The Christian Life is About Following Christ Not the Law: 12 Clarifying Propositions — A Rebuttal

The Christian Life is About Following Christ Not the Law: 12 Clarifying Propositions

Keep in mind that MT is a advocate of R2K

Matthew Tuininga writes,

My difficulty, rather, was that it quickly became apparent to me that the emphasis on the Ten Commandments is not the approach of the New Testament to the Christian life; indeed, it was obscuring it. It became clear to me that the New Testament does not identify the Ten Commandments or “the law” as the primary framework for pleasing God or conforming to his moral law. Rather, it identifies Jesus Christ, whom we are to “put on” and to whose image we are to be “conformed,” as the only perfect model of God’s moral will (or moral law). Every single New Testament writing (with only the apparent exception of James), I realized, seeks to shift our focus away from “the law” and towards Christ. If I want to follow the New Testament’s own approach to ethics, this is what I have to do as well.

A.) Note at the outset, that unlike most Reformed hermeneutics, which emphasize continuity between the covenants as they progress redemptively, what young Mr. Tuininga has done here has been to assume and emphasize discontinuity. In doing so Mr. Tuininga has posited a false dichotomy between the Old Testament saints and their New Testament counterparts. According to Matthew the Ten Commandments were for the Old Testament believer to order his walk with God by, but the New Testament believer gets to order his walk with God by a Jesus who has had the Ten Commandments abstracted from his character definition.

B.) Mr. Tuininga (MT) insists that the emphasis on the Ten Commandments is not the approach of the New Testament to the Christian life. Mr. Tuininga even adds that the emphasis on the Ten Commandment is a positive obscurantist impediment as a New Testament approach to the Christian life. If this is so for MT then how can he esteem the third part of the Heidelberg Catechism which expressly teaches an approach to the Christian life of gratitude for Deliverance from Sin and Misery that is based on the Ten commandments? When the Heidelberg Catechism approaches the Christian life so as to answer the question, “How shall we then live,” it references the Ten Commandments. Is the Heidelberg Catechism mistaken?

C.) MT tells us that the way of “the law” (Ten commandments) is not the way that we conform to God’s moral law. Hence, we learn that we care to conform to God’s moral law apart from the Ten Commandments (“the law”). Obviously what MT has done here is to abstract the moral law we are to conform to, from the Ten Commandments. Interestingly enough, this is a old neo-orthodox game where they would constantly tell us that we had to put aside the shell of the word in order to get to the kernel contained therein. For MT the Ten Commandments are the shell and the kernel contained within is the “Moral law” with which we have to be concerned. When Jesus comes, he is the Kernel of God’s Ten Commandments and NT believers are now allowed to go with Kernel Jesus while dispensing with those nasty 10 commandments. Of course the problem with this is that once the Kernel is abstracted from the shell then it is anybody’s guess as to how the kernel is defined. One man finds in Kernel Jesus an ethic that allows and encourages young Christian women to go all Bikini on the beaches while another man finds in Kernel Jesus an ethic that would advocate something more demure.

D.) MT posits another false dichotomy between Jesus Christ and the Ten Commandments and yet Jesus himself went to the law to aid and assist disciples on the Road to Emmaus to see Christ.

44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and[c] forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

So, MT would have us to believe that the NT believer is not to be concerned with the law of Moses as an approach of the New Testament to the Christian life and yet our Lord Christ Himself used the “law of Moses” in order to expose Himself to fellow travelers. But perhaps someone will object that the Luke passage is not dealing with ethics but only with seeing (understanding) Christ.

However, in Jeremiah 31 we are told in the New Covenant that,

33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Are we to understand that “the law” mentioned here is not the Ten Commandments but is instead MT’s abstracted moral law?

E.) It seems natural enough that the NT texts would focus on Jesus, since he is the author and finisher of our faith. But the idea that such a reality means that Jesus is in some kind of dichotomous opposition to God’s covenant law in no way follows. The Lord Christ was the incarnation of God’s law Word. How could we put on Christ without at the same time delighting in God’s law? MT would have us believe that the Lord Christ, was born under the law, and fulfilled the law for His “Law written on their hearts” people so that once united with the Lord Christ His people could discover an ethic to live by that was distinct from the ethic of the Ten Commandments. When the Psalmist rejoices in God’s law isn’t he at that same time rejoicing proleptically in Christ? And when the NT believers rejoices in Christ is he not at that same time rejoicing in God’s Ten Words.

It is true that to concentrate on the law without seeing Christ would be a ugly thing. It’s also true that a gratitude driven ethic that does not emphasize the Ten Commandments, as the Heidelberg Catechism does, is a ugly thing.

MT writes,

This approach does not, it needs to be emphasized, separate Christ from his law.

Since MT slices the idea of the law up pretty thinly, I think we must pause here to ask if the law that MT is speaking of in his sentence above is a law that is different from the Ten Commandments? Or is it the case that MT is saying that his approach does not separate Christ from the law of Christ as distinguished from the Ten Commandments? It is rather obvious that MT’s approach wouldn’t separate Christ from the law of Christ but what we want to know here is whether or not MT is making a distinction between the law of Christ and God’s ten words.

“As the New Testament clearly teaches, Jesus is the one who fulfilled the law, and those who follow him and conform to his image thereby fulfill the law as well. Nor does it minimize the usefulness of the law, or of the Old Testament, for Christian ethics. All scripture is profitable for correction and instruction. The law was always intended to point us to Jesus Christ. But that does not mean that by focusing on the law, or by emphasizing it as the framework for the Christian life, we thereby emphasize Christ. By analogy, the entire Hebrew sacrificial system pointed forward to Christ, but that doesn’t mean that by observing the Hebrew sacrificial system we appropriately demonstrate our faith in Christ. Rather, we best learn from the law by doing what the law itself does – looking to Jesus Christ. There is an arrow between the law and Christ, not an equals sign.

Naturally, it is possible for someone to use the law unlawfully just as it is possible for someone to worship a Christ who is not Christ. It is possible for someone to emphasize the law wrongly and so miss Christ. Just as it is possible to emphasize a Christ that bears no relationship to the one who walks through Scripture and is now seated at the right hand of God. However, if one focuses on the law, as that law which Christ incarnated, then there is no way that one can emphasize the law and miss Christ. I fear MT is trying to cast asunder what God has joined when he tries to pit the Redeemed saints use of the law against Christ. Finally, on this score, we remember that the reason that there is an arrow between the law and Christ is because Christ is the fulfillment of the law. Yet all because Christ fulfilled the law does not mean that law as a ethic of gratitude for that fulfillment (see Heidelberg Catechism) is cast away as a shell.

MT writes,

It might seem surprising to some that this argument turns out to be fraught with controversy in certain Reformed circles. The main reason for this controversy, I believe, is that we tend to approach ethics through the lens of our systematic theology and tradition, rather than through the lens of the New Testament. Systematic theology and tradition are both very good things, of course, even necessary. But they become dangerous if they in any way replace scripture itself in regulating our Christian mind.

It is interesting that MT would put systematic theology in the dock. This was the same ploy used by some of those who championed Federal Vision. It seems that Systematic theology gets no respect recently.

Having said that, everyone needs to realize that MT has is own Systematic theology that is informing how he is reading the NT. Nobody comes to the Scriptures apart from a Systematic theology. MT would like to have us believe that his reading is “Systematic free,” but that just isn’t possible. MT is just as regulated by Systematic categories as the most turgid Turretin fan.

MT writes,

In this case, the classic medieval distinction of the Mosaic Law into the three parts of moral, judicial (or civil), and ceremonial is useful insofar as it clarifies for us that the moral truth – or the righteousness – of the Mosaic Law is binding on all times and places. It has become problematic insofar as it confuses believers into thinking that scripture itself uses this distinction, such that it should control our exegesis of specific passages, or that specific passages can be neatly categorized into one or another of these types of law. It has also become problematic insofar as many Christians have come to view any imperative or command in scripture as “the law”, failing to realize that this is not how scripture itself uses the word ‘law.’

First off, Scripture uses the word “law” in a plethora of ways.

Second, I quite agree with MT’s observation regarding the three parts of moral, judicial and ceremonial. The Law is indeed unitary, though quite obviously distinctions had to be made in order to see some aspects of the law fulfilled (ceremonial) while other aspects continue (Moral and general equity of judicial). So, we are agreed there.

Given the fact that for many people these are novel arguments, and that for others these arguments intuitively evoke a negative response, I want to clarify my basic argument through twelve propositions. At that point, all I can do is to point you, my readers, to scripture itself. Does the New Testament usually characterize the Christian life, and the Christian’s relation to the law, as I describe it here? If it does not, then you should reject my arguments. If it does, regardless of how any particular systematic theology approaches Christian ethics, my arguments are biblical. So look to the scriptures and see whether or not these things are true.

Again, MT wants to claim that his arguments are Biblical without being influenced by that wascally category called Systematic theology. This is smoke on MT’s part. No one reads the Scriptures apart from Systematic Theology. Those who try to are those who are locked up in padded cells. Our disagreement here thus extends not only to the relation to Christ and the law but also to the whole issue of hermeneutics and systematic theology. (And since Hermeneutics and Systematic theology is so foundational to Christianity we likely disagree on just about everything else.)

Before we look at MT’s let me just give a few words on the law. We do not look to the law for justification, but as our way of life; we are saved by Christ, and therefore because we are His people, we abide by His law, His way of life. To place a dichotomy between Christ and a lawful use of the law, as a guide to life, resulting from gratitude for Deliverance from sin and misery (third use) is to divide Christ from Himself.

End part 1

In part II we will consider MT’s 12 propositions.

Was The Early Church Uniformly Anabaptist In Its Pacifism? Did The Early Church Always Yield To Their Civil Magistrates?

Alexander Shield a 16th century Covenanter, speaking on the post-advent gospel church early history as concerning the early church resisting their enemies

“To come to the history of the gospel dispensation: It is true in that time of the primitive persecutions under heathen emperors, this privilege of self-defence was not so much improved or contended for by Christians, who studied more to play the martyrs, than to play the men… yet even then, instances are not wanting of Christians resisting their enemies, and of rescuing their ministers, &c., As they are found on record.

(1.) How some inhabiting Mareota, with force rescued Dionysius, of Alexandria, out of the hands of such as were carrying him away, about the year 255.

(2.) How about the year 310, the Armenians waged war against Maximus, who was come against them with an army because of their religion.

(3.) How about the year 342, the citizens of Athanasius their minister, against Gregorius the intruded curate and Syrianus the emperor’s captain, who came with great force to put him in.

(4.) {688} How about the year 356, the people of Constantinople did in like manner stand to the defense of Paulus, against Constantius the emperor, and killed his captain Hermogenes; and afterwards, in great multitudes, they opposed the intrusion of the heretic Macedonius.

(5.) How, when a wicked edict was sent forth to pull down the churches of such as were for the clause of one substance, the christians that maintained that testimony resisted the bands of soldiers, that were procured at the emperor’s command by Macedonius, to force the Mantinians to embrace the Arian heresy; but the Christians at Mantinium, kindled with an earnest zeal towards Christian religion, went against the soldiers with chearful minds and valiant courage, and made a great slaughter of them.

(6.) How, about the year 387, the people of Cesarea did defend Basil their minister.

(7.) How, for fear of the people, the lieutenant of the emperor Valens durst not execute those 80 priests who had come to supplicate the emperor, and were commanded to be killed by him.

(8.) How the inhabitants of mount Nitria espoused Cyril’s quarrel, and assaulted the lieutenant, and forced his guards to flee.

(9.) How, about the year 404, when the emperor had banished Chrysostom, the people flocked together, so that the emperor was necessitated to call him back again from his exile.

(10.) How the people resisted also the transportation of Ambrose, by the command of Valentinian the emperor; and chused rather to lose their lives, than to suffer their pastor to be taken away by the soldiers.

(11.) How the Christians oppressed by Baratanes king of Persia, did flee to the Romans to seek their help. And Theodosius, the emperor, is much praised for the war which he commenced against Chosroes king of Persia, upon this inducement, that the king sought to ruin and extirpate those Christians in his dominions, that would not renounce the gospel.”

Seminary Level Course 501 — “Continuing To Build The Reformed Weltanschauung”

Reformed Weltanschauung; Teasing Out the Implications

This course of study is intended as an extension to the previous Prolegomena course. The purpose of this course is to build the Weltanschauung superstructure upon the foundation already laid in the Worldview Prolegomena course. The emphasis will fall on the idea that Theology is the Queen of the Sciences and that all subject matter is merely Theology under another name. As such you will be studying different disciplines (culture, history, science, etc.) in order to understand how those are disciplines that are animated by a presupposed Christian Theology. As part of that theme you will be focusing on how ideas concretely work themselves out. You will begin to be able to identify a Theology by reverse engineering from its manifestation in different disciplines.

Main Texts

1.) Worldview: The History of a Concept — David Naugle
2.) Ideas Have Consequences — Richard Weaver

Required Reading

1.) Revolutions in Worldview: Understanding the Flow of Western Thought — W. Andrew Hoffecker
2.) The Calvinistic Concept of Culture — Henry Van Til
3.) Basic Ideas of Calvinism — H. Henry Meeter
4.) Lectures on Calvinism — Abraham Kuyper
5.) Roots of Western Culture — Herman Dooyeweerd
6.) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions — Thomas Kuhn
7.) Science and Hermeneutics — Vern Poythress
8.) The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold — Eugene Windchy
9.) Foundations of Christian Scholarship — Gary North (Editor)
10.) Dust of Death — Os Guinness
11.) American Minds — Greg Stowe
12.) Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500 — Glenn R. Martin

1.) Read the main Text books and write chapter summaries.

2.) Read the rest of the Required Reading and write a paper on the following Subject Matter

A.) An explanation of the impact of Calvinism on culture
B.) The way Worldview effects Science
C.) An overview and review of Kuhns as applied to worldviews especially
D.) A review of Windchy revealing that you understand Windchy’s exposition Darwinism’s terminal Worldview problems
E.) Summarize the thrust of what Gary North is seeking to teach in Foundations of Christian Scholarship
F.) Guinness, Hoffecker, Martin, and Stow are works that deal with the History of the flow of Ideas. Write a paper that indicates that you understand how worldviews effect the flow of ideas.

4.) Interact 1 hour weekly with the Instructor regarding points of interest in the book that you are currently reading.

5.) Be prepared for pop quizzes or short essay requirements.

The Dangers Of Unharnessed Libertarianism

There is a sense among some Christians that movement Libertarianism provides a Christian response to various strands of the Marxism we currently face. (Cultural Marxism, Fabianism, Corporatism, Fascism, etc..) R. J. Rushdoony was under no illusion to that end. While Rushdoony advocated a form of Libertarianism it was always Libertarianism in a decidedly Christian and Theonomic social order. In other words, RJR despoiled the Libertarian Egyptians but he despoiled them while making the Libertarians serve the Christian worldview vision.

Repeatedly Rushdoony reminded us of Max Stirner who was one of the greatest foils to Karl Marx. Stirner was a kind of extreme prototypical Libertarian. He was Ayn Rand before Ayn Rand was Ayn Rand. Stirner was an Egoist, which means that he considered self-interest to be the root cause of an individual’s every action, even when he or she is apparently doing “altruistic” actions. This principle is the radii of all movement Libertarianism.

The centrality of the sovereign individual is seen throughout Stirner’s writing. A few examples will suffice,

“I am everything to myself and I do everything on my account.” [The Ego and Its Own, p. 162].

Even love is an example of selfishness, “because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me.” [Ibid., p. 291]

He urges others to follow him and “take courage now to really make yourselves the central point and the main thing altogether.”

As for other people, he sees them purely as a means for self-enjoyment, a self-enjoyment which is mutual: “For me you are nothing but my food, even as I am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use.” [Ibid., pp. 296-7]

Obviously this hyper individualism of Stirner — this emphasis of the many (individual by individual) over the one (collective) — was not something that Marx could countenance. Rushdoony notes of the collision of Stirner and Marx,

“The most vehement book written by Karl Marx was against Max Stirner; because Max Stirner pushed this idea to its logical conclusion, the meaninglessness of all things and therefore the legitimacy of all acts. He is the man who accused the atheists of his day of being closet Christians because they didn’t practice incest and other perversions, and Marx recognized that Stirner was right. But if Stirner were allowed to establish his thinking and successfully convert men to his position, there could be no socialist order. So he wrote a two-volume diatribe against Stirner.”

and elsewhere,

“Max Stirner was a logical, a consistent, atheist and an anarchist. And Max Stirner said in his book The Ego and His Own, that atheism required one to disbelieve in the validity of any law, because since there is no God there is no truth, no right, no wrong, no good, no evil, no sovereignty in the world, except man doing what he pleases. And in his book he turned on the atheists and the liberals of his day. He accused them of being closet Christians and he said ‘how many of you are ready to practice incest with your daughter, sister, or mother? Until you are, and if what I say horrifies you, you are simply manifesting the fact that you are a closet Christian. You are talking about not believing in God but you are believing in all his rules, you are still under theology rather than autonomy, And if you are still obeying your civil magistrate, your civil government, you’re still believing there is some validity to any law other than the biology of your own being.’”

Stirner absolutized Marx but he absolutized Marx in the indivdiualistic Libertarian direction.

Because of this Rushdoony saw that movement Libertarianism was but the opposite side of the coin to movement Marxism. Rushdoony saw that Libertarianism gone to seed was merely Marxism come into its own for the individual. Consistent Libertarianism was merely Marxism for the individual.

Now some will try to save movement Libertarianism by appealing to the “Non aggression principle.” They would contend we Christians can support Libertarianism as long as we apply the “non aggression principle.” The problem here though is that we must have some standard for what counts for “aggression.” And if we take what the Scripture, as God’s Law Word, teaches as God’s standard for aggression then we will find ourselves, as Christians, advocating for penalties that the movement Libertarians would insist fall under the rubric of the Non aggression principle.

This explains why the Christian dance with libertarianism needs to be thought through. Yes, there are aspects of Lbertarianism that Biblical Christians whole-heartedly embrace but those aspects are only embraced in the context of a bible informed Christian social order.

McAtee Contra Emergent Hugh Halter and Trinity Church Lansing Michigan Preaching

I don’t know who Hugh Halter is. Frankly, I would have been content to have never been pointed to his ramblings. However, a member of the Church I serve brought my attention to his ministry because Mr. Halter had spoke at the Evangelical Mega Church in Lansing Michigan. I listened to the sermon he preached there on 21 July 2013 and while there are areas to take exception (The Church is bigoted, and homophobic) with in the sermon there are more exceptions to take in Mr Halter’s blog post below.

http://hughhalter.com/blog/2012/08/08/hugh-bakes-a-cake-would-jesus-bake-a-cake-for-a-gay-wedding

This post is really quite confusing as it presents some truths in the context of half truths and some ideas that are not truth.

I thought I would dissect portions of Mr. Halter’s post in order to locate some of the fallacies.

Would Jesus Bake a Cake for a Gay Wedding?

by Hugh Halter

Last week, the national news posted a story about a bakery owner who chose not to bake a cake for a wedding between two gay men. It probably got some attention because it appeared to be similar to the well-publicized Chick-fil-a story. The stories were quite different in nuance, but nonetheless brought up very serious and real questions every Christ follower should take seriously.

I posted this question above and had over 3500 onlookers and a truckload of great responses within a few hours. I’ve tried to synthesize many of the responses down to a few simple thoughts that I hope will be helpful for those serious about incarnating their lives into the real world around us.

First, thanks for your respectful tone. Even though the Christian responses were a 50/50 split on the question, there were some great perspectives on both sides and I hope we all learned a few things.

Second, I know that many who read this will not be Christian in orientation. So forgive the “internal doc” tone. I am trying to speak to our own Christian tribe about how we view sin and people in the world. In Jesus’ time and obviously now, people often use the word, “sinner” in a derogatory way to label people that weren’t “in the know” or who didn’t live based on the same set of religious/moral/theological convictions that the establishment did. In Jesus’s time it was the Jewish religious system based on the Law of Moses, and today, it continues in many tribes of Christianity. For the sake of the argument, I’ll keep using the word “sinner” as it has been incorrectly applied, in hopes that we can at least agree that we all share the same problem. We’re all jacked by sin!

Bret clarifies,

1.) It is not true that “in Jesus’s time the establishment lived according to the Law of Moses.” In point of fact one of the realities of Jesus ministry was to constantly correct the establishment on how they had twisted the Law of Moses to mean what it did not mean. They did not live according to the law of Moses and that is one reason why Jesus constantly turned on the religious establishment. The problem of the religious establishment during Jesus day was not that they lived according to the law of Moses but rather it was that they didn’t live according to the law of Moses and then insisted that they were. And worse yet they were condemning people as “sinners” when those whom they condemned as sinners didn’t live according to their mutated version of Moses. So, Mr Halter is in error here and this error is significant as we will tease out more later.

2.) This is so true that Jesus treats the religious establishment as “sinners,” during His ministry. Are we to fault Jesus because He treated some people who were sinners as sinners?

And what was the difference between those Jesus treated as sinners and those who were ascribed with the title of “sinners” by the religious establishment? Well, one difference that we see in Scripture is that those who were ascribed with the title of “sinner” recognized they were sinners while those of the religious establishment refused to recognize themselves as “sinners.” Jesus could eat with sinners and publicans because they recognized themselves for what they were.

3.) Jesus is not opposed to Christians, who recognize their own sin, holding up God’s law as a standard for all people. St. Paul was a sinner yet he has choice words for certain sinners. St. Jude and St. John do as well. So, it is true, that we are all “jacked by sin,” but merely because we are all “jacked by sin,” that does not mean that we who are jacked by sin, who are saved by grace alone, are not to hold up God’s standard among men.

Mr. Halter continues,

I must also be honest with you and say that I, have to submit my wisdom under the wisdom of the revealed scripture in regards to all facets of life. I don’t understand everything, like everything, and will have a long list of questions to reel off when I see God, but I believe that He did design sexuality to be blessed within the bonds of heterosexual marriage.

However…

This article isn’t about trying to convince people of my view on this. This article is to address how any of us, of any persuasion sexually, theologically, or religiously, should treat each other. Especially how Christians should treat people that don’t believe what they believe. I will submit that anything that doesn’t reflect the original design of God is sin and that list is long. And if we for sake of argument can say that homosexuality is a sin, I believe how Christians have treated the gay and lesbian community, in God’s eyes, may literally be of equal and maybe even greater offense to God.

Bret clarifies,

1.) Mr. Halter is on the record of saying that Homosexuality is sin. Of course he won’t say that, except to make reference to it “for the sake of argument.” Mr. Halter opts instead to say, “I believe God did design sexuality to be blessed within the bonds of heterosexual marriage.” Of course if that is true then it also means (though Mr. Halter would never ever say this either) that sexuality outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage is damned by God.

2.) Now in his sermon Mr. Halter suggests that all sins are equal, but here he says that some sins are not equal. In his sermon Mr. Halter emphasizes the necessity to overlook sins and not be judgmental regarding sins but here we see full judgmentalism. Does Mr. Halter have any idea how badly he is going to make people feel who have not treated the gay lesbian community the way he thinks the bible teaches that they should be treated. Obviously for Mr. Halter his non judgmentalism and overlooking of sin only applies to not being judgmental of the sins that he does not want to be judgmental of.

3.) When Mr. Halter says that the way the Christians have treated the sodomite community, in God’s eyes, may literally be of equal and even greater offense to God is he talking here about the great offense of Christian Bakers not to agree to bake a cake for a sodomite marriage? Is that the great offense that God is so displease with? Taking a stand to not sanction societal public square acceptance of sodomite marriage is an action that God is offended with? Really?

Mr. Halter continues,

“The question of whether or not Jesus (The corner bakery owner) would bake a cake for a gay wedding? is posed so that we can finally talk about the dignity of each person’s story and how the love of God can break into all of our brokenness so that his revealed will and blessing can touch us all.

Bret clarifies,

1.) Before the sinner can find relief he must discover that his dignity is rags before a Holy and Just God.

2.) We already know how the love of God can break into all our brokenness. The love of God can break into all our brokenness by preaching law and Gospel. The Law reminds us of how God condemns us for our sin. The Gospel tells us that there is one way to escape God’s just condemnation. If anybody comes to Christ not having their dignity broken by God’s law they have not known God’s Gospel.

3.) There really are Arminian overtones in Mr. Halter’s words.

Mr. Halter continues,

“For dealing with the cake situation or other “grey zones,” here are a few anchors I try to keep in mind.

1) We don’t have to Condone or Condemn. In so many situations we often think that we have to pick either a stance of condoning (which we assume happens if we fail to confront or form real friendships) or condemning (which we assume is a necessary response if we simply speak the truth and call people to account for their behavior. ) Some think you should just “LOVE” without truth, and some think you should just “TRUTH” em’ regardless of love. What you’ll find in the life of Jesus is that he doesn’t pick one or the other. He did neither.

Bret clarifies,

This is not true as Scripture testifies everywhere. When Jesus encountered the Pharisees he condemned them. He called Herod, “a fox.” This was not complimentary. He called the Syro-Phoenician a dog. You think she felt condemned with those words? Jesus condemned Peter by calling Peter “Satan” once. Jesus did not condone the Woman at the Well (John 4). In point of fact he put his finger on her sexual sins. Jesus did not condone the woman caught in adultery. He told her to “sin no more.” It is true that Jesus ate with “sinners and publicans,” but those “sinners and publicans” that Jesus ate with understood that they were sinners and publicans. I meet very very few people today who would admit that they fell into the category of “sinner and publican.”

So, when Mr. Halter says “Jesus neither condoned nor condemned sin” he just doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Mr. Halter continues,

In John 1:14 it says that Jesus came into the world in the form of a man and helped us to see the glory of God because he was full of Grace and Truth. As an example of what he hoped every Christian would be, he showed how grace (non-judgment) and healing, restorative words of truth can go together like peanut butter and jelly. He was the most non-judgmental person you would have ever met, yet people wanted to hear what he had to say about their broken lives and when he spoke, people did change and turn from sin. Jesus even said that he “did not come into the world to condemn but to save.” And he did exactly that. People around him didn’t feel condemned but they responded to his truth.

Bret clarifies,

Grace and truth in John 1:14 is a reference to the covenant keeping character of God in the Old Testament of whom it was often said was full of mercy and truth (cmp. Gen. 24:27, Ps. 25:10, Prov. 16:6). To say that Christ is full of grace and truth is to say that Christ is God. Grace here does not mean “non-judgment.”

Jesus was non-judgmental to people who understood and embraced the idea they were sinners. The woman who washed Jesus hair with tears understood she was a sinner. The woman with the blood issue that Jesus healed understood she was a sinner. The Syro-Phoenician woman admitted she was a “dog.” She understood she was a sinner. One problem with Mr. Halter is he wants to accept the sinner and their sins without them accepting God’s pronouncement that they are sinners. God will never accept people who do not accept they are sinners and we do people no favors by letting them believe that their sins are not condemned. In point of fact, the only way I can offer the Grace of God in Christ to anyone outside of Christ is to expose their sin. Praise God that he daily shows me my sins of selfishness, and pride that I might be reminded that they are only buried in Christ.

Mr. Halter continues,

He regularly ate with the worst of the worst. Clearly, many would have pulled him aside and said, “Jesus, by eating with them, you realize that you are causing them to feel a false sense of acceptance by you, don’t you think it more wise to avoid letting them feel accepted so that they might come to their senses and stop doing what they are doing?”

In one such dialogue, he said, “I didn’t come for the healthy but the sick.” In that statement, he was saying, “to help the sick you have to be with the sick and by being with them in their sickness, I’m not actually making them more sick, but creating a pathway to pull help them out.”

Bret clarifies,

Jesus regularly ate with the worst of the worst who understood that they were the worst of the worst. They had been condemned their whole lives by people who were just as guilty of the sins that they were condemning the sinners and publicans for involving themselves in. Instead of offering to the worst of the worst a merit system that they could never fulfill Jesus spoke to these sinners, who acknowledged their sins, of a God who would not pile on them more requirements (as the Pharisees did) but instead who would offer forgiveness and rest to those who acknowledged themselves to be burdened and heavy laden.

It would be a terrible injustice to those who rebel against God to give them a false sense of acceptance. God is a judge to all those who rebel against God’s tender mercy. We do those who are in high rebellion against God no favors by suggesting that God is ok with their rebellion. In the same way we do no favor to those who are burdened with their sins to not tell them that the way to be released of their burden of sin is to trust Christ alone who has reconciled a justly angry God to sinners who embrace and acknowledge their sin.

From reading and listening to Mr. Halter I get the sense that he wants the Church to act as if sin is a minor inconvenience. I get the sense that Mr. Halter has never considered the Holiness and Justness of God. I get the sense that Mr. Halter thinks that God salvifically loves everyone. I have no authority or warrant to tell the Baker outside of Christ that God loves him with a salvific love, just as I have no authority or warrant to tell the sodomite couple that God loves them with a salvific love. I can tell them both that God commands all men everywhere to repent. I can tell them that can have rest from the burden of their sins if they will trust Christ. But I can not tell them, for I have not authority or warrant to tell them, that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives.

Now, I quite agree with Mr. Halter that we have to be with the sick in order to offer a solution. That is one reason why I am writing this. I am seeking to be with the sick and what I am finding is that Mr. Halter is one of the sick. I am seeking to provide a way out for him. In point of fact one of the best places to be with the sick these days is to be with the sick people in the emergent movement.

Mr. Halter continues,

“In other words, being present with people in the mess of their lives, being true friends, fully accepting, is the way of Jesus. It is neither condemning nor condoning to make a cake or be at a wedding of people that don’t believe what we believe… It is simply being a friend.

Bret clarifies,

What Mr. Halter misses here is the public side of this whole issue with the cake bakers and the sodomite wedding. The cake bakers understand that this is more than a personal issue. This is a public square issue. The LGBT crowd is seeking to mainstream sodomy. They are seeking to force upon those who disagree with the sin of sodomy, to accept sodomy in the public square as a legitimate belief expression. There is nothing wrong with a Christian Baker to say …”Because of my love to Christ and His revealed authority I can not do this.” Mr. Halter’s reasoning would fault the Christian incense maker for refusing Caesar to make incense that would be required to be pinched as worship unto Caesar. Mr. Halter would say to the incense maker,

“Come, come … by filling this order of incense you are not condoning worship of Caesar.”

However, the incense maker like the cake Baker would be creating a means by which worship of Caesar is seen as acceptable public square activity. Even so the cake baker is creating a means by which sodomite marriage is seen as an acceptable public square activity. Neither Caesar worship nor sodomite marriage is an acceptable public square activity.

Mr. Halter is in serious error.

One can be a friend by accepting an invitation to have a drink or a cup of coffee with the sodomite couple. One can be a friend by taking them to a ballgame or a decorating party but one must think about the implications upon the public square and the social order by doing anything that gives tacit approval to the social order restructuring itself in a anti-Christ direction.

I hope this is a case where Mr. Halter merely has not thought through his position.

Mr. Halter continues,

To those who say that baking a cake communicates support for a non-biblical defilement of the institution of marriage, I’d suggest that we defile the institution of marriage all the time. 50% of the heterosexual Christian marriages end by defiling the institution through divorce. And good percentages of those who don’t divorce defile the marriage daily as men cheat on their wives through pornography. None of it is God’s intended design! In Matthew 5:28 Jesus went further, “You who lust in your heart after a woman have committed adultery!” In other words, don’t think just because you were married in a traditional heterosexual union, that you’ve done the institution justice and have the right to judge the next wave of people who will fail my design.”

In line with Jesus argument with the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11, Jesus would say to the non cake bakers, “You who have modeled a perfect marriage, go ahead and withhold the cake, but if you have ever sinned against my design of marriage, you better start whipping up some frosting!”

Bret clarifies,

Mr. Halter’s argument here is that since we all sin in our marriages therefore we should have no public square standard for what marriage is. This is a specious way of reasoning. It is like saying that all because everybody in a lifeboat sins therefore we better not pay attention to those chaps in the lifeboat who are sinning by trying to dig through the bottom of the port side.

Also, Mr. Halter gets John 8:1-11 completely wrong. When Jesus said he did not condemn her, the word “condemn” there is a legal term referring to a sentence in a court. Jesus is saying that there was no evidence upon which to find her guilty. The fact that she was a sinner is seen in Jesus admonition to her to “go and sin no more.” A judgmental bon voyage if there ever was one.

The Cake Makers are not in a legal court setting as the woman caught in adultery seemed to be. The sodomites were not in danger of being stoned to death by the cake makers. Mr. Halters reasoning is nothing but stupid.

Mr. Halter continues,

Look, God doesn’t need us to stick up for his created order of heterosexual marriage. The institution of marriage is set not because we do it correctly. It’s set because God created it and marriage will always be his idea. If we don’t stick up for the sanctity of life, life is still sacred because God says so. He’s a big boy and knows that this beautiful union that he intended between men and woman is going to be fraught with brokenness in almost every situation and so baking a cake is not the issue, but not baking the cake would most certainly create an impossible space of tension between Jesus and the people he would hope to influence.

Jesus must have known that advocating for ‘sinner’s doesn’t make them feel better about their sin. It actually opens their heart to someday turn from their sin!

Bret clarifies,

1.) God doesn’t need us to stand up for His righteousness and His righteous standards? Is Halter kidding?

2.) Halter again suggests that the best way to do evangelism is by ignoring sin. Curious evangelism.

3.) If everyone goes around murdering everyone should we not try to stop the murder rampage because even if murder is legalized, murder will still be murder according to God’s definition?

4.) I think Halter is afraid of being hated for the sake of Christ and the Kingdom. At least that is what it begins to look like. Don’t mention the sin of sinners to sinners because that would create an impossible space of tension between Jesus and the people he would hope to influence.

Jesus can only hope to influence sinners? Think about it.

Mr. Halter continues,

2) There is no sliding scale of sin

Bret observes,

That is not what Mr. Halter said earlier. Earlier, Mr. Halter said,

“I believe how Christians have treated the gay and lesbian community, in God’s eyes, may literally be of equal and maybe even greater offense to God.”

Notice the earlier sliding scale of sin.

How Christians have treated the gay and lesbian community is even an greater offense then the act of sodomy.

Hmmm … Interesting.

Mr. Halter continues,

“When I picture this bakery owner trying to decide whether or not he should bake a cake for a gay wedding, I have to ask, what his reasoning or motives are based on. In other words, why did he say NO? I can only think of three reasons.

First, he could have thought that by baking the cake, these men would be pulled deeper into sin so if he made a cake he would be contributing to their ungodly union and sinful lifestyle. Clearly this isn’t the issue and if he baked the cake, these two men would not be more gay or do more gay things? The cake is just a cake! So that can’t be it.

So maybe, as a Christian business owner, he believes that he should represent God in who and how he gives his services away? He might think that since God is clearly against homosexuality, I must display God’s view of sin and never give my services or products to people who are sinning in this way. But consider the hypocrisy if he really sticks to this consistently.

Since gluttony is listed as a sin twice as many times as homosexuality is listed, then he would have to deny giving a scrumptious buttery croissant to anyone that looks to be overweight. And pastors who buy this guy’s donuts should therefore also not serve donuts every week at church, or create two lines and force the more sturdy lot into the glutton free, fat free line. To not do this would be to help people sin, right?

Bret clarifies,

Halter again is entering into the “since we are all sinners therefore we cannot take any stands against any sins” argument. What Halter fails to realize is that there are not glutton societies around forcing upon our social order the official embrace of gluttony as a positive good that all must accept.

Yet, this is what the LGBT crowd is seeking to do. They are seeking to overturn what little remnants remain of Christianity in our current social order.

Of course by Halter’s reasoning Christian Bakers should be required, in keeping with their Christian testimony, to bake cakes for parties that celebrate pedestry or pedophilia or necrophilia. After all, why should anyone ever defend God’s righteous cause. God’s a big boy. He can defend himself. Besides, we wouldn’t want pedophiles or necrophiliacs to feel judged right Hugh? Why, baking a cake for a necrophilia party might be just the way to get necrophiliacs saved right Hugh?

Halter continues to drone on and perhaps I will return to finish off the rest but it is the case that it is yet more of Halter’s psycho agitprop, gobbledygook, half truths, and total misreading of Scripture.