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.

Reformation Day

The need for Reformation in our culture is seen at every turn. The Church has turned into a version of mental and emotional burlesque performance where any appeal that is made is made upon the basis of emotions or experience or the fear that the secret rapture might happen tomorrow. With the emasculation of the Church the rest of the culture has followed into eclipse. The family, when it is successful, has become merely a place for bed and boarding as opposed to a place for education and training. The schools continue to churn out slaves. The State keeps tending towards tyranny. The law is built upon relativistic sand. The arts produce ugliness that communicates that there is no such thing as beauty. In our economy we continue to punish those who save and reward those who build debt. The need for Reformation in our culture is seen at every turn.

The need will not be answered by attempt at renewal that is only moral at its base. What is wrong with our culture is theological and will not be altered by merely treating the immoral symptoms that pronounce the presence of theological disease. No, if we desire to heal the immoral symptoms we must destroy the theological disease from which all moral and cultural sickness emanates. The cure must be theological.

The need will not be answered by attempts at renewal that seek to alter people’s emotional responses. Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity — the 800 pound guerrilla in today’s Christian expression — will not answer our need for Reformation. Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity is more problem then it is solution. Indeed, one way we will know that Reformation is taking hold when we see the influence of Pentecostalism abate. With its theology of emotion and excitement Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity combined with its anti-intellectualism hasn’t what it takes to withstand the tidal wave of paganism that has drenched all of us, nor does it have the ability to provide the lasting answers to the larger questions that all cultures demand. Without Reformation we will die in our emotion.

The need will not be answered by appealing to people’s experiences. All the rage these days is “narrative theology,” which if handled rightly could be effective. However, “narrative theology” as it is handled by most of the Church is merely a celebration of everybody’s different life-stories. It is nothing more then Schleiermacher on mescaline. This can not and will not bring Reformation. Without Reformation we will die in our experience.

The need will only be answered by thinking rightly about God – or we could say by a Holy Spirit driven restoration of right Theology. That which the Church and culture is dying of is the disease of thinking wrongly about God. This wrong thinking about the God of the Bible is the disease that produces all of our foul immoral symptoms. The first place that our wrong thinking about God reveals itself is in our worship and doxology. Thinking wrongly about God we worship wrongly. Worshiping God wrongly we reinforce wrong thinking about God. Reformation in the Church, in the family, in the schools, in the law, in the economy, in the political order, and in the arts — Reformation that will heal wherever it flows — will first be seen in the repair of our theology and doxology.

The battle that we face today in our times and in our culture hence is not primarily between Republicans and Democrats. It is not primarily between Islam and Secular Humanism. It is not primarily between Liberals and Conservatives. The battle that we face today in our times and in our culture is the Battle of Theology. The question that confronts us is, “How Then Shall We Think About God.” Here is where the battle lies and should we answer this question wrongly, or allow people who have answered it wrongly to be our ecclesiastical and cultural gurus we shall die.

As a people then, we will suffer increasingly or decreasingly to the degree that we get our Theology wrong. The more a people think wrongly about God the more they will inflict themselves with all kinds of neuroses, psychopathic and sociopath behavior, and just plain strangeness. To the contrary, only Reformation can cure the ecclesiastical and cultural malaise that is characterized by these kinds of maladies.

As we turn to II Kings 22-23 we see Reformation as the remedy for what ails people who have embraced a culture of death.

I.) Sola Scriptura – Formal Principle Of Reformation (vs. 22:11)

Josiah realized that God’s people had disregarded the authoritative source of God’s rule over His people and such a realization led to deep anguish. The Reformation that washed over ancient Israel occurred because the Scripture was restored, and with the Scripture restored people began to think rightly about God.

In the Reformation in the 16th century this idea of Scripture alone was thought of as the “Formal Principle” of the Reformation. It was referred to as the “Formal Principle” because in returning to the Scripture alone as the authoritative source of theology much that was sloppy and inferior in thinking about God was challenged and removed.

This idea of Sola Scriptura is part of what we confess as a Reformed Protestant body of believers,

“We believe that [the] holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein…Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures nor ought we to consider custom or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God… Therefore, we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule” (Belgic Confession VII).

Before the Law was rediscovered in the II Kings account and before the Scriptures were rediscovered in the Reformation it was no longer the case in most quarters of the Church that the Scriptures were the authoritative source of theology. What had happened is that autonomous reason and tradition had been lifted above the Scriptures.

The Reformation was the Reformation because it made a serious effort to allow the Scripture to have pride of place in and over the Church and thus in and over the lives of God’s people.

Now if we are to have another Reformation again something like this has to occur again. It needs to occur again for in much if not most of Christianity in the world what has happened is that the Formal principle of Scripture is no longer Sola Scriptura. In Pentecostal quarters for example the formal principle is Scripture and direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. In Roman Catholic quarters for example the formal principle remains Scripture and tradition and autonomous reason. In Anglican or Episcopalian quarters for example the formal principle remains Scripture, Church Authority, and autonomous reason. In Emergent Church quarters for example the formal principle remains experience plus culture.

Unless God is gracious to give us a return to Sola Scriptura our Churches will continue to ape our pagan culture. Unless God is gracious to give us a return to Sola Scriptura we will continue to think wrongly about God.

Now, here we must have a word about what Sola Scriptura isn’t.

If there was a temptation once upon a time to over privatize Scripture in the hands of the corporate magesterium, there is in our time a temptation to over privatize Scripture in the hands of the individual, so that Sola Scriptura becomes Solo Scriptura. We must say that just as no group of people can stand over the Bible dictating to it what it says, so no single individual is allowed to stand over the Bible dictating to it what it says. If it was wrong for the Church to wrest Scripture away from God’s people, it is equally wrong for individuals to wrest Scripture away from the Church.

This is simply a plea to realize that as individuals we must read the Scriptures with the Church.

II.) Sola Fide — Material Principle Of Reformation (22:13)

“Our Fathers have not obeyed the Words of this book.”

Here the implicit idea is that God’s people, through their disobedience had defamed and defrauded God of that which was rightfully His – that is Glory.

We could say that by and in their disobedience they had attempted to de-glorify God.

Now this brings us to what was referred to as the Material Principle of the Reformation.

Material Principle = The central doctrine in a theology taught by that theology.

In the Reformation there was subtle disagreement on the Material principle.

Lutherans – Justification by grace alone

Reformed – The Glory Of God

The teleology or the end or goal of the Material principle for Reformed people has always been the exaltation of God. As Reformed people we look at the Material principle of Lutherans and what we tend to see is a theology that finds its final destination in man. We prefer instead to see justification by grace alone as serving the higher principle of God’s glory all the while insisting that justification by grace alone isn’t the end but rather is the means to the end of living to glorify God in all that we do. Reformed people insist that when God saves us through faith alone in Christ alone it is always for the end of God’s glory alone. God does all that he does, including saving His people, for His glory.

As we turn to the II Kings account we see that God’s people had failed to give God glory (22:17).

III.) No God But God – The Consequential Principle Of The Reformation (23:5f)

One way we will know that Reformation has come to us is when we begin to tear down the false gods that give meaning to our times, our cultures, our churches and our lives.

Here in II Kings we see how the gods are toppled. The account is straightforward but I think we little appreciate the cultural upheaval that is communicated in this text.

In order to get a sense of that we must realize that cultures find their meanings and definition from the religions and gods that define them. When Josiah attacks these gods and religions he is, as we would say, attacking their way of life – their mode of existence. Josiah is not merely assaulting the gods, he is assaulting the web of life in which the Israeli’s lived. He was attacking their cultural paradigm.

The same kind of destruction to false religions and gods happened in the Reformation. You can hardly read a history of the Reformation without coming across statues and religious art being destroyed because of the idolatrous nature that it was associated with in the minds of the people. Historical accounts record how people thronged into churches to bring out the Holy art and destroy it.

Indeed so great was the horror of the Reformers for the idolatry that many believe they over-reacted in becoming icon-phobes. But given the superstitious era in which they lived one can understand their reaction.

We, in our times, have lived through the kind of “way of life” assault on a culture that Josiah brought against the “way of life” of his people.

The nearest thing to this that has happened in our lifetimes is what happened in the iron curtain countries after the fall of the iron curtain. The people were rejecting the faith that had been foisted upon them and what Lenin and Stalin had pursued was visited upon their own heads as their statues and images were ripped town from city squares.

Anyway … you’ll know if in your lifetime you see Reformation because when Reformation comes the old gods are going to fall in such an obvious way you won’t be able to miss it. You’ll know if Reformation comes in your lifetime because your way of life will drastically change just as it drastically changed for the Israelites in II Kings. 23 and just as it drastically changed during the Reformation.

How Wrong Can Ted “Chappaquidick” Kennedy Be?

“…our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”

Senator Ted Kennedy
Supporting the 1965 Immigration Act

S.500 has put us in the position that by 2040 whites of European heritage will no longer make up a 50% plus majority of the American population. In 1960 five short years before S.500 was passed whites of European heritage were nearly 90 percent of the population. Everything that Teddy “Chappaquidick” Kennedy said was wrong.

Now some in the Church have said that this is good. The world is coming to us and so we have the opportunity to evangelize — so the argument goes. Now, if the Church were genuinely evangelizing our immigration nation I would embrace this reasoning but what is happening instead is that the Church is being evangelized by the different faith systems that are washing up on America’s shores. The result of our immigration nation has not been the extension of Biblical Christianity into these various cultures but rather the result has been the extension of multiculturalism, and multi-faithism (sometimes referred to as postmodernism). What’s more that multiculturalism and multifaithism is increasingly coming into the Church and being defined as Christianity.

A nation, like a family, is not defined merely or only by propositions. A nation is defined by shared faith, shared family ties, and shared attachment to the land. In the immigration policy we are pursuing we are becoming an alien nation, festooned with alien faiths, populated by alien families. The result of such a policy can only be eventual balkanization where theological, social and cultural homogeneity will be replaced with tribal enclaves each characterized by their own unique theological, social, and cultural homogeneity. In short the immigration policy we are pursuing now will eventually result in the war of all against all.

In my opinion we have no will to change course and so the die is cast.

Tune in tomorrow for some more cheery news that will make you happy and carefree.

The Case Against McCain

First, McCain’s pro abortion credentials were clearly seen in his votes to confirm mega abortionists Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Beyer. No man who is pro life in any significant sense votes for judicial murderers.

Second, McCain’s culture of death credentials are clearly articulated by his support for stem cell research.

Third, abortion is crucial but in this campaign it is not the only issue worthy of consideration. McCain’s stance on granting amnesty (McCain-Kennedy) to illegal immigrants (a policy that will destroy whatever is left of the homogeneity of this country as well as whatever is left of Protestant Biblical Christian influence) should be enough to oppose McCain.

Fourth, McCain’s anti first amendment stance in McCain-Feingold should cause all thoughtful Christians to recoil by lending McCain their strength through their vote.

Fifth, McCain’s membership in the gang of 14 that stopped President Bush getting the conservative justices that Bush wanted is evidence against McCain’s sincerity on matters conservative.

Sixth, McCain’s horrid stance on the second amendment is perhaps only exceeded by B. Hussein Obama. Repeatedly, McCain’s advantage in this election is that he is the fascist leftist relative to the communist leftist Obama.

Seventh, McCain’s is a warmonger. If he will not get your children in the womb he will get them when they are old enough to tote a gun and die in a war. Remember also that McCain, like most modern presidents and politicians, accepts as normal and good that women are in the military and combat. This is an issue that is easily forgotten or dismissed by many Christians.

Eighth, McCain voted for the 700 billion dollar bailout indicating that he is every bit the socialist that he moans about Obama being. The difference between these two men is one of degree and not of kind.

Ninth, temperamentally McCain is a stick of dynamite just waiting to explode. His public anger outbursts are legendary. McCain is so unstable that having him in the oval office is playing catch with vials of nitro-glycerin.

Tenth, McCain has shown contempt for the class of people here, who, despite McCain’s past contempt, insist on voting for this man. Listen people, McCain does not like the Christian crowd though he is more than happy to use them (witness Palin). When you vote for McCain you are voting for a man who thinks your an intolerant lot.

Now, after saying all that, and realizing that either McCain or Obama will win I still prefer McCain. This is a true indication at how bad B. Hussein Obama really is. But my preference for McCain over the Black Nationalist Infanticidist Marxist Obama will not get me anywhere near yoking my strength to McCain with my vote. I will not willfully choose Hitler in order to stave off Stalin. My stance is a “pox upon both their houses.”

The mistake that Christians like Gary DeMar and Doug Wilson who support McCain are making is their premise that they think they can change the Republican party from the inside out. It is my estimation that if people like Gary and Doug really want to change the party then they will force the party to take them seriously by voting against the party when it strays to far from the positions that Gary and Doug fervently embrace. Gary and Doug constantly pulling Republican levers only communicates to the country club Republican power set that they can continue to hose the constituency that Gary and Doug represents.

I will vote Baldwin and be satisfied with knowing that I have not entered into league with a despicable man. Further, I will remain convinced that Christians who vote for McCain are not yet aware how they will justify to King Jesus someday why they voted the way they did.

Setting The Record Straight

Recently I came across a well known Ph.D. bearing false witness against classical Reformed Theology. I thought I would take on his response here.

Below is the question that kicked off his response.

Question,

Just curious: how come no one would personally and publicly debate Greg Bahnsen on theonomy, if theonomy was so obviously wrong that any covenant child could refute?

Answer,

This is an interesting question for a couple of reasons. I see theonomy as a sort of analogue to the FV. Both movements reflect a similar pathology in the Reformed corpus. Both reflect what call the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty.

First, far later in the answer this man admits that FV and theonomy are not synonyms. What he doesn’t mention is that it was a Theonomic denomination that first blew the whistle in official church courts on Federal vision. One must wonder that if a similar “pathology” exists why the Theonomists would bring the Federal Vision up on charges. What this man is trying to accomplish by innuendo is guilt by association.

Second, this man decries religious certainty, which would seem to mean that he doesn’t have religious certainty. I mean how can one fault the quest for religious certainty and embrace religious certainty for oneself? So the objection here is that people should not have the religious certainty that theonomists have. Presumably our objector is certain of that.

The FV is making the doctrine of justification a little more “reasonable,” by reducing the scandal of the cross and the offense of the gospel. As it turns out, we do have a small part in justification! That’s just a little more reasonable than the confessional Protestant alternative. Theonomy represents another side of the same quest. It offers a kind of ethical precision and a kind of ethical authority that reduces ambiguities to certainties and, on its premises, makes Christian ethics a little more “reasonable.” Put the quarter in the slot, pull the handle and out comes the correct ethical answer to one’s particular question. The same spirit that produced the Talmud produced Rush’s Institutes. The same devotion to the rabbis gives us the fascination with Rabbi Rousas, Rabbi Gary, and Rabbi Greg.

Now, I must admit that I don’t see the linkage between religious certainty of Federal Vision that ends up denying the clear teaching of scripture on the sufficiency of Christ and the religious certainty of Theonomy that affirms the clear teaching of scripture on the certainty of Christian ethics. I think our Ph.D. is confused on this point.

Second, this man is disingenuous in the section I have put in bold. I have just finished Bahnsen’s chapter in “God and Politics” and in that chapter Bahnsen admits that determining God’s mind in the application of His Law-Word is hard work that will find disagreement among those who are doing the work. So the idea that it is all as easy as a vending machine is just plain false witness.

Third, note that this man has religious certainty that Theonomists dare not have religious certainty on ethical issues. He is ethically certain that biblical ethics shouldn’t communicate ethical certainty. Irony anyone?

Also, keep in mind that without ethical certainty in Biblical ethics we are inevitably going to be left with a church that is filled with each man doing what is right in his own eyes since uncertainty leaves each man to determine ethics for himself.

Fourth, this man doesn’t like the idea of Biblical Christians coming to determined conclusions regarding Biblical ethics (derisively referring to such men as “rabbis”) and yet, if Biblical Christians don’t arrive at determined conclusions regarding Biblical ethics then somebody else will have to determine the ethics by which the church and christians in the culture live by. I suspect for this man he would prefer Natural Law rabbis such as Rabbi John Dewey, Rabbi Jaques Derrida, and Rabbi Peter Singer as opposed to Rabbi Gary North, Rabbi Greg Bahnsen, and Rabbi R. J. Rushdoony. The point here is that someone is going to have to do the work on determining ethics. Would we prefer that work to be done by God’s men or the men of Natural Law?

Finally, it is despicable in the highest degree for this man to say that the same anti-Christ spirit that produced the talmud is the spirit that energized Rushdoony when he wrote the Institutes. That is a meanness that is beyond mere uncharitableness. That comment is hatred exemplified.

Second, let me question a premise of your question. I’ve been thinking about and dealing with theonomy since you were (probably) a child. I don’t know anyone, even one ardently opposed to theonomy, who thinks that it’s childplay. I am convinced that it’s profoundly wrong, but I’ve never thought it was “easy.” Like the FV, theonomy has to be unravelled and that’s hard work. Further, just as there are varieties of the FV, there are varieties of theonomy. Just as the FV is a moving target, so theonomy was a moving target. Today hardly anyone wants to admit being a theonomist. I half expect someone to deny that Greg was really a theonomist!

Allow me to proffer that the reason that theonomy can’t be unravelled is because it is Biblical Christianity.

Second, it is the case that there are varieties of theonomy, just as there are varieties of R2Kt virus proponents. I mean not even this man is as extreme as Lee and Misty Irons. Diversity in a movement is no proof of it being specious.

Personally though, I don’t think it is difficult at all to unravel R2Kt virus theology — or Natural Law for that matter.

Third, both movements have in common a deep concern for the collapse of the culture and our place in it. Some versions of theonomy/reconstructionism have culture being gradually regenerated through Christian influence and some expect a cataclysm out of which arises a Reconstructionist phoenix. FV wants to regenerate the culture through sacerdotalism (baptismal union). Both are visions of Christendom restored.

All this section is, is a complaint about post-millennialism.

Yes, it’s true that postmillennialists like B.B. Warfield, Jonathon Edwards, and Athanasius thought culture would be gradually influenced through Christian influence. Should they be run out of the Church as well?

Many Reformed men throughout Church history anticipated Christendom (Christ’s Kingdom) being restored. Do a-millennialists, like this man, believe that the notion of Christendom is a notion that should be repented of (yes, he once said that)? Does he mean to suggest that all post-millennialists throughout history need to repent?

These factors help explain why so many theonomists have been attracted to the FV and vice-versa. I realize that not all theonomists are FVists nor are all FVists theonomists and I realize that some theonomic groups have been justly critical of the FV, nevertheless, I regard those arguments as a family fight.

I realize that not all R2Kt advocates are followers of Lee and Misty Irons. I realize some R2Kt advocates have been critical of Lee and Misty Irons, nevertheless, I regard those arguments as a family fight.

The reluctance to debate Greg was grounded in some of the same concerns that folk have about the FV. At first it was regarded as a weird novelty, to which the critics didn’t want to give credibility, and then it was viewed as a threat. The perception of the FV has gone through the same process. At first, no one wanted to take it seriously. It was only after the Kinnaird case that people really began to pay attention (and Kinnaird denies holding the FV, but his relations to the FV weren’t clear a couple of years ago). Now churches are acting to protect themselves against the FV.

The reason people didn’t want to debate Dr. Greg Bahnsen is that he would have kicked their R2Kt virus butts up and down the Debate hall. Don’t let this guy kid you.

Second, a debate of sorts did take place in the literature. Compare the “Theonomy — A Reformed Critique” with “Theonomy an Informed Response” and it becomes dreadfully obvious who won the debate. Read Dr. Ken Gentry’s “Covenantal Theonomy” which was a response to Dr. T. David Gordon’s R2Kt virus writings and it becomes dreadfully obvious who won the debate. Read Dr. Greg Bahnsen as he dissected and dessicated Dr. Meredith Kline’s work on theonomy and it becomes dreadfully obvious who won the debate. Indeed, wherever and whenever the debate has been entered into the Klinean school has been sorely bruised.

Theonomy may be patently wrong, but that doesn’t mean that it’s an easy case to make. Like the FV, theonomy is a huge ball of twine that has to be unwound in multiple directions.

And Theonomists are still waiting for someone to make a dent.

Like theonomy/reconstructionism, FV has strong, colorful leaders.

Is this a fault, an argument for boring leadership, or an admission that the virus types are bland, vanilla, and flat?

Like Doug Wilson, Greg was fast on his feet and a good debater. Greg was a trained philosopher and could be intimidating. That also probably contributed to reluctance to debate him.

LOL… What contributed to reluctance to debate Bahnsen was fear.

Non-theonomic students at WSC, when I was a student, who wanted to enter this presbytery of the OPC lived in mortal terror of being grilled by Greg. He was said to question non-theonomic students ruthlessly on the floor of presbytery unless they had taken private tuition from him! I’m not saying that this is fact, it’s just my recollection of what happened c. 1984-7. I guess theonomists will deny it ever happened. “St Greg could never have done such a thing.”

The R2Kt virus house can only be built by tearing down Bahnsen. This is pettiness to the max.

I also remember Rabbi Gary saying once that if anyone criticized theonomy that he would “bury” them (ala Khrushchev). I got some pretty heated correspondence for daring to offer some mild criticisms of theonomy/reconstructionism in a short dictionary article! Imagine what would happen to one who dared to question one of the Rabbis directly?

If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

As Bahnsen believed that Theonomy and Biblical Christianity were synonymous I can no more fault him for defending the faith then I can fault the Apostle Paul for defending the faith against Judaic versions of Christianity.