R2K … “Rubber meets Road”

Recently Dr. Mike Horton, in May wrote a piece that can be found here

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2919093/posts

Elsewhere Horton has written here,

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/05/11/same-sex-marriage-makes-a-lot-of-sense/

In that piece you can find these quotes,

“Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.”

“The challenge there is that two Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage as Christians may appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.”

Dr. Mike Horton

Dr. Horton, having been queried about this statement he made in May, has recently spoken. I intend to respond here to his recent statements.

Recently Horton wrote,

(1) “I wrote several posts on same-sex marriage, arguing that because monogamous-heterosexual marriage is rooted in creation (not redemption), Christians should not treat it as merely imposing our distinctively Christian beliefs and values on society. (2) We may lose, but the church can’t surrender its witness to God’s unchanging law. (3)Thus, neighbor-love entails support for traditional marriages and family structures. (4) At the same time, I argued that there are complicated legal and policy questions over which Christians (who hold this same view) may legitimately differ. (5) One example is domestic partnerships, which I neither affirmed nor rejected. (6) My only goal there was to say that there is nothing that the gay movement can win by same-sex marriage that it doesn’t already have with domestic partnerships. (7) If they can have the latter, why do they need the former? (8) It seems to me that the only real purpose in pressing for marriage is moral: namely, to place homosexual relationships on a par with heterosexual marriage: this we cannot allow, even if it involves the coercive power of the state (via our participation in the democratic process).

(9) Also, Christianity Today asked me to provide a response to an interview in The Atlantic with the head of Exodus International, who seemed to suggest that one could be an active homosexual and a member in good standing of a church. (10) Of course, I disagreed. (11) In response to this and those other posts, I’ve received criticism from evangelicals (and others) who thought I was too hard-line on the issue. (12) So this one is a first. (13) Until this one, I haven’t seen any responses that see any of the dangers that Mr. Maurina raised here.”

In Christ,

Mike

Before getting into the entrails of these comments by Dr. Horton we should note here that as Dr. Horton does not believe that such a thing as Christian culture even exists or can exist, Dr. Horton does not believe that we can do anything to make a culture more Christian. Dr. Horton believes Christians do exist but he does not believe Christian culture exists. That observation is key in unraveling what Dr. Horton is saying here.

(1) — A.) If “monogamous-heterosexual marriage is rooted in creation (not redemption)” then why should marriages be conducted by Clergy? The R2K crowd, of whom Dr. Horton is a member, have said in the past that the Clergy has no business giving a invocation at a City Council meeting, or in being an official participant as a Clergy member at political events precisely because these kinds of events are rooted in creation and not redemption. So, if Clergy are not to be involved in events that are rooted in creation then for centuries Clergy have been violating Scripture because they have been officiating at and praying at Wedding ceremonies which are rooted in creation.

(1) — B.) If marriage is rooted in creation and not redemption and if culture can not be Christian then how is it possible to impose our distinctively Christian beliefs and values on society? Society is a reality that is rooted in Creation and so all it can ever be, regardless of what religion’s beliefs and values are imposed upon it is common. According to R2K it is possible to have Christians living in society, however it is not possible for Christians to impose their Christianity on something (society) that by definition can not be Christian no matter what.

(2) — But Dr. Horton does not believe that God’s unchanging law applies to the public square. It applies to individuals but it most certainly does not apply to the public square.

Now, it is possible when Dr. Horton talks about God’s unchanging law he is not talking about God revealed law in Scripture but rather he is speaking of God’s natural law. However, as he invokes the “Church” in (2) one is tempted to think he is referring to the Scriptures. With R2K it is hard to know what law is being referred to when statements are made about “God’s unchanging law.”

(3) — “Thus, neighbor-love entails support for traditional marriages and family structures.”

Except when we don’t. Read on.

(4) – (5) “Neither affirmed or rejected.”

Mike has said he neither affirms nor rejects domestic partnerships but he does affirm that Christians could affirm domestic partnerships and be within the orbit of Christian orthodoxy. Mike does not affirm them but he does affirm the affirmers. This is the real sticky wicket in Mike’s pronouncements. Mike, is suggesting that Christians could very well support domestic partnerships of one variety or another. If Christians were to do this, and as Mike is saying, they well could do this and remain orthodox, then that calls Mike’s (3) statement into serious question.

(6) – (8) — We agree with Mike except I do not think that the goal of the sodomite lobby is not to put sodomite marriage on part with Heterosexual marriage but the LGBT goal is to normalize sodomite marriage while abnormalizing heterosexual marriage.

(9) – (13) — We pass on.

Another missive from Dr. Horton was later forthcoming,

(1) “Being open to affirming a civil arrangement that allows partners inheritance, insurance, and other economic benefits, is NOT being open to same-sex relationships!!! (2) My point was to say that the gay lobby is not really interested in equal rights, but in equal affirmation of gay and heterosexual marriage. (3) So Christians should NOT treat the marriage debate as if it were equivalent to civil rights. (4) Some Christians do argue that we should allow a pagan state to honor “life commitments” regardless of marriage, but to argue that this should be called MARRIAGE is ultimately not a question of civil rights but of the meaning of marriage itself.

(5) I cannot help the fact that some have apparently overlooked the distinction I’ve made—and the fact that it’s part of an argument AGAINST gay marriage. (6) I can only hope that people would not spread false impressions based on where they think it will lead rather than what I actually argued.

In Christ,

Mike Horton

(1) — This sentence is a study in contradiction.

I think the famous R2K dualism is playing in here.

Mike has no problem with the legal infrastructure being set up by the Government. Mike has no problem with the objective legislation being put into place. However, Mike does have a problem if two people actually start engaging in the sodomite behavior that the legal infrastructure supports and honors.

So, his dualism allows the public structures but not the private behaviors. This is classic R2K speak. Having divided the world into the common and grace realm and having said that the Church may not make pronouncements on what the State does in the common realm, though retaining the right to speak with God’s voice regarding individual personal sin, the R2K thinker can posit a position where the public infrastructure for Sodomite behavior is legalized while insisting at the same time that they are not being open to same-sex relationships. Such a position only makes sense in a R2K Alice in Wonderland World. It’s like saying that while one is open to setting up the infrastructure for abortion in terms of abortion doctors, fetus removal systems, abortuaries, legal protection, etc. one is not, by doing so, communicating an openness to the act of abortion.

In fairness to the Doctor from Westminster Seminary Ca. it is possible that he is saying that while the act of sodomy is sinful the Church has no business to suggest that it is criminal and therefore Christians could very well support domestic unions as sanctioned by the Civil Magistrate. So, in such a scenario Christians could be Christian and support the non-Criminality of domestic partnership in theory while opposing the sin of sodomy itself. The problem here is that God has criminalized sodomy but Dr. Horton doesn’t believe that God’s unchanging law is unchanging on this point and so we are where we are.

(4) — We must keep in mind the distinction between Defacto realities and Dejure realities. Legalized domestic partnerships are defacto Marriage even if not Dejure marriage. Which is to say that they are marriage in all but title. Christians who support domestic unions are supporting defacto sodomite marriage even if opposing dejure sodomite marriage. At this point, it is all about semantics.

(5) – (6) — Dr. Horton has no one but himself to blame for people misunderstanding him. If other Christians do not think in a dualistic R2K worldview you can not fault them for interpreting R2K words through a non dualistic grid.

One more connection between R2K and Anabaptism

” … the government of Reformation led Basel considered anabaptists to be a threat to the state because the anabaptists refused to recognize any form of goverment as being Christian.”

Calvin & The Anabaptist Radicals
Willem Balke

Of course this is also true of R2K. R2K likewise refuses to recognize any form of government as being Christian. For R2K Christianity is a religion that does not impinge directly upon the public square of the common realm, though indirectly R2K Christianity does because individuals operating in the public square are Christian, though they are Christians who do not fool themselves into thinking they can have Christian culture, a Christian social order or a Christian government.

God’s 9th Word — Part II

As we begin this morning we want to connect God’s Character to God’s law.

GOD IS JUST

Scripture teaches repeatedly that “God is just.”

Dt. 32:4 “ The Rock! His work is perfect,
For all His ways are [a]just;
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,
Righteous and upright is He.

Psalm 33:4 For the word of the Lord is upright,
And all His work is done in faithfulness.
5 He loves righteousness and justice;
The earth is full of the lovingkindness of the Lord.

Even the pagan Kings could testify as did Nebuchadnezzar,

Daniel 4:37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are [a]true and His ways [b]just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride.”

And when all is said and done, God’s justice will be a theme in the singing in the final age

Revelation 15:3 And they *sang the song of Moses, the bond-servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,

“ Great and marvelous are Your works,
O Lord God, the Almighty;
Righteous and true are Your ways,
King of the nations!

The character of “God as just” is seen in His ten words given to mankind. In our series on God’s justice on display in the Ten Commandments we have seen repeatedly that God is just and righteous and has given men, as His image bearers, His just character to live by.

GOD’S JUSTICE REPLICATED IN HIS PEOPLE

In Psalm 37 we see a connection between God who is just and His love for those who live by His just Character.

Psalm 37:28 For the Lord loves justice
And does not forsake His godly ones;
They are preserved forever,
But the descendants of the wicked will be cut off.
29 The righteous will inherit the land
And dwell in it forever.
30 The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom,
And his tongue speaks justice.
31 The law of his God is in his heart;
His steps do not slip.

God is Just and He loves seeing His justice in His Redeemed people as His Law is in their hearts.

We shouldn’t need to say this but we will nonetheless. It is understood that our only righteousness is found in Jesus Christ who is our law keeping perfection before the Father. But it is precisely because we are counted as having fulfilled the law in Jesus Christ that we esteem God’s law.

God is just, and we are just in Christ, and so we seek to speak up God’s justice by advocating for and living by God’s law.

BECAUSE WE ASPIRE TO TAKE GOD’S JUSTICE SERIOUSLY WE ESTEEM GOD’S LAW

This is why we spend time considering the ten words. We spend time considering God’s ten words because we desire to live the abundant life and we desire for God’s justice to be known among the nations.

This just character of God as seen in God’s law is seen as a threat by those who prefer to define justice according to their own law word. They feel threatened by God’s just character and so God’s law.

But, we might ask, is so threatening about God’s law?

Is it threatening that all people might honor, respect, and submit to lawful authorities? (#5)

Is it threatening that all people be committed to protecting the lives, and welfare of all other men? (#6)

Is it threatening that all people be committed to their own spouses and that all be committed to ending sexual exploitation? (#7)

Is it threatening that all people refused to steal property of others thus protecting their own material welfare? (#8)

And in light of the fact that all of this expresses God’s just Character, would it be threatening if everyone took this God seriously? (#1 – 4)

These commandments of God are those commandments that people have serious problems with. Because these laws are so threatening they must be removed from the places were children gather, they must be removed from the places where litigants gather, and they must not be appealed to as a basis for public policy.

Yet despite this cavil against God’s law if we as God’s people were to cease advocating for God’s law in our own personal lives and for the public square we would be left being in opposition to the character of the God we say we serve.

When it comes to God’s justice whoever is not with God is against God, and whoever does not gather with God scatters.

And so we teach and esteem God’s law. Not as our righteousness before God. We have that in our Lord Christ. No, we teach and esteem God’s law out of a sense of gratitude and love for the fact that the law no longer condemns us because we are righteous in Christ.

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF GOD’S TRANSCENDENT LAW

And what shall happen if we give up on God’s law as a transcendent standard for our personal lives and for the public square?

Well, obviously we then will live by injustice. If God is just, and if His ways are altogether perfect, if we give up on God’s law we give up on justice and embrace injustice.

If we give up on God’s transcendent justice, as summarized in the Ten Commandments then we must find justice in the immanent.

Ill. — Transcendent Justice — Navigating by North Star

If there is no North Star then some other standard for justice has to be appealed to. That other standard will inevitably be defined by whoever has the most power.

If we will not be guided by the North Star of God’s transcendent law we will be guided by man’s immanent law that teaches, per Chairman Mao, that “power comes from the barrel of a gun.”

We will either serve the creator God’s transcendent justice or the “justice” that we create will serve the desires of which ever creature is in control.

The Russian novelist Dostoevsky, in his book “The Brother’s Karamazov” warned that once God is set aside, “man will be lifted up with a spirit of divine titanic pride and the man-god will appear.”

That man-god that Dostoevsky speaks of could be the arrival of anarchy where each man is his own god and where the law is, “every man does what is right in his own eyes.” That man-god could be the arrival of some democratic majority such as the one which was channeled by Robespierre in the French Revolution and gave the law of the guillotine. That man-god could be the arrival of some Despot and Tyrant setting atop a Nation-State who gives the law of his whim and fancy through the procedure of extra-constitutional signing statements or by fiat run around of constitutional authority. However the man-god arrives, he arrives because we failed to esteem God’s transcendent law that gives us North Star justice.

And so we appeal to God’s law as a transcendent norm that norms all other norms. We believe that if we did not appeal to God’s law as a transcendent norm that norms all other norms we would be a cruel and mean people. This is an important point to tease out for a moment.

When Alabama State Supreme Court judge Roy Moore insisted that God’s law stay in the court building in Alabama he was depicted as mean and as a obscurantist. But Judge Moore was the one who in his insistence that God’s law remain in the court room who was reflecting the milk of human kindness.

Often Christians with their transcendent norms and with their advocacy of God’s law as a universal norm that all men should be governed by are seen as the mean people but in point of fact it is people who appeal to get rid of the North Star that was given to regulate human behavior who are the cold hearted mean people. Those who desire to throw off God’s law to be ruled by the un-anchored relative law of the creature are the cruel and the despotic. Those people who have successfully thrown off God’s North Star rule of “Thou Shalt Not Kill” as being oppressive have successfully murdered over 50 million unborn children. Those people who have successfully thrown off God’s North Star rule of “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,” with legislation that has been counter intuitive to the support of the family are responsible for the destruction of untold numbers of family and individual lives. We could go on, but you get the idea, it is those who oppose God’s law as a transcendent norm that norms all norms who are the mean ones and the cold hearted.

With all that as backdrop we continue to examine God’s law.

This week we take up the 9th commandment again.

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness

That this law still has influence in our lives is seen by how we raise our children. Likely, all of us raised our children impressing upon them the importance of “telling the truth,” and we made sure that our children didn’t run with other children who we knew were capable at lying. In our marriages we expect spouses to be honest with one another and we find it to be a fault in a husband and wife that lies to their spouse. In the workplace we still look for honesty in both our employees and our employers even if we are often disappointed.

And in the public square we still have the residual influence of God’s transcendent “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness” on our books. We still have laws against perjury, slander, and libel, and fraud, and insider trading, and obstruction of justice, even if those laws are not enforced as much as they should be.

We take it for granted that “Honesty is the best policy,” but in other cultures untouched by Christian thinking this is not necessarily so.

Don Richardson, in his book, “The Peace Child” related the story of a tribe where lying and deceit was the greatest honour / trait a man could have! And upon the first telling of the death of Christ, initially the tribe thought Judas was the hero because of his deceit.

So, unlike other cultures, we still have a residue of a memory of “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.”

A people who are honest and truth tellers are necessary to have a culture that can function, whether that culture is just in a family, or a workplace, or a community. If we could not trust one another to be truth tellers relationships would not be stable, and commerce could not function. If we could not trust one another to be truth tellers we would be withdrawn and solitary. If we could not trust one another to be truth tellers we would grow to be suspicious and paranoid.

We can see how important “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness” is for healthy communities.

In the Catechism we are instructed what is required in this commandment

Answer: That I bear false witness against no man, (a) nor falsify any man’s words; (b) that I be no backbiter, nor slanderer; (c) that I do not judge, nor join in condemning any man rashly, or unheard; (d) but that I avoid all sorts of lies and deceit, as the proper works of the devil, (e) unless I would bring down upon me the heavy wrath of God; (f) likewise, that in judgment and all other dealings I love the truth, speak it uprightly and confess it; (g) also that I defend and promote, as much as I am able, the honor and good character of my neighbour. (h)

Types of False Witness

Last week we spent time on the fact that this commandment is especially in reference to the court room looking at how this commandment serves as a legal fence around the other commandments. There is no way, that judicially, one can protect Life, Marriage, and Property, unless one can get to the truth.

But clearly, the ninth commandment has in mind a much wider scope than the judicial system alone. It forbids all forms of false witness, all forms of lying (Eph.4:25).

25 Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.

The 9th commandment aims at preserving reputations and our neighbors good name. One way to destroy a man is to destroy his reputation and so the 9th commandment seeks to protect reputations by forbidding

(1) backbiting and gossip.

Scripture speaks of backbiting as done by the wicked.

Rom.1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Rom.1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Gossip may not include overt lying. Gossip may succeed in false witness by leading astray or by giving truth in such a way that one knows it will be misinterpreted.

Backbiting is a graphic word that communicates an attack on someone in such a way that he can not defend himself. In our imagination we should see it closely akin to the guy in the Movie who shoots someone in the back. Backbiting attacks a person where he is most vulnerable because he can not ward off the attack.

(2) judging rashly

The disciples passed a blind man and asked Jesus who had sinned — the blind man or his parents (John 9:2).

Clearly this was a rash judgment as Jesus points out that neither was the case.

We need to remember this prohibition as we deal with people. Sometimes it seems so obvious what motives for people’s behavior that is reported to us, but we must be careful not to judge rashly. Matters are often not what they first seem. We should try to give people the benefit of the doubt … especially those that we know.

As we enter into this election cycle it will be important for us to not judge rashly. Advertisements on all sides are aimed at us spending 30 or 60 seconds to convince us to judge rashly. Of course judgments are necessary but we should try to, as much as possible, arm ourselves with all the facts before we come to a conclusion.

(3) Libel.

Libel is lying openly and intentionally in print.

Libel often occurs by twisting someone’s ones words, by giving half a quote or by not giving the full context. Truth is in precision.

When we enter into this kind of behavior we are violating the 9th commandment.

As Christians we are to be characterized as dealing in truth.

Jesus said that when we speak lies we speak the Devil’s language. (John 8:44)

Elsewhere Scripture teaches,

Prov.12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight. Prov.13:5 A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.

Jesus Christ Our Truth Before God

We are liars. None of us keep the command to not bear false witness perfectly.

And so we must constantly repair to Christ.

Our trusting in Christ does not give us license to lie (shall we go on sinning that Grace might increase?) but it does remind us that when give up on our own self righteousness in terms of bearing false witness, Christ is the one who is our righteousness before God.

Caleb’s Baptism — Heidelberg Catechism Q. 16

Question 16. Why must he be very man, and also perfectly righteous?

Answer: Because the justice of God requires that the same human nature which has sinned, should likewise make satisfaction for sin; (a) and one, who is himself a sinner, cannot satisfy for others. (b)

We have established if we are to be rescued from the just wrath of God we need someone else to do the rescuing since we only increase God’s anger with us daily because of our sin nature and our sins. We have established that the rescuer is also called a “mediator” since He represents both God to us and us to God. We have seen that the mediator we need must be more then a mere creature since a mere creature could not endure the just penalty of God for sin. In other words were our mediator only a mere creature there would be more penalty left to endure after the mere creature had expired and so our rescue would fail. We have seen that the mediator must be man without sin, yet also God. Now we are looking at why the mediator, who will be our rescuer from God’s wrath, must have those qualities.

The catechism, following Scripture, teaches us that our rescuer mediator must be very man (i.e. – thoroughly man) because as it is man who sinned the representative for man (mediator) must be man as well. Scripture teaches that God is just and in being just God requires skin for skin. Man has done the sinning. Man must pay the penalty. Scripture teaches that as all mankind fell in Adam so all of God’s new mankind is restored in the second Adam who reversed Adam’s fall by withstanding the death penalty for sin (Romans 5:12-21).

Scripture is repeatedly clear on this point,

“Hebrews.2:14– Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Note here that we are clearly taught that Jesus Christ was thoroughly man and that as our mediator, and in our place, he bore the penalty of death for our deliverance.

1 Pet.3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Note again the clarity of Scripture. Christ, as very man, was the one who stood in our place and received upon Himself, as our representative, our punishment.

Isa.53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isa.53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Isa.53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isa.53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Isa.53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Clearly the Catechism is correct in telling us that our mediator must be thoroughly man. Of course the implication of this is that Jesus Christ had all the characteristics associated with man. He grew tired. He wept. He was attracted to women. He developed blisters. As a baby he had to be diapered. He grew frustrated. He knew anger. He was thoroughly man.

However, the Catechism gives a qualifier. Our mediator must not only be thoroughly and completely man, sharing our human nature, but He must also be man without sin. If we are to be rescued from God’s just wrath the man doing the rescuing must neither have a sin nature nor must he have ever sinned. As the Catechism says, our rescuer mediator must be completely righteous. The reason is straightforward. Since sin requires the death penalty (“the soul that sinneth shall surely die”) the one who pays for other men’s penalty must not have any sin of His own since if he had His own sin, He would have to die to pay for His sin and could not be a substitute death for others.

The reality that Christ had no sin is taught in Hebrews,

4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

And again a few chapters later,

Heb.7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Heb.7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

We should probably point out here that another word for “mediator,” is “Priest.” In the Old Testament the Priests were those who represented God to the people and the people to God. They were the mediators, who by their work in the Sacrificial system rescued God’s people from God’s just wrath. The Hebrews 7 passage reveals Christ’s perfection in as much as He had no need to offer up sacrifice for His own sins. He had no sins that against which God could ever be angry.

As we end here, let us emphasize again the legal nature of Christianity. The rescue Christ brings to His people is a rescue concerned with satisfying God’s justice against sin. The Father had a writ against sin and if He did not punish sin He would have been unjust and so could not have been God. The reason we take some time to point this out is that modern Christianity wants to talk of the Christian faith in terms of “relationship,” and there is some truth to that (though far less than what it is given in the current church). Before we can talk about “having a relationship with God” (whatever that means in the concrete) we must first talk about the issue of justice. Christianity is a religion that is concerned about justice and God’s grace, that creates a relationship between God and man, only comes to us because God’s justice has been satisfied. Christians who can not talk about the Christian faith in terms of judicial categories are, at best, very weak Christians.

God’s justice demanded that sinners pay for sin. God’s justice demanded that if we were going to have a mediator He must be perfect man and very God. God’s justice accepted Christ’s death as our own. God’s justice, having been satisfied God can pardon (another term from the courtroom) man and free him from his condemnation (another courtroom term).

Ask The Pastor — Isn’t Postmillennialism Naive?

Brother Bret McAtee,

If the Calvinist System of thought has been around a few hundred years why aren’t things improving if it is the anwser, and why have the proponents of Calvinist thought, ie the presbyterians,fallen into liberalism as fast or faster than those of other systems? I think it is kind of strange to hear a Calvinist think that man is going to bring back Christ by providing Him a Christian world. Seems things are going the other way. I would be really discouraged if I thought it was because I wasn’t trying hard enough. Which leads to the question can we live the Christian life or are we sinners until death?

Steve,

Thanks for your questions. I hope I can give an answer that does justice to the seriousness behind their intent.

‎1.) Are you really arguing Steve that the last 100 years have not seen vast improvements? Why I’m old enough to remember my Grandmothers house with no running water and no indoor bathroom. We have had advances in medicine, technology, and science. Our quality and duration of life has increased markedly. So, I would say there clearly have been improvements and those improvements can be traced directly or indirectly to Biblical Christianity and a Biblical worldview.

2.) Presbyterians have fallen into Liberalism because they are sinners. Of course the problem isn’t with the faith itself. Our sin, as Presbyterians, doesn’t prove the inadequacy of our undoubted Catholic Christian Faith. Rather our sin as Presbyterians proves that we seldom live up to all we know to be true. Secondly, on this point, Biblical eschatology does not argue that the advance of the Kingdom is always evenly steadily upwards. We understand, that in God’s economy there are tides of prosperity that advance and decline, but like the tide that goes in and out we always see the tide coming in further up with each new high tide.

Here I paraphrase Robert E. Lee who summarizes nicely the Postmillennial understanding,

“The truth is this: The march of Providence is so slow, and our desires so impatient; the work of progress is so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is Christ’s Sovereignty in and over history that teaches us to hope.”

3.) Of course no Calvinist (Biblical Christian) thinks that he is, by his efforts, going to bring back Christ. No man who knows himself would ever think that. No, it is the work of the Holy Spirit in His people, often despite His people, who will do the work of conversion and will ready the world for Christ’s return. Remember I Cor. 15 “He must reign until He puts all things under His feet.” It is only after all things are under His feet (the world’s rebellion put down) that will find our benevolent and great Warrior King, the Lord Christ returning.

I look forward to that day. Even if it should not happen in my lifetime I look forward to doing my part to aid in the hastening of that day.

4.) Finally, the answer to your last question is, “yes.” We remain, throughout our lives, at the same time sinner and saint. We are not what we once were but we are not yet what we will one day be. Our obedience, by the Spirit’s sanctifying work is greater than it was, but not as great as it will be, and yet even when it is greater we will have to say “we are unprofitable servants, we have only done what we ought.”