Category: Apologetics

Dr. Darryl Hart opines,

So the state, as you have it, ministers justice and grace and does so only on the basis of God’s word. That sounds like a lot of ministry of the word going on. Maybe you mistyped. Been known to happen.

Obviously, as you no doubt already know, it was indeed a typo. My you are full of sarcasm aren’t you?

This is really simple Darryl. Follow closely.

The ministry of justice according to God’s word is common grace to those to whom it is ministered. The ministry of word and sacrament is special grace to God’s people. See, that was easy. We managed to keep a distinction while at the same time seeing that God is directly sovereign over both.

Please don’t try this at home. This is only safe with the experts.

Dr. Darryl Hart,

Also, if I understand you correctly, there is a defacto state church now, and defacto state administering justice according to God’s word. Or is it the case that something really is different between Geneva in 1560 and Lansing, Mich. in 2008. I know I am dangerously stupid, but your lessons sure are hard to follow. Maybe that’s because neither the state nor the church administer logic.

Yes there is a defacto state Church now. It is the State Church of humanism as promulgated in the State Schools. The defacto justice that the state is administering is the justice of the God Demos according to Demos’ positivist law.

See, not hard to follow Darryl. Why, it’s so simple that even you can play along.

I’ll pass on teaching logic to you. Some things are to difficult … even for the mighty.

Zrim,

So let me get this straight: The brand of compulsory education has a direct effect on the spiritual condition of people.

So, let me get this straight. Sending your children to schools that teach from a Humanist, or Muslim, or Satanist belief system doesn’t have a direct effect on the spiritual condition of people?

Zrim,

So what accounts for all the conflicts in Presbyterian and Reformed circles these days? CVT was a staunch proponent of parochial education and his broader Dutch Reformed tradition agreed with him. Whither his CRC? CSI trucks on with vigor as the CRC devolves with equal steam. Something tells me there is one mammoth disconnect here.

A large accounting of the conflicts in P & R circles is the fact that people like you are pushing a “Christian” agenda that owes more to Aristotelian humanist categories then it does the Bible.

Whither the CRC can be answered by pointing to how the CRC bought into humanist assumptions.

No, mammoth disconnections at all. It all makes quite a bit of sense.

Zrim,

I realize it will be guffawed, but it seems clear to me that what those who lend such a high ordination to the institution of education actually do is betray a low view of the family instead of a high one.

I am to busy guffawing to even begin to answer this.

The family (insofar as it is tucked nicely into the institution of church, of course) is what has the ordained power to nurture or destroy true faith, in mutual conjunction with the church. 8 hours in any sort of school pales in comparison to 1 with mom and dad, especially when that hour is in the pew. Education has its place, importance and dignity. But it isn’t the family. Something tells me that those who over-realize education might be the same ones who over-realize the function of statecraft to do more than it was ordained for as well.

When families turn their covenant seed over to the State schools, they have in essence, substituted the child’s family for the new family found in the State schools. The state schools, through peer pressure, shape the child’s passion. The state schools, through the brainwashing regimen, shape the child’s thought. The child grows up wanting to be like his family, the school, as opposed to the family God intended him to have.

Click to access natural_law_two_kingdoms_bavinck.pdf

This is a piece done by Dr. Nelson Kloosterman of Mid America Seminary. It was a response to Dr. David Van Drunnen’s attempt to suggest that Bavinck had the R2Kt virus. Kloosterman absolutely disembowels VanDrunnen’s argument.

Kudos to Dr. Kloosterman for his work here.

This exchange from Green Baggins

Firearms, theology, and fantasy

Zrim,

I think I am asking questions that mean to get at just what Jesus meant when he said his kingdom was not of this world. Did he mean his kingdom was mostly not of this world or completely transcendent of it?

Bret

Few verses are more misinterpreted than John 18:36 as Steve reveals. B. F. Wescott wrote on this verse, “yet He (Jesus) did claim a sovereignty, a sovereignty which the spring and the source was not of earth but of heaven.” Later Wescott offers, “My Kingdom is not of this world” means it “does not derive its origin or its support from earthly sources.” So we would say that Christ’s Kingdom is not derived from this world, because it is of God and is over the world.

Hence, the answer to your question, (which I think I’ve answered before in our delightful conversations elsewhere) is that Christ’s Kingdom, because it is heavenly in origin, transforms the Kingdoms of this World into the Kingdoms of Christ. The way you define transcendent Steve is to make Sovereignty mean “sovereign in the transcendent realm where the Kingdom exists.”

We should follow Bavinck here by admitting that grace restores nature.

Zrim,

From what I can tell so far, you agree with the Liberals that Jesus should come down off the Cross and fix things in the here and now. But remember that Herod had all the male children aged two and under killed. While it might scrape 21st century American sensibilities about the preciousness and innocence of youth, as well as notions of human rights and entitlements (it sure does mine), the Bible never casts infanticide so much the problem as keeping Jesus from his task.

Bret

Um … Steve… I hate to be the first to tell you this … but Jesus did come down from the cross and was raised on the third day and then after weeks of post-resurrection ministry He ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of the Father ruling as our mediatorial King over every area of life.

Jesus is one of those guys that can both be about the task of pronouncing reconciliation while at the same time being clearly opposed to the holocaust of the unborn. I know it disappoints you to think that Jesus can both fix problems in the here and now and call in His elect.

Zrim,

I use the term fetus-politics to indicate a form of moralism in the ranks (political to be exact). I don’t have femme-politics, so I don’t use the term the way they do. I get what you mean about inherent human rights for all persons, in- and ex-vitro, and could easily agree to it. But that’s a generally ideological and specifically American argument.

Bret

Oh Baloney!

First, all ideology stems from some theology. Therefore you cannot refer to something as a ideological argument without at the same time realizing that it is a theological argument.

Second, thou shalt not murder is not an American argument. It is a Biblical argument.

Third you would give up the form of moralism for a form of immoralism. But, hey who knows, immoralism for one culture may be moralism for another culture. We can never know for sure since different cultures are going to come to different conclusions about the way they interpret natural law.

Steve,

I want to know what in Calvinism says any particular group of people (unborn or women) has rights that supersede the other. I thought Calvinism said that all deserve death, that no one is righteous, etc.

Bret

That scripture teaches that all deserve death doesn’t mean it advocates that all people die. That scripture teaches that all deserve death doesn’t mean its alright to sit by and watch as some are delivered over to death.

Though, I’m glad to agree with you that we would be better served to speak of having duties and not rights. We have duties to God and our neighbor. One of those duties is to love our neighbor. Love for neighbor, would seem to include, creating a culture of life. That sounds very Calvinistic to me.

Zrim,

Those are hardly encouraging notions for those who think the Bible implies the Bill of Rights. But I guess since plenty believe they can find Franklin-esque colloquialisms like, “cleanliness is next to godliness” in the Bible it should be not so surprising that others find certain politics there as well.

Bret

Actually, Steve, if you were to spend some time reading Witte or Bergman you would discover that much of the Bill of Rights does indeed stem out of Scripture.

But your to busy trying to mock the whole notion of Christian politics, Christian economics, Christian education, Christian family and who knows what else to realize that the Bible does indeed speak to these areas.

Avoid the virus.

[God to be honoured more than Man].

“…divers Nations appoint various punishments, all some, for those that violate Religion, tell me, I beseech you, Is it a capital crime to speak Treason against the three Estates of the Land, and shall it deserve lesse to belch out blasphemy against any of the three Persons in the sacred Trinity? Is it an offence worthie of punishment to abuse the Sonne of a King? and is it lesse to dishonour the Sonne of God? shall they who rob your houses be condemned, and these that rob your soules escape? are those women which adulterate their husbands beds justly sentenced? and shall those that adulterate Gods sacred Word go free? Fidem ne sen/are Deo levius quam homini? Is it a more veniell offence to break faith with God then man ? “

Nathanial Hardy, 1618-1670, The Arraignment of Licentious Libertie, and Oppressing Tyrannie. In a Sermon before the Right honourable House of Peeres.Febr.24.1646 p.18.

[How we may prevent idolatry]

” Execute judgement for God, every one as farre as his power will stretch. First, doe judgement upon thine owne selfe for thy sinnes in all wayes of godly revenge, as by Fasting & c. sing mercy and judgement to thy family, as David Psa.101. Doe thy best that judgement that hath beene turned to wormewood and hemlocke, may run downe like a mighty streame, in publique. and where thy hand cannot reach a blow, or cast a stone at an idolater, blasphemer persecutor, & c. let thy heart at least doe it. For if a mans consenting to, or approving of an act of injustice may in guilt him, as I may say, in it as it was with the Jewes, whose state was ruined for killing Christ and the Prophets, though most part of them had never seene any of them Mat.23.37. why may not a mans executing judgement, with his heart, when he can proceed no further, be accepted, in respect of him, for an act of justice, by him that is pleased both in good and evill actions, to accept the will for the deed?

This duty is principally incumbent upon the Magistrate, who is to
execute judgement of the Lord, not arbitrarily as himself pleaseth; but according to the rule of the Word, both for mater and manner.
1. For the matter man hath no warrant either to leave grosse and horrid sinnes unpunished in the committers of them; such as are the ring leaders in idolatry and persecution; nor yet to commute or change the nature of the punishment.”

William Reyner, d.1666, Babylons Ruining- Earthquake and the Restauration of Zion delivered in a sermon before the honourable house of commons… Aug. 28 1644. p.44 Later Reyner questions the motives of Magistrates who punish theft, yet do not pursue idolaters etc.