The Worldview Progression of Western Civilization — The Next Step

“Western civilization is turning back. No, this is not a return to Christianity with its message of sin and salvation, nor to materialism with its hollowing of life and spirit, and not Postmodernism w/ its intellectual quicksand.

Pushing past rationality and facts, the next phase of civilization will gravitate to imagination and myth. In the search for wisdom and cohesion and meaning, humanity will acknowledge the primal and seek the archaic. Ritual will emerge and celebration will have a magical quality; experience will be super-charged. Spiritual technology will promise connection and purpose, and occulture will constantly feed our dreams and stories. We will be enamored with Mystery and solicit its communion. Nature and non-human intelligences will be embraced as kin.”

Carl Teichrib
Games of Gods — p. 166

44 year ago now, I met my mentor, Dr. Glenn E. Martin at Marion College (now Indiana Wesleyan University). Martin’s speciality was Intellectual and Social History. He was a master on the discipline of the history of ideas; the progress of worldview shifts in Western civilization. For four years I ate, drank and slept Worldview with Dr. Martin.

Martin would trace out the history of ideas and demonstrate the shift in worldview thinking and the implications of those shift for Western civilization. His method was to establish the Biblical Worldview and then compare and contrast all subsequent world and life views to the Biblical worldview. We traversed through Deism, Rationalism, Romanticism, Transcendentalism, Darwinianism. Nihilism, and Existentialism as well as other lesser-known worldviews. We were taught the ability to identify and locate the worldview of a person and a people.  We were taught the different levels of worldview thinking that one could expect to find in people in any given culture. (Not very many people are epistemologically self-conscious about their worldview.) We were taught the components in every worldview that are never absent from any worldview. (All worldviews must answer the larger questions, provide meaning, and be — at least on the surface — plausible). We were taught to analyze everything for its worldview implications. Those who stuck with the theme through life learned from others besides Martin on the subject. They became human worldview detectors.

Martin routinely taught in this Worldview classes that the next progression in worldview and philosophy in the West would move from (at that time) the current existentialism (which was really a forerunner of postmodernism) to Occultism. Martin insisted that there was no place else for the West to go if it was not visited with Reformation.

The quote above proves how prescient Martin was.

Romberg on the Existence of Races

Salvation changes fallen men’s standing with God but it does not and can not change men’s earthly physiognomy. Not only does the Bible identify the beginnings of races, languages, and nations prior to Christ’s redemption, but it also reveals that these distinctions are maintained after redemption. There are many texts which evidence this truth (some examples are Rev. 7:9; 5:9; 11:9; 14:6; 20:3,8). Christ Jesus maintained this distinction for He sent His disciples to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and later sent Paul to the Gentiles. The distinction is maintained in the person of Christ, for He is the same race or nationality in eternity as He was during His incarnation. The New Jerusalem was let down out of heaven upon the new earth (Rev. 21:1-3) ‘And the nations (ethne) of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it; ‘And the Kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it…. And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the Nations (ton ethnon) into it’ (Rev. 21:24, 26) ‘The nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it’ show that the distinction is maintained or perpetuated into eternity. God was the one who divided the lands, languages, races, and nations (Gen. 10:5; Dt. 32:8; Acts 17:26). God condemned those who would remove these distinctions (Dt. 7:3; Ezra 9:10; Neh. 9:2; 13:3, 23ff [see Neh. 9-13]. What of those who reject the distinctions God made relative to the races? His Word bears out the results in the passages just mentioned and others (Jud. 6:5-7; Num. 5:1-9; Dt. 7:1-6). Abraham and Isaac forbade that their sons should marry Canaanites (Gen. 24; 27). Some would say that the point is Canaanites were unbelievers. Is that the only factor? Esau’s rebellion was seen in his miscegenation (Gen. 25-28). Is Esau considered a believer? Was Esau, an unbeliever marrying unbelievers? Then what was the factor in his wrongdoing? The Lord did not even teach the amalgamation of fabrics, seeds, creatures, etc. (Lev. 19:19). Certainly, God cannot be charged with racism when He made Israel a chosen nation…. Modern men have so perverted language that racism is a word without a proper denotation and its connotations match the meaning given by the user of the word at that moment in time. Today’s men find it an inconvenience to submit to God’s standards, and thus man lives in a world of flux. Therefore men reject God’s order.

H. Rondell Romberg

One Blood, Many Races — p. 40-42

McAtee Contra Dr. Walker & the Godless Coalition — Part V

This is part V of one of the dumbest articles ever written by a Seminary prof. His name is Andrew Walker. The reason it is so dumb is that all of this has been answered in the past and yet he puts pen to paper to recycle all this again. This article is posted on “The Godless Coalition” Platform.

AW wrote,

As J. Budziszewski writes, “Government enforces those parts of the divine law that are also included in the natural law, such as the prohibition of murder.” The argument for overcoming moral lawlessness is not Theonomy, but arrangements that better accord with the creation pattern God has ordered and continues to uphold in the Noahic covenant, natural law, and Scripture (2 Tim. 3:15–17).

1.) Really? Government does that? Does our government enforce the part of divine law that is also included in the natural law, such as the prohibition of murder committed against babies in the womb? Or is murder not a crime according to natural law? Or maybe, natural law doesn’t cover that because there is no such thing as the kind of natural law that Walker is championing since all natural law is, is the projection of the presuppositions of those who champion their versions of natural law? If governments followed God’s law instead of natural law then people guilty of murdering unborn babies would receive capital punishment. So much for natural law.

2.) How can we interpret the creation pattern God has ordered unless we interpret it through God’s Law-Word? Fallen man, left to himself, apart from God’s inscripturated law will misinterpret the creation pattern God has ordered and make laws that are grounded in a humanist theonomy. When natural law worked in Christendom it worked because those who were “reading” natural law were reading it through their Christian presuppositions. Natural law doesn’t work now because pagans are reading natural-law through pagan presuppositions. Walker expects that if fallen men in the West just give muscle to natural law again that all will be fine. That is ridiculous on steroids. As long as social orders are comprised of men with different faith commitments (religions) the best natural law can do is to be fought over in terms of which faith commitment will be in charge in order to read it the way their faith informs them. We will never have a workable social order/legal order until men are converted, own Christ, and engage the politicus usus of God’s law to make law in their societies.

AW wrote,

God’s Word is indeed supreme—every person and culture owes it ultimate allegiance. To make that declaration, though, we must understand how God’s Word functions in the civil sphere outside the church’s direct jurisdiction. Rather than the Mosaic covenant, a better starting ground for political reflection is the covenant of creation and the Noahic covenant as upheld in the full witness of Scripture. And given what these covenants offer, Scripture highlights the intelligibility of nature and reason as self-attesting witnesses to God’s authority in the structure and design of his world. This necessarily includes the moral law (Ps. 19:1–3Rom. 1:32; 2:15).

BLMc responds,

1.) Understand that Walker is introducing a dualism here. God’s inscripturated law functions as normative in the realm of grace (Church) but in the realm of nature (Civil) where God’s jurisdiction does not apply we use a different law (natural law). In the civil realm, it is wrong to appeal to God’s word as the norm that norms all norms. Instead, we appeal to the generic norm of natural law to norm all norms. Now Walker may respond with his nonsense that natural-law, eternal law, and inscripturated law all contain the same content but if they all contain the same content then why do we need any of them except the law that is written down in Scripture? In order for Walker’s system to work, he has to introduce a dualism between the realm of grace and the realm of nature. I wonder where in Scripture dualism is taught?

2.) Walker insists that going by God’s inscripturated law in the civil realm would be the “church’s jurisdiction.” This is nonsense. Theonomy never argues for ecclesiocracy. Theonomy merely insists that God rules over all and that if God rules over all then the civil realm should be ruled by God’s inscripturated Law-Word.

3.) Scripture teaches that the magistrate is God’s servant (Romans 13:1). If the magistrate, as serving in the civil realm, is God’s servant then the magistrate should rule by God’s law and not an amorphous “pin the tail on the donkey” natural law.

4.) Walker talks about the intelligibility of nature. Nature is indeed intelligible. However, fallen man works his damnedest to suppress in unrighteousness the intelligibility of nature and succeeds in doing so because of the noetic effects of the fall. See installment IV and the Belgic Confession of faith.

AW wrote,

Fallen reason, however, obscures our understanding of the moral law and obscures God’s creation ordinances—which is why revelation is required for true moral righteousness to surface in society. What’s necessary is special revelation in the form of understanding creation ordinances, not the application of the Mosaic covenant.

BLMc responds,

Here Walker appeals to special revelation in the creation ordinances. However only special revelation as it pertains to the creation ordinances. Application of the Mosaic covenant is not allowed.

1.) There is nowhere in Scripture where God says the civil law found in the Mosaic covenant does not apply in principle. The Westminster Confession teaches that the judicial law does apply in its general equity. So, Walker has the Westminster Confession against him.

2.) Jesus said,

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Matt. 23:23

Here the Jews are not living in their OT social order and yet Jesus himself states the requirement in the civil law to tithe on all the produce from the land (Lev. 27:30). Jesus says the civil law did apply.

Jesus also said,

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18)

Sounds like Jesus and the Church Fathers thought differently about the civil law then Andrew Walker thinks about it.

McAtee Contra Dr. Walker & The Godless Coalition — IV

Continuing to fisk one of the dumbest articles ever written by a Seminary prof named Andrew Walker. This article is posted on “The Godless Coalition” Platform.
AW wrote,
Theonomy Cannot Build a Just Society
But what about standards of morality for society? How can society continue unless God’s Word receives the respect it is due?
BLMc responds,
Here it comes … wait for it … the entry of Natural Law as above God’s inscripturated Law for social orders.
AW wrote,
On the one hand, no society can obtain this level of regeneracy, since all societies are penultimate and face judgment. Aside from the kingdom of God, no culture lives up to the standards of God’s Word.
BLMc responds,
1.) Walker is just giving us his pessimistic eschatology here. Scripture nowhere teaches that societies cannot become Christian because ‘no society can obtain this level of regeneracy.’ Jesus never says, “You have heard it said Cephas, that societies can be Christian but I say unto you that no society can obtain this level of regeneracy.’ Walker is just spit-balling here and making it up as he goes. Walker’s eschatology is under-realized.
2.) Scripture teaches that Walker is wrong.
I Corinthians 15:25 For He (Jesus) must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
Notice Paul says here that,
a.) Jesus is reigning now
b.) In this reign of Jesus future enemies must yet be put under his feet
c.) In the future when all enemies are finally defeated in space and time history then the final day occurs
d.) God is all in all at that point
This passage teaches that even though all societies are penultimate and will be judged at some point in the future the world will be converted and so all be under Christ’s feet. This doctrine is the heart of postmillennialism and was championed by no less of a personage than B. B. Warfield;
“If you wish, as you lift your eyes to the far horizon of the future, to see looming on the edge of time the glory of a saved world…and that in His own good time and way [God] will bring the world in its entirety to the feet of Him whom He has not hesitated to present to our adoring love not merely as the Saviour of our own souls but as the Saviour of the world….The scriptures teach an eschatological universalism, not an each and every universalism. When the Scriptures say that Christ came to save the world, that He does save the world, and that the world shall be saved by Him….They mean that He came to save and does save the human race; and that the human race is being led by God into a racial salvation: that in the age-long development of the race of men, it will attain at last unto a complete salvation, and our eyes will be greeted with the glorious spectacle of a saved world. “
This is consistent with passages like Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 and Ezekiel 47:9
And it shall come to pass, that everything that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and everything shall live whither the river cometh
Pessimistic theologians cannot allow for worldwide conversion. Their theology does not allow for it. They can’t accept that the second coming finishes God plan from eternity for His creation. In the death of Christ, Christ legally secured the defeat of sin, death, and the devil in the first century in space and time history. Yet, all three evils remain with us (Rom. 7:18–25; 1 Peter 5:8–9). Postmillennialism teaches in the face of Walker’s pessimism that sin, death and the devil have been vanquished legally before the judgment bar of God (Col. 1:13–14; 2:13–15). They are being vanquished in space and time history through the continuing progress of the Gospel (Acts 26:18; 1 Cor. 15:20–23). They will be vanquished eternally at the second advent of Christ (Rom. 8:18–25; Rev. 20:10–15).
Walker is just wrong which is bad enough but this error is so monumental that it warps the rest of his theology into something that is not recognizable to the Bible. Per Walker, the Gospel will not flourish and Christ will be defeated in space and time by rebellion. Per Walker, a little yeast will not leaven the whole lump, the stone in Daniel does not crush in space and time all Kingdoms that compete with Christ’s Kingdom, and the mustard seed does not become a tree that can house all the birds (nations).
Understand here… Walker needs defeat of the Church in order for his theology to work.
AW writes,
Does this mean we’re left with autonomy and human reason alone to guide our lawmaking? No. Every sound principle emanating from just human law participates, unwittingly, in both the natural law and also the eternal law. Rejecting Theonomy does not discount the fact that rightly ordered secular law can overlap with divine law.
BLMc responds,
1.) Actually Walker’s “theology” does mean we are left with autonomy and human reason alone to guide our lawmaking. Walker has rejected God’s revelational law Word and there is nowhere else to go except to some form of humanistic theonomy or the theonomy of some other human-made god.
2.) Walker writes about “Every sound principle.” This forces me to ask… “Sound by what standard Andy?” Walker wants to invoke the idea of sound principles emanating from just human law but at this point, he has to answer; “sound by what standard” and by what standard do we measure “just human law?”
The answer Walker gives is “Natural Law.” Does Walker realize that there are as many “Natural Laws” as there are different philosophical schools of thought? Does Walker realize that the second he invokes Natural Law that every pagan society that was built up until the dismissal of Natural Law with the advent of Legal Positivism embraced natural law? Natural law stood behind the pagan idea of social contract theory. Natural law provided the bedrock of Marx’s and Engels’s view of the law. Natural law sustained the Roman abandonment of babies they did not want. Natural law has been invoked for just about every societal malfeasance one can name. This is because Natural Law is a wax nose. Natural law thinking is a “blank check” that can be used to justify any legal system that is supported by one’s ideals and beginning presuppositions.
Natural law doctrine can only deduce from nature what it has first projected into nature. The putative deductions derived from Natural law are only there because the “Natural Law thinkers” have first, on the basis of their own beginning presuppositions, projected their discoveries on to Natural Law. As such Natural law only yields up what was first in the consciousness of the one making deductions from Natural law. In brief, Natural Law is a myth in terms of providing the information out of which a social order can be legally ordered.
Natural Law exists because this is my Father’s world but fallen man, being fallen, does everything he can to tune into any radio station except the radio station that feature’s God’s Natural Law on it.
The Belgic Confession of Faith teaches that Natural law exists but that its work is very circumscribed because of man’s fall;
Since man became wicked and perverse, corrupt in all his ways, he
has lost all his excellent gifts which he had once received from God.5
He has nothing left but some small traces, which are sufficient to make man inexcusable.6 For whatever light is in us has changed into darkness,7 as Scripture teaches us, The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it (Jn 1:5); where the apostle John calls mankind darkness.”
Because of the fall and its noetic effects on man, it is not possible for fallen man to gain anything from Natural Law except to be convicted as a sinner before God — and even that truth man suppresses in unrighteousness. Walker wants to make Natural Law into this high beam light yet the BCF, following Scripture, teaches us that any light we have has been changed into darkness.
A pox upon all those who invoke Natural Law as a means of ordering society.

McAtee Contra Dr. Walker & the Godless Coalition — Part III

Continuing to Fisk Dr. Andrew Walker’s hit piece on Theonomy posted on “The Godless Coalition.”

AW writes.

The allure of moral, religious, and cultural uniformity cannot come at the expense of religious freedom. A baseline of religious liberty is essential. Unless all religions receive equal recognition under the law, one religious group will set whatever exacting standards it desires as the basis of membership and participation in society.

BLMc responds,

1.) Here we are introduced to Walker’s God. Walker’s God is the humanist notion of religious liberty. Per Walker religious liberty is a higher god than the God of the Bible and His Law-Word. Per Walker, we must serve the god of humanist religious liberty as opposed to serving God.

2.) Note that Walker himself, even if he gets his way on humanist religious liberty has not avoided the moral, religious, and cultural uniformity that he decries. In Walker’s social order there is moral, religious, and cultural uniformity inasmuch as all other gods must bow to the state god who disallows anyone God (including the God of the Bible) from being a God above the state God who demands humanist religious liberty. Per Walker, all the gods must be governed in the uniform moral, religious, and cultural realm by the State God to make sure that none of them replaces the State God thus providing a different uniform moral, religious and cultural social order than offered by Walker’s State God.

3.) We don’t have religious liberty right now. The God of the Bible is not at liberty to be God over all other gods. That is not religious liberty.

4.) Understand that what Walker desires is that Allah, the Jewish Talmud God, Confucius, Buddha be given equal recognition by Christians as the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible per Walker and the Godless Coalition cannot (must not) be lifted higher and seen as superior to the pagan gods. How can a Christian say such a thing without being rightly labeled as a treasonous bastard to the Crown Rights of King Jesus?

5.) Finally, remember we already have the exacting standards of one God lifted above all other gods. We currently have the God-State in the name of humanist “religious liberty” exacting on us his diabolical standards. In the name of religious liberty, abortion is pursued, sodomites can enter into marriage, boys can enter the girl’s locker rooms, and boys can compete against girls in girls’ sports. Talk about an exacting standard.

AW writes,

Whether Catholic versus Protestant or Protestant versus other Protestant, one group is always tempted to exclude based on some religious criteria. As a Protestant, I shudder thinking about many of John Calvin and Martin Luther’s attitudes toward the state’s involvement in religion. Baptists did not fare well as religious minorities under the reign of church-state union, and I have no longing to return.

BLMc responds,

1.) Walker can’t see that all Christians are right now being excluded based on the religious criteria of humanism? Walker can’t see that as the sodomite comes out of the closet the Christian is the one being pushed back into the closet? Christians are being excluded from being able to say “no” to sodomites who want a Wedding cake baked for them, or photos of their God-forsaken weddings taken, or flowers provided for their gross nuptials. Christians are right now on the edge of being told that in their churches they are required to hire sodomites, catamites, and other assorted perverts… all in the name of the humanist god Walker desires to be ensconced as God. Is this man daft that he can’t see all this?

2.) Now you can understand why Baptists were treated the way they were treated. Baptists with their foul humanist religious liberty doctrine are the ones who have opened the door to all the perversion that I have listed above. It is Baptists who have brought us to the place we are by their bone-headed doctrine of humanist religious liberty. Walker would prefer a godless social order than a social order where the God of the Bible is prioritized above all gods. As a Protestant, I shudder at Baptists like Walker continuing to support an idea that has taken Biblical Christians and put them on an equal footing with perverts and anti-Christs. God raises up a Calvin or a Luther or even a Knox to put an end to pestilent thinking like Walkers.

AW writes,

Theonomy is right to criticize our society’s lawlessness. But the alternative it proposes presupposes a Christian society that does not exist and, where it once did, did not contain the theological coherence to perpetuate itself.

BLMc responds,

It is Walker’s presuppositions that are skewed. What else can we propose as God’s people except for a return to God’s Law-Word? Would Walker propose being ruled by some other god and His Law-Word?

1.) Walker seemingly desires some neutral social order. But neutrality and religious liberty are a myth. They don’t exist. There is never a culture that exists that doesn’t descend from and isn’t an expression of some God or god concept. Walker seems to think we can have a culture where all the gods are welcome but fails to see that in that kind of culture there has to be some authority somewhere to make sure none of these gods get out of line. Some authority has to be present to make sure all these gods remain equal. Where ever that authority lies, Walker misses, is the god over the gods. In our setting that is the state.

2.) And of course, with people like Walker, it is not possible to reach theological coherence for a Christian culture. The lack of ability to perpetuate Christian culture lies at the feet of the Anabaptist (paging Roger Williams) and the Anabaptists are the intellectual forbears of Walker’s humanist religious liberty.

Be careful to understand what I am saying here. I am saying that Walker can bleat for humanist religious liberty all he wants but such a beast is not possible. This concept of religious liberty only worked here as long as it did because the country was salted for so long with Biblical Christians. But now that what passes as Christianity is now being trodden underfoot (thanks to people like Walker) the false mask that “religious liberty” always wore is being torn off.

AW writes,

And if Theonomy is right and history is working toward the telos of a Christianized society, why does precisely the opposite seem to be the case? Is Christ’s church less faithful because Western culture is increasingly pagan? What if the Lord uses difficult moments to prune? What results from a reciprocating relationship between church and state, however, is the husk of civil religion and the kernel of saving faith instrumentalized for cultural cohesion.

BLMc responds,

1.) Question #1 – Because God’s people, like Walker, are in rebellion to God’s Law-Word and the implementation thereof. If people won’t champion “No God, But God,” if people won’t champion God’s Law Word for the civil sphere, if people want to champion the presence of every false god as being equal to the God of the Bible for the civil sphere how can we be surprised for a second that a Christianized society is always out of reach?

2.) Question #2 – Christ Church is less faithful where Christ’s Church advocates that all gods be treated equally thus disallowing the God of the Bible to be the God of the 1st commandment.

3.) Question #3 – Invoking the Lord’s pruning to justify our disobedience is odd logic.

4.) We have the civil religion we have now precisely because Biblical religion has not been allowed to flex its muscle thanks to people like Walker. Saving faith that is not expressed in the public square is a saving faith of the most immature variety.

5.) Notice the lack of cultural cohesion that we have now is directly related to the current lack of faith of Biblical Christians who are too fearful to champion God’s Law-Word for the public square.