We finish fisking the Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration)
We will start with a quote by highly regarded Reformed Theologian Gisbertus Voetius
“The frauds, the injustices, the greedy excesses, the rapacious plunders, the usuries, the calumnies, by which they incessantly attack Christians, are hidden from no man, except for him who never has seen Jews, or never heard anyone tell him what a Jew is.”
Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676)
Dutch Theologian
Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration — hereinafter referred to as AD)
Humanist Manifesto III (AD)
“We deny that the church of Jesus Christ in its particular locale has any compulsory quotas or assigned ratios for ethnic mix. The make-up of any local church community will be dependent on many socio-cultural, lingual and regional factors, and there is no requirement that any given congregation “look like the new Jerusalem.” But We FURTHER deny that a Christian congregation has the right to arbitrarily exclude any person based on prejudice, malice or bigotry toward their ethnic group.”
Paleocon,
The church is a place where all sinners, of whatever tribe, tongue, and nation, are welcome to hear the word of God.
However, having said that I do believe that Churches will operate better as practicing what is called “The Homogenous principle,” as articulated by Donald McGavran. Like the Greek Jewish widows in Acts 6, people will do better with leadership that comes from their own people groups. I agree with Reformed Theologian John Frame when he wrote;
“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers inthe faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”
John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”
Humanist Manifesto III (AD)
“We affirm that the ultimate bond or good for temporal human life is not grounded in absolute loyalty to blood and soil, family or nation, but in the totalizing bond of the Kingdom of God through the Covenant of Grace (Matt. 3:9; 6:10; 8:11;12:46-50; Lk.14:26; Eph. 2:11-21; Rev.7:9-10).”
Paleocon
Well the key above is that word “absolute” isn’t it?
If the above is saying we may not make a idol out of our family (familolatry) then who could disagree?
However, why must we make a dichotomy out of faith and family. Isn’t it possible that many in our family will own Christ and so we can have allegiance to both family and covenant at the same time.
Also, let us keep in mind Romans 9. Paul did not seem to make the kind of false dichotomy there that is made above. Listen to Reformed Theologian John Murray here;
“The use of the term ‘brethren’ bespeaks the bond of affection which united the apostle to his kinsmen. ‘According to the flesh’ is added to show that those for whom he had concern were not contemplated as brethren in the Lord…but it also expresses what is implicit in the term ‘kinsmen’ and supplies an additional index to the bond of love created by this natural, genetic relationship.”
John Murray
Commentary Romans 9:3
In the previous century Reformed Theologian Charles H. Hodge could also write;
“Brethren according to the Flesh.”
Romans 9:3
Paul had two classes of brethren; those who were with him the children of God in Christ; these he calls brethren in the Lord, Philip, i. 14, holy brethren, &c. The others were those who belonged to the family of Abraham. These he calls brethren after the flesh, that is, in virtue of natural descent from the same parent. Philemon he addresses as his brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord. The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race and country.
Charles Hodge
Commentary Romans 9
The Boomer-Cons don’t sound like previous generations of Reformed theologians on this subject.
Humanist Manifesto III (AD)
“We affirm that in all things, including the treatment of our fellow human beings, the model man and example is not the life and teaching of Aristotle, nor any other merely historical personage, but the Lord Jesus Christ himself, Son of Man and eternal Son of God.”
Paleocon,
Correct. And that explains why I have written to unwind your nonsense Manifesto.
I like the way Lancelot Andrewes lays out orders and degrees of love.
“Every sinner, as he is a sinner, is to be hated; every man, as he is a man, is to be loved. Let us love men so that we love not their sins; and love them for that which God made them, not that which by sin they made themselves. For degrees, one man is nearer than another. It is certain there are degrees; for to omit our duties towards our parents is worse than to omit the same duties towards a stranger. The order of our love must be thus: to God, to our own souls, to the souls of our brethren before our own bodies, to our own bodies before other men’s, to the bodies of our neighbors.
[Of the bodies of our neighbors there are also degrees to be followed]: first, to them that have need; and of those, first to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10); and of them, first to our countrymen, brethren and companions (Ps. 122:8); and of these, first them that are our friends and acquaintances; and of them, first to them of our own household and kindred (1 Tim. 5:8); and of our kindred, first the wife (Gen. 2:24, 1 Sam. 1:8).
Of the manner of our love: ‘not so much as thyself, but after the same manner.’ Because thou lovest God, (and therefore all things which are God’s), for this cause love thy brother. pp. 172-3. The rule is that the love to myself must be the rule of the love to my neighbor, and so it is not required that I should do any more for my neighbor than I would do for myself. p. 209.”
Lancelot Andrewes, ‘Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine and Other Minor Works’