McAtee Contra Dr. Andy Walker & The Godless Coalition II

Continuing with my fisking of this Godless Coalition article,

American Culture Is Broken. Is Theonomy the Answer? (

Dr. Andy Walker (AW) writes,

What does Theonomy have to say right now to the church in China or Iran?

BLMc responds,

Theonomy has the same thing to say to the church in China or Iran as to the Church in America. Theonomy says to each and all;

“Christ is Lord and as Lord His Law-Word is to be owned, cherished, and championed at every point whenever possible. Be encouraged dear Church that God’s Law-Word is an anvil that has wore out many a tyrant’s hammers. Be faithful. When possible be like the Hebrew mid-wives in disobedience to tyrants. When possible rise up and crush tyrants who rebel against the Crown-Rights of Jesus Christ. Do not lose your first love just so you can go along to get along with tyrants.”

Now, one wonders what AW would say right now to the Church in China and Iran? Probably something like… “Make sure you kiss the arse of the wicked sovereign even if it means disobeying God’s Law-Word because God realizes at times that blaspheming Him by bowing to the Tyrant state is necessary.”

AW wrote,

It is an over-realized eschatology with a static view of culture that will disappoint its supporters and make them grow ever strident in their resentment toward culture. A more accurate assessment of history understands culture as buffeted by times of both victory and defeat. To pick either victory or defeat as the litmus test for the church’s mission in society is to subject oneself to either utopia or despair.

BLMc responds

1.) First of all, it is hard to believe that a Ph.D. could be so torpid that he does not realize that Theonomy is not an eschatology. Dr. Greg Bahnsen conceded, for example, that it was possible for one to be a Theonomist and be Amillennial.

This is really quite embarrassing that someone could pick up a pen to write a hit piece on “Theonomy” and not realize that Theonomy is not an eschatology. Having said that I am more than willing to admit that most Theonomists I know are postmill but that still doesn’t mean that Theonomy is an eschatology.

2.) The statement that theonomy has a static view of culture is almost as embarrassing as saying that theonomy is an eschatology. It is precisely because theonomy believes that culture can change from non-Christian to Christian that theonomy remains so hopeful.

3.) If culture is defined as the outward expression of a people’s religious beliefs then it is the case that Christians should be increasingly strident and resentful towards Christ-hating culture since Christ-hating cultures are being shepherded by some false God and some false religion. As a Christian am I supposed to be giddy over cultures that defy Christ’s Lordship? Is AW suggesting here that Christians are supposed to make themselves at home in cultures that are anti-Christ? If so, people better quit writing tomes about those evil German Christians who did nothing during the Nazi regime.

4.) Theonomy isn’t asking for instant victory in the Kulturkampf. Theonomy is only asking that people like DW be faithful to Christ in their culture. Theonomists perfectly understand that in God’s inscrutable providence varying cultures wax and wane. No theonomist I know believes in Utopia in the sense that man apart from the Spirit of Christ is going to usher in social order Nirvana. These stupid accusations have been raised many times and likewise answered many times. Walker is just creating a straw man and then tearing down his straw man.

AW wrote,

A Christian’s posture toward the world must simultaneously embrace both glory and the cross. Inhabiting this paradox is understandably complex, but it gives us a proper perspective to see that the church’s mission throughout various societies can look very different depending on the societal context.

BLMc responds,

1.) Earlier in this same article AW faulted theologies of glory. He now admits here that there are times when we must embrace a theology of glory. Now I agree with him here but I can’t help wonder which end of his contradiction he is embracing – Theology of glory always bad or theology of glory sometimes needs to be embraced? Make up your mind man.

2.) The Church’s mission can look very different through various societies depending on societal context. I know of no theonomist who would disagree with that statement. However, the theonomist would add that in any societal context, regardless of the Church’s mission in that societal context the Church – both Institution and Organic – must tell the society to “Kiss the Son lest they perish in the way.” “I love the smell of Theonomy in the morning.”

AW wrote,

It’s debatable whether Theonomy desires a formal unity of church and state. Doubtless, though, church and state work in unison to promote each other’s interests. With intention, they mutually reinforce and consolidate one another’s authority. This can be both good and bad. It is bad when religion becomes the government’s handmaiden or vice versa; good when the government enables the gospel to be proclaimed freely (1 Tim. 2:1–2).

BLMc responds,

1.) It is not debatable in the least that Theonomy desires a formal unity of Church and State. The fact that Walker implies that it is debatable points us towards the idea that Walker doesn’t know the difference between a theocracy (which is an inescapable category and as inescapable all theonomist embrace) and an Ecclesiocracy which no theonomist embraces.

2.) All Governments at all times use religion as a handmaiden. Right now in these united States the Government is using the religion of Cultural Marxist humanism as a handmaiden. So, as all governments at all times use religion as a handmaiden then all Christians at all times should champion all Governments to submit to Christianity so that the Government can be the handmaiden to Christ. This is all theonomy, following Scripture, asks for.

AW wrote,

Though medieval Europe was not strictly Theonomic, the first thing to learn about strong unity between church and state is how undesirable it is. A nostalgia that looks with longing on “Christendom” erases the bloodiness that resulted from church and state working in tandem. Absent from history is a tradition of church-state unity that was good for the church’s purity or religious dissent.

1.) Andy can talk all he likes about a strong unity between church and state being undesirable but since all States are a reflection of and descend from some God or god concept it is simply the case that Church and State always walk together. For example, we right now are experiencing a strong union between our current State and the Church (i.e. – Public Schools teaching the religion of Cultural Marxism). Now I quite agree this is undesirable but only because cultural Marxism is a false religion. If Biblical Christianity was the religion of the land I would find it quite desirable. So, once again Andy is wrong about Church and State working together in their proper jurisdictional spheres being undesirable. The Christian Church working with the Christian State is always desirable. Anti-Christ Churches working with Anti-Christ states though is always undesirable.

2.) Now AW raises the old saw about how bloody Christian reigns were and we concede that there were times in history that Christian reigns did unchristian things. However, shall we compare the bloodiness of Charlemagne with the bloodiness of Stalin? Shall we compare the burning of witches at Salem with the Christians killed in Rome’s persecutions? Shall we compare the Inquisition to the numbers that Pol Pot rang up?

The point here is that self-hating Christians like AW are forever ringing their hands over “the bloodiness of Christendom,” without realizing that perhaps Christendom is the least bad of all options. As Church and State always work together maybe Christendom was the least bad combination of Church and State possible? That is the way I read history.

I get weary with Christians lamenting Christendom as if they’d prefer Liberaldom, or Islamadom, or Talmud-dom. Kingdoms crafted by the combination of Church and State are inescapable as we have shown, and since that is true I’ll take Christendom for 1000 Alex.

3.) I’d say the Church-State harmony of early Puritan New England was pretty good. I’d say the Church-state harmony of the Antebellum South was pretty good.

4.) I am opposed to allowing for religious dissent as arising from those who hate Christ. I do not think it should be allowed in a Christian social order.

A Conversation on the Resurrection with my Friends on the Radio — “Political Cesspool”

James Edwards, the host of the Political Cesspool is fast becoming a new friend. James has hosted me several times on the Political Cesspool program. Tonight @ 9pm EST (2100) the program has me on to discuss the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.


2021 Good Friday Meditation #9 — Christ’s Active & Passive Obedience

The Cross of Christ can’t be understood apart from the ideas of Christ’s active and passive obedience. On the Cross, Christ obeyed the righteous demands of God’s law against the penalty of sin. On the Cross Christ passively endured the Father’s wrath thus fulfilling all righteousness.

Galatians 3:13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”

I Peter 2:24He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree,

Theologians refer to this as Christ’s passive obedience. In Christ’s passive obedience the sins of the Church are imputed to Christ as he pays for them there on the Cross as our substitute. His obedience to the demands of the law stands in the place for what we were obligated to pay ourselves. This is one of the three great imputations recorded in Scripture (the Elect’s sin to Christ).

However, theologians also speak of Christ’s active obedience thus drawing the life of Christ into the orbit of our redemption. In Christ’s active obedience Christ obeys all that His people were required to obey at the laws righteous demands. We failed in rendering up the just obedience that God’s law required and without that necessary obedience we could not have concourse with God. As such, the Father takes the Son’s obedience and receives it as our obedience. The Son’s obedience is counted as our obedience. This is the 2nd of the three great imputations to Scripture … Christ’s obedience is imputed (reckoned to our account) to the Church. This is Christ’s active obedience.

There have been some throughout history (including recently with some advocating the Federal Vision heresy) that denied the active obedience of Christ. John Wesley and the Wesleyans denied Christ’s active obedience. The problem with this position is that while our sins are indeed forgiven we are left without the righteousness required to stand in God’s presence.

Commonly, those who have denied Christ’s active obedience have also then said that we have to, upon our forgiveness, build up a righteousness that can be received by God as the righteousness required. Often in history, this became a kind of neonomianism where the righteous demands of the law are reduced so that the saved can meet the law’s demands thus being able to build up salvation capital with God. Of course, there is no good news in denying Christ’s active obedience. Any Gospel that requires me to build up righteousness capital in order to have an audience with the Father is no Gospel at all.

History tells us that the last words of the great theologian J. Gresham Machen were,

“Thank God for the active obedience of Christ… no hope without it.”

How Good is your Good Friday?


2021 Good Friday Meditation #8 — Darkness Presages New Creation

Mark 15:33, KJV: “And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.”

The sixth hour is noon; the ninth hour is 3:00 p.m. Jesus has been on the cross since the third hour: 9:00 a.m. (Mark 15:25). At 3:00 p.m., Jesus will die. Some scholars believe at the same time Jesus dies on the Cross on the other side of the city, the priests will slaughter the lambs for the Passover meals of the people who live in Judea. Other Scholars believe that the very moment Jesus is being nailed to the Cross the Passover Lambs are being killed.

Scripture often marries Darkness as a Judgment prelude to a new creation. Before the earth is fashioned we read that “darkness covered the deep.” Soon following we see God’s new creation coming to pass.

Darkness was the ninth Judgment plague God put on the Egyptians (Exodus 10:21–29). The darkness enveloped Egypt for three days; in the death of the Lord Christ, it lasts three hours. Soon Israel would be released as God’s new creation people.

As God took the firstborns of the Egyptians to secure the rescue of His people the Israelites, God now accepts the death of His own Firstborn as a “ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). In each case, however, judgment typified by darkness is the prelude to deliverance.

In Isaiah 60:2 we read, “For behold, darkness covers the earth, and thick darkness is over the peoples; but the LORD will rise upon you, and His glory will appear over you.”

With the death of Christ, the darkness covering the earth serves as a metaphor for the judgment darkness covering the nations. However, three days hence the LORD will rise and His glory will appear and with His glory, the new creation is established.

2021 Good Friday Meditation #7 — Christ Died For God

On Good Friday it is good to keep in mind that before Christ dies for the Elect, Christ died for God.

Romans 3:25f

25 whom God set forth as a [h]propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Donald Macleod gets at all this in his “Christ Crucified: Understanding the Atonement — p 71”

“It was no part of the work of Christ to make God love us, The very fact of his being on earth at all was proof of the divine love. The business of the atonement, therefore, was to propitiate the God who already loves us: to lay the foundation for an advocacy directed towards him specifically as Father (1 John 2: 1). God unequivocally requires such propitiation, but in the last analysis God also provides the propitiation and God even becomes the propitiation. The whole cost of our redemption is borne by the triune God. In that sense, the atonement is a transaction entirely internal to the trinity. But by virtue of the incarnation, it is also external. It takes place not in heaven, but on Calvary; not in eternity, but on Good Friday.”

This is the theocentric view of the Cross. This is the God-intoxicated understanding of the Cross. Before we speak about our reconciliation, our redemption, the sacrifice for us, before we speak of ransom, expiation, propitiation for us, we have needs to speak of this theocentric idea that Christ died for God. Christ satisfies and exalts the Father’s justice before it satisfies our sin problem.

Now let us take this one step further. Why is it that we are redeemed, reconciled, and propitiated for? Is it simply in order that we might be delivered from our peril? No … a thousand times no. Our rescue isn’t about us. Our rescue is so that we can make God’s name as famous as it never ceases to be.

This was all limned out even in the Old Testament,

The Redemption of Israel from Egypt accomplished by God is God-centered. For, as Ezra will later say to the Lord, in saving Israel, “you made a name for yourself (Ezra 9:10)”

Thomas Schreiner
The Beauty of the King — p. 217

Why would we think it any different when that typological Redemption of Israel is fulfilled in Jesus Christ Redeeming His Church? That Redemption as accomplished by God was and remains God-centered. God’s intent in saving His Church is not primarily about our rescue, or our being delivered from sin, Satan, self, and hell. No, those are only proximate purposes of God’s redeeming His people. Ultimately God’s redeeming His Church, in the sweep of Redemption centering in Christ, remains to make a name for Himself. God Redeemed His people so that His name may become as famous as it never ceases to be.

Our Redemption is not primarily about us. Our Redemption did not find its teleological purpose and end on and in the Elect. God did not Redeem us primarily because He loves us, though indeed He does. God Redeemed us because He primarily loves Himself and His glory. God Redeemed us so that He might make a name for Himself through His Redeemed people.

We were not the center of God’s purposes in saving us. The center was and is the making known of the majesty and glory of God. The center was and is that the goodness and beauty of God might become legendary among those with eyes to see. The center was and remains that in our Redemption the Cosmos would be awe-struck that such a great God could take such a lowly rabble as the Redeemed and use them to conquer all opposition while making the glory of His name known.