Category: Apologetics

I Am Not Mario Cuomo … Neither Am I Darryl Hart … I Am A Christian

Darryl at it again over at

http://oldlife.org/2015/01/i-am-mario-cuomo/

This time Darryl is singing the praises of Mario Cuomo’s ability to live the contradictory hyphenated life. Set aside that Darryl is so enamored with a man who was the darling of the Cultural Marxist left that he proclaims his bromance for Cuomo. Ignore for a moment that Darryl is self identifying with a man who kept abortion chic via his repudiation of his church’s explicit teaching. Instead, focus just a second on what Darryl says here,

Darryl,

But it (private morality vs. public action as a Magistrate) is not a problem that only bedevils Roman Catholics. Protestant politicians may be personally opposed to desecrating the Lord’s Day, and if such a public figure is an officer in a Presbyterian church has even vowed to uphold Sabbatarianism, but in their public duties or owing to political calculation fail to work for Blue Laws. In fact, all believers who hold public office in a religiously diverse and tolerant society need to separate the teachings and practices of their religious communities from the norms that guide civil life. At the very least, they need to juggle the public and private unless they are willing to seek the implementation of their own faith for all of civil society

The irony is that religious right championed a view of the relationship between personal and public responsibilities that derided folks like Cuomo as either hypocritical or cynical. The irony becomes even more ironic when the religious right complains that radical Islam is incapable of making the very distinction that Cuomo defended.

Bret responds,

1.) Consider the call to separate “the teachings and practices of their religious communities from the norms that guide civil life.” This “reasoning” has always flummoxed me. According to Darryl there is a necessity to separate private morality from public morality so that a Christian magistrate’s private morality is not pursued as he serves as a public person and yet it is perfectly acceptable for this Christian magistrate to pursue the private morality of other people (even other Magistrates of other faiths) in their public capacity. For example, Mario might have had personal reservations about abortion and yet he did not force his private reservations upon the public he served. Instead Mario forced the private reservations of countless numbers of other people  about being “pro-life.” So, Mario and Darryl believed and believe it is not acceptable to push their own private morality while a public person but it is perfectly acceptable to push other people’s private morality in the capacity of a public person.  The public positions that Mario held certainly was the private morality of untold numbers of people. Why else hold to those positions? So, why was it acceptable for Mario to push their private morality on the citizenry and not his own?

2.) The policies themselves that Mario pushed were not religiously divers nor did they reflect tolerance. Think about it Darryl. The policies that were finally implemented were policies that some of the citizenry liked and some of the citizenry did not like. Those policies once implemented were in no way diverse nor did they reflect tolerance. They reflected, instead, both a lack of diversity and a severe intolerance. Policy implemented is by its very definition is non diverse and intolerant because it ends up not reflecting what large sections of the citizenry desire.  The whole plea for “diversity and tolerance” is a smoke screen to excuse the moral cowardice of Politicians and to justify the rebellion of high profile ministers.

3.) We do not live in a religiously diverse and tolerant society. This is proven by Darryl’s intolerance for my religion which sees his religion of “diversity and tolerance,” to be intolerant. We live in a society where the varying faiths of the varying religions have been tamed so that they all understand that none of their God or gods are to be taken so seriously as to overthrow the God State who keeps all the other gods in their place. We have the diversity and tolerance of old Rome. Everyone is free to serve their God or gods as long as, like Darryl, they keep pinching incense to the genius of the Emperor.

4.) I do not criticize Islam for its lack of ability to make the distinction about private morality vs public morality that Darryl holds. I criticize it because it hates Christ. I see the totalism of Islam as being perfectly consistent with its opposition to all alien Worldviews including the Christian worldview and the Liberal Darryl worldview.  I criticize Darryl because he deigns to criticize other worldviews (Christianity, Islam, etc.) all the while his pagan worldview is in the ascendancy. I criticize Darryl because of the totalism of his bifurcated worldview that demands everything be divided into private morality vs. public morality. In Darryl’s worldview everyone must operate like this or they are shunned and denounced, just as everyone who does not operate in the context of Sharia in a Islam world and life view must be shunned and denounced. Darryl’s worldview has the same totalism in it that he decries in both Islam and in Biblical Christianity. It’s easy for Darryl to criticize competing worldviews for their desire to have totalistic hegemony while the pagan worldview he holds to, is, in point of fact, exercising totalsitc hegemony.

Je Suis Bret McAtee

The best way to return volley when dealing with satirists, mockers, and the irreverent is to give them a taste of their own medicine. All the West is taking up for the filth put out by French magazine “Charlie Hebdo” and in favor of  their gutter freedom of speech. This is a freedom of speech that found Charlie Hebdo satirizing the members of the Trinity as engaging in sodomite sex with one another simultaneously.

Well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we are going to mock and satirize Christianity then mocking and satirizing the sacred truths of the secular religion if also fair game. The most sacred truth of the Cultural Marxist Left today is the Holocaust ™. It is an event that dare not be questioned lest one be imprisoned for merely questioning the facts around the Holocaust ™.

Isn’t it curious that while blaspheming the Lord Jesus Christ is a Free speech matter, and insulting the pervert Mohammed is a free speech right, what isn’t a free speech matter is denying the holocaust? I wonder why that is?

So, if we really are going to march for freedom of speech then let it be a march for freedom of all speech. But that will never happen because all cultures and social orders protect via the fence of the law, what is held sacred that culture and social order.

The mocking limericks that follow are here to make a singular point and that point is to eliminate the double standard.

The Double Standard

Trying to get this all straight
Questioning Six Million is hate
But one is perfectly free
To pen the Trinity
As sodomite sexual soul-mates?

It Goes Both Ways

They tell me that the satire pen
Must be free to lampoon all men
But if that is quite true
Then what will they do
When Auschwitz is mocked now and then?

Now Who’s Ox Is Being Gored?

Satire Mohammed as you please
Cartoon the Trinity as in sleaze
But if you do all of that
There is tit for tat
Prepare for jokes about the Holo-hoax disease

Jes Suis Zundel & Irving?

There once were satirists from France
All religions they’d love to lance
But if this is the game
Then others look tame
Give Zundel and Irving a chance

 

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: 22  Ye 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, 

39 For 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