Apologetics – Page 115

The Piper’s Generational Pietistic Advance Against The Kingdom Of Darkness

Circa 2012 — World Magazine

According to Barnabas Piper Homoxexuality is one of the most defining, contentious, and complex issues facing this generation of the church. We cannot sacrifice our biblical convictions but neither can we sacrifice the church’s ability to serve people of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles.

Circa 2030 — Universe Magazine

According to Eutychus Piper (son of Barnabas Piper and Grandson of John Piper) Necrophilia is one of the most defining, contentious, and complex issues facing this generation of the church. We cannot sacrifice our biblical convictions but neither can we sacrifice the church’s ability to serve people of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles.

Circa 2055 — Cosmos Magazine

And according to Nikolai Piper (son or Eutychus, grandson of Barnabas, and Great-Grandson of John Piper) Beastiality is one of the most defining, contentious, and complex issues facing this generation of the church. We cannot sacrifice our biblical convictions but neither can we sacrifice the church’s ability to serve people of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles.

The Clergy & The Destruction Of Christianity

This from,

The Decline of Christianity: How the Clergy Brought Down the Faith

Writing in the 19th century, Henry Buckle put together a three-volume History of Civilization in England (1869).

Buckle was no friend of Christianity, and was happy to witness its demise in his time. But his observation as to the cause of the decline of the influence of Christianity is rather revealing. Speaking of the decline of ecclesiastical power and the emergence of what he called “religious liberty”, he made these comments:

“Among the innumerable symptoms of this great movement, there were two of peculiar importance. These were the separation of theology, first form morals, and second from politics. The separation from morals was effected late in the seventeenth century; the separation from politics before the the middle of the eighteenth century. And it is a striking instance of the decline of the old ecclesiastical spirit, that both of these great changes were begun by the clergy themselves. . . . Warburton, bishop of Gloucester, was the first who laid down that the state must consider religion in reference, not to revelation, but to expediency; and that it should favour any particular creed, not in proportion to its truth, but solely with a view to its general utility. . . .

Thus it was that, in England, theology was finally severed from the two great departments of ethics and of government.”

Volume 1, pp.424-427

Dr. Hodge then goes on to say,

This is the legacy of the Enlightenment that is with us today. It’s religious manifestation was in Moravian pietism the faith system that influenced Wesley and the Great Awakening. Now if you want to understand why kids are turning up at college with the ideas of Nietzsche firmly planted in their psyche and in their lifestyle and departing the Christian faith in droves, you have to look backward to the 16th and 17th centuries to find not only the root ideas, but who introduced them.

And it was the Christians who effectively laid the foundations for their own demise over the next four centuries.

And now with the advent and growing popularity of R2K we are seeing the work of Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester flower here in the States in the Reformed community of all places. R2K does not believe that Christianity can create a distinct social order. There is no such thing as a Christian social order and so there can be no such thing as “Christendom.” As such, a social order vacuum is created for other false religions to fill. As Christianity can not form a social order or culture, therefore, Christ hating Judaism, Islam, Marxism, and other variant forms of religious humanism will form the social order and culture.

The last sentence from Buckle above must be corrected. Theology was never severed from England’s ethics and government. Certainly it was the case that Christian theology was severed from England’s ethics and government but some other theology then filled the vacuum to inform England’s ethics and government. No neutrality.

Historical Calvinism & Political Resistance … Contra R2K

‎”For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. We ought, rather, to spit upon their heads than to obey them.”

John Calvin,
Commentary on Daniel, Lecture XXX Daniel 6:22

Calvinist Francis Hotman posed this question,

“If a state was once free, but later was conquered by a tyrant, was it not lawful to overthrow the tyrant and revert to that ancient Independence?”

“The nature of wicked princes is much like to warthogs, which if they be suffered to have their snouts in the ground, and be not forthwith expelled, will suddenly have their snouts in all the body; So they if they be obeyed in any evil thing be it ever so little will be obeyed in all at length.”

John Ponet
Magisterial Reformer

‎”When therefore the supreme ruler has become a tyrant, he must be deemed by his own perjury (as against the covenant document with the people) to have freed people from their oath, and not to the contrary, when the people assert their rights against him.”

Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos
(Thought to have been written by a one of two men … both of whom were Calvinists)

“As often as the Magistrate commands anything that is repugnant EITHER to the worship which we owe unto God OR to the love which we owe unto our neighbor, we cannot yield thereunto with a safe conscience. For as often as the commandment of God and men are directly opposed one against another, this rule is to be perpetually observed; that it is better to obey GOD than men.”

Theodore Beza
Calvin’s Successor in Geneva

“Resistance to tyrannical governors was, according to (Calvinist Pierre) Viret, a legitimate act of self defense. He even endorsed the use of disinformation if the tyrant were persecuting as analogous to resisting a band of robbers. If the political leader acted like a criminal, Viret thought he should be treated like a one, and the citizens were justified in resisting him.”

The Political Ideas of Pierre Viret
Robert Dean Linder — p. 131

According to William Naphy’s “Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation, (p. 159-160)” Calvin, in his preaching confronted the Magistrates in his congregation. Naphy concludes that Calvin’s preaching was at times direct, confrontational, and “politically informed.” One of Calvin’s 1522 sermons landed Calvin in front of the Council to explain why he spoke of the senators and the other civil rulers in a sermon as

“Arguing against God”
“Mocking him,”
“Rejecting all the Holy scriptures to vomit forth their blasphemies as supreme decrees

And as (my personal favorite)

“Gargoyle monkeys [who] have become so proud”

Interesting material from Peter Martyr (Calvinist)

Martyr stipulated that others in the public weal, who were in ‘place and dignity lower than princes’ and yet in positions of responsibility to ‘elect the superiors,’ have power by existing laws to govern the commonwealth. If, therefore, a prince does not preform his covenant as promised, ‘it is lawful to constrain and bring him into order and by force compel him to fulfill the conditions and covenant which he had promised, and that by war when it cannot be otherwise done.’

And who does Martyr include in his list of “others in the public weal’ who had a responsibility to keep an eye on wandering Magistrates?

Why Peter Martyr includes “Ministers of the Churches,” as those who had a responsibility to keep an eye on wandering Magistrates.

“Loyal shoulders should sustain the power of the ruler so long as it is exercised in subjection to God and follows His ordinances; but if it resists and opposes the divine commandments, and wishes to make me share in its war against God, then with unrestrained voice, I answer back that God must be preferred before any man on earth.”

-John of Salisbury, Policraticus, 1159

A. A. Hodge Contra The Christ-less Public Square of R2K

“It is simply absurd that a man can be thoroughly convinced that God exists and that he is a Moral Governor who will demand an account for all the deeds done in the body-that he can have his heart fully of loyal affection and devotion to God as an individual while engaged in private business, and then be perfectly oblivious of the existence and of the claims of God as soon as he begins to act politically as a citizen of the State. If a man knows that God has forbidden theft, or incest, or divorce except on certain conditions, or the pursuit of worldly business on the weekly Sabbath, he cannot as a citizen do otherwise than make and execute laws in conformity to the known will of God.”

– the Rev. A.A. Hodge

“If a State in its public law acts atheistically, it can only be because a majority of its citizens are in heart atheists, no matter what religious professions they may make. Middle ground, a negative position, is absolutely impossible. God… is either recognized or denied, he is either carefully obeyed or rebelliously disobeyed; and this impossibility of a negative position is just as true in political societies and in their conduct as in any other departments of human life. Every nation has a religion or is positively, aggressively atheistic; indifference is antagonism.”

– the Rev. A.A. Hodge

New motto for R2K churches.

“All the numbers, and all the piety with none of the conviction.”

“R2K … all the convenience of Christianity with none of the persecution.”

R2K & Sola Scriptura

Darryl keeps trying to wave his hand insisting that Stellman’s departure has no implications for R2K. He writes,

First, on the matter of sola scriptura, 2k theology does not pit ecclesiology against the word of God but in fact limits the ministry of the church precisely to what Scripture teaches.

But R2K does pit ecclesiology against the word of God every time R2K insists that God’s explicit word is not the norm that norms all norms in the common realm. When R2K introduces limits upon the ministry that the Scripture does not recognize, at that point R2K pits ecclesiology against the word of God. As such Stellman’s need for a high ecclesiology as found in R2K translates well in his move away from sola scriptura.