From The Pastor’s Mailbag — Christian Economics?

Dear Pastor,

1.) ‘Why would you have a seminary teach macroeconomics?

2.) What makes Sowell’s theory reflective of a “Reformed Worldview” when he’s not even Reformed, as far as we know?

3.) Why do we even have to frame macroeconomics in those types of terms?

4.) What makes something reflective of a reformed worldview and who gets to decide that?’

Thanks,

Jillian

Dear Jillian,

Thank you for writing. Before turning to your questions, which we will take one at a time, let us consider some macro aspects to this.

First we need to understand that Economics is theology dependent. The ancients had a saying, that yet remains true, that “Theology is the Queen of the Sciences.” This truism teaches us that all other disciplines are derivative of some prior understanding of Theology. What that means is that Economics, History, Sociology, Psychology, Mathematics, Philosophy, Arts, Politics, Law etc. are all dependent on some Theology, and are what they are as they are informed by some theology. Theology is an inescapable category from which all the humanities are derivative. Because this is true Economics, like all those other disciplines listed, are but the incarnation and manifestation of some Theology into the various theories that comprise the discipline. Because this is true, it is never a case of whether or not we will have an Economics that is driven by theology, but it is only a question of which theology will drive our Economics. Since this is so, Christian have to think about what the implications of our Christian Theology have for Economics because if we don’t think in those terms what will happen is some pagan theology, representative of some false god or god concept, will be what drives our Economics. As such if we will not have Economics as derivative of explicitly Christian theology, we will have Economics as derivative of Humanist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. Theology. Theologically speaking, there is no Economics from nowhere. Theologically speaking there is no Economics wherein Economics is not serving as a handmaiden for some God or god concept.

Having opened with that we turn to your questions.

1.) Seminaries might teach a macro Economics course because,

a.) Our abstract Theology also needs to be concrete. There is a necessity to reveal to seminarian students that as all Theology is totalistic in its claims, Christian theology needs to challenge the paradigms of false theologies as they incarnate and manifest themselves in the Public Square via Economic modalities and paradigms.

b.) The Scripture gives us themes for a Christian Economics. For example, Scripture forbids theft, therefore, a Christian Macro-Economics would require us to hold that the holding of property by individuals is a necessary aspect of a Christian Economics. This simple tenant immediately informs us that all Marxist type of Economic arrangements are unbiblical since Marxist theory denies the individual claim to property to the individual. We know that individual property claims are biblical by looking, as just one example, at the account of Naboth’s vineyard in the Scripture (I Kings 21). Other Biblical principles for Economics that we can derive from Scripture is the necessity of the keeping of contract (James 5), the idea of a just wage (Malachi 3:5), the prohibition against oppression of the worker by the Rich (Deut. 24:14-15), and that Government theft is a positive evil (I Samuel 8). Another key Economic theme of Scripture is the reality that God’s people are Stewards of all that God has given them and all that God has given them must be handled, not as absolute owners, but as stewards unto God. After all, I am in body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. Any Christian Macro Economic theory must reflect these realities.

These themes alone go a long way towards informing a Christian Macro-economics.

Now, to be sure, the Marxists and the Progressives who call themselves “Christian” will come in and deny these aspects but at that point all we can do is to go to the Law and to the testimony to see if these things are so (Isaiah 8). Also, we need to realize that there are those who will claim that Economics, like all other disciplines are NOT theology dependent. As previously, all that can be done is to appeal to Scripture and trust that the Holy Spirit will open people’s eyes to see that there is no Neutrality, no not even in what is called the “common realm.”

c.) In the end Marco-economics is needed for those who would be ministers because they are to speak forth the whole counsel of God. Christianity does not end at the Church doors. Christianity is not merely about Jesus living in my heart. Christianity is not restricted to some zone beyond which it is forbidden to go. As Abraham Kuyper once said, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!’ That includes Economics Jillian.

2.) Dr. Thomas Sowell is not Reformed. Of that there can be little doubt. However, having said that, his theories, as existing in the context of a Reformed Christian worldview support many of the idea set forth immediately above. Sowell believes in individual property claims. He is against totalistic Economic claims of the God state. He supports individual right of contract. Sowell, of course, is not to be absolutized. Only the Scriptures are absolute. And of course there will be aspects of Sowell’s theory that need to be reinterpreted through a Biblical grid. For example, the Austrian school of Economics, that he is associated with, does have elements in it that are thoroughly unbiblical and would need to be purged from a Christian Economics.

3.) We have to frame Marco-Economics in these types of terms because these types of terms are inescapable concepts that can’t be escaped. Because all of reality is Theologically driven, all that composes reality will likewise be theologically driven. Further, without Macro-Economics being framed in such a way we lose the ability to distinguish some time of Economic activity as “wrong” as compared with other types of Economic activity we would say is “right.” If we lose the concept of Christian Economics we lose the ability to say, “Marxist Economics is wrong,” because Marxist Economics presupposes an Economic determinism that doesn’t submit to the reality that God rules. If we lose the concept of Christian Economics we lose the ability to say Wall Street Crony Capitalism is wrong because Wall Street Crony Capitalism (Corporatism) absolutizes wealthy in their oppression of the poor and the needy. If we fail to frame Macro-Economics in these type of terms then we are forced to live with whatever oppression the State, as God, determines as our lot.

4.) God and His Word makes something reflective of a reformed worldview and it is the Scriptures that get to decide that since all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I believe that Economics is a good work that the man of God can be equipped for by understanding Scripture.

In the end Jillian, I don’t want to be the one to tell God that Macro-Economics is none of his damn business and he should just butt out of the whole discipline.

Thank you for writing Jillian,

Moral Cowardice Under A Theological R2K Fig Leaf

“I think is is appropriate to distinguish Lutheran 2K from this recent R2K, but an important point is often missed, and that is that some influential R2K proponents really don’t seem to take natural law seriously. Natural law theory (as historically affirmed by RCs, Lutherans, and Reformed) unequivocally affirms that heterosexual marriage is a teaching of natural law. In fact, the Magdeburg Confession of 1550 that DGH (Darryl G. Hart) loves to cite says,

“But if a ruler is so demented as to attack God, then he is the very devil who employs mighty potentates in Church and State. When, for example, a prince or an emperor tampers with marriage against the dictates of natural law, then in the name of natural law and Scripture he may be resisted.”

So why is it that the big topic in R2K discussions right now is that the church has nothing to say in the public square about SSM (Sodomite Marriage)? I can only conclude that they really are not very serious about their affirmations of natural law, and that R2K is really, as I’ve said elsewhere, a “theological fig-leaf for culture war fatigue” and an excuse to remain silent.”

Dr. William B. Evans
Younts Professor of Bible and Religion, Erskine College
Chair, Dept. of Bible, Religion, and Philosophy
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church

Natural law is a shield against getting involved in the public square until it might force us to take a concrete stand against wickedness in the public square. Then Natural law is up for debate, just like Scripture has been made to be up for debate.

The Church really is at a crossroads. We can either follow the equivalent of the WW II ghetto Judenrat and work with the enemy or we can draw a line, plant our banners, and unfurl our bold colors.

With R2K Darryl Hart Becomes An Orthodox Gnostic

Just a few lines regarding Gnostikoi Hart’s latest temper tantrum over at moldlife.

1.) D. Gnostikoi Hart accuses me of a lack of intelligence. Now this is what we would expect from someone of the Gnostic faith. I don’t have the special knowledge that Gnostikoi Hart has therefore I must lack intelligence. In Darryl’s Gnostic world intelligence equals having a special knowledge that only the enlightened Gnostikoi can have. All others are obviously just too stupid to plumb the secret knowledge.

2.) Darryl complains that without his special knowledge I can not have certainty. Darryl’s R2K teaches him that no one can have certainty regarding finding solutions to social woes in Scripture. Here we see that Darryl can find certain knowledge in the Scripture that one can’t be certain but those who disagree with R2K can’t find certainty.

Now lets tease this out. Darryl insists that R2k, “denies the certainty that supposedly comes with finding the solutions to social woes in Scripture .”

In light of this, let’s make a small list,

a.) Sodomite marriage — R2K denies the certainty that supposedly comes with finding the solutions to social woes in Scripture.

b.) Abortion — R2K denies the certainty that supposedly comes with finding the solutions to social woes in Scripture.

c.) Passing laws allowing Bestiality — R2K denies the certainty that supposedly comes with finding the solutions to social woes in Scripture.

d.) Killing off 4 million Ukrainian Kulaks in a policy of political starvation — R2K denies the certainty that supposedly comes with finding the solutions to social woes in Scripture.

e.) The State pursues a policy where it owns all property — R2K denies the certainty that supposedly comes with finding the solutions to social woes in Scripture.

f.) The State pursues a policy wherein they have legal ownership of all children — R2K denies the certainty that supposedly comes with finding the solutions to social woes in Scripture.

3.) Darryl complains about my lack of intelligence and yet he seems to hold that somehow having a “B” in one’s name accounts for why people reject R2K. I suppose in Darryl’s special Gnostikoi knowledge “B” is an evil letter that has less light in it then the letters D-A-R-Y- and L.

4.) Yes, R2K, destroys the Gospel. Any “Christian” movement that has ministers holding that it would not be an offense unto discipline if a Church member campaigned politically to overturn laws forbidding bestiality obviously is destructive of the Gospel. Any “Christian” movement who has Seminary professors saying publicly that Christianity can allow into its membership, those who advocate that sodomite civil unions should be made legal is a movement that is destructive to the Gospel. This is really not that controversial.

5.) Darryl seems to think that teaching Economics in the context of a Christian Worldview is destructive of the Gospel. I would dearly love to see that teased out.

6.) Darryl accuses me of being Manichean. Actually that is not true since a Manichean worldview would require me to believe that God and Satan are equally equipoised against each other so that neither of them can advance. I simply don’t believe that. God is sovereign. Satan does absolutely zero to resist God’s sovereign doing. Darryl is just practicing the politics of personal destruction when he suggests that I am Manichean. (Isn’t it interesting how the dualists accuse the non-dualists of dualism?)

7.) Darryl will have to take it up with Scripture when I talk about the Kingdom of God rolling back this present wicked age. Colossians 1 says that, Christians have been translated from the dominion of Darkness to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son. I am merely using the language of Scripture when I write about the triumph of God’s Kingdom over the opposition of the Serpent. No Manicheanism here.

8.) Darryl reveals his lack of suppleness in his thinking when he doesn’t seem to understand that many people I read and recommend others to read can have insight precisely because they have stolen Christian capital in their own Worldviews and writings. This stolen capital thus make them worthy of reading. It’s called plundering the Egyptians from what they plundered from us to begin with. Even an intelligent Professor like Darryl ought to understand this. In this complaint Darryl really reveals his lack of understanding of non R2K positions. We need to have compassion, patience and sympathy upon those who struggle to understand.

9.) Poor, confused Darryl asks,

“But how can Rabbi B account for the truths that non-believers, people who belong to Satan’s kingdom, see?”

Now anyone who has read Van Til could answer this even if in a haze. The answer is that they have borrowed capital in their worldview. No Worldview is perfectly anti-Christ and so Christ haters will often import, inconsistently, Christian capital into their worldview to get their Christ hating agenda off the ground. Has Darryl never read Van Til?

10.) Darryl’s accusation that I employ the antithesis only when convenient has been put to rest by #8 and #9. What Darryl then proceeds to tell us is that he employs the antithesis only when convenient. It is convenient for Darryl to employ it when it comes to Church membership. But it is not convenient to use it when using it in 95% of his living that goes on outside the Church.

11.) Darryl mentions God’s Kingdom vs. Christ’s Kingdom. Is that Kind of like the Dispensational distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?

Seriously though … I get Darryl’s putative point. According to R2K, God rules over all things providentially but has entrusted to Christ a Spiritual Kingdom that has nothing to do with God’s providential rule outside the Church.

I’ll just speak to that via a quote from Ridderbos. Darryl’s worldview capacity may not allow him to understand this quote but certainly others will.

“But the Kingdom of God also defines the Church in its relation to the world. The Church has a foundation of its own, has its own rules, its own mode of existence. But precisely because of the fact that it is the Church of the Kingdom, it has also a positive relation with the world, for the Kingdom of God is seeking acceptance in the world.
A sower went forth to sow. And the field is the world. That is why the Church is seeking catholicity. And this catholicity has a double aspect, one of extension and one of intensity, in accordance with the nature of the Kingdom. So the Church is as wide as the world. The horizons of the world are also the horizons of the Church; therefore its urge to carry on missionary work, to emigrate, to cross frontiers. This is because the Church is the
Church of the Kingdom. She is not allowed to be self-contained.

But there is also an intensive catholicity of the Church because of the Kingdom. The Church is related to life as a whole. It is not a drop of oil on troubled waters. It has a mission in this world and in the entire structure of the world. This statement does not arise from cultural optimism. This is the confession of the kingship of Christ. For this reason, too, the Church is the Church of the Kingdom.

And the third remark is my concluding one: as Church of the Kingdom, the Church is seeking the future. She has received her talents for the present. But her Lord who went into a far country will return. Her waiting for Him consists of working. Otherwise she will hear: What have you done with my talent?”

Herman Ridderbos,
“When the Time Had Fully Come: Studies in New Testament Theology”

Random Thoughts Connecting Pelagianism to Modernity and Theistic Evolution

1. Pelagians “deny original sin”.

Sin is not transmitted to the whole human race by Adam’s fall. Sin grew by imitation. Thus, infants are free from original sin.

Pelagius insisted that God would not command something of man that man cannot accomplish. He reasoned that a divine command implies human ability (responsibility implies ability). A favorite saying of his was, “If I ought, I can.” Therefore, he taught that no one inherited the sin nature from Adam nor were they ‘born in sin’. Infants are born tabula rasa (Latin for a ‘blank slate’) and are therefore perfectly capable of obeying and pleasing God. His error here on the fundamental doctrine of original sin led to his belief that a person could live a sinless life. He said that, “a man can be without sin and keep the commandments of God, if he wishes.”

According to St. Augustine the Pelagians held

“. . . actual sin has not been transmitted from the first man to other persons by natural descent, but by imitation. Hence, likewise, they refuse to believe that in infants original sin is remitted through baptism, for they contend that no such original sin exists at all in people by their birth”

This is contrary of course to the Romans 3:9-20 but also to passages like Psalm 51:5.

5 Behold, I was born in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me.

What the Pelagians held to is the idea of sin by imitation and what this meant is that in order for sin to be eliminated bad examples need to be eliminated. This is called environmentalism. It is the idea that we sin because of bad examples around us. Our Parents set a bad example and we imitate it. Our extended family sets a bad example and we imitate it. This inevitably leads to a conclusion that the way to rid sin is to change the environment where all the bad examples are being set. This in turn, when given its head, leads to all kinds of social engineering projects whereby the attempt is made to create a better social environment so that we can create a New Humanist Man and so arrive at a better if not perfect world.

In this regard we live in a Pelagian world. People are not held responsible for their sin because their sin isn’t their fault. It is the fault of the environment. And so the Psychology industry booms as this industry is used to provide a type of salvation in helping us to overcome our environment and so become a righteous people. The Psychologist tells the patient that what is responsible for their behavior is environmentally driven. Whereas the minister tells the person that they in their sin are responsible for their behavior.

And so the Christian answer to this has always been that the problem is NOT that the sinful environment creates sinners who imitate its example but rather the problem is that sinners create sinful environments. The solution then is NOT to change the environment to change sinners. The solution is to change sinners in order to change the environment and this is done by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in the context of the Preaching of the Gospel and the setting forth of the Sacraments.

2. Pelagians “say that the grace of God whereby we are justified is not given freely, but according to our merit”.

Of course this is a denial that we were “Dead in our Trespasses and sins.”

From this claim stems three associated errors to back it up.

First, free will is inherent in the nature of man such that there is an “absolute autonomy for the will. Thus, for Pelagius freedom would be destroyed if the will were inclined to evil because of sin or if it needed to be strengthened by another’s help”. So, we have the denial of any interior influence on free will. The will is free.

Pelagianism, concerned to protect this Free Will, insisted that if people are born sinners by nature (if sin is something we inherit) it would be unjust for God to hold individual sinners responsible for their sin. That is why Pelagius reasoned that the human will must be totally free—inclined to neither good nor evil—or else our choices cannot be free. If our choices are not free, then we cannot be held responsible for what we do. So, how can we be held responsible for how we were born?

And the answer to this is simply that we can be held responsible by God for how we were born because we are responsible in as much as we are in Adam.

Romans 5:18 [a]Likewise then, as by the offense of one, the fault came on all men to condemnation, so by the justifying of one, the benefit abounded toward all men to the [b]justification of life.

Pelagianism denies this covenantal union in favor of the each and every sovereign individual.

All of this leads to the second error that the Law in the Old Testament as well as the preaching and example of Christ are only an external influence on us.

By external influence only the Pelagian believes that it is a influence by our observation or learning. We see the example of Christ we learn the law and then we can follow them. There is no necessity of a renewing work within us. Once observing Christ’s example. Once learning the law we can do it on our own.

Augustine summarized against this by saying,

“. .. by the law of works, God says to us, Do what I command thee; but by the law of faith we say to God, Give me what Thou commandest. Now this is the reason why the Law gives its command,—to admonish us what faith ought to do, that is, that he to whom the command is given, if he is as yet unable to perform it, may know what to ask for; but if he has at once the ability, and complies with the command, he ought also to be aware from whose gift the ability comes”.

Scripture teaches consistently that it is God’s grace working within us that is prior to our working out what God commands.

Philippians 2:12-13 — “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

Third, Jesus came to remit our past sins only, forgiveness of which we merit through good acts, but with no reference to power over sins in the future. Grace as understood by Pelagius becomes a totally external act from God to enlighten us that “we may have from the Lord God the help of knowledge, whereby we may know those things which have to be done.”

3. They “say that in mortal man . . . there is so great righteousness that even after the washing of regeneration, until he finishes this life of his, forgiveness of sins is not necessary to him”.

And so Pelagians held that a perfection could be reached in this life.

St. Augustine’s definition of perfection included a true self-awareness of one’s imperfection coupled with a movement forward toward Christ-likeness. Augustine leveraged passages like Philippians 3 where St. Paul says he desire to,

Phil. 3:11 be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith … 12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.

So God gives us righteousness in Christ by faith not by our own righteousness in keeping the Law as the Pelagians would have us believe. St. Augustine says the righteousness the Pelagians are describing in this life will only be attained in our resurrected bodies in the next.

Bible scholars at the time of Pelagius recognized the contradiction between Pelagiaus teachings and Scripture. As a result, Pelagianism was condemned as heretical at church councils that included the Councils of Carthage (in 412, 416 and 418), the Council of Ephesus (431) and the Council of Orange (529). Pelagians remains as outside of orthodoxy today as it was 1600 years ago.

But their is a New Pelagianism in town and it is married to Modernity and it is called “Theistic Evolution.” Along the way I hope to tie Theistic evolution to Pelagianism. Theistic evolution is the idea that Evolution is true but adds the twist that God is the one who kicked off Evolution and who is guiding it along the way. At least some variants of Theistic evolution are teaching,

“that people do not all originate with Adam and Eve but that, “humans descended from a group of several thousand individuals who lived about 150,000 years ago.”

This attack on the historical reality of Adam and Eve, typical of Modernity, but now also found among those promoting Theistic Evolution is now in the Homeschool community through a reach out organization called Biologos,

In 2010 BioLogos president Darrel Falk wrote:

“Option #1 [that Adam and Eve are actual historical people] is the standard argument put forward by those who believe in a young earth created by God in six twenty-four hour days less than 10,000 years ago. BioLogos exists in no small part to marginalize this view from the Church. A fundamental part of our mission is to show that Option #1 is not tenable.”

This idea has been floating around at least since 1925,

“The evolution of man from lower forms of life was in itself a new and startling fact, and one that broke up the old theology. I and my contemporaries, however, accepted it as fact. The first and most obvious result of this acceptance was that we are compelled to regard the Biblical story of the Fall as not historic, as it had long been believed to be. We were compelled to regard that story as a primitive attempt to account for the presence of sin and evil in the world …. But now, in the light of the fact of evolution, the Fall, as a historic event, already questioned on other grounds, was excluded and denied by science.”

Charles E. Merriam
New Aspects of Politics, 3rd Edition — pp. 59-60

This idea though is not restricted to the Homeschool community or in musty old books but has even been recently promulgated in the CRC Banner when it was written and published this past May that,

“Traditionally we’ve been taught that Adam and Eve were the first human pair, Adam made out of dust and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. But sustaining this doctrine is extremely difficult when we take seriously the human race as we know it today sharing ancestry with other primates such as chimpanzees. Where in the slow evolution of homo erectus and homo habilis and homo sapiens do Adam and Eve fit? We will have to find a better way of understanding what Genesis tells us about Adam and Eve, one that does justice to Genesis and also to what the Bible teaches about their connection to Jesus.”

The fact that Pelagainism is among us in terms of a Modernity that desires to interpret all of reality via the centrality of man is seen even in the CRC Banner’s Pelagian suggestion that we need to re-think Original Sin. In the quote that follows you find the Pelagainism of Modernity being advocated,

“According to this doctrine (Original Sin), the fall of Adam and Eve is an actual historical event that plunged the entire human race into sin. Ever since, both the guilt of sin and the pollution of sin, theologically speaking, have been passed on from parent to child in such a way that we all come into the world tainted by them. We say that our children are conceived and born in sin. But if Adam and Eve are not understood as real historical people, then there can hardly be an inheritance of sinfulness from parent to child all the way back to Adam—in which case the entire doctrine of original sin falls by the wayside. We will have to find a better way of understanding not only what sin is but its effect on the population in general—a way that does justice both to the Bible and to science and that helps us understand how sin works in our own lives under God.”

So, the point here is that even though Pelagianism was rejected over 1500 years ago it is making a comeback via Theistic Evolution which itself is just one component of the Modernity project.

And I’m hoping that you will join with me in giving up all this Theistic Evolution, this Modernity, This Pelagianism for Lent.

Another aspect of this is to understand that the current Pelagian Modernity project also falls under the head of interpreting the Bible with a anti-supernatural presupposition. In other words, what the Pelagain Modernity project is doing as it puts forward Theistic Evolution is that it begins with the assumption that the Supernatural can not be true and then proceeds from there reinterpreting all the supernatural of the Scriptures in the context of naturalistic presuppositions.

So, what we have is Modernity coming into the Church via Theistic Evolution and the consequence is a new kind of Pelagianism in the Church where not only Original Sin is denied but also nearly all the doctrines that make Christianity — Christianity. The result then is a Christianity that would not be recognizable to the Saints who have gone before.

Illustration — Egg

Here is the lesson:

As the Church has repeatedly rejected Pelagius assertion that Adam’s sin and guilt was NOT transferred to all of Adam’s descendants how is that we now are suggesting, in keeping with Modernity, that Adam was not a real person in space and time History? What our Denomination is promoting in print is far worse than what Pelagius promoted. At least Pelagius believed Adam was a real person who lived in space and time. This Denomination and many others are advocating, in keeping with Modernity, that all of Christianity must be re-tooled in order to fit the hair-brained speculations of a Science that is uninformed by Christian presuppositions.

Romans 5:18 teaches,

18 Therefore, as one trespass[a] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[b] leads to justification and life for all men.

You see the problem here right? If there was no historical Adam and no fall and so no original sin then that calls into question the whole characterizing of the Lord Christ as the Second Adam who takes away our sin and provides for a positive righteousness which Adam forfeited. If we lose a real Adam and Eve, a real Fall into sin, and the reality of Original Sin we lose the Faith once forever delivered unto the Saints. If we lose Original sin we lose Christ crucified.

And we are of all men to be pitied.

Now a brief word about Science. The way that Modernity desires to frame this is that this is a contest between Science and Theology. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have taught you here repeatedly, Science is worldview and Theology dependent. This is not a contest between the facts of Science vs. Ideas from the Bible. This is a contest between a Science that is informed by a Christian worldview vs. a Science that is informed by a Pagan Worldview. It is a clash of Theologies. But the Modernity / Pelagian cause is advanced by telling you that Scripture has been overwhelmed by their Science. Don’t you believe it. Remember, scientific “facts” require a philosophy of fact to make sense and if your philosophy of fact is in error all your facts will be in error. We are contending that the Theistic Evolutionists who are part of the Modernity project have their philosophy of fact wrong and so their are serious problems with their facts.

Illustration — Puzzle Box.

Conclusion,

This has vast implications,

If you would like to see the consequences of this Pelagian version of Modernity that yields a theology where original sin is denied — the place to look is at the Soviet Gulags, the Cambodian Killing Fields, or the Cuban Psychiatric wards. If man has no original sin then we have no reason to think that man is basically sinful. If man is a blank slate and not sinful then man can be molded to become a better if not perfect human being. Historically speaking, part of that molding process is the Gulag, the killing fields, and the Communist Psychiatric wards.

If man is not basically sinful then man is either basically good, and only needs to discover his goodness, or man is neutral and so is a plastic that can be molded to fit the State’s ends and so needs to be socially engineered to achieve Utopian desires.

Most people don’t have the capacity to trace out the consequences of their ideas and so they unwittingly embrace what their Church is doing in reinterpreting Christianity through a Modernity grid that resurrects Pelagianism via theistic evolution.

The few of us who get it must raise our voice to protest this silliness that, if given its head, will get us all killed.

Timbers Forcing On Us A New Slavery — Timber #1 New Plausibility Structure For Marriage, Sex, and Family

In 1858, in his “Housed Divided” speech Abraham Lincoln complained about what he saw as a conspiracy between Stephen Douglass, Roger Taney, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan to force upon the Nation slavery.

“When we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck.”

We live in similar times where we are seeing a lot of framed timbers by different workmen being constructed to the particular end of forcing upon the Nation a new slavery. As Biblical Christians we view the current social order and see any number of social ills present. What we don’t tend to see, I think, is the fact that these social ills are all serving a unified purpose, end, and goal. That purpose, end and goal is the complete unraveling of what small residue of a Christian Worldview that remains among us as a people. The goal in this piece is to look at the timber of sexual perversion as one of many means of destroying the little remaining residue of the Christian West. In successive articles I hope to look at other timbers that have been cut and shaped as a new house to replace Biblical Christianity.

An overview of these cut timbers, beyond the issue of perverted sex and the reduction of marriage which I will consider here, are the erasure of borders as seen in the constant push for amnesty, Obamacare, overturning of the second amendment, common core curriculum, Agenda 21, and the co-conspiratorial role of the “Evangelical” and “Reformed” contemporary confessional and conservative Churches and its ministers in the destruction of Biblical Christianity. All of these are agreed in the purpose, goal, and end of overthrowing the shards of a Biblical Christian social order.

The bulwark of any Christian social order is the Trustee Family. In order to successfully overthrow a Christian worldview and social order the Trustee and even Domestic family must be attacked and overthrown in favor of the Atomistic family. Of course this attack has been undergoing since Women’s suffrage movement with the diluting of male leadership by the extension of the vote to women and then with WW I and II with the thrusting of women out of the home and into the heretofore prominently male work force (i.e. — Rosie the Riveter). It continued on with Margaret Sanger’s campaign of Birth control and on through as the revolution successfully unleashed the Birth control pill. Later we had the ugly Feminism as championed by the likes of Bette Friedan and Gloria Steinem. The destruction of the family in the West continued with the advent of No fault divorce and then with the push for gender destruction and sodomite marriage we have seen the extension of these earlier expressions of the constant Revolution of Modernity. Along the way we have seen the burning of the bras and women being set free from the putative drudgery of being a housewife and Mother.

Along the way we have redefined love, sex, and marriage and the relationship of each with the other. This rearrangement has served to largely destroy the idea of Biblical family. Whereas in a Biblical social order Marriage is the proper context where romantic love and sex are pursued and so find legitimacy, with the onslaught of Modernity and its Revolution against the family what we have now is Romantic love as the proper context where sex and possibly marriage are pursued and so find legitimacy. What this means is that “falling and being in love” now serves as the proper justification for sexual relations and then possibly marriage and “falling out of love,” or, “not loving you anymore” is all the justification needed for pursuing new sexual liaisons and divorce where marriage is in place. In other words in the social order of Modernity, sex and marriage are justified and given moral status by the nebulous and fleeting emotion of “romantic love.” This is in contrast to a Biblical social order where romantic love and sex are justified and given moral status by marriage.

Since romantic love is the sine qua non for the existence of sex and marriage, sex and marriage proliferate as the ephemeral idea of romantic love waxes and wanes. The commitment expressed in Marriage, before God and man, as found in a Christian social order, which gave stability to marriage, children, and the broader culture is now eclipsed in Revolutionary Modernity where commitment is to the sovereign self and its transitory sense of “romantic love.” The first consequence of this is instability and the proliferation of unbalanced “homes,” and “families” that are comprised of all kinds of weird and creative combinations of children from successive marriages which were derivative of “romantic love.” In Modernity, under one roof one can find half siblings in one direction, half siblings in a different direction, step siblings, full siblings and who knows what else. In a Christian social order this kind of thing might be seen but would be understood as not the norm. In our culture it is seen with great frequency.

Now, the next successive consequence that has come out of this is the push for sodomite “marriage.” (I use the word “Marriage” only as a means to communicate to the modern mind. In all actuality it is an impossible absurdity to use the word “marriage” as related to any other arrangement than a man and a woman.) With the removal of marriage as the legitimate context where sex and romantic love were to be legitimized and pursued in favor of romantic love being the proper context where marriage and sex can be pursued it was only a matter of time before the participants in this perverted arrangement would themselves be perverts. If Romantic love is the context wherein marriage and sex is to be pursued who is to say that two men or two women (or three women and one man, or one woman and three men, etc.) can’t be officially “married?” In Revolutionary modernity, Romantic love is what gives marriage and sex its meaning and if that is granted then the coupling of perverts is bound to eventually occur in this new perverted plausibility structure.

What is interesting about Romantic love, being required as the atmosphere wherein sex and marriage derive their meaning, is that what happens over the course of time is that the quotient of necessary Romantic love present for men to lose their integrity and for women to love their chastity continues to decrease. A sexual tryst between the unmarried two generations ago might have found Romantic love demanding a certain amount of time “dating,” certain gifts exchanged, certain promises given, meeting the parents etc. A sexual tryst between the unmarried today in what is popularly called “hooking up,” looks more like two random dogs coming together after a good sniff.

And with this new perverted plausibility structure Christianity is undermined in favor of some kind of Gnostic religion. I offer Gnosticism (in a weird combination with Cultural Marxism) as the religion of Revolutionary Modernity because Romantic love is a Gnostic reality. Unlike Christian marriage where you have corporeal legal covenantal and juridical categories and documents creating and sustaining marriage, in the new plausibility structure of Romantic love you have nothing but ephemeral feelings and any marriage documents that do exist, have no real substantive meaning.

A third consequence of Revolutionary Modernity against marriage and the family is the displacing of the command control structures inherent in Biblical Christian marriage and family. As the Romantic love plausibility structure for sex and marriage places its death grip upon the West the result is that the family no longer has the stability necessary to do anything but survive (and even that is questionable). The command and control, historically associated with Christian families in a Christian social order, does not disappear but rather is seized by some other social order institution. In our social order the institution that is absorbing for itself the command and control historically belonging to the family is the State (FEDS). Whereas in a Christian social order families leave an inheritance, businesses, and reputation legacy for subsequent generations to live up to. In Revolutionary Modernity the FEDS gobble up inheritance, cripple the ability of small family businesses to survive and by the FEDS policy regarding morality they themselves attack any possible trans-generational reputation legacy. Command and control, in Revolutionary Modernity, where Romantic love is the new plausibility structure for marriage and sex, works over the course of time to strengthen the God-State (FEDS) over against God’s design of the Trustee family as the foundation for Christian social order.

A fourth consequence of Revolutionary Modernity where Romantic love is the necessary context wherein sex and marriage find meaning is the diminution of individual character and moral fiber. Once sex and marriage are set free to find meaning in the fields of Gnostic Romantic love the result is a unwillingness of people who have embraced such a plausibility structure to stand against any immorality at all. Perverted, and uninhibited sex (and all sex outside of marriage is perverted and uninhibited) always works to diminish people as perverted sex tears at their moral fiber to resist all other immorality. If and when people are giving into their personal immorality the consequence is that they will have little morality left to stand against any other social order injustice. Being enslaved to their lusts they find no ability to resist the varied lusts of anybody else. This moral anarchy eventually leads to social order implosion which in turn leads to some kind of Tyrant coming to the fore.

Finally, as consequence, where Revolutionary Modernity leads where Romantic love is the necessary context wherein sex and marriage find meaning is the complete and final destruction of Biblical Christian marriage. If sex and marriage are merely the outgrowth of Romantic love then sex and marriage can exist anywhere and anyplace that any romantic love exists. As long as Romantic love exists all the components of sex and marriage are negotiable. Whether gender roles, the means by which children are secured (in-vitro with Lesbians?, surrogate Mother for sodomites?, dinner setting adoptions [get the whole set]?, natural children?, etc.) who takes who’s last name, or who pays for what, once marriage and sex is merely the creature of Romantic love Biblical Christian Marriage is dead dead dead. Similarly, once the legitimacy of sex is merely the creature of Romantic love then sex and gender are open game to any definition and arrangement.

The cure for all this of course is understanding and embracing that God alone is the one who gives meaning and definition to all reality. Once that is admitted then repentance must follow for our insisting that reality is a social construct that we can determine apart from God. Repentance is not just a turning from our sin of vain imaginations but a turning to Jesus Chris who is both God’s forgiveness and His Word reality.

The hour is late. To be honest I believe that the hour is too late. It is too late to turn back on a societal National basis. We are no longer on the precipice so that turning back might be possible. We have already fallen off the cliff and now we are merely waiting to hit bottom. Yet, for all my pessimism, I know with God all things are possible and that in Wrath God might even yet remember mercy.

I keep raising my voice in hopes that God might grant mercy to some.