Category: Apologetics

“They brought to us 8 Indian girls, all daughters of chiefs, in order to cement our friendship…

The girls, Cortes added, must become Christian before we could accept them, and the people must give up sodomy, for they had boys dressed as women who practised that accursed vice for profit. Moreover every day they sacrificed before our eyes three, four, or five Indians, whose hearts were offered to those idols and whose blood was plastered on the walls. The feet, arms and legs of their victims were cut of and eaten, just as we eat beef from the butcher’s in our country. I even believe that they sold it in the tinaguez or markets. Cortes told them that if they gave up these wicked practices, not only would we be their friends, but we would vie them other provinces to rule. The Caciques, papas and the dignitaries all replied that it would be wrong for them to give up their idols and sacrifices, for these gods of theirs brought them health and good harvests and all that they needed; but as for sodomy, measures would be taken to see that the practice was stopped.

This insolent reply was more than Cortes or any of us who had seen all their cruelties and obscenities could stand. Reminding us of the doctrines of our holy faith, Cortes asked us “If we do not pay God so much honour as to stop them from making sacrifices to their idols, how can we ever accomplish anything worth doing?”

He told us that we must overthrow their idols that very day, and be absolutely prepared to fight if they tried to prevent us. We, as usual, were all armed and ready…

Bernal Diaz
The Conquest of New Spain

Let’s pretend that Cortez was R2K.

They brought to us 8 Indian girls, all daughters of chiefs, in order to cement our friendship…

The girls, Cortes added, could not be accepted because in order to accept them they must become Christian but that requirement would violate our pledge not to pollute the pluralistic public square by requiring of you, as a pagan, that which you do not want to do. Now, in terms of sodomy, we observed how their boys dressed as women who practice that accursed vice for profit but, well, while personally and individually we are opposed to it we understand how pluralism works. Now we noticed that every day they sacrificed before our eyes three, four, or five Indians, whose hearts were offered to those idols and whose blood was plastered on the walls. The feet, arms and legs of their victims were cut off and eaten, just as we eat beef from the butcher’s in our country. I even believe that they sold it in the tinaguez or markets. Cortez told them that he understood the common realm was, well … common and that he knew that if he and his Spaniards wanted to worship on Sundays Cortez’s Spanish troops had to give the Caciques room for their varying forms of worship, however untoward they may seem to the Spaniard. Cortez appealed to the precepts of Natural law as a reason to stop human sacrifice, but they said they had not heard of any god named Natural law and that surely any god named Natural law who was not powerful enough to stop their sacrifices wasn’t much of a god to be worried about. The Caciques, papas and the dignitaries continued by replying that it would be wrong for them to give up their idols and sacrifices, for these gods of theirs brought them health and good harvests and all that they needed; but as for sodomy, measures would be taken to see that the practice was stopped.

This insolent reply prompted Cortez to say that he understood and that it was ok because his eschatology informed him that “evil would alway grow together with good.” Cortez told us, “If we do not pay God so much honor as to not allow a pluralistic social order where human sacrifice to false gods can occur, how can we ever tell them about Jesus?”

Cortez told us that we must be polite to their idols and show deference that very day, and be absolutely prepared to fight to protect pluralism if any neo-calvinists tried to prevent public square religious pluralism among the Caciques. We, as troops from Westminster SC, as usual, were all armed and ready…

“Modern culture is a mighty force. It is either subservient to the Gospel or else it is the deadliest enemy of the Gospel. For making it subservient, religious emotion is not enough; intellectual labor is also necessary. And that labor is being neglected. The Church has turned to easier tasks. And now she is reaping the fruits of her indolence. Now she must battle for her life.”

– Dr. J. Gresham Machen
From his address, — “Christianity and Culture”,
Delivered in 1912 for the centennial celebration of the founding of Princeton Seminary in 1812

Over at Dr. Nelson Kloosterman’s blog (Cosmic Eye) and at Dr. D. Gnostic Hart’s blog (Old Life) R2K (neo-Anabaptism) and Kuyperianism are debating. I briefly stuck my fork in there with the comment below,

Premise — The R2K hermeneutic allows Misty Irons and Todd Bordow to come to the conclusions they arrive at concerning social issues quite apart from whether or not other R2K aficionados agree with them or not. Hence, while Bordow and Irons may not be agreed with by Hart touching the issue of man love and puppy love, because of the R2K hermeneutic, they have the “Liberty of Conscience” to advocate for perversion.

Query — If the R2K hermeneutic doesn’t forbid such a possible embrace (no pun intended) of rather queer positions, on what basis does the R2K hermeneutic rule out such possible conclusions arrived at by Bordow and Irons?

Dr. D. Gnostic Hart responded to Doug Sowers who repeated my Premise and Query at Old Gnosticism,

Doug, I answered the question. 2k doesn’t rule out such an interpretation. How could it since in Presbyterian churches we don’t require members to subscribe (Irons) and we believe in Christian liberty. If you noticed, and please be as careful at Dr. K. allegedly now is, Bordow did not advocate gay marriage. He said he did not have the grounds to discipline someone for adopting political views that would allow for gay marriage.

You are doing what Machen’s critics did, assuming he was in favor or drunkenness because he opposed Prohibition.

This is why you are a fundamentalist. You only see one side of an issue. Gay marriage bad. But legislating gay marriage, or the church taking a stand on gay marriage involves laws and officers and members in a host of organizational relationships that go beyond the morality of homosexuality. But for you, it’s a black and white issue and you don’t care what comes with efforts to oppose it, even if it means instituting some kind of political or ecclesiastical tyranny.

Bret responds to Dr. D. Gnostic Hart,

1.) Notice how Dr. Hart has now embraced the position of Irons and Bordow who advocate theoretical Christians advancing the the permissibility of Homosexuality or Bestiality in the public square even if they themselves (Bordow, Irons, and now Hart) don’t advocate it or believe it themselves. If this is not public square anti-nomianism then none exists.

2.) Notice how Dr. Hart places politically active “Christians” in the public square, who advance the permissibility of a social order that allows and gives place for deviancy and perversion (as defined by Scripture), under the umbrella of “Liberty.” Of course this is to redefine liberty as license.

3.) Dr. Hart invokes Machen but Hart is comparing apples and sodomites here when he compares Machen’s opposition to Prohibition and Biblical Christians opposition to other Christians advocating the permissibility of perversion in the public square (even if those same Christians personally oppose such perversion). The reason this is a apple and sodomite comparison is that Machen’s position was that he could not oppose something that God’s word permitted. God’s word does not forbid the usage of alcohol and therefore Machen knew he could not support prohibiting what God allowed. Darryl is trying to advance a position where it is wrong to oppose, in the public square, a prohibition that God details in His word. It is not the same thing for Machen to oppose supporting (Prohibition) what God didn’t prohibit and Biblical Christians opposing for the public square what God opposes. As I said, Darryl’s comparison is Apples and Sodomites.

4.) Of course it is Dr. D. Gnostic Hart who is the Fundamentalist here. Darryl is a Gnostic Fundamentalist. He is only seeing the Gnostic side of the issue. The implication of what Darryl is invoking is the idea that it is perfectly acceptable for a Christian Doctor to preform Abortions if he is “in a host of organizational relationships” (such as a Hospital that does abortions) “that go beyond the morality of abortion.” For Darryl this is a White and Gray issue. White — Personally and individually these things bad. Gray — In the Public square these things require “liberty.” Darryl doesn’t care what comes with efforts to oppose perversion, even if it means instituting some kind of political or ecclesiastical tyranny that forces Christians to accept these perversions in the public square and forces them to accept people who accept the acceptability of these perversions in the Church (even if those people don’t themselves approve them personally and individually).

“There is nothing, however, in two-kingdoms thinking itself that would ever justify sin and injustice, whether public or private, or keep the church from preaching all of God’s Word and disciplining members who refuse its clear instruction.”~ Michael Horton, 10/12/12

” it is certainly true that America is not a Christian nation and in any case Christians should not seek to promote distinctively Christian doctrines and practices through the properly coercive power of the state. …the only improvement that “marriage” brings is social approval—treating homosexaul and heterosexual unions as equal. Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.” ~ Michael Horton, May 11, 2012

Your honor, if it please the court, I would move that we dismiss R2K as being inherently contradictory and that we strike this odd theology from the Record.

HT — MVM

“The nations are bound to recognize the Bible as the supreme law of the land; as the standard of civil legislation. God’s law as recorded in the Bible, reaches all the possible relations of humanity; extends to every duty that can be performed, and fastens its claims on associated bodies of men, as well as upon individual persons. Were this not true, we should have this monstrous anomaly in Jehovah’s government, that while men, as individuals, are bound by the laws recorded in the Bible, in their congregated capacities, they may set these laws at defiance, and even contemn as citizens, what as Christians they are bound to honor and obey. If we admit that kings, as such, are not bound by the laws contained in the Bible, they commit no sin in acting contrary to them, while they act in their official capacity. The moral laws recorded in the Holy Scriptures, are but a fairer copy, and more full and explicit declaration of the eternal and immutable principles of righteousness, which are contained in the law of nature.”

–James R. Wilson
THE SUBJECTION OF KINGS AND NATIONS TO MESSIAH

A SERMON, PREACHED ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1819,

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DISPENSATION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER,

IN THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.