Apologetics – Page 118

Ask The Pastor; Where Does Scripture Teach That Signs & Wonders Have Ended?

Note — The name of the conversation partner has been changed to a totally random name I pulled out of a hat. Also, a tip of the hat goes to Joe Bloggs for providing some of the exegetical work. Thanks Joe.

_______________________________________________________

Dear Pastor,

Where can you point out in scripture that these Signs and Wonders gifts – such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc. – are no longer given by Holy Spirit?

Bojidar Mavinov

Dear Bojidar

Thank you for writing. Of course the standard Reformed position held from the Reformation forwards is called “Cessationism.” Cessationism teaches that the Charismatic gifts have ceased and that the no further special Revelation is to be expected

Before we turn to the question proper let us make a few opening observations about Pentecostalism with its desire to look for further Revelation (commonly referred to as continuation-ism).

1.) What happens in continuation-ism is that the authority of Scripture is diluted. When you raise signs and wonders (SAW) to a level of authority alongside Scripture the sum effect is to lower and dilute the authority of Scripture. Now instead of looking to Scripture for God’s mind and instruction people also look beyond and outside of God’s word to “dreams and visions” and “words of knowledge,” or a “word from the Lord.” Hence, God’s inscripturated word is diluted. This desire for additional special revelation is seen in what you have recently written,

<blockquote>”I will have to pray and wait for a supernatural revelation, for relying on my mind to use such a tremendous resource (of God’s supernatural power) would be the stupidest thing I could do as a Christian.”</blockquote>

<blockquote>”All knowledge comes through revelation, and therefore the application of the Word to present use will need supernatural revelation.”

“All knowledge comes through revelation, and therefore the application of the Word to present use will need supernatural revelation.”

“Since the Bible contains the canonical covenantal principles, but not the specific application for present use for every man in every circumstance, revelation is needed.”</blockquote>

This insisting on continued revelation on your part takes us off of God’s inscripturated word, and throws us back on intuition and mysticism masquerading as “revelation,” Human mysticism and intuition become authorities alongside Scripture.

2.) In keeping with that when one raises SAW to equal authority of Scripture one has, in essence, denied Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). It is no longer Scripture alone that is the authority but rather it is Scripture plus signs and wonders. Of course this is to deny the very heart of the Reformation and to proclaim that one is no longer “Reformed.”

3.) Speaking of the denial of the Reformed faith, Pentecostalism, with its desire for signs and wonders (SAW) is by definition Arminian since the Reformed faith, by definition, rejects continuation-ism. Lesser theologies and their adherents (Arminianism and Arminians) which support SAW are, in principle, denying the finished work for Christ. This is so because signs and wonders, as God’s Revelation, always served the purpose in Scripture of validating and confirming Christ’s redemptive work. As such when signs and wonders are pursued independent of their attachment, in Scripture to Christ’s finished work, what is being communicated is a dissatisfaction with the finished work of Christ in favor or a theology of glory. Arminianism is the only school of thought which can permit ongoing revelation because Arminianism has a limited view of God’s sovereignty, in that if God was sovereign then He would not need extra-Biblical methods of revealing the salvific works of Christ once the full relevation of His
atoning works were made manifest and inscripturated.

4.) Pentecostalism has an unfortunate tendency of denying the Reformed principle of “the priesthood of all believers” creating instead a two tiered Christianity, where the front tier is occupied by the “second blessing Christians” while the second tier is occupied by those poor questionable folks who just are not real Spirit-filled Christians because they don’t do glossolalia.

5.) Pentecostalism finally reduces to a mystical subjectivism. Without the objective word anything and everything become potential for SAW. With the advent of the “Toronto Blessing,” the “Brownsville Revival” and “The Kansas City Prophets” we have seen SAW including “Laughing in the Spirit,” “Hitting in the Spirit,” “Kicking in the Spirit,” “Mooing in the Spirit,” and, my favorite, “Crowing like a Rooster in the Spirit.” All of these have been advocated as SAW. Now, Bojidar, it may be the case that you would find those antics to be silly but since there is absolutely zero standard in order to regulate SAW anything can be said to be a SAW from God. Once Pentecostals like you advocate for SAW then only the subjectivism of any given Pentecostal limits the SAW.

6.) We would add here the fact that those who have been duly called, set apart, and ordained to expound the Scriptures (as opposed to every believers duty and understand them in a common-sense manner), have stated that the miraculous ceased with the inscripturation of Scripture; such exegetes include Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the Westminster theologians, Owen, Voetius, Chas. & A.A. Hodge, Edwards, Godet, Shedd, Warfield, Kuyper, Hughes, and Lee.

Now turning to the question we started with let us explore the Scripture on the subject of why revelation has ceased.

1.) Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

God has spoken His completed message in Christ. The incarnation of the Lord Christ is the final revelation of the Father and as such further signs and wonders are to be considered “anti-Revelation.”

There are no further special revelational messages because nothing else is to be said. With the Scriptures God’s speaking in verbal propositional form has ceased. To allow for further special Revelation is to teach that Christ was NOT God’s final Revelational Word. Your insistence on more special revelation Bojidar communicates a dissatisfaction with Christ as God’s final word.

2.) “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?” – Hebrews 2:1-4

In this passage we see that those ‘signs and wonders’ were a thing of the past. Therefore, even by the time of the donation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the sign gifts had ceased. To understand the first few verses of Hebrews 2, you must understand the Greek verb ‘aorist’ past tense – that is the very point. The aorist tense means that it is done and dust, never to be continued. That is why signs and wonders have ceased; because they were ‘bearing’ witness to the start of the Lord’s preaching of the Gospel. The word translated ‘bearing’ is key in this passage to understanding the use of signs and wonders. The author of Hebrews is saying that they have served their purpose and are not to be repeated. Why? Because now the full revelation of Christ has been given (cf. Hebrews 1 in #1 above).

3.) “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” – 1 Corinthians 13:8-10

Consider that Scripture here teaches that SAW and tongues would come to an end. The foretelling (prophesy) comes to an end. The tongues (glossolalia) comes to an end, the knowledge (“word from the Lord, ” “word of wisdom,” “word of knowledge”) comes to an end.

I know Bojidar that you and the Pentecostals will say that that which is ‘perfect’ has not yet come and so I am misinterpreting the passage. Of course that is just an assertion on your part and against the clear teaching of Scripture, (i.e., Hebrews and Revelation, and Daniel), that that which is ‘perfect’ is in fact Scripture itself as it is the full and clear revelation of Jesus Christ. I would add here that the duly called exegetes who rightly divided God’s Word, have taught that the ‘perfect’ in I Corinthians 13 refers to the Scripture as to that which is the “perfect which is to come.” This list includes men like, Edwards, Dabney, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Pink, Reymond, Unger, Du Toit, Gaffin, Judisch, and Budgen. Really, the Pentecostal reading is the innovative and novel reading.

4.) Daniel 9:24f — Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thine holy city, to finish the wickedness, and to seal up the sins, and to reconcile the iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

We see here that the ‘vision and prophecy’ was to be sealed up by the time Jerusalem was destroyed. This happened in 70 A.D. Now when we read Daniel 9 in light of I Corinthians 14:4-6 (also written prior to AD 70) we see that because Paul makes ‘tongues’ a subset of ‘prophecy,’ that tongues have ceased with the fall of Jerusalem.

“He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?” – 1 Corinthians 14:4-6

So, if tongues is a lesser subset of prophesy, per the inspired Apostle, and if prophesying has been sealed in 70 AD per Daniel then if what Daniel is speaking of has come to pass then prophesying and SAW is sealed up and is no more.

5.) Acts 2:16 But this is that, which was spoken by the Prophet Joel,

Note that Peter says that the signs and wonders (SAW) happening on Pentecost is the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy. There is no indication in anything that Peter says that this unique event is to continue. To expect a continued pouring out of the Spirit on new believers such as what we find on the day of Pentecost would be like expecting repeated crucifixions and resurrections of Christ for each new believer. All are unique one time events that satisfy the expectations of Redemptive History.

Of course this does not deny that the believers are filled with the Spirit for as Paul teaches in I Corinthians 12

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews, or Grecians, whether we be bond, or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

So, even though new believers do not receive a repeated 1st century Pentecost they always receive Christ by a spirit authored and spirit filled union with Christ. All believers are filled with the Spirit and do no wait for a subsequent filling of the Spirit after being united to Christ.

6.) Acts 2:²²Ye men of Israel, hear these words, JESUS of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you with great works, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Note here Bojidar, that once again, as in Hebrews 2, that the SAW are uniquely connected with the ministry of the Lord Christ. SAW were God’s approval on the ministry of Christ. Note also the aorist verbs here demonstrating that all this is past. Christ was approved by God via SAW.

7.) Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

SAW and tongues and prophesy add to God’s words. Now, typically Pentecostals, like yourself Bojidar, will insist that they are not adding to God’s word and that anything that is arrived at via SAW and tongues and prophesy must be 100% consistent with the inscripturated word.

However, if SAW doesn’t say anything different than what Scripture says and is in full agreement w/ Scritpure than SAW and tongues and foretelling (prophesy) are not needed since we already have that which they are 100% consistent with. If God has spoken in such a way that anything other that is said, via extra scriptural Revelation, has to agree with what God has said then SAW is a redundancy and so not needed.

SAW would, at the very least then, be superfluous.

Anticipating and Answering and Objection

One of my old Pentecostal bible study notes comments on Acts 2:39 by saying that Peter explicitly promises what happened to the Apostles to occur over and over again. It offers,

³⁹For the promise is made unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

<blockquote>“The promise of the baptism in the Holy Spirit was not just for those present on the day of Pentecost, but for all who would believe in Christ throughout this age: “for you” – Peter’s audience; “your children” – the next generation; “for all who are far off” – the third and subsequent generations. (1) The baptism in the Spirit with its accompanying power was not a once-for-all occurrence in the church’s history. It did not cease with Pentecost, nor with the close of the apostolic age. (2) It is the birthright of every Christian to seek, expect and experience the same baptism in the Spirit that was promised and given to the NT Christians.”</blockquote>

These notes are in error. Joel’s prophecy cited by Peter, is in fact given in Acts 2:17-21. However, by verse 39, Peter has moved on from talking about Joel’s prophecy. From there Peter has discussed Jesus and David. After that Peter finishes a section of what and the people had then responded by crying out: “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”. Peter then responds and says: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” And then Peter, following on from that statement says: “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”

The promise Peter says is for them and their children, and to all that are afar off is not the promise of what Joel prophesied clear back in vs. 17-21, pertaining to the sign gifts, but rather the promise that Peter speaks of is remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost Himself. He does not state anywhere in this passage that ‘signs and wonders’ were the continuing gift of the Holy Spirit on all new believers. The idea that Peter in Acts 2:39 is referring to SAW is an assertion you and your fellow Pentecostals make, but it is not in the text. The Holy Ghost Himself in greater measure than in the Older Testament was the ‘gift’ spoken off by Peter, and part of the ‘promise’ – the other part of the promise was the remission of sins.

So Bojidar, I hope that this helps you see where from Scripture we conclude that SAW and continuation-ism is not biblical.

Mike Horton and Zacharias Ursinus Contradicting One Another On Natural Law

Mike Horton of Escondido wrote,

“Positive law is grounded in natural law—the law of God known to the conscience of everyone as God’s image-bearer, even if the truth is suppressed in unrighteousness…. (N)one of us comes to general revelation neutrally. But remember that we are all made in God’s image, including rebels, and that the Spirit restrains wickedness and promotes justice by his common grace. When you offer good “general revelation” arguments, you’re not disengaging from the teachings of special revelation (Scripture).

But Ursinus in his Commentary on Heidelberg (p. 506) writes,

“Furthermore, although natural demonstrations teach nothing concerning God that is false, yet men, without the knowledge of God’s word, obtain nothing from them except false notions and conceptions of God; both because these demonstrations do not contain as much as is delivered in his word, and also because even those things which may be understood naturally, men, nevertheless, on account of innate corruption and blindness, receive and interpret falsely, and so corrupt it in various ways.”

Will the real Reformer please stand up.

And so as to ward off the inevitable naysayers who offer that Ursinus and Horton are not speaking of the same objects of knowledge allow me to offer that it is simply the case that if, as Ursinus offers, Natural Man cannot know God, then, as all meaning for all facts are found in their relation to God (Basic Van Til Presuppositionalism) then what Horton offers, by definition, cannot be true.

As Bahnsen was fond of saying, men may “know” things but they cannot account for their knowing. So… while Ursinus and Horton are not talking about the exact same thing (Knowing God {Ursinus}) vs. (Knowing reality {Horton}) the implications that I note are valid.

Of course fallen men always sneak stolen capital into their God hating worldview to get it off the ground but it is never done so in admission to knowing God. As such … they hold what they”know” of reality as a thief. It is theirs but it isn’t theirs. They know but they don’t know.

Ambrose contra Symmachus, Piper, Mohler & all R2K

“Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them.”

Proverbs 28:4

In the 4th century Emperor Gratian’s removal of the pagan altar of victory from the Senate was the occasion for a great debate between Symmachus, the leader of the pagan aristocracy, and the ablest Italian ecclesiastic, Bishop Ambrose of Milan (St. Ambrose). Symmachus was the classical Liberal in this debate and was arguing against Ambrose that all the ancient pagan religions should be reinstated in Rome and Christianity not be allowed to be the unique religion of the people. Symmachus had all the liberal qualities that arise when liberals are in the minority. Symmachus was tolerant, generous and simply wanted fairness. Symmachus argued that many roads lead to God — why should the old religion of Rome, under whose aegis the Roman state had prospered, not be left in Peace he reasoned.

“We demand then the restoration of that condition of religious affairs which was so long advantageous to the state. Let the rulers of each sect and of each opinion be counted up; a late one(3) practised the ceremonies of his ancestors, a later(4) did not put them away. If the religion of old times does not make a precedent, let the connivance of the last(5) do so….

(Formerly our Emperor) enquired about the origin of the temples, and expressed admiration for their builders. Although he himself followed another religion, he maintained its own for the empire, for everyone has his own customs, everyone his own rites…. Now if a long period gives authority to religious customs, we ought to keep faith with so many centuries, and to follow our ancestors, as they happily followed theirs….

Let me live after my own fashion, for I am free….

We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not conflict.”

Read those words of the champion of the pagan cause, Symmachus again, and ask yourself how similar they sound to modern day Symmachus like Christian clergy.

“Well, Christians should step back for a moment and recognize that there is something important here at stake. There is no reason why Christians should argue against having a Muslim holiday on the school calendar if there is a significant group or percentage of Muslims in the community – that would simply be fair and it would simply makes sense. We should not claim the privilege of having our religious holidays on the calendar and consider it some kind of Christian victory to keep other religious holidays off the calendar.”

Albert “Symmachus” Mohler

“We express a passion for the supremacy of God… by making clear that God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order-not because pluralism is his ultimate ideal, but because in a fallen world, legal coercion will not produce the kingdom of God. Christians agree to make room for non-Christian faiths (including naturalistic, materialistic faiths), not because commitment to God’s supremacy is unimportant, but because it must be voluntary, or it is worthless. We have a God-centered ground for making room for atheism.”

John Symmachus Piper

Contrary to Symmachus of old, and modern day Symmachus’, Ambrose was the man who stood upon the principle that Christianity as the one true religion must by necessity eclipse all other religions as the God of the Bible eclipses all other gods. Ambrose dealt with Symmachus’ arguments one by one exposing the fallacy in each of them. In that context he addressed Theodosius as to the need to put away the old pagan of religions as they were empty and ineffectual rites. In 392, after Theodosius gained control of the whole empire, he issued an official proscription of paganism, forbidding anyone in any place whatsoever, even in private, to exercise any of the ancient rites of the ancient religion. This action supporting the Christian faith the “Christian” clergy Piper and Mohler would be aghast over.

Ambrose argued against Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler such,

But, says Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler, let the altars be restored to the images, and their ornaments to the shrines. Let this demand be made of one who shares in their superstitions; a Christian Emperor has learnt to honour the altar of Christ alone. Why do they exact of pious hands and faithful lips the ministry to their sacrilege? Let the voice of our Emperor utter the Name of Christ alone, and speak of Him only, Whom he is conscious of, for, “the King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord.”(1) Has any heathen Emperor raised an altar to Christ? While they demand the restoration of things which have been, by their own example they show us how great reverence Christian Emperors ought to pay to the religion which they follow, since heathen ones offered all to their superstitions.

I have answered those who provoked me as though I had not been provoked, for my object was to refute the Memorial, not to expose superstition. But let their very memorial make you, O Emperor, more careful. For after narrating of former princes, that the earlier of them practised the ceremonies of their fathers, and the later did not abolish them; and saying in addition that, if the religious practice of the older did not make a precedent, the connivance of the later ones did; it plainly showed what you owe, both to your faith, viz., that you should not follow the example of heathen rites, and to your affection, that you should not abolish the decrees of your brother. For if for their own side alone they have praised the connivance of those princes, who, though Christians, yet in no way abolished the heathen decrees, how much more ought you to defer to brotherly love, so that you, who ought to overlook some things even if you did not approve them in order not to detract from your brother’s statutes, should now maintain what you judge to be in agreement both with your own faith, and the bond of brotherhood.

Now, it is true that our leaders are hardly Christian but the principle we see in Ambrose is a Christian contending that the one true faith should be honored as the recognized unique faith of the people. This is contrary to the argument that Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler (and all of R2K) advance when they contend that the one true faith of the people is that all the faiths are equal and should be equally honored.

Who will you stand with? Christian Ambrose of Milan or the consummate Liberals Symmachus, Piper, Mohler and R2K?

The full discussion between Symmachus and Ambrose can be found here,

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/ambrose-sym.asp

Thankful for the Explicitness of Rev. Dr. Pastor Lee — R2K Unleashed X

3. Do forget the OT, please. Seriously. You must understand that Romans 12 – 13 and the rest of the NT is a radical departure from OT Israel. Israel’s mandate was to make the land of Canaan (and other nations by extension) submit to its rule and reign. The NT Church is to submit to the reign of the nations. These two mandates are not only different, they are opposite. The prophets were calling the kings to account because it was in their portfolio, it was a theocracy, and the “King” was a type of Christ. NT prophets are preachers, and Caesar is not in their portfolio. Only sin in and among God’s people. This is why Paul says that God himself instituted the civil authority, they are God’s servants, and they answer directly to him, not to him through the church. Romans 13 is not a command. It is a description. They are doing this, now, apart from the Bible or the Church. God has given them sufficient knowledge of good and evil to fulfill their office since the fall.

Dr. Rev. Pastor Brian “Latin reader, no coward, Titles indifferent” Lee

1.) Here we find an explicit dispensationalizing of the OT and a hermeneutic of radical discontinuity. Now, R2K may apply their dispensationalism in different ways but the idea of counseling someone to “Do forget the OT, please. Seriously,” is a Dispensational impulse.

2.) This provides a window into why the Republication theory of the Mosaic Covenant is part and parcel of R2K. R2K needs to slough off any and all general equity talk that remains from the Mosaic covenant, as well as all concrete application of the OT Law to the Post-Resurrection public square. The R2K Republication theory of the Mosaic Covenant serves that purpose. We can make distinctions between R2K and the Mosaic Republication but we must keep before us that the innovative theology that is R2K can not be “successful” apart from their innovative reading of the Mosaic covenant as a Republication with it’s upper and lower registers and its “merit here” but not “merit there” “reasoning.” What the republication of the Mosaic covenant theory offers R2K is the ability to disregard the Mosaic covenant law in any of its concrete expressions, while still retaining the Mosaic law as somehow abstractly abstracted from the Mosaic covenant.

3.) The way that Romans 12 and 13 is read by Lee is yet another example of innovation. I would challenge the reader to read the way that Christopher Goodman read Romans 13 which was fairly typical of men like Knox and a share of the Puritans.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/goodman/obeyed.htm

Harold Berman offers a good work that traces how the Reformation impacted the Law and Social Order of Nations. Berman traces out how the Reformation applied the insights of God’s Law as expressed in all of Scripture for the ordering of the civil realm.

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Revolution-Protestant-Reformations-Tradition/dp/0674022300/ref=pd_sim_b_6?ie=UTF8&refRID=0HJ54FNAXBDMQ1ZDWVVR

Lee is asserting that his innovative reading of Romans 12-13 should just be accepted upon his word but his assertion is just not accurate.

We need to keep in mind that it is incumbent to read all of the bible in context with all of the Bible. Just consider though how Lee and R2K does not do this. They excise the Mosaic covenant. They tell us to forget the Old Testament … Seriously. They dispensationalize the Scripture. Sure, if you read Romans 13 presupposing your own historically innovative and mistaken matrix naturally one is going to find Romans 12-13 convincingly proving that the Church’s only role is to submit to the anti-Christ State. Lee has need to heed Van Prinsterer’s warning of the need to avoid “serious conceptual confusion when it comes to Church and State and their mutual relation and the misuse that is being made … of the no less apostolic admonition, ‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers,’ with the result that people run the risk of …. lapsing into a passiveness which is injurious alike to civil liberties and law and order and which in no wise resembles genuine Christian submission.”

All I can do is to beg the reader to look into these things and not accept the assertions of R2K-philes.

4.) Lee’s statement that in the OT the Nations were to ruled by Israel’s religion while in the NT the Israel of God is to b ruled by the pagan religion of the Nations is breathtaking.

“Israel’s mandate was to make the land of Canaan (and other nations by extension) submit to its rule and reign. The NT Church is to submit to the reign of the nations. These two mandates are not only different, they are opposite.”

Please keep in mind, dear reader, that the reign of a nation never happens in a vacuum. To be ruled by a Nation, by necessity, means to be ruled by the religion of said Nation since reigning, like law, has to be informed by some religion or worldview. When Lee tells us that the Church is to submit to the reign of the Nations, he is, by necessity, telling us that the Church is to be ruled by the religion that informs that reign. In my hearing that statement has the sound of treason about it.

Part of our difference here is eschatology but not even amillennialists of old never went so far as to suggest that the Israel of God is to be ruled by the pagan religion of the Nations.

“The thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belong to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.” (page 194)

Geerhardus Vos
The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church

It is Lee’s militant amillennialism (another characteristic of R2K) that informs him. The Nations can not be ruled by the Church’s Christian faith (as opposed to being ruled by the Church) since such ruling can not happen until Christ’s returns. Indeed, for R2K, Christ ruling over concrete Nations in time and space is an impossibility. Hence their hatred for Christendom. You see, their eschatology can not allow it.

Even if you are amillennialist, dear reader, will you close ranks with Lee or Vos on this matter?

5.) Lee’s statement about the mandates being opposite brings us to another conclusion and that is that R2K and standard historical Reformed theology are also opposite. The extremity of the R2K position makes it another Reformed religion. The similarities between R2K and standard historical Reformed theology are only linguistic. R2K has poured new meaning into all the old words and phrases so that even though we may use the same words the meaning is entirely different. One simply cannot rummage around and change beginning principles (covenant, law, denial of general equity, etc.) of our undoubted catholic Christian faith and end up with the same faith.

6.) The fact that Caesar remains in our Portfolio is demonstrated by the fact that in a Constitutional Republic we Christians (Citizens of America and Heaven at the same time) are inclusive of those who are Caesar’s employer. Being Caesar’s employer means that we take of what we learn from our Catechism (LD 40), as it is taught in home and Church, and we apply it in the civil realm. No one denies that a distinction between the two realms exist but to bifurcate the two realms the way R2K does approaches being unfaithful.

As Exodus 18:21 says “But select capable men from all the people–men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain–and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.” America was set up in this republican form of government. Christians are to be involved in the selection of capable God fearing people to represent society. You will find that the Bible teaches that legitimate civil (not criminal) government is an ordinance of God, and tyrants have no claim upon conscientious submission of Christians in Romans 13.

Ridderbos, an amillennialist, explains how this non-bifurcation realm reality works where the Kingdom of God interacts and transforms the world,

“But the Kingdom of God also defines the Church in its relation to the world. The Church has a foundation of its own, has its own rules, its own mode of existence. But precisely because of the fact that it is the Church of the Kingdom, it has also a positive relation with the world, for the Kingdom of God is seeking acceptance in the world.

A sower went forth to sow. And the field is the world. That is why the Church is seeking catholicity. And this catholicity has a double aspect, one of extension and one of intensity, in accordance with the nature of the Kingdom. So the Church is as wide as the world. The horizons of the world are also the horizons of the Church; therefore its urge to carry on missionary work, to emigrate, to cross frontiers. This is because the Church is the
Church of the Kingdom. She is not allowed to be self-contained.

But there is also an intensive catholicity of the Church because of the Kingdom. The Church is related to life as a whole. It is not a drop of oil on troubled waters. It has a mission in this world and in the entire structure of the world. This statement does not arise from cultural optimism. This is the confession of the kingship of Christ. For this reason, too, the Church is the Church of the Kingdom.

And the third remark is my concluding one: as Church of the Kingdom, the Church is seeking the future. She has received her talents for the present. But her Lord who went into a far country will return. Her waiting for Him consists of working. Otherwise she will hear: What have you done with my talent?”

Herman Ridderbos,
“When the Time Had Fully Come: Studies in New Testament Theology”

Of course the militant amillennialists cannot agree with this quote because for the militant amillennialists the Church and the Kingdom are exactly co-extensive. They are one and the same.

7.) Nobody is advocating that the Civil Magistrate answer to the Church. It’s hard to believe that Lee would make that statement since it is widely known that the Reformed vision, as it came to America, was neither Church over State, nor State over Church. The Reformed vision had it, as it came to the America, that Church and State while distinct were interdependent spheres, each under sovereign God. The State’s end was unto providing Justice to God’s people as God defined Justice, and the Church’s role was to the end of ministering grace to God’s people by word and sacrament in the Christian Church. Each had their own place but neither was cut off and bifurcated from the other. The traditional election cycle sermon is one proof of that.

8.) Finally, the 20th century as the bloodiest century in human history wherein more people were killed by Governments than all other centuries combined completely mocks Lee’s statement, “God has given them (The State) sufficient knowledge of good and evil to fulfill their office since the fall.

This is part of the problem with much of the current ministerial corps. They seemingly have so little knowledge of History. Has Lee never heard of Lenin and Stalin and their murderous purges where tens of millions of people were tortured and killed? Has Lee never heard of Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Hitler, and any number of other Tyrants who certainly did not have sufficient knowledge of good and evil to fulfill their office?

What Lee and R2K is doing with that kind of magnificently stupid statement is to absolutize the State as God walking on the earth and in doing so may be guilty of fostering idolatry in God’s people. No Institution … no person has absolute authority. All authority is dependent upon and must be in submission unto God’s revealed authority.

Look, in the end R2K is a different Reformed religion. The Understanding of God is different. The understanding of the Kingship of Christ is different. The eschatology is different. The ecclesiology is different. The Hermeneutic is different. The understanding of covenant is different. The understanding of the place and the role of the law is different. It is just a different religion.

Examining “Rev.” Dr. Pastor Lee’s Non Latin Theology … R2K Unleashed (IX)

Continuing to examine “Rev.” Dr. Pastor (ad infinitum) Lee’s mid-term Election piece located here,

http://www.patheos.com/Topics/Politics-in-the-Pulpit/The-Church-Should-Not-Weigh-In-On-Ballot-Issues-Brian-Lee-110314.html

“Rev.” Dr. Pastor (titles ad infinitum) Lee (but who doesn’t give a hill of beans for titles and who is not a coward) wrote,

How then shall we best love our neighbors outside the church? How shall we preserve and protect those lives that are not directly subject to the moral government of the church?

We have no comparable clarity here. Shall we enact laws against abortion? Christians may, in our wisdom, decide it is best to do so. But neither the Church nor her preachers can say unambiguously that such laws must be enacted. She lacks the authority, and the wisdom, to do so. Perhaps such a law will backfire; perhaps it will lead to more abortions, to more deadly abortions. Perhaps it is politically unwise, though being morally just. If she bases her actions on what God’s word teaches, the church must remain agnostic on such questions.

Therefore, the church should be mindful of its members’ dual citizenship, and differing degrees of clarity on how God’s law shall be applied in different aspects of their lives. God’s law is not multifaceted. It is one and simple and true. But our grasp of it, and our application of it to our neighbors in particular times and places, is finite and variable.

Yet while the church is bound and limited in what she may teach, the individual Christian is free. She may engage in politics, may lobby for pro-life causes, may hold civil office. But the church may not compel her to do so.

1.) The implication that the Institutional Church and her Ministers is directly subjecting pagans to the moral government of the Church when it speaks against matters like abortion is a red herring. When the Institutional Church and her Ministers speak consistent with the Heidelberg Catechism seeking to “protect our neighbor from harm as much as we can” it is hardly subjecting them to the moral government of the Church, unless you consider keeping them from harm a matter of direct moral governance.

2.) “Latin Lee” insists that we have no comparable clarity here but Heidelberg Catechism q. 107 says otherwise. Whose words shall we take on the matter?

3.) Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee then launches off into the law of possible unintended consequences. If we followed Lee’s logic on this none of us would get out of bed in the morning. Perhaps such a law will lead to nuclear holocaust.” “Perhaps such a law will lead to more than 1.3 million abortions every year.” This is such a reach one seriously wonders if the good minister is receiving a commission from Planned Parenthood? Lee’s fretting changes the question from “Shall we do evil that good may abound,” to an imperative, “We shall not do good because evil might abound.” Doctor Rev. Pastor Lee, we are responsible to be obedient. God is responsible for the consequences.

4.) “To more deadly abortions?”

More deadly abortions?

God forbid that we would want to go from dead abortions to even more deadly abortions.

5.) “Perhaps it is politically unwise, though being morally just.”

Only a former bureaucrat could possibly think like that. Doctor Rev. Pastor Lee, we are responsible to be obedient. God is responsible for the consequences.

6.) Keep in mind that you, Dear Reader, read above, a Minister of the Institutional Church of Jesus Christ say, “the church must remain agnostic on such questions” of whether or not Ministers should verbally, from the Pulpit, support laws ending abortion.

What reasons are given?

a.) such laws might backfire
b.) such laws might lead to more deadly abortions
c.) such laws might be politically unwise

And despite the requirement in question 107 of the Heidelberg Catechism to “protect our neighbor from harm as much as we can” we are told that the Institutional Church and Her ministers must not speak on this kind of matter.

Such council is to boggle the mind.

7.) But Dr. Rev. Pastor Lee is not done. His next statement almost seems to channel Joseph Fletcher — he of “situational ethics” fame. Lee warns us about the, “differing degrees of clarity on how God’s law shall be applied in different aspects of their lives. God’s law is not multifaceted. It is one and simple and true. But our grasp of it, and our application of it to our neighbors in particular times and places, is finite and variable.

If this is not situational ethics it then sure sounds like cultural relativism. God’s law is not multifaceted, and is simple and true but we can’t get to it because we are finite and variable. Paging Dr. Immanuel Kant, there is a severe case of the noumenal realm in room 17.

And here we end our analysis. If this is what Christianity has become, I have no interest in being a Christian.