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.

The Garden Motif

It was garden dirt we were made from and in that garden, man learned his purpose and reason for being. In that same garden, Adam and all his posterity fell. However, before being cast out and blocked from the garden fallen man heard the promise of Redemption in that garden.

That promise was called a seed.

Ever since then fallen man has sought to return to the garden in his own power — his timeless quest for Utopia. But only God can provide our desire for the garden.

Israel never forgot its garden origins. It carried a garden Tabernacle through its desert journey. Israel finally arrived in a garden land flowing with milk and honey and later when they built a Temple to replace the Tabernacle the garden motif was everywhere in the Temple. The Priests of Israel were adorned in garden garments, complete with the precious stones of Eden’s garden woven into the garments.

When the Lord Christ arrived He met his greatest temptation in a garden. In that Gethsemane garden, Jesus refused what Adam embraced when Adam was in his garden.

The Lord Christ as the promised seed died by a garden that He was eventually planted in, only to spring up from that garden and mistaken for a gardener.

Christ rose from that garden and provides the abundant life that only a garden can give. He is the garden vine that reproduces itself in the Father’s garden vineyard. His people are the fruit of that vine and that vine will cover the world.

From a garden, we came and unto a garden, we return in that New Jerusalem garden. There we find that the leaves of the trees in that garden are for the healing of the nations.

But Doug Wilson and Ken Hamm Say Race Doesn’t Exist … Go Figure

Recently it has been all the rage among the Clergy corps who are drinking from the well of Cultural Marxism to insist either that “race doesn’t exist,” or in much the same vein, “race is a social construct.”

Men like Doug Wilson, Ken Hamm, Voddie Baucham, David Van Drunnen, James White, and others advertise themselves as against the cultural Marxist push and in some respects they are. However, their insistence that race is a social construct or that race doesn’t exist is testimony that they have not yet cleansed themselves of cultural Marxist (Franz Boas) influences.

Now, certainly, we might say there are some aspects of race in terms of how it manifests itself in cultural expression that may well be attributed to social constructs but to say that race doesn’t exist or is a social construct is to testify as to one’s “Mad Hatter” status.

Below are a few quotes culled from Thomas Achord’s and Darrel Dow’s pleasing book, “Who is My Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations.”

——

Study finds disparity in mental health of biracial Asian-Americans
Lauren Berger — 2008

“Bi-racial Americans of Asian and white descent are twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychological disorder compared to monoracial Asians Americans, according to a new study from the Asian American  Center on Disparities Research at UC Davis.”

Thomas Achord & Darryl Dow
Who is My Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations — pg. 572

Asian White Couples face distinct pregnancy risks
Yasser El-Sayed 2008

Racial distinctions in the genes controlling bone marrow production have made it difficult for MIXED RACE INDIVIDUALS to find matching donors for bone marrow transplants, according to the National Marrow Donor program.

Thomas Achord & Darryl Dow
Who is My Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations — pg. 572

Asian White Couples face distinct pregnancy risks
Yasser El-Sayed 2008

The Stanford University School of Medicine recently found that pregnant women of mixed White/Asian couples were more likely to develop gestational diabetes, a complication of pregnancy with severe consequences if untreated.

Thomas Achord & Darryl Dow
Who is My Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations — pg. 572

Health and Behavior Risks of Adolescents with Mixed Race Identity
J. Richard Udry

“A University of North Carolina study found that children of mixed race were more likely to manifest higher risk behaviors including a 50% greater risk of depression, 24% increased risk of smoking, 20% increased risk of drinking, 34% greater likelihood to have serious thoughts of suicide, 50% more likely to be sexually active in high school, and 94% more likely to be suspended from school compared to children of White ancestry alone. In fact, mixed-race children had higher risk factors across nearly all categories compared to single-race children … This suggests that racial mixing could lead to social problems greater in severity to those currently present in our predominantly African-American inner cities.”|

Thomas Achord & Darryl Dow

Who is My Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations — pg. 577-578

McAtee Contra Dr. Andy Walker & The Godless Coalition II

Continuing with my fisking of this Godless Coalition article,

American Culture Is Broken. Is Theonomy the Answer? (thegospelcoalition.org)

Dr. Andy Walker (AW) writes,

What does Theonomy have to say right now to the church in China or Iran?

BLMc responds,

Theonomy has the same thing to say to the church in China or Iran as to the Church in America. Theonomy says to each and all;

“Christ is Lord and as Lord His Law-Word is to be owned, cherished, and championed at every point whenever possible. Be encouraged dear Church that God’s Law-Word is an anvil that has wore out many a tyrant’s hammers. Be faithful. When possible be like the Hebrew mid-wives in disobedience to tyrants. When possible rise up and crush tyrants who rebel against the Crown-Rights of Jesus Christ. Do not lose your first love just so you can go along to get along with tyrants.”

Now, one wonders what AW would say right now to the Church in China and Iran? Probably something like… “Make sure you kiss the arse of the wicked sovereign even if it means disobeying God’s Law-Word because God realizes at times that blaspheming Him by bowing to the Tyrant state is necessary.”

AW wrote,

It is an over-realized eschatology with a static view of culture that will disappoint its supporters and make them grow ever strident in their resentment toward culture. A more accurate assessment of history understands culture as buffeted by times of both victory and defeat. To pick either victory or defeat as the litmus test for the church’s mission in society is to subject oneself to either utopia or despair.

BLMc responds

1.) First of all, it is hard to believe that a Ph.D. could be so torpid that he does not realize that Theonomy is not an eschatology. Dr. Greg Bahnsen conceded, for example, that it was possible for one to be a Theonomist and be Amillennial.

This is really quite embarrassing that someone could pick up a pen to write a hit piece on “Theonomy” and not realize that Theonomy is not an eschatology. Having said that I am more than willing to admit that most Theonomists I know are postmill but that still doesn’t mean that Theonomy is an eschatology.

2.) The statement that theonomy has a static view of culture is almost as embarrassing as saying that theonomy is an eschatology. It is precisely because theonomy believes that culture can change from non-Christian to Christian that theonomy remains so hopeful.

3.) If culture is defined as the outward expression of a people’s religious beliefs then it is the case that Christians should be increasingly strident and resentful towards Christ-hating culture since Christ-hating cultures are being shepherded by some false God and some false religion. As a Christian am I supposed to be giddy over cultures that defy Christ’s Lordship? Is AW suggesting here that Christians are supposed to make themselves at home in cultures that are anti-Christ? If so, people better quit writing tomes about those evil German Christians who did nothing during the Nazi regime.

4.) Theonomy isn’t asking for instant victory in the Kulturkampf. Theonomy is only asking that people like DW be faithful to Christ in their culture. Theonomists perfectly understand that in God’s inscrutable providence varying cultures wax and wane. No theonomist I know believes in Utopia in the sense that man apart from the Spirit of Christ is going to usher in social order Nirvana. These stupid accusations have been raised many times and likewise answered many times. Walker is just creating a straw man and then tearing down his straw man.

AW wrote,

A Christian’s posture toward the world must simultaneously embrace both glory and the cross. Inhabiting this paradox is understandably complex, but it gives us a proper perspective to see that the church’s mission throughout various societies can look very different depending on the societal context.

BLMc responds,

1.) Earlier in this same article AW faulted theologies of glory. He now admits here that there are times when we must embrace a theology of glory. Now I agree with him here but I can’t help wonder which end of his contradiction he is embracing – Theology of glory always bad or theology of glory sometimes needs to be embraced? Make up your mind man.

2.) The Church’s mission can look very different through various societies depending on societal context. I know of no theonomist who would disagree with that statement. However, the theonomist would add that in any societal context, regardless of the Church’s mission in that societal context the Church – both Institution and Organic – must tell the society to “Kiss the Son lest they perish in the way.” “I love the smell of Theonomy in the morning.”

AW wrote,

It’s debatable whether Theonomy desires a formal unity of church and state. Doubtless, though, church and state work in unison to promote each other’s interests. With intention, they mutually reinforce and consolidate one another’s authority. This can be both good and bad. It is bad when religion becomes the government’s handmaiden or vice versa; good when the government enables the gospel to be proclaimed freely (1 Tim. 2:1–2).

BLMc responds,

1.) It is not debatable in the least that Theonomy desires a formal unity of Church and State. The fact that Walker implies that it is debatable points us towards the idea that Walker doesn’t know the difference between a theocracy (which is an inescapable category and as inescapable all theonomist embrace) and an Ecclesiocracy which no theonomist embraces.

2.) All Governments at all times use religion as a handmaiden. Right now in these united States the Government is using the religion of Cultural Marxist humanism as a handmaiden. So, as all governments at all times use religion as a handmaiden then all Christians at all times should champion all Governments to submit to Christianity so that the Government can be the handmaiden to Christ. This is all theonomy, following Scripture, asks for.

AW wrote,

Though medieval Europe was not strictly Theonomic, the first thing to learn about strong unity between church and state is how undesirable it is. A nostalgia that looks with longing on “Christendom” erases the bloodiness that resulted from church and state working in tandem. Absent from history is a tradition of church-state unity that was good for the church’s purity or religious dissent.

1.) Andy can talk all he likes about a strong unity between church and state being undesirable but since all States are a reflection of and descend from some God or god concept it is simply the case that Church and State always walk together. For example, we right now are experiencing a strong union between our current State and the Church (i.e. – Public Schools teaching the religion of Cultural Marxism). Now I quite agree this is undesirable but only because cultural Marxism is a false religion. If Biblical Christianity was the religion of the land I would find it quite desirable. So, once again Andy is wrong about Church and State working together in their proper jurisdictional spheres being undesirable. The Christian Church working with the Christian State is always desirable. Anti-Christ Churches working with Anti-Christ states though is always undesirable.

2.) Now AW raises the old saw about how bloody Christian reigns were and we concede that there were times in history that Christian reigns did unchristian things. However, shall we compare the bloodiness of Charlemagne with the bloodiness of Stalin? Shall we compare the burning of witches at Salem with the Christians killed in Rome’s persecutions? Shall we compare the Inquisition to the numbers that Pol Pot rang up?

The point here is that self-hating Christians like AW are forever ringing their hands over “the bloodiness of Christendom,” without realizing that perhaps Christendom is the least bad of all options. As Church and State always work together maybe Christendom was the least bad combination of Church and State possible? That is the way I read history.

I get weary with Christians lamenting Christendom as if they’d prefer Liberaldom, or Islamadom, or Talmud-dom. Kingdoms crafted by the combination of Church and State are inescapable as we have shown, and since that is true I’ll take Christendom for 1000 Alex.

3.) I’d say the Church-State harmony of early Puritan New England was pretty good. I’d say the Church-state harmony of the Antebellum South was pretty good.

4.) I am opposed to allowing for religious dissent as arising from those who hate Christ. I do not think it should be allowed in a Christian social order.