s opinion on the matter.

Don’t you think you can get the sort of justice you think is in keeping with godliness by appealing to natural law?

I find the justice in this world quite ungodly, but that’s irrelevant too. Even if all the laws on the books mysteriously reflected the code I have in mind, without an appeal to special revelation they’d be unjustifiable in an ultimate sense and arguably tyrannical by the nature of the case. It would just be one man (or group of men) inflicting subjective opinions upon others without divine permission or justification. Moreover, the Author of the code would not be receiving the homage He deserves in the matter and that should be no small concern for the Christian. Even human authors get footnoted from time to time.

If so, I don’t see how you’ll persuade anybody who isn’t implicitly convinced that rapists should be executed by simply writing it explicitly on the board.

There are many laws on the books that I don’t agree with but I must live under them. That’s because persuasion of every person is not a necessary condition for laws to be implemented. In any case, persuasion is God’s business not mine. My business is to desire laws that are pleasing in God’s sight and to affect my sphere of influence regarding the implementation of such laws. If and when we get such laws on the books – it will be on God’s time table, not ours.

That’s like a Muslim trying to tell me that he thinks thieves should have their right hands sliced off, and when I am unconvinced he pulls out the Koran. Yeah, so?

Correct, you should not be persuaded by such a defense, but that’s because the Koran is not God’s word. But a Muslim is responsible to be persuaded by the word of God. God’s word and not the Koran is a true justification for laws whether people are persuaded or not. If righteous laws are rejected in the face of God’s testimony, then so be it. If the code of which I speak is received into law and only the Christians see the beauty of it, that’s even better. Our task is to desire and influence change. We are not to use as our justification only those things the other person will accept as valid. Because some people suppress the self-attesting God-breathed Word is not a reason to forgo an appeal to it in the civil realm. Are we to forgo absolute logic when dealing with a relativistic skeptic? (I’m a presuppositionalist, not an evidentialist as you can well guess.)

If you were not discussing the civil code but rather the final judgment with a Muslim, would you appeal to the Sermon on the Mount to show the Muslim he has violated the meaning of God’s holy law? If yes, then why not use the Word to refute the idea that thieves ought not to lose their hand for steeling a loaf of bread? However, if you would limit yourself to general revelation, you would be constrained to say that steeling a loaf of bread deserves eternal damnation. In which case, the Muslim can turn to you and say, “Well, since we can’t cast men into hell, we might as well cut their hands off now!” You see Zrim, general revelation is impotent with respect to governing ourselves in a fallen world because general revelation communicates judgment for all transgressions. Ironically to some, theonomy enables us to justify lesser penalties for lesser crimes.

Spiritually, the Bible is concerned for exact justice, and that is what all the OT laws and prophets were about, and Jesus was the fulfillment of all of it.

Jesus said he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill the law. Whatever you want to interpret “fulfill” as meaning, please don’t let the statement contradict itself. It would seem that your interpretation is that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to abolish the law, which is a contradiction. Fulfill can mean many things, such as give us the fuller meaning of the law; or it could have to do with obeying the law perfectly. It could, also, mean that the law points to Christ. I have my view on the matter but in any case, fulfilling cannot mean abolish for the simple reason that Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law. Moreover, if you wish to take fulfill as abolish, then that would mean he abolished the moral law as well, in which case you prove too much.

Why use a text that is concerned for spiritual exactness for a task that is about civil approximation? Doesn’t pressing the Bible so defined into a civil cause so defined actually do harm to the plight of the Bible? That is, doesn’t it obscure what the Bible is all about?… Again, I affirm what I think is your concern for justice, but I oppose your method since it is a way that obscures the very heart of the gospel.

These laws were on the books for 1500 years before Christ. Did the law during that time “obscure what the Bible [was] all about?” If the equity of the civil code obscures the gospel, then it obscured the gospel under Moses. Accordingly, if you’re right that a theonomic civil code obscures the gospel, then you have a greater desire not to obscure the gospel than God did when he gave the law. That should give you reason to pause I would think. It should tell you that the desire for implementation of such laws cannot be argued away by the primacy of the gospel.

Since your point is a pragmatic one I’ll continue with some pragmatism of my own. What I think is that the gospel as a solution works best against the problem men have, which is accentuated by the moral law, out of which the civil law comes. Moreover, to justify a civil code with God’s word is to remind all men everywhere that there is an ultimate law giver who is the Judge over all. From there we may best show how God is just and the justifier – the one who judges and acquits in Christ.

You think that the law obscures the main message of the Bible, but certainly the main message of the Bible under Moses wasn’t civil law but rather it was God’s works of creation, providence and grace, was it not? Accordingly, this particular reason you raise for not wanting such laws today should by your standard be a sound reason to have not wanted the same laws under Moses. I also hear anti-theonomists argue against the laws in this manner: “So you would have such and such a person put to death…” All that tells me is that the person saying such a thing finds the law too harsh if not obscene, but I don’t see a reason why such a one would not also find the same laws equally obscene under Moses. How do satisfaction, propitiation, expiation and reconciliation turn wisdom into foolishness? In other words, how does the cross make the civil laws given to Israel (over night no less) repulsive to some, or are these laws intrinsically repulsive to some? I pray not. Accordingly, it is never under good regulation to argue against such laws because they appear harsh to our ears.

Jesus’ own hermeneutic here is to say that the Bible is all about him, all about the fulfillment of the law and prophets. To reach back into the law and prophets to do anything but point us to Jesus is to point us away from Jesus.

Ah, but to desire to have ourselves governed by the standards put forth by the King of Kings who is the Word become flesh is to think Christ’s thoughts after him and to yield to his epistemic Lordship. I do well not to desire anything in the realm of civil rule than the standard God desired for those who would follow him.

I know you affirm that Jesus is the fulfillment of all the law and prophets, but it seems to me that your left hand doesn’t realize what the right is doing. There are times when that’s a good thing, but in this instance it’s actually a way to say that you’re getting in the way of your own good confession.

I grasp your opinion on the matter now please receive mine. It would seem to me that you are placing your wisdom with respect to what is good for the gospel above God’s. Your arguments seem to be that the implementation of such laws don’t seem feasible to you, and that they eclipse the main message of Scripture. I hope I dealt with those objections at least in some measure.

I don’t know what more there is to say other than,

Best wishes,

Ron

My main concern about “theonomic” as a label is that people have associated that term with things like re-instituting the dietary laws, which someone like Calvin would never have assented to.

TF,

Real quick – I don’t want to take you away from what you’re doing on this thread. Just one point though… These people that associate dietary laws with theonomy are simply uninformed. Given the magnitude of their misunderstanding, I wouldn’t be too concerned with accepting the label in fear of being thought of as adhering to dietary laws. Theonmists appreciate that the separation from clean and unclean meats (for instance) was symbolic and pointed to the principle to separate from the gentiles, which is a principle that has been abrogated and with it the dietary symbolism. (Lev. 20; Acts 10; Romans 14:17) The NT application is separation from unbelief and compromise (2 Cor. 6) in the realm of spiritual yoking, whether in worship or marriage.

Best,

Ron

When it is pointed out to them that Jesus and the Apostles did not speak out against Roman policies, did not give the church a mandate to bring the OT law to bear on governments, etc… it is called an argument from silence.

Todd,

Both sides argue from silence. Theonomists say that the NT in no way abrogates the principles that are to govern civil life for a godly nation and non-theonomists argue that the NT in no away affirms the precepts for nations that we find in the OT. Neither side has from the NT an explict instruction or good and necessary inference for their position. If you have such evidence for your position, then please produce it.

A word or two about arguments from silence is in order. A Reformed hermeneutic advises that God’s word is binding in precept until he determines otherwise either by explicit instruction or good and necessary inference. Accordingly, I don’t need to look in the NT for an affirmation of the justification that beastiality is sin. It’s never been abrogated so my justification for this assertion is to be found in the OT.

Finally, it’s a bit vague to say that the church was not mandated to bring the OT civil laws to bear upon civil magistrates. I’m not sure what you mean by bringing such instruction to bear, but I do know that the church is to preach the whole counsel of God with a proper balance. If there is a continued validity for the OT civil case laws, then the church is to preach that message in its proper place, yet without majoring on minors.

So you don’t put up another post like the one I just referenced, I hope you will respond with some contraints. When I ask you to produce evidence for good and necessary inference or explicit instruction for abrogation of the relevance of the case laws, I’m expecting something quite different from you than simply your opinion that if Jesus and the apostles wanted such laws to be observed today they would have said so.

For you to get from the observations that you already voiced to the grand conclusion that the civil case laws are not to be observed today in their general equity you will have to assume, just as you have, that Jesus and the apostles have to repeat principles and precepts for them to remain binding, which makes beastiality acceptable and infant baptism unacceptable. Yet such an hermeneutic is unworkable, and not one that you live under with any consistency. At the very least, 2 Timothy 3:16 is pretty broad in its application. It teaches us that all Scripture does not need to be repeated for it to remain profitable. It teaches us that all Scripture…. is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. That would include the OT case laws.

From Darryl Hart:

Ron, the NT does talk about the magistrate and it says nothing like what the OT says. Rom 13 is obviously a place to go. If Paul were expecting the magistrate to enforce laws like Israel was called to do, don’t you think he would have said it?

No, I don’t think he needed to address it in Romans 13. That he didn’t doesn’t afford you good and necessary inference, as I’ve argued with Todd. There was already a lot said in the OT and as I also noted to Todd, Paul stated that all Scripture is profitable…Gotta board the plane…

Ron, I’ll say it again, since Paul spent so much time addressing the differences between Jews and Gentiles, and also said that Gentile were not bound by Israelite norms, then his instruction in Rom 13 is hardly a reaffirmation of OT civil laws.

Hi Darryl,

You continue to presuppose that Romans 13 must affirm theonomy in order for theonomy to be a biblical paradigm, but that’s an arbitrary assertion you have yet to defend. We need to be careful in requiring, if not demanding, that God reveal his precepts in a way that satisfies us. I would urge you to consider just a few passages of Scripture that speak to this very point.

Mark 10:17-18: When a rich young ruler called Jesus good, he neither affirmed nor denied that he possessed that quality of person but instead said nobody is good but God. Depending upon one’s pre-commitment it might be inferred that Jesus was not good and, therefore, not God; yet the text neither affirms nor denies either conclusion.

Acts 1:6, 7: When the apostles asked Jesus whether he was at that time going to restore the kingdom to Israel, he neither affirmed nor denied such an intention but instead said that it was not for them to know the times or epochs that the Father has fixed by his own authority. Dispensationalists, given their pre-commitment to a restored national Israel, infer from the answer a confirmation of their theology, that the kingdom will be restored. Notwithstanding, no logical conclusion can be deduced from the text with respect to the restoration Israel’s kingdom.

John 21:20-22: When Peter asked Jesus whether John would be alive at the time of Jesus’ return Jesus told him that if he wanted John to remain until such time it was no business of Peter’s. Jesus then put to Peter his task, which was to follow Jesus. Jesus’ answer did not logically imply that John would remain or not, let alone whether Jesus would even return one day! The answer even caused a rumor among the brethren that John would not die (John 21:23). John in this very epistle (same verse: 23) remarked on the unjustified inference that caused the rumor: “Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, ‘If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?’”

There are many more examples but the point should be obvious. We cannot logically deduce that which is not deducible. But more importantly, we may not require that God give us answers in the places we want to find them. That is to put God to the test.

In the final analyses, if we could deduce that Romans 13 demands the repudiation of theonomy, then I would think that a syllogism to that end, comprised of premises that don’t beg crucial questions, could be constructed rather readily from the text. At the end of the day, using Romans 13 to refute theonomy is on par with concluding that (a) Jesus was not a teacher sent from God; (b) Jesus was not good and, therefore, not God; (c) Jesus intended to establish Israel as a political power but failed with the passing of John. It’s not only irrational to make such leaps in reason, it’s reckless.

The destruction of Israel and Jerusalem which Christ foretold and which the apostles witnessed certainly did not lead to revelations of how to re-institute Israel and Jerusalem, as if Constantinople is the capital city in exile.

God is done with Israel as the only nation under God. Now all nations are to receive King Jesus as their sovereign, which is consistent with the Abrahamic covenant and the great commission. The Lord Jesus is not merely head of the church but Lord over the nations; so just as elders are to rule on his behalf according to his word, so are kings. There need not be additional revelation on this matter of the law for all Scripture (and that would include the civil case laws) are profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

So I don’t see in your view how you recognize what the confession says that the gospel under the church is administered with more simplicity and less outward glory than in Israel (WCF 7.6).

It’s remarkable to me that you don’t see how I can reconcile the simplicity of the outward administration of the covenant under the gospel dispensation with an objective standard by which rulers should govern. Maybe you might show a logical contradiction between less outward glory in the administration of the covenant of grace and civil laws that reflect the thinking of God.

Best regards,

Ron

Ron (#143), then what is the point of Romans 13:1-7? This is the question you never really seem to address. Your point seems to be, “Whatever it means, it doesn’t mean the magistrate shouldn’t utilize the OT case laws to do his job.”

Zrim,

The passage you cite instructs believers how they are to live in a fallen world and consequently in subjection to fallible leaders.

Maybe you’re right. But it seems to me the plain reading is that the magistrate God appoints is our source for political and legislative arrangements—not the OT case laws.

I don’t know. This seems terribly simplistic to me. Indeed, the magistrate is in place “for political and legislative arrangements” but that only defines whose job it is to make laws, policy etc. The ordination of rulers, however, does not inform us (or them) of the standard by which they should govern, but some standard must be presupposed if they are accountable to God to rule well. If the standard is general revelation, then they could not distinguish which transgressions are worthy of punishment. Are we to believe that God gives the awesome power to execute creatures made in his image without also making available a revelation of which type crimes warrant the death penalty? It’s hard for me to imagine that if you were King of your own nation you would you presume to look outside God’s civil law to determine who should be put to death, but maybe you would. At the very least, if kings were not required to rule according to the case laws, why wouldn’t it be a good desire, pleasing to God, to turn to that alleged obsolete word of wisdom anyway?

The question of by what standard magistrates are to govern is not in view in Romans 13. So neither you nor I may build a case for or against theonomy from Romans 13. Note well, however, that there is nothing in the text that suggests that magistrates are free before God to govern any which way they please. Certainly God has some opinion on which transgressions are to be punished by civil magistrates and what those sanctions should be. The burden of proof would seem to be on you to show that such a detailed provision should be found in the NT, let alone in Romans 13 since the NT tells us that all Scripture including the case laws are profitable for instruction etc.

Thanks,

Ron

My dear Brothers,

I’m going to stop posting on this matter for various reasons. 1) I don’t think I can add anything more to the discussion. 2) Although this matter is somewhat important, it always seems to generate more heat than light. 3) When we focus on any matter with such intensity, we begin to lose perspective on what is most important, God’s glory in the gospel.

Yours in Him,

Ron

Darryl Hart's last post to me:

Ron, I know you’ve pulled out, but I don’t think you caught part of my point. The Jewish Christians knew the OT code for the magistrate. But Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. And since he had to do a lot of explaining about whether or not circumcision still applied, you’d think he’d supply a little political theology to those new to the covenant. But he did not.

And the Reformed hermeneutic is let the clear passages interpret the less clear. Rom. 13 is fairly clear about what believers may or may not expect from a ruler — a pretty nefarious ruler at that. And since much of what Paul writes to Christians about observing the OT is that it has passed away, I don’t see how the civil polity of Israel is exempt.

But if your point is simply that the magistrate should enforce both tables, then that would fit more with the difference I am arguing for here. At the same time, since you are arguing for theonomy, that seems to bite off a lot more of the OT than the decalogue can chew — so to speak

.
I didn't bother to respond to Darryl Hart on GreenBaggins. Had he said something new, or at least interacted with my objection of his demands of God, maybe I would have. I'll simply say here that it's remarkable to me that Dr. Hart's arguments are based upon things like:

"you’d think" it would have been this way...

"Rom 13 is obviously a place to go."

"If Paul were expecting the magistrate to enforce laws like Israel was called to do, don’t you think he would have said it?"

"...his instruction in Rom 13 is hardly a reaffirmation of OT civil laws..."

God, One or Three Persons, or Both?

A well regarded professor at a prominent Reformed seminary has been quoted as saying this:

“This is one of Van Til’s most original contributions to theology proper. As he said at the beginning of the chapter, to speak of God as one is to speak of God as a person. This fits our ordinary experience, as, for instance, when we pray, we pray to one person. It also fits biblical data that constantly refers to God as a person. By this reminder Van Til avoids two errors. The first is the tendency, found mostly in Western theology, of separating God’s essence, which becomes a remote inaccessible being, from the persons. The other is the neoorthodox error of reducing personality to relationship, rather than regarding it as the foundation of ontological consciousness.”

To pray “Our great God in Heaven – Father, Son and Holy Ghost” is to address one God in three persons. It is consistent with oneness and plurality being equally ultimate in the Godhead. It is not a prayer to three Gods let alone a prayer to individuals stripped from their intra-Trinitarian relationship. Most of all, it is not a prayer to a one person trinity.

God’s revelation of himself was progressive, not instantaneous. To Abraham God revealed himself as God Almighty, and to Moses as I Am. In the fullness of time the Second Person of the Trinity revealed God as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. When we worship God according to God’s full revelation, we worship the Trinity – one God in three persons; not one God in one person. To think of one God as one person is at least to blur if not utterly eclipse the doctrine of "God in three persons." We may not strip the one God from the plurality of persons in the Godhead, nor may the distinct persons of the Trinity be stripped from their intra-Trinitarian relationships, which is an all too common occurrence in the evangelical church. When we know any person of the Trinity aright, we know him in relation to the other two divine persons. For each person of the Trinity is to be worshipped and adored in accordance to his intra-Trinitarian relationship, for the Trinity is to be worship as the undivided Trinity. Accordingly, we worship the Father who chose us in Christ and glorified him. We worship the Christ who was obedient to the Father and glorified him. We worship the Sprit who baptizes us into existential union with Christ. (We do not worship a Holy Spirit, as is so common today, that has so little to do with Christ and his cross.) This is not to say that personality equates to relationship, for there is of course an ontological aspect of personality, but notwithstanding that ontological aspect cannot be understood apart from the ontological relationship. It does not exist without it.

If we worship the one true God at all, we do so with at least some understanding of the unity and diversity of divine persons in the Godhead. And if we worship any particular person of the Trinity at all, we do so with at least some understanding of His relationship to the other divine persons in the Godhead for that is how God is revealed because that his how God is God is three in a different sense than he is one, and one in a different sense than he his three. God is not one in the same sense that he is three.

So, when the WCF 1.1 and 1.2 speak of God as “he” I see no problem interpreting the personal pronoun in light of oneness of “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost” which is consistent with the doctrine found in the very next paragraph, WCF 1.3, which addresses the three distinct persons in the Godhead. At the very least, we need not allow the standards to contradict themselves by allowing God to be one person in the same sense that he is three persons. So for instance, the triune God who is “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost” is “infinite in being and perfection,” etc. So again, I disagree with this professor. When we address the Trinity as “You” in our prayers we should not be ignoring the other aspects of God’s revelation; we should as best we can, in our finitude, appreciate that we are addressing the triune God as one. By rejecting the notion that God should be perceived as one person we don't deny that God is personal and relational. In fact, by appreciating that God is three persons and one, we can begin to appreciate that God is the ultimate - personal and relational.

We need not at every moment elaborate upon every aspect of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, but what we say about the Trinity should be consistent with the rest of what we don’t say that is in accordance with Scripture. (Just like there is no need to always mention human responsibility when speaking about divine providence, yet our doctrine of divine providence should look nothing like that of blind fate.) When we address God has “You” – we should be thinking that we are addressing the one single God who eternally exists as Father Son and Holy Ghost (in three distinct persons). By “You” we should not be thinking that we are addressing the triune God as one person in particular – for the triune God is not one person in particular; nor should we think we are addressing three distinct persons separately. Rather, in our finitude we should be striving to address God as Scripture reveals God – as the one true God that eternally exists in relation as three persons all of Whom are harmoniously working to apply the accomplished redemption to the world. It seems to me that by introducing the concept that the Trinity may be perceived as a person, the person we would end up addressing in such a construct would be a fourth person. It would be much better to simply pray to the first person of the Trinity, through the Son by the Holy Spirit.

In sum, we are not denying the divine essence or distinct persons with such a construct but rather through acknowledging the equal ultimacy that God has revealed about the Godhead, we can find a personal God without thinking of him in terms of one person. To err on the matter of equal ultimacy must always be at the expense of something. To err toward the side of one being, at the expense of persons, is a move toward modalism; whereas to err on the side of persons, at the expense of being, is a move toward tri-theism. By thinking in terms of a one person Godhead is not a solution to the problem, as the professor suggests, but rather is to eclipse God's revelation of being three persons, which is to emphasize being at the expense of persons. In this case, that error would seem to stem from the desire to find a single person with which to relate, yet in doing so undermining the ultimate reality found in the unity of a plurality of persons. And I suspect that the need to define God in that way, as one person, stems from the fundamental error of considering personality the "foundation" for "ontological consciousness" without reference to relationship, a sine qua non for God's ontology! That is not to suggest that any person derives his divinity from another, but by downplaying the intra-Trinitarian relationship in favor of abstracting ontological consciousness from that relationship leaves one seeking elsewhere (outside the Trinity - even to a fourth person) for that which was desired in the first place, a personal and relational God who is love.

Added 6/10/11 Finally, to address one person, we may say "you" (singular). When we address three persons at once, we may say "you" (plural). But what if we wanted to address the three not as plural (i.e. not by saying "you" as shorthand for: you-1, you-2 and you-3), but as an organic one comprised of three? We have no such English word to my knowledge, but maybe context dictates the meaning. Or do southerners have a singular-plural word for "you" - that being, "y'all"?

Infallibility & The Canon

Certainly Romanists should agree that God is at least capable of bringing to pass his eternal plan and purpose without making his volitional creatures infallible. Judas and the Satan serve as prime examples of fallible beings that always did as God has decreed. However, their actions were not morally right but rather terribly wrong; so not to confuse matters we won’t use them as examples of fallible creatures that always did as God determined. How about when Johnny is ordained from the foundation of the world to get 100% on his fifth grade math final, does he do so infallibly? No, but he does so impeccably.

What is it to be infallible after all? For the Romanist it has to do with immunity to error. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines infallibility as 'Inability to err in teaching revealed truth'. With respect to Johnny, if it was impossible for him to err on his test, then would he have earned 100% infallibly? Now in one sense, given that God decreed that Johnny would earn 100% on his test, there is a sense in which it was impossible for him to err. Notwithstanding, such a description is misleading because it makes infallibility a vacuous term; for even Judas and the Satan would be infallible on such terms. (Certainly they have done some things formally right.) Although Johnny’s choices are never metaphysically free, there are certainly “possible worlds” where Johnny fails to earn 100% given the same state of affairs in which he earns 100%. At the moment of choice, God brings to pass a distraction for instance, causing Johnny to shade in the wrong oval on the exam. All this to say, although Johnny is naturally capable of error (i.e. fallible by nature), God brought to pass according to his predetermination Johnny’s perfect score. So to call Johnny infallible would be a misnomer. (Now of course Charles Hodge was wrong when he said that Jesus could have sinned. Not only had God decreed that the Second Person of the Trinity would not sin – more the point, a divine person cannot sin in any possible world. Johnny could err and still be Johnny - so error is compatible with Johnny’s person. Jesus could not have sinned and remained God; so there is no possible world in which he sins. The impossibility goes beyond a matter of decree. It’s an ontological consideration.)

Now then, is there a possible world in which the church does not receive the canon aright? Well, let me rephrase that question. Is there a possible world in which Jesus promises that the church receives the canon and she does not receive it? I would say ABSOLUTELY NOT. Does that make the Romanist position correct? After all, isn’t it true that because Johnny errs in possible worlds, Johnny must be fallible even when God decrees that he act impeccably correct? Yet because Jesus errs in no world, he therefore cannot err and is, therefore, infallible. So what about the church? If there is no world in which she errs on the reception of the canon given the promise to receive the canon, mustn’t the church have been infallible when she received the canon? NO – and here is why. Up until now we’ve only been talking about possible worlds in which one errs or does not err given the same state of affairs. So, when Johnny is merely decreed to get 100% on his test without an accompanying divine promise, there are possible worlds in which he doesn’t earn the grade he ends up getting in this world, corroborating that he is fallible. Yet once a promise is made from God, it is impossible for what the promise contemplates not to come to pass in any possible world wherein the state of affairs includes the divine promise. In a word, there are no possible worlds in which Johnny is promised a grade of 100% by God and does not receive it, lest it is possible for God’s promise not to come to pass. I hope we can see more clearly that infallibility is not a necessary condition for the impossibility of acting incorrectly. If Johnny were promised 100% by God, Johnny does not become infallible in order to earn the mark, but rather fallible-Johnny is preserved from error according to the promise. Given the promise there is no world in which Johnny fails to earn 100%, even in those worlds in which he simply guesses the answers. Maybe a less hypothetical example might be of use. There is a promise from God that all true believers will be glorified. That means there is no possible world in which a justified soul perishes, given the golden chain of redemption. Does that make justified sinners infallible in their perseverance in faith? No – but it certainly demonstrates God’s preservation of his adopted sons in Christ. (Obviously, no sinner is perfect in sanctification and that is not the inference that should be drawn here, or used against this short polemic. The point is that the justified will believe the truth until the end, which can be for one of two reasons - their infallibility or God's infallible preserving of them. Again, to act correctly is not a sufficient condition for infallibility - i.e. infallibility is not necessary for correctness.)

In summary, to say that all men are infallible because they always act according to what God determines would make “infallibility” a vacuous term. Nobody is doing that. A subset of that consideration is that when morally responsible agents get the correct answer, they are not behaving infallibly lest we all have seasons of infallibility. When a divine promise is made, which must come to fruition being a divine promise, infallibility is not a necessary condition for the result to obtain lest sinners justified by grace become infallible in their perseverance.

Proof for the reception of the canon:

Jesus promised to build his church. (Matt. 16:18) Jesus also told his apostles that those who received them received Him. (Matt. 10:40) The implication is that the building project of the Lord was to be founded upon the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone. (Eph. 2:20) Consequently, the words of the apostles and Christ had to be received without error because Jesus promised to build his church upon them, which is now a matter of history given the passing of the apostles. Therefore, the canon is closed, lest the church has no foundation. The apostolic tradition was both oral and written (II Thess. 2:15) but only the written apostolic tradition has been providentially preserved. Accordingly, Scripture alone is what the church is built upon, which must have been God’s intention since Scripture alone is all he left us in keeping with Christ Jesus’ promise to build his church.

This simple argument has recently been met by Romanists from "Called to Communion" with resistance for two primary reasons. The claim is that the apostolic office in view in Ephesians 2:20 includes both the perpetual seat of the papacy and the oral tradition of the church. Let’s assume then that the unwritten tradition still exists even though it has never been produced. Jesus promised to build his church and we’ll say that he promised to build it upon both Scripture and unwritten tradition. (I of course would say that if Jesus promised to build his church on the unwritten tradition then he failed since there is no preserved unwritten tradition that the church has been built upon; yet for argument sake let’s assume the tradition is intact.) Whether we have the unwritten tradition or not has zero impact on the argument from “intent and providence” for the reception of the written tradition. Any preservation of the unwritten tradition does not undermine the reception of the written tradition. Now in a last ditch desperation Romanists will resort to saying that the texts in view are not just speaking about the teachings of Christ and his apostles (even oral traditions) as being the foundation of the church, but rather the texts mean that we are to receive for the foundation of the church the teachings of their alleged successors (the popes) both written and oral. In passing I’ll note that to have to receive the teaching of a pope 2,000 years after the teachings of the apostles and Christ would clearly deny the import of “foundation of the church.” But aside from the obvious, even if we grant the point, the reception of the written tradition through divine intent and providence is not affected by the Gnostic “exegesis” of Ephesians 2:20 regarding popes because a papal apostolic succession and the reception of the canon are not mutually exclusive premises. To “refute”” the Protestant position on the canon in a non-arbitrary, non-ad hoc fashion the Roman apologist will have to deny that Jesus had any intent whatsoever for the church to be at least partially built upon his written words and the written words of the apostles. To introduce Gnostic dogmas regarding unwritten traditions and the succession of bishops is simply to throw up Red Herrings in a sophist manner.

In sum, the Roman apologist needs to avoid the divine intent at all cost; for as soon as he acknowledges Christ Jesus’ intent to build His church “at least in part” on Scripture, he is then constrained to show why God’s intent could not have come to pass without an infallible magisterium (according to the same divine providence by which the rest of the eternal decree comes to pass). Since Romanists cannot possibly succeed in showing that God could not bring to pass the reception of the canon without an infallible magisterium, they are left no other choice (short of becoming Protestant on this matter) than to bring into question the divine intent. The Romanist does this through arguing by false-disjunction, introducing non-mutually exclusive premises to the promise of building the church “at least in part” on the canon; these Red Herring premises are intended to (a) establish a need for an apostolic oral tradition, and (b) establish a succession of infallible bishops. Yet neither a nor b undermine the divine intent to bring to pass the reception of the canon for the establishment of the NT church. Yet even allowing for those unjustified premises, the Romanist still cannot with any valid argumentation undermine the divine intent, which presuppose the necessity of bringing to pass the reception of the canon. They with the Satan can only say, “Has God said?”