Recently at Green Baggins there was a dust up surrounding a book recommendation that Lane made. The book is by J. Ligon Duncan and it is an attempt to deconstructing Theonomy and Reconstructionism. Now recently I critiqued a paper by Duncan that he wrote on this very subject. You can find that critique here,
https://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&cat=18
I may decide to analyze some of the relativism that showed up in the thread at Green Baggins as many of the respondents there gnashed their teeth, threw dust into the air, and took a vow not to eat until all the theonomists were killed. (Would that they would keep their vows.)
The idiocy reached it’s high point when one gentleman said that
I don’t consider the theonomist challenges for us to objectively prove, without the Mosaic Law, that X is wrong and Y is the equitable punishment for X to be effective arguments. I may not know how to prove such things …
This is called apologetics by intuition. “I can’t prove how the theonomists are wrong on their desire to keep God’s law as the standard but I don’t need to prove it because I know they just must be wrong.”
Then this paragon of brilliance goes on to say,
Now the matter of *demonstrating* or proving the contents of innate knowledge like natural law in the manner of philosophers is notoriously difficult – and the theonomists want to make much hay out of this. It is certainly a lot nicer to have a black and white text to appeal to.
By all means, God wouldn’t want us to appeal to his inspired black and white text.
Second, when the natural law theorists finally do agree I am quite sure we will be going to their black and white texts to appeal to.
Third, it is notoriously difficult because it is impossible outside of a Christian Worldview. However if you have a Christian Worldview you don’t need to do it because then you will appeal to the black and white bible text which will correspond perfectly with the natural law you have “discovered” beginning with Christian presuppositions.
The above blockquoted statement is nothing but willful stupidity. Pagan philosophers will never prove the contents of innate knowledge because they are suppressing the truth of innate knowledge in unrighteousness. This is why Natural law will never ever work outside of a Christian environment. Natural law, like general revelation, most certainly exists, but those who keep appealing to Natural law as the standard by which the laws of nations or by which international law is made refuse to take into account the effect of the fall. Natural man as an axe to grind when he approaches Natural law. He will never conclude, starting from himself, how to govern himself in ways that are equitable and just.
All I know is that the Bible says that everyone knows natural law and is therefore culpable for it, whether or not I can do a good job of constructive arguments to prove those laws or not. The theonomist’s challenge cannot undo Romans 1.
What theonomist is trying to undo Romans 1?
What theonomist would deny that everyone knows natural law?
What the theonomist denies is that knowing natural law and admitting to knowing natural law are two different propositions. You see we read all of Romans 1 where we learn that the natural law that the natural man knows is being suppressed in unrighteousness. Since natural law is being suppressed by natural man Theonomist are not so stupid as to keep appealing to Natural law, as “discovered” and articulated by the natural man as the standard for being governed. Theonomy realizes that the natural man knows natural law but we also realize how natural the conclusion is that natural man will never admit to reading natural law right because he hates the author of natural law.
Two weeks of restoring my sanity on vacation, and somebody has to point out that thread on Green Baggins securing my restoration to edginess.
Bret,
I have myself been dismayed with a recent thread on Green Baggins where some supposed Calvinists have suggested that Christians may disagree over whether it is appropriate for the civil government to outlaw abortion & punish abortionists. I don’t count myself as a theonomist per se (and perhaps you’ll show me the error of my way!), but such flagrant disregard for the law of God astounds me.
Kyle,
I wish you would have given me that link.
What you have mentioned is perfectly consistent with some of the type of things that Lee and Misty Iron have promulgated. And it is perfectly reasonable IF you believe that the Church as the Church has nothing to say to the public realm. If you believe that only individual Christians can speak to the public realm then any morality in the public square becomes just a matter of might makes right or it becomes a matter of who can force everyone to accept their version of Natural law. And if it is a Christian whose views come out on top then he will conveniently label those public square views as “Christian,” but they really can’t be “Christian” since God’s Word isn’t about such things.
These people are setting up the destruction of Christian civilization. If their “reasoning” prevails the Church will become a “saving” institution that has little or no effect on people’s living.
Bret,
I wasn’t sure if you’d want to be subjected to
something that could make you even edgier!
Here is the link:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/firearms-theology-and-fantasy/#comment-54270
I’ve started you off at comment #90 as that is
where the thread headed toward abortion. There’s
plenty of interesting stuff above that but more
to the topic of the original post concerning
PCA TE Lance Lewis’ writings opposing gun ownership.
Bret,
I wasn’t sure if you’d want to be subjected to something that could make you even edgier!
Here is the link:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/firearms-theology-and-fantasy/#comment-54270
I’ve started you off at comment #90 as that is where the thread headed toward abortion. There’s plenty of interesting stuff above that but more to the topic of the original post concerning PCA TE Lance Lewis’ writings opposing gun ownership.
The poster named “Zrim” has serious problems. He has tried to argue something bizarre over here:
http://deregnochristi.org/2008/08/30/finally-hope/#comments
When I pointed out that he said
“we agree that one’s theology can affect one’s politics” and then “religious confession has nothing to do with governing,” he replied:
“It’s one and the same. That’s the point.”
I know a word for that: Doublethink.
Zrim is infected with the R2Kt virus. You can’t expect him to make any sense.
Bret,
Would you go so far as to say that R2Kt is a separation of Bible and state? That appears to be what Zrim is implicitly advocating, but I’m not sure if other R2K guys would be that radical.
I mean, for example, that everyone who signs this bailout plan is about to commit an act of theft. But by what standard can it be called theft? R2Kt says natural law, but then we could haggle about that all day. Bush says that the bailout must be done now or else we’ll all suffer. In theory a magistrate could do what he pleases, so long as it is “reasonable” and “arguably good.”
Joshua,
From my understanding of R2Kt virus the position is that the Bible isn’t about such things as economics or government or civil rights or any number of things that happen in the public square. The Bible is redemptive history and only has to do with redemption and what that redemption looks like in individual and personal ethics, as well as Church life.
Because the Bible isn’t about other matters the Church as the Church should not pronounce on other matters from the pulpit. The other matters are to be determined from Christ’s Lordship as expressed in Natural Law as determined, as one of their proponents recently put it, “by spending time in the Library” presumably with other books besides the Bible.
So, yes, I would say “separation of Bible and State” is a fair understanding of R2Kt virus position.
Looks like my post that you responded to went missing.
So what is to be done with the Westminster Confession?:
“Civil magistrates . . . [have the] authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.”
Are those “ordinances” considered as something derived from natural law by R2K?
Joshua,
I honestly don’t know what they do with that, though I am sure that they have some way to answer it to their satisfaction..
Here’s a post by Todd, #115
“Again, I am not suggesting government shouldn’t outlaw abortion. They certainly have a right to. But I do have some questions based upon your statements. You equate America’s abortion policies to the holocaust. But the German government actively murdered innocent people. Our government is not aborting babies, nor is it forcing anyone to. Are you suggesting there is a moral equivalence between America’s policy and China’s forced abortion policies? In the other examples, the government doesn’t outlaw bestiality, prostitution (Nevada), or homosexual acts; does this the mean the government is responsible each time an individual commits such sins? Seems to me an individual is responsible for his/her own sins, regardless of whether it is allowed or not by the state.”
Rom. 13:3 flies right in the face of this
“For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil”
You know so much pontification pours forth from sheer ignorance.
First, while it is true that the Federal Government does not force people to get abortions it creates a climate of abortion by its policies where it supports planned parenthood and United Nations programs that export abortion to third world countries. So, the Feds may not be guilty of first degree murder but they certainly are guilty of being accessory to murder.
Second, even the R2Kt virus guys admit that the magistrate has a responsibility to enforce the 2nd table. Therefore I would say that it is a shame and a sign of how our government has become illegitimate because it does not outlaw bestiality or faggotry.
Third, I would say that when a government doesn’t legislatively pursue God’s law it is indirectly responsible each time an individual commits a sin that is also a crime that has been made legal.
JM,
The section of the WCF you cite was struck & rewritten in the American revision to read as follows:
“Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance” (WCF 23.3 in the American revision).
The portion I have emboldened above is what directly applies to the particular discussion re: abortion.