Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Linkage In The Theologies of Cultural Marxism & R2K?

The cultural Marxists are forever shrilling over the separation of Church and State. This is because they want to make sure that the public square is kept sanitized of any Christian influence. Meanwhile R2K is also forever shrilling about the separation of common realm from the redemptive realm — two realms that are largely analogous to the Church and State of the Cultural Marxists. The reason why R2K wants the common realm to be recognized as compartmentalized from the redemptive realm is the mirror reason of the Cultural Marxists. As noted above, the cultural Marxists want Church and State separate so Christianity can’t effect and so despoil culture. R2K wants common realm and redemptive realm compartmentalized so none of the common realm leaks into the redemptive realm so despoiling the redemptive realm. Both Cultural Marxism and R2K want to make sure that the realms that they are concerned about stay sanitized from unhealthy influence from the other realm. Both R2K and Cultural Marxism clears the common realm / civil realm from any interference from conservative Christianity and so allows so form of collectivism to rule. Both R2K and Cultural Marxism both believe that the other realm they are not primarily concerned about is not where the real action takes place. (Hence R2K refers to the common realm as “Kingdom of God’s left hand” and Cultural Marxists refer to the Church with any number of epitaphs.) Both R2K and Cultural Marxists are led in their respective attempts to compartmentalize their respective realms by their wise men. Both R2k and Cultural Marxist push their compartmentalization as a non-negotiable item of faith. Both R2K and Cultural Marxism work to silence the voice of Biblical Christianity in the public square. R2K wants it silenced in the name of Christian love for neighbor. Cultural Marxists wants it silenced in the name of Cultural Marxist love for neighbor.

The symbiotic relationship of R2K and Cultural Marxism is so convenient that I can easily see Marxist organizations funding R2K Institutions through popular front movements. In point of fact so symbiotic is the relationship between the two that one wonders if R2K, at it hits the street, is in point of fact a baptized version of Cultural Marxism.

Now, of course it must be realized and admitted that there are differences between Cultural Marxism and R2K as well. Cultural Marxism practices philosophical materialism while R2K leans more towards a Gnostic dualism. Cultural Marxism doesn’t really believe that some realm belongs uniquely to the Church though it is willing to posit that irrelevant realm as long as the Church can stay fenced behind it. R2K isn’t atheistic though it has spiritualized Christianity to the point that atheism must look awfully inviting to the serious minded person. Eschatologically speaking both miss the mark, though they miss the mark in different directions. Cultural Marxism is teleologically optimistic and humanistic Utopian while R2K is teleologically pessimistic and Christian Dystopian. However — and this is important — at the very moment when the Cultural Marxists arrive at their Utopian state the R2K Jesus returns in order to crush this present wicked age as successfully built by the Cultural Marxists. What was Utopian to the Cultural Marxists was Dystopian to the R2K and Jesus breaks in to bring all things to an end.

One can see that there are similarities and differences but where these similarities converge there is a great opportunity for each to work alongside the other in order to achieve their parallel goals.

Twin Spin … Dr. Van Til vs. The R2K Lads

“If then Christianity as interpreted in the Reformed creeds, as championed by Kuyper, Bavinck, Hodge, Warfield, and Machen, is to be presented to men today, ministers must learn to understand the riches of their own position. Christianity …is the sine qua non of the intelligibility of anything. Why am I so much interested in science? It is a) because with Kuyper I believe that God requires of us that we claim every realm of being for Him, and b) because with Kuyper I believe that unless we press the crown rights of our King in every realm, we shall not long retain them in any realm.”

Cornelius Van Til, “The Defense of the Faith”, pg. 276

1.) Van Til was not R2K and the R2K lads need to give up claiming Van Til.

A.) Van Til says that, “Christianity is the sine qua non of the intelligibility of anything.” R2K says, “No, that is inaccurate. What is the sine qua non of the intelligibility in the common realm is not Christianity but Natural Law.”

B.) Van Til, with Kuyper believed that every realm — including the common realm — must be claimed for God. R2K says to Van Til, “No, ‘Kees,’ don’t you understand that the common realm can’t be captured for God since the common realm is a realm of creation and not redemption?”

C.) Van Til understood that the realms were integrated to some degree so that if the R2K common realm caught a cold the result would be that the R2K spiritual realm would sneeze. R2K would say to Van Til, “No, Kees you don’t realize that the common realm and the spiritual realm are compartmentalized from one another so much so that Scripture is not the moral standard for the common kingdom. The common realm and the spiritual realm are sealed tight from one another Kees.”

“Moreover, in paradise, supernatural revelation, that is, thought-communication on the part of God, accompanied God’s revelation in the created universe. Natural revelation therefore required supernatural revelation as its supplement even apart from the fact of sin. Even in paradise Adam had to regard all the facts of his natural environment in the light of the goal that God set for man in his supernatural revelation.”

Cornelius Van Til, “The Defense of the Faith”, pg. 205

If Van Til is correct here then Natural Law, as a means by which social order can be organized, is not possible. Natural revelation (of which Natural law is a subset) needs supernatural revelation in order to make sense. To state it differently, for natural revelation to gain traction it must presuppose special revelation. Yet, that is precisely what R2K denies. R2K affirms that Natural law can be understood quite fine apart from and without special revelation and insists that a cohesive God honoring social order can be built on Natural law.

Gnostikoi’s Strangeness

Over at Gnostikoi’s life,

http://oldlife.org/2012/05/looks-like-peter-and-paul-were-radical-2kers/#comments

Gnostikos gives a flurry of Scriptures and then concludes with this,

The more some try to read their political opposition into Scripture, the more they resemble political Islam.

Now, the political opposition that Gnostikos Darryl says I read into Scripture was merely the idea that God has ordained Spheres of sovereignty in the Temporal realm (Ecclesiastical, Civil, and Family) and over those spheres He has set Covenant Heads (Elders (I Peter 5:1-4) , Magistrates (Romans 13:1-7), Fathers (Ephesians 5, 6) to rule as His representatives in their ordained spheres. Then I merely mentioned that Marxism is a Sphere sovereignty sucking philosophy that seeks to overturn God’s ordained spheres.

Then I ended with this paragraph that might have hurt Darryl’s feelings,

All of this explains why radical two kingdom theology is such a poison pill for the church because radical two kingdom theology insists that the Church as the Church has no role in declaiming against the Marxist state’s attempt to seize all temporal sovereignty. R2K “theology” would stand silent as the state seeks to absorb all temporal sovereignty so that it becomes the idol state that has raised itself up against the almighty God. In R2K “theology” the only time the Church can protest this seizure of sovereignty is when the state seeks to dictate to the Church about its formal worship patterns. But if the Church is only concerned about its formal worship patterns then why would the state ever have any reason to want to absorb a sovereignty that it views as irrelevant? In point of fact if the R2K church is telling its people that they must obey the state, the state may very well view the R2K church as already effectively one of its agents.

1.) Note the political opposition that Gnostikos Darryl is reading into my quote is the opposition of the Church to declaim against Marxism as a concrete plausibility structure that is seeking to gain all temporal sovereignty for itself so that it can be a god above God. Scripture informs me, as a Pastor, I am to have, “No Other Gods before me,” and so as a Pastor, when the State seeks the kind of Sovereignty that would ensconce it as God, I am compelled by Scripture and conscience to declaim against the God-State. There is no reading into Scripture here.

2.) Note that the Scripture that Gnostikos Darryl quotes in his blog entry does not trump Peter’s, “We must obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29). And the same Paul that wrote some of those Scripture’s that Gnostikos Darryl can refer to is the same Paul who disobeyed a direct order from the Magistrate in Acts 16,

35 Now when day came, the chief magistrates sent their policemen, saying, “Release those men.” 36 And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The chief magistrates have sent to release you. Therefore come out now and go in peace.” 37 But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out.”

Here you have the same Paul who wrote I Timothy 2:1-4, and Romans 13, disobeying a direct order from a Civil Magistrate. If St. Paul could defy a Magistrate’s orders for being released — a defiance which was for far more picayune reasons then the kind of defiance I’ve said is warranted as against a Magistrate for flagrant and repeated disobedience to God’s revelation — then how much more is Christ centered defiance warranted when a Magistrate is seeking to suck up all the temporal sovereignty available so they might seek to place themselves in the position of God to God’s people?

3.) Gnostikos Darryl doesn’t believe that there is no time in which a Christian can say “no” to a Magistrate. He believes saying, “no” to a Magistrate is warranted when the Magistrate gets in the way of formalized worship. As such Darryl and I agree that the Magistrate’s authority isn’t absolute. Our only difference is where to draw the line. Darryl draws the line at the point where the Magistrate gets in the way of formalized Church worship whereas I would say lines might well be drawn, as well in matters like,

A.) The Magistrate demanding that I must turn my children over to the pagan state schools
B.) The Magistrate condoning and supporting the wide scale murder of the unborn
C.) The Magistrate condoning and promoting sexual perversion
D.) The Magistrate condoning and legislating oppressively against private property
E.) The Magistrate requiring me to be involved in a office-work process role of a final solution for Radical Two Kingdom officialdom.

In each of those I can envision the necessity of the Church to say, “We must obey God rather than man.” Darryl however, says the Church should be silent on these matters and so by its silence support the agenda of the tyrant.

Flander’s Field Re-told By An Anti-Statist

In Legends told the stories grow
Of noble causes marked by poppy rows
These give us status; and with each lie
The policy for which men laid down to die
Disappears amidst the hallow glow
Of Bard tales spun to gloriously show
The rightness of wars fought long ago
So that Memorial doth the truth belie
In Legends told

So, I take up the quarrel with the foe
Who would sanctify unholy rows
By conflating brave men who die
With wicked policies from on high
For such support of those who’ve lied
Only insures that more sons will die
And become part of Legends told

Murder … It’s vast reach

Text — Exodus 20:13
Subject — Murder
Theme — The broad definition of Murder per the Heidelberg Catechism

Proposition — … will give us insight as to what we are called to as Christians in terms of our neighbor and remind us of the ongoing necessity to look to Christ alone for a 6th commandment keeping righteousness that can stand up to God’s just expectations.

Purpose — … therefore having examined the broad definition of murder let us continue, as those filled with the Spirit of Christ to seek to love our neighbor, and enemy by seeking their good.

Introduction

Inter-relationship between various commandments

At this point we want to talk about the violation of the commandments in terms of action and not just thought. In a few minutes we will talk about the thought end these sins. However, for now I want to spend just a little time talking about how integrated God’s law is in terms of the sin acted and lived out — this as opposed to the thought or contemplation of the sin.

So, in our opening lets spend just a few minutes talking about the inter-relationship that exists among the 10 words.

1.) The 6th commandment as a violation of the 1st commandment.

God says we are to have no other Gods before Him.

If we disobey God and obey other gods we have violated the 1st commandment
In Murder we are disobeying God and so setting ourselves up to be god over God
Hence violation of the 6th commandment is a violation of the 1st commandment

2.) The violation of the 6th commandment as a violation of the 8th commandment.

When murder occurs theft occurs since murder is the (taking) stealing of someones life.

3.) The violation of the 7th commandment as a violation of the 8th commandment

When adultery occurs someone is stealing someones husband and / or wife.

4.) The violation of commandments 6-8 is a violation of commandment #10

We do not murder, commit adultery, or steal unless we are first animated by wanting something that isn’t ours to have.

5.) Violation of commandment #9 is a violation of commandment #3

When we bear false witness in court, we are at that point taking God’s name in vain since testifying is connected to oath taking.

6.) If you had Christian parents the violating of any of the commandment is a violating of the 5th commandment as it is not honoring to Christian Mothers and Fathers to break God’s Law Word.

7.) A breaking of any of the commandments is a breaking of the 3rd commandments since as God’s people we wear God’s name, and so any living inconsistent with God’s Law Word is a taking of God’s name in vain.

8.) A breaking of any of the commandments is a breaking of the 2nd commandment since in the breaking of God’s commandments there is a serving of some other god and his commandments and the 2nd commandment does not allow us to bow down to nor serve false gods.

We could go on like this but you begin to see how it is the case that though we rightly distinguish God’s law into 10 different commandments they are all bound up tightly together. Now having said that it is not as if all the sins committed as crimes are equally grave. Clearly they are not equally grave since Murder is a capital offense while something like theft is adjusted by restitution. So, clearly among the sins as committed as crimes there are levels of severity.

Now let us turn to the thought aspect of the 6th commandment.

Thought of harm

“That neither in thoughts, nor words, nor gestures, much less in deeds, I dishonour, hate, wound, or kill my neighbour, by myself or by another…”

Now, in as much the thought or contemplation of theft, or adultery, or false witness, or covetousness is a thought that dishonors, hates and wounds my neighbor, just as the thought of murder does, in that much my thoughts of theft, adultery, false witness, or covetousness, are thoughts that make me guilty of murder in my thinking since such thinking is a thinking that dishonors, and hates my neighbor. So, even though a person may be only contemplating adultery in his thinking, since that contemplation of adultery is a thinking that reveals dishonor or hate towards my neighbor, which is forbidden in the 6th commandment, that contemplating of adultery is at the same time a murderous contemplation.

Now if a person goes from contemplating theft to acting out theft, as a Magistrate I can not convict him for murder, though as a minister I would counsel him to repent of the kind of thoughts of hatred towards his neighbor that led him to steal from his neighbor, which is the same counsel I would give, as a minister, to someone who was convicted for murder. I would tell the convicted murderer also that he must repent of the kind of thoughts of hatred toward his neighbor that led him to kill his neighbor. So the actions of theft and murder are different and murder is far more grave in terms of criminal activity, and so is visited with a harsher penalty, but the actions of each are born of the same thinking that dishonors or hates my neighbor. This is why when I am guilty of violating the 7th – 10th commandment both in thinking and acting I am also guilty of the 6th commandment in as much as the thinking and acting done in violation of commandments 7 – 10 makes me guilty of the thinking that is forbidden in the 6th commandment — as I am forbidden to think such thoughts that would dishonor or hate my neighbor.

Now, obviously, no one can be, nor did God ever require people to be tried and temporally punished for thought crimes, still the Catechism teaches, as before God, that when we contemplate these matters (murder – hatred, theft – hatred, lust – hatred,) or if we plot them out, or let burn in our thinking hatred towards a fellow Christian we are guilty of murder as before God. In such thinking we will never be charged with a crime but we are charged with sin before God.

Question 106 of the Catechism reinforces even more that our thought life regarding our neighbor must be wholesome and chaste,

Question 106. But this commandment seems only to speak of murder?

Answer: In forbidding murder, God teaches us, that he abhors the causes thereof, such as envy, (a) hatred, (b) anger, (c) and desire of revenge; and that he accounts all these as murder. (d)

Envy — Pain over the good or prosperity of others and joy at the Misery of others. Envy belongs to whoever wishes to lower others so that he may climb over them.

(a) Prov.14:30 A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones.

In our culture we have institutionalized envy via our political process and as such I intend to give envy a whole sermon next week.

Hatred,

(b) 1 John 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 1 John 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

Anger,

But following God’s word, the Catechism isn’t finished with detailing the 6th commandment for we remember that when we consider the Commandments that for every “Thou Shalt Not,” there is a corresponding “Thou Shalt.” And we find the “Thou Shalts” of the 6th commandment in the answer to Question 107.

Question 107. But is it enough that we do not kill any man in the manner mentioned above?

Answer: No: for when God forbids envy, hatred, and anger, he commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves; (a) to show patience, peace, meekness, mercy, and all kindness, towards him, (b) and prevent his hurt as much as in us lies; (c) and that we do good, even to our enemies. (d)

(a) Matt.7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matt.22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Rom.12:10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

(b) Eph.4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Gal.6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Gal.6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. Matt.5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Matt.5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Matt.5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Rom.12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Luke 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. 1 Pet.3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Col.3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Rom.12:10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; Rom.12:15 Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.

(c) Exod.23:5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.

(d) Matt.5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Matt.5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Rom.12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Rom.12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Now please understand that what is being taught here is that it is not only the case that we are guilty before God of murder when we actually literally murder someone, it is not only the case that we are guilty before God of murder when we merely think hateful, angry, and envious thoughts against our neighbor, it is also the case that we are guilty before God of the sin of murder when we do not prevent harm against our neighbor and do not love and help our neighbor as we ought.

Now this is the standard for Christians and I hope at this point that you, along with me, are recoiling here and thinking, “who can be cleared of the charge of murder then as before God.” “If this is God’s expectation then how can I have God on my side for, at the very least, I am guilty of not perfectly helping my neighbor at every point wherein they needed help and so I am guilty of Murder.

Well, if you are with me in thinking that then that is where we must once again preach the Gospel to ourselves. We God’s law as a guide to life as Christians. We sincerely seek to walk in our newness of life so that we love God and our neighbor and by the Spirit’s agency working within us we begin to do just that. However, we also see, if we are honest with ourselves that our obedience, that God accepts and is delighted in for the sake of Christ, is never, even after conversion, all that would be necessary to stand before God in the day of Judgment without Christ’s righteousness for us.

When we begin to see the high high standard of God’s expectations we are once again reminded of the necessity of Christ’s righteousness for us as Christians. We must remind ourselves daily that I am right with God not by the excellence of my obedience, nor by the Spirit of Christ working in me but by the excellency of Christ obedience for me.

And as this came up recently in one of our teaching sessions w/ some discussion let us review quickly

Of this righteousness of Christ for me that is called Christ’s Active Obedience

Rushdoony could write,

“Biblical justification is by imputation. Although man is not righteous before God, God the Judge imputes the righteousness of Jesus Christ to the sinner and declares him justified. As Berkhof wrote, ‘Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner.’ From beginning to end, justification is the act of God: He is the lawgiver whose law has been broken. He is the court and Judge before whom all flesh shall appear. He is the Redeemer whose atonement affects man’s justification. And, before all this He is the Creator, who made all things, including man.” (R.J. Rushdoony, “Systematic Theology,” p. 631)

What Rushdoony is saying here is what has been, in the main taught by Biblical Christians throughout the centuries, and that is I can have fellowship w/ God not because of my obedience to the law but because of Christ’s obedience to the law for me. It is not what is worked inside me that gives me standing with God but it is what is worked outside of me that gives me standing with God.

This teaching is contrary to what some have taught in Church history regarding justification. Some have taught,

(Osiander) that justification for a Christian believer resulted by Christ dwelling in a person. Contrary to Luther’s belief that justification was from outside of us and was imputed by God’s grace, Osiander believed that the righteousness of a believer was accomplished by the indwelling of God; thus, God finds one righteous because Christ is in that person.

You see the contrast?

The Scriptures teach that God finds us righteous and so acceptable because God has put the perfect law keeping obedience of Christ on our side of the ledger. Others have wrongly taught that God finds us righteous and acceptable because God finds Christ in a person.

Now throughout history that teaching that Christ outside of us as our righteousness has been charged with encouraging lawlessness on the part of believers.

The accusation has been that if we teach people that what Christ has done for them which is outside of them which is their standing before God then those people will not follow God’s law.

However, as Calvin and the Reformers taught this doth in no way follow.

Calvin,

“For, if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and at the same time, Christ is never where his Spirit is not, it is obvious that free righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration. Therefore, if you would properly understand how inseparable faith and works are, look to Christ, who, as the Apostle teaches, has been given to us for justification and for sanctification (I Cor. 1:30). Wherever, therefore, that righteousness of faith which we maintain to be free is, there too Christ is, and where Christ is there too is the Spirit of holiness, who regenerates the soul to newness of life.”

Calvin, Responsio (found in Ioannis Calvini opera selecta [ed. P. Barth, W. Niesel, and Dora Scheuner; 5 vols.; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1926–1952]

What Calvin is saying here is,

By the Spirit through faith believers are united to Christ who is in himself both (1) righteousness and (2) sanctification (I Corinthians 1:30). Hence these graces of righteousness (right standing w/ God because Christ’s obedience is accounted to them) and Sanctification (ongoing Spirit led obedience to God’s law) are

(1) distinct but inseparable, and entirely out of reach unless we are united to Christ;

(2) simultaneously bestowed, something Calvin is careful to emphasize repeatedly.

Consequently it is impossible to entertain either a salvation without works (works as dispensable for salvation) or a justification through our works (works as instrumental for justification).

If we do not hold with Rushdoony, and the overwhelming majority report of Reformed Christians since the Reformation, that it is Christ’s obedience to the 6th commandment as freely credited to our account that is our 6th commandment keeping righteousness then we are left to seeking to have a 6th commandment keeping obedience that is as complete as what the Catechism requires and so we are left with seeking to become our own Messiah.