McAtee Contra Dr. Andrew Walker & the Godless Coalition — Part IX

This is part IX of my response to what has to be one of the dumbest critiques of Theonomy ever penned.

AW wrote,
Proclaiming the Gospel’s Power

In a well-intentioned effort to protect biblical sufficiency, Theonomy stretches the concept beyond biblical recognition. It yields a grasp of Scripture more focused on casuistry than redemptive drama.

BLMc responds,

1.) So says Andrew Walker. Big deal. A lot of different people say a lot of different things. Who is Andrew Walker that I should be mindful of him? In other words, all Walker is done in that paragraph is make assertions.

2.) I would contend however, that the nations walking in the way of the Lord Christ certainly is part of Redemptive drama. It is the kind of Redemption drama that we find in Micah 4 and Isaiah 2 which prophesies that the day of redemption is coming wherein

It shall come to pass in the latter days
That the mountain of the Lord’s house
Shall be established on the top of the mountains,
And shall be exalted above the hills;
And all nations shall flow to it.
3 Many people shall come and say,
“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Of course I read this text as a postmillennialist and Walker as a pessimillennialist would never agree but hey … we’ve spent all this time having to put up with Walker’s horrific eschatology and I think its time we let a little postmillennial redemptive drama sunshine in

AW wrote,
It would be right for a Theonomist to read this essay and ask, “But what if the nation, on the whole, experiences another awakening that produces a predominantly Christian nation? What then?”

The answer is not to enact a theonomic agenda. The answer, to quote my denomination’s confession, is that “a free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.”

BLMc responds,

1.) God forbid that any nation would enact an agenda that honors God’s word over Natural law… even if that is what people wanted.

2.) Pfffft … what do I care what a Anabaptist confession teaches. I am Reformed after all. Reformed people don’t do Anabaptist.

3.) I will stick with the original Westminster Confession which taught, contrary to the crummy Anabaptist confession that Walker adheres to,

Chapter XX
Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience

IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.

4.) Notice that Walker’s crummy Anabaptist confession makes room for all heretics being allowed to propagate their Islam, Talmudism, Humanism, Shamanism, Witch-craft, etc. Walker’s crummy Anabaptist confession provides “liberty” for wickedness to flourish. We right now have Critical Race Theory as religion thanks to that crummy Anabaptist confession. We have queer Library hour because of that crummy Anabaptist confession. We have the Baptists filing a amicus curiae to support the building of a Mosque. If Christianity requires me to support wickedness I want no part of it.

AW wrote,

We are not discipling nations for the sake of political hegemony. Satan would be content with a moral nation animated by the values of civil religion if those values eclipse the scandal of the cross. We are discipling nations to glorify Christ and to see obedience in every domain of life. Yes, that includes those who occupy government. But just government is not the object of our mission; it is a byproduct of transformed consciences adhering to the natural law, not submitting to the Mosaic law.

BLMc responds,

1.) Natural law the way that Walker embraces it is a myth. We’ve established that in our rebuttal.

2.) Except for the stupid part about consciences adhering to natural law and not God’s special revelation no theonomist would disagree with the paragraph from Walker above.

AW wrote,

American culture seems irreparably broken and perverse. We are a nation in moral rebellion against God’s creation and Word. No wonder Theonomy is tempting and attractive right now—it provides an easy adhesive to fix America’s problems. Let me suggest, though, that turning toward a just society doesn’t begin with installing parapets on our roofs (Deut. 22:8). We look not for culture to be redeemed, but for the redeemed to speak prophetically to the culture as only the church can: through the power of the gospel.

BLMc responds,

1.) Easy adhesive? Does Walker know how much work it would take for God’s people to no longer be antinomian again? In order for theonomy to gain traction theonomists have to pray that the Spirit of Christ would convert men like Walker. This is a work only God can do.

2.) Walker proves his absolute idiocy on this subject by appealing to the parapet. Theonomists going back to Bahnsen have routinely used the parapet to show the effect of embracing the civil law as adapted by the general equity. Theonomists have routinely said that the general equity on the parapet means that while we would not require building a parapet around our roofs (since we don’t entertain on pitched roofs as Israel did on their flat roofs) we might take the general equity principle of the parapet and insist that in-ground swimming pools by God’s law should have a parapet around them since someone could fall into them just as someone could fall off a roof in ancient Israel. I find it stunning that Walker is criticizing theonomy without knowing this.

3.) Theonomists do look for the culture to be reconciled to Christ. As Christians (and not Anabaptists like Walker) theonomists have been given the ministry of reconciliation ( II Cor. 5:18) and theonomist know that as men are reconciled to Christ then the culture they create will share in that reconciliation. Reconciled men create reconciled culture. So theonomists do look for culture to be reconciled but only as the inevitable byproduct of the creators of culture being reconciled. This isn’t that difficult Andy.

4.) Walker above gives us yet another false dichotomy. There is no reason that reconciled men cannot speak prophetically to a culture that is going from reconciliation to reconciliation and that as through the power of the Gospel.