Examining “Rev.” Dr. Pastor Lee’s non Latin Theology … R2K Unleashed (VI)

Continuing to examine

“RealLive,LegitPh.DReverendDoctorwhohasreadbooksandallthat(mostoftheminLatin)andwhohashadhisDissertationpublishedwithVandenhoek&Ruprecht,(alegitGermanacademichouse)” BrianLee. (And who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles.) mid-term Election piece located here,

http://www.patheos.com/Topics/Politics-in-the-Pulpit/The-Church-Should-Not-Weigh-In-On-Ballot-Issues-Brian-Lee-110314.html

“RealLive,LegitPh.DReverend Doctorwhohasreadbooksandall that(mostoftheminLatin)andwhohashadhisDissertationpublishedwithVandenhoek&Ruprecht,(alegitGermanacademichouse)” BrianLee. (And who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles.) wrote,

“Let me be perfectly clear. I am not advocating an utterly private spirituality, such that our faith has no impact on our public behavior and speech. There is a key distinction to be made between the duties of the church in its official capacity—i.e., the provisional governing authority of the heavenly kingdom—and the duties of individual dual-citizen Christians.

Churches absolutely have the obligation to mandate adherence to God’s law. Christ commanded the church to “make disciples… teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matthew 28:19). This is why “discipline”—teaching and enforcing God’s moral law—is a distinguishing mark of Reformed churches. How then can religious congregations guide their members in moral and social issues, especially in this politicized age where every such decision seems to have political and economic ramifications?

Here the Christian tradition must acknowledge that the New Testament is virtually silent about how the world should be governed by the civil authorities. (Note: while Old Testament Israel’s theocracy is relevant, the New Testament does not teach that it is a model for the church.)

For obvious reasons, because New Testament believers lived under Roman rule they were not commanded to engage in political activity. Nowhere in the New Testament are individual believers commanded to tell people outside the church how to behave. In contrast, we are told to lead quiet lives, and not disturb the extant order. Paul commands the church to “submit” (Romans 13.1).

1.)

RealLive,LegitPh.DReverendDoctorwhohasreadbooksandallthat(mostoftheminLatin)andwhohashadhisDissertationpublishedwithVandenhoek&Ruprecht,(alegitGermanacademichouse)” BrianLee insist that he is not advocating an utter private spirituality and yet later in his article he insists that “neither the Church nor her preachers can say unambiguously that such laws (against abortion) must be enacted.

One wonder if

RealLive,LegitPh.DReverendDoctorwhohasreadbooksandallthat(mostoftheminLatin)andwhohashadhisDissertationpublishedwithVandenhoek&Ruprecht,(alegitGermanacademichouse)” BrianLee see the contradiction he is involved in? On one hand we are told that as Ministers we can privately be against abortion but we must not publicly say in a pulpit that “since God’s law prohibits abortion we should prohibit abortion in our laws.” Privately we can be opposed to abortion. Publicly in the pulpit we must not say that abortion should be prohibited.

And yet Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published wants us to believe that he is not advocating utterly private spirituality? Ok … maybe the trick there is the word “utterly?”

2.) Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published but doesn’t give a hill of beans about titles, makes a big deal about how the New Testament is virtually silent. Once again, this demonstrates that Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published is operating according to a kind of Reformed Dispensationalism. His Baptist hermeneutic is telling him that unless the New Testament repeats a truth from the Old Testament we must assume that God’s word is silent about a matter. For Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published the Old Testament is not authoritative. That this is true for Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published can be seen in the fact that he baldly says that since the New Testament doesn’t repeat the Old Testament when it comes to theocracy therefore we must believe that the Old Testament is not authoritative.

3.) The New Testament though is not virtually silent on how the world should be governed by civil authorities. Romans 13 says volumes. Here we turn to Christopher Goodman’s sermon on this text and subject.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/goodman/obeyed.htm

Read Christopher Goodman’s short book and watch him draw out from Romans 13 principles for how the world should be governed contra Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published but doesn’t give a hill of beans about titles.

As one example we see that Goodman overturns Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published but doesn’t give a hill of beans about titles thesis that Christians must be silent before all ordained leaders thus revealing how Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published but doesn’t give a hill of beans about titles is mishandling the text. Goodman (who also read Latin) writes on Romans 13:1,

Then as the Apostle writes, we confess, and so much as he speaks we grant, that is, that all men are bound to obey such Magistrates, whom God has ordained over us lawfully according to His word, which rule in His fear according to their office, as God has appointed. For though the Apostle says: There is no power but of God: yet does he here mean any other powers, but such as are orderly and lawfully instituted by God. Either else should He approve all tyranny and oppression, which comes to any commonwealth by means of wicked and ungodly rulers, which are to be called rightly disorders, and subversions in commonwealths, and not God’s ordinance. For He never ordained any laws to approve, but to reprove and punish tyrants, idolaters, papists, and oppressors. Then when they are such, they are not God’s ordinance. And in disobeying and resisting such, we do not resist God’s ordinance, but Satan’s …

So, one principle that Goodman finds here from the New Testament, for how the world should be governed is that it should not be governed by Christ Haters. I for one am shocked that Goodman would disagree on the interpretation of Romans 13:1 with Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee who reads Latin and has been published but doesn’t give a hill of beans about titles.

4.) We are told that “Churches absolutely have the obligation to mandate adherence to God’s law” but we are also told, in so many words, that Churches absolutely have the obligation to mandate adherence to God’s law until one is in the voting booth where the mandate is lifted. The Church must mandate that members not steal but the Church must not mandate regarding the legality of them if the membership are stealing via the agency of the third party Senator or Congressman for whom they vote.

5.) What if the Extant order passes legislation that all ministers with the last name “Lee” must be executed? Is it ok to trouble the extant order then? Is it acceptable then for Ministers to say from the Pulpit that such a law must be overturned?

Now A Word From “Real Live, Legit Ph.D Reverend Doctor — who has read books and all that (most of them in Latin) and who has had his Dissertation published with Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, (a legit German academic house)” Brian Lee

Rev. Dr. Pastor Brian Lee left a comment in my comments section wanting me to make sure that everybody knew he doesn’t “give a hill of beans for titles.”

So, I wanted to make sure everybody had a chance to see how “Real Live, Legit Ph.D Reverend Doctor — who has read books and all that (most of them in Latin) and who has had his Dissertation published with Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, (a legit German academic house)” — Brian Lee wishes to be addressed.

As such, in the future we will be referring to Brian as “RealLive,LegitPh.DReverend Doctorwhohasreadbooksandall that(mostoftheminLatin)andwhohashadhisDissertationpublishedwithVandenhoek&Ruprecht,(alegitGermanacademichouse)” BrianLee. (And who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles.)

So that we are all clear on this I offer the comment text of “RealLive,LegitPh.DReverend Doctorwhohasreadbooksandall that(mostoftheminLatin)andwhohashadhisDissertationpublishedwithVandenhoek&Ruprecht,(alegitGermanacademichouse)” BrianLee. (And who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles.)

“RealLive,LegitPh.DReverend Doctorwhohasreadbooksandall that(mostoftheminLatin)andwhohashadhisDissertationpublishedwithVandenhoek&Ruprecht,(alegitGermanacademichouse)” BrianLee. (And who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles.) wrote,

If you insist on doing battle with your straw man, and having read your material in the past I expect little better, please get the titles right, and the courtesy of respect due to my office in a sister Reformed church. Christ’s body deserves that much respect.

First, it’s “Doctor,” as in a real live, legit PhD, reading books and all that, most of them written in Latin. Dissertation published with Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, legit German academic house. Granted, not a church title, but relevant to the discussion.

Second, it’s “Reverend,” as in, Minister of Word and Sacrament ordained in the United Reformed Churches of North America, and fully bound in that office by my oath of subscription to the Three Forms of Unity. [If I’m not mistaken, some or all of the authors of this blog are ordained in the PCA, a sister church in NAPARC, so I regret the lack of respect shown.]

Third, it’s “Pastor,” as in church planter of Christ Reformed Church in Washington, DC, under-shepherd to souls of real live people who live and work in our nation’s capitol.

Titles don’t matter a hill of beans to me. But your scare quotes show disrespect to the church which has called me and bestowed them upon me. Go ahead and make your silly arguments, but please don’t insist on insulting the Bride of Christ.

Good day. And no, I’m not a coward, but I don’t intend in taking part in any give and take in this combox, as experience has taught me it would be fruitless.

Examining “Rev.” Lee’s Theology … R2K Unleashed (V)

Continuing to examine Lee’s mid-term Election piece located here,

http://www.patheos.com/Topics/Politics-in-the-Pulpit/The-Church-Should-Not-Weigh-In-On-Ballot-Issues-Brian-Lee-110314.html

“While individual believers live in both kingdoms, the church and her servants, Gospel preachers, are exclusively heralds and ambassadors of the heavenly, redemptive kingdom. Like any good ambassador, they carry only the message of the king who sends them, and this message is very precisely circumscribed by the New Testament: “For I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).

The Good News of Jesus Christ is the sole focus of our Gospel ministry, because we have neither the authority nor the expertise to weigh in on civil matters. This is why in the matter of the Houston subpoena of preached sermons, I wrote that as far as preached material goes, pastors should be entirely willing to send their sermons to anyone who will listen.”

1.) Here Lee premises that the only message that the Lord Christ has for this world is “Marvel not when I say unto you, you must be born again,” or, “we beseech ye be ye reconciled to God.” But this is the beginning of our undoubted catholic Christian faith, not all of our undoubted catholic Christian faith. There are other words that ministers are to speak to their congregations from the pulpit.

2.) The idea that Ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ can only give thematic messages that are consistent with “I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2), is belied by St. Paul writing to Timothy, “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” Was Paul being unfaithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for telling Timothy something besides Christ and Him crucified when he told him to throw back some liquor? In the same way Ministers are commissioned to bring forth the whole counsel of God — a counsel that speaks to every area of life.

3.) Lee reveals some serious confusion in the second paragraph above. Lee keeps suggesting that the Institutional Church and her Ministers are involving themselves in the Church realm when in point of fact it is the civil realm that is involving itself in the Church realm. Lee wants the Church to “shut up” because the Church shouldn’t involve itself in the common realm when the reality is that the Church must speak, precisely because the civil realm is involving itself in the Church. When the Magistrate seeks to redefine the Christian ethic of our people via making murder (abortion) and sodomy (sodomite marriage) normative then it is not the case, even by R2K standards, that the Church and her ministers are involving themselves in the civil realm, but rather the civil realm is involving itself in the Church’s bailiwick.

4.) In Acts 19 we see that the instructions of faithful ministers resulted in economic and social order chaos. Because of the Gospel message silversmiths were economically ruined and there was an occult book burning. These would have both been actions that would have been contrary to the social order and culture in Ephesus. Paul, as a minister of Christ, brings the Gospel, and the result is that those converted overturn the social order via their obedience. So much for Lee’s “circumscribing of the message.” It is not possible to speak to people about the need to turn to Christ without also speaking to them about the need to turn away from the idols that are propping up the common realm. Lee is wrong.

5.) Lee says that Ministers have neither the authority or expertise to weigh in on civil matters? Says who? Lee? Certainly ministers have the expertise to look at the abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell and then say from the pulpit, “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” What amount of expertise does it take to say abortion is murder? Secondly, we might ask on this score why is it that Lee assumes that it is Politicians who have enough expertise to weigh in on civil matters? Politicians are some of the stupidest people you will ever meet on God’s green earth.

6.) Clearly Ministers have the authority to speak a “Thou Shalt Not Murder,” to a social order intent on killing itself.

One wonders though…. where does Lee get the authority to suggest that ministers don’t have authority? Shouldn’t he, by his own principles, just resolve to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified?

Examining-“Rev.” Brian Lee’s Theology … R2K Unleashed (IV)

Continuing to examine Lee’s mid-term Election piece located here,

http://www.patheos.com/Topics/Politics-in-the-Pulpit/The-Church-Should-Not-Weigh-In-On-Ballot-Issues-Brian-Lee-110314.html

The great challenge for Christians is that we are called to live faithfully as citizens of both these kingdoms.

With the Apostle Paul, we can say that we are citizens of Rome, or the USA, by physical birth (Acts 22:28), and we can say that by the new birth we have been made fellow citizens with the saints in the household of God (Ephesians 2:19). Our citizenship therefore is in heaven, from which we await a Savior (Philippians 3:20). Christians therefore have dual citizenship. The Two Kingdom view is not schizophrenic, as some critics believe, but faithfully reflects the tension between our earthly and heavenly citizenships that is inherent in the New Testament.

Because the future heavenly kingdom of grace is breaking into our current time and place, these two kingdoms overlap. By his heavenly citizenship, Paul was free at the same moment his Roman citizenship kept him in chains. When the new heavens and new earth arrive—suddenly and violently, from above, and not by our doing—this duality will cease.

Given these distinctions, should the church publicly weigh in on ballot issues? I believe not.

1.) And the great problem for R2K Christians is that living faithfully as citizens of both these Kingdoms puts them in the position of being full of contradictions. In their personal lives they must not steal but in their lives in the common realm they can vote for people who would legislate theft via redistribution of wealth. In their personal lives they must not practice abortion, but in the common realm, as “Rev.” Lee tells us in his article, Christians can support abortion with their vote. In their personal lives they must not have sex with animals but in their public lives, according to Rev. Todd Bordow, a R2K advocate, it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to vote for Candidates who support repealing Bestiality laws. So, Lee calls for Christians to live faithfully as citizens in both Kingdoms but his theology makes that requirement an impossibility.

2.) The only tension that is inherent in the New Testament is the tension that R2K imposes on the New Testament. We find zero examples in the New Testament where the Apostles write that 1st century Christians are allowed to bifurcate their personal lives from their public square lives.

3.) Notice also Lee’s repeated references to the New Testament. This is because for R2K the Old Testament ethic was lifted into the heavenlies when Israel failed. This is the famous R2K “Intrusion Ethic.” This “Intrusion Ethic” teaches that the ethic of the OT is voided upon the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. This bifurcating of the OT ethic from the post Ascension world accounts for why R2K has often been long referred to as “Reformed Dispensationalism.”

4.) Lee’s protestation notwithstanding, his “theology” (R2K) is schizophrenic in the worst way possible. Lee demonstrates that schizophrenia supremely when, as a minister of the Church, he opens his mouth on the subject of politics (i.e. — writes an article) insisting that ministers must not open their mouths on the subject of politics.

5.) Notice Lee’s “Transcendentalizing of the Eschaton.” For Lee, the age to come awaits to have impact on this current wicked age until the violent coming of the Lord Christ. For Lee the “age to come” does not slowly grow as a mustard seed in the common realm. For Lee the “age to come” does not leaven its way slowly though the whole common realm loaf. For Lee the Eschaton is a locked away reality, only to have impact upon the common realm once it comes violently from above. This again reveals the R2K dualism. The “age to come” is only a spiritual (nee-Platonic) reality that shows up in the Church realm. For the common realm the “age to come” Eschaton is “up there,” while “this wicked age” is “down here.” What wonders how this is not Gnostic?

6.) Lee says, “(because) the future heavenly kingdom of grace is breaking into our current time and place, these two kingdoms overlap.” But, for R2K they only overlap if one attends Church or if one is part of the Church realm. There is zero overlap between the Kingdom of grace and the common realm in the common realm. The eschaton is completely Transcendentalized and Platonized. This is why he can say that the Church should not weigh in on public ballot issues. The Church should not weigh in because the church belongs to another realm. For Lee, for the Church to weigh in on public ballot issues in our cultures and social orders would be like Peruvians voting in Taiwanese elections. For Lee Christ has to do with the common realm the way that Peruvians have to do with Taiwanese elections.

Examining “Rev.” Brian Lee’s “Theology” … R2K Unleashed (III)

Part III as we continue to examine “Rev.” Brian Lee’s pre Mid-term election article advocating that Christ desires His Church and His ministers, when in the pulpit, to remain silent on moral issues as they arise in the political process.

“Rev.” Brian Lee continues

Christ rules in the redemptive kingdom, the church, by his Word, and the means by which it is governed is by the keys of the kingdom: The preaching of the Word and Church discipline, which regulates the sacraments as a means of God’s grace. This is a heavenly and spiritual kingdom, not of this world (John 18:36).

This is the broad outline of what is commonly called the “Two Kingdom” view, as it is developed in the Augustinian and Reformational traditions. Christ rules equally but differently in the two kingdoms of common grace (preservation) and saving grace (redemption).”

1.) Note when “Rev.” Lee writes that, Christ rules in the redemptive kingdom, the church, by his Word, what he is saying is that Christ does not rule in the common Kingdom, the social order, by His word. Lee is telling us that in the culture and social order Christ does not rule by His revealed word — special Revelation. Instead, in the culture and social order Christ rules by general revelation. As such Lee is telling us that when it comes to the everyday affairs, where we, as Christians, do over 95% of our living, we may not appeal to God’s word for guidance because God’s word does not apply to culture and the social order.

2.) Of course we concur that Christ rules His Church by His Word and we agree that the Church is governed by the Marks of the Church. There is no disagreement here. We merely but strongly disagree with Lee’s Platonic Dualism that suggests that Christ is only concerned with directly Legislating the affairs of men as they live out their public lives in their respective culture and social orders.

3.) Another passage that R2K dilettantes misinterpret is John 18:36 to which Lee appeals. Like their mishandling of the Noahic covenant they butcher John 18:36 in its meaning. What they want to make it mean is that Christ has no interest in this world. But in point of fact that is not what is being taught in John 18:36. B. F. Wescott speaking of John 18:36 could comment,

The Gospel According To John — pg. 260

Dr. Greg Bahnsen echoing Wescott’s work wrote,

“‘My kingdom is not of [ek: out from] this world,’” is a statement about the source — not the nature — of His reign, as the epexegetical ending of the verse makes obvious: ‘My kingdom is not from here [enteuthen].’ The teaching is not that Christ’s kingdom is wholly otherworldly, but rather that it originates with God Himself (not any power or authority found in creation.”

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
God & Politics — pg. 27

John 18:36 along with Matthew 22:15-22 are two of the passages that are often put forth as defeaters for the comprehensive sovereignty of the Lord Jesus over this world. Bahnsen clearly shows here, quite in agreement with the Greek scholar B. F. Westcott, that God’s Kingdom, as it manifests itself in this world, is energized by a source outside this world. This is important to emphasize because many people read John 18:36 as proof that the Kingdom of Jesus does not and should not express itself in this world. Often this verse is appealed to in order to prove that God’s Kingdom is only “spiritual” and as such Christians shouldn’t be concerned about what are perceived as “non-spiritual” realms. Support for such thinking, if there is any, must come from passages other than John 18:36.

What we get from some contemporary Calvinists, is the quote of Christ telling Pilate that ‘His Kingdom is not of this World,’ as if that is to end all conversation on the Lordship of Christ over all cultural endeavors. What is forgotten is the way that John often uses the word ‘World.’ John often uses the word ‘World’ with a sinister significance to communicate a disordered reality in grip of the Devil set in opposition to God. If that is the way that the word ‘world’ is being used in John 18:36 then we can understand why Jesus would say that His Kingdom ‘was not of this world.’ The Kingdom of Jesus will topple the Kingdoms of this disordered world changing them to be the Kingdoms of His ordered world, but it won’t be done by the disordered methodology of this World and so Jesus can say, “My Kingdom is not of this World.” Hopefully, we can see that such a statement doesn’t mean that Christ’s Kingdom has no effect in this world or that Christ’s Kingdom can’t overcome the world.

John 18:36 is often appealed to in order to prove that the Kingdom of God is a private individual spiritual personal reality that does not impinge on public square practice(s) of peoples or nations corporately considered. Those who appeal to John 18:36 in this way are prone thus to insist that God’s Word doesn’t speak to the public square practice(s) of peoples or nations since such an appeal (according to this thinking) would be an attempt to wrongly make God’s Kingdom of this world.

The problem with this though is it that it is a misreading of the passage. When Jesus say’s “My Kingdom is not of this world,” his use of the word “world” here is not spatial. Jesus is not saying that His Kingdom does not impact planet earth. What Jesus is saying is that His Kingdom does not find its source of authority from the world as it lies in Adam.

Jesus brings a Kingdom to this world that is in antithetical opposition to the Kingdom of Satan that presently characterizes this world in this present wicked age. The Kingdom that Jesus brings has its source of authority in His Father’s Word. As a result of Christ bringing His Kingdom with His advent there are two Kingdoms that are vying for supremacy on planet earth. Scripture teaches that the Kingdom of the “age to come” that characterizes Christ’s present Kingdom will be victorious in this present spatial world that is characterized by “this present wicked age,” precisely because, in principle, Christ’s Kingdom is already victorious in this present spatial world.

4.) We must note that Lee speaks of his view as being part of the Reformational tradition. Unfortunately, this is just not true of what Lee is advocating. It is true that in the Reformation History there is a Two Kingdom understanding but what Lee and the R2K school has done is something quite different than standard Reformed Two Kingdom theology. Lee and the R2K school have not Reformation tradition to which to appeal. Their work is completely innovative and it is just disingenuous for Lee to appeal to something called the “Augustinian and Reformational tradition” as if such a tradition provides a foundation for R2K. It most certainly does not.

5.) Finally, Lee’s thesis that Christ rules dualistically is explicitly opposed to by Scripture

“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” – Daniel 7:13-14

Note, the passage in Daniel does not say that He, that is the Son, receives dominion when He returns to earth with the clouds, but rather when He came to the Ancient of days, namely, when He ascended into Heaven to the Father.

Christ’s Kingdom now extends not only over the Church but according to Daniel it extends over cultures and social orders. Lee’s R2K “theology” is not substantiated by either Scripture or History and is a innovative but false testimony.