Category: Apologetics

Rage Against the Machine — The Belhar Confession & Its Marxist Redrawing Of The Antithesis

One of the most egregious errors of the Belhar is that it draws the antithesis in the wrong place. Whereas we find in Scriptures that the antithesis is between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman (between those who belong to God and those who belong to the Devil) what the Belhar does is that it draws the antithesis between rich and poor, with the result that all who are rich are of the seed of the serpent and all who are poor are of the seed of the woman. Then because it draws this antithesis in the wrong place it can say that “God is God in a special way to the poor,” quite ignoring that God is only God in a special way to His people.

This drawing of the antithesis between rich and poor as opposed to those in Christ and those outside of Christ is a perfect expression of the Belhar’s Marxist tilting. Marxist have forever drawn the antithesis in their “theology” between the working class (proletariat) and the Capital class (Bourgeois).

The Belhar is a theologically illiterate statement. If “Theologians” can not get right the most basic theology (where to draw the antithesis) then how can we trust them to get anything else correct?

Rage Against The Machine — Reflections On The Belhar Confession

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

—C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

Did you know that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount proves that Jesus was a cultural Marxist? Did you know that when Jesus cited Isaiah 61 in Luke 4 that proves that Jesus was a cultural Marxist? I mean it’s clear right? Jesus said in Luke, “Blessed are the Poor.” That obviously means that Jesus supported Liberation Theology. Jesus supports redistribution of wealth plans. Jesus believes it is the very essence of wisdom that you can make poor people rich by making rich people poor. (It was a new covenant so Jesus could read those nasty old covenant Rich people like Abraham and Job out of the new covenant.)

And did you know the application of this is that you and I should feel guilty about being rich and living in a prosperous country? Why if we don’t embrace cultural Marxism we might lose our poor guilt ridden white effeminate souls. Up until this point I always thought that living in a rich prosperous country was a reason to thank God and be grateful but now I know it is a curse to be ashamed of. Why, if we don’t embrace cultural Marxism that proves that we are hard hearted towards the poor and the indigent. It proves that we are evil people hoping that the surplus population of the earth would just shrivel up and die. If we don’t embrace the Belhar, well it’s just obvious that we are Bastards deserving of social excommunication.

Nobody doubts that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has a healing effect or that it works to proclaim liberty to the captives or that it will set at liberty those who are oppressed. The question is, is the theology reflected in the Belhar the theology that will set at liberty those who are oppressed. And the answer is resoundingly “No.” The theology of the Belhar, in the name of compassion and love for the oppressed, will be and has been the means of untold oppression and captivity and death for millions as it has been for millions already. The theology reflected in the Belhar does not bless the poor but curses them with the comfort that their misery will be shared by countless others as the Theology of the Belhar practices the compassion of equality of identity — a equality that works to create shared misery and does not allow the usage of the phrase, “this is yours and that is not yours,” (sometimes called the reality of private property). The theology reflected in the Belhar will not feed the hungry but will only create more hunger as it has everywhere it has been practiced in the 20th century. Ask the millions of Ukranians who died of starvation during the Holdomar about the theology reflected in the Belhar. Ask the Boers in South Africa today about the theology of the Belhar. Ask the Cubans under Castro about the theology reflected in the Belhar.

And when Jesus pronounces “woes” on the rich in the Sermon on the Mount are we really to believe that he was announcing woes on the rich who were in the covenant of grace? Was Jesus pronouncing woes on Abraham and Job merely for being rich? Or was Jesus pronouncing woes on the wicked rich? Does having riches automatically make one wicked and worthy of woes? My Pastor seems to think it does.

My Pastor seems to envision a Jesus who wears a Bandelero bullet belt with a big Sombrero and runs around saying things like, “working men of the world unite,” or, “the proletariat must arise and throw off the wicked rich Bourgeoisie ruling class.” Well, my Pastor probably doesn’t envision a Jesus like this, he only wants just enough of this type of Jesus to make him feel comfortable w/ his white guilt security blanket.

And did you know that the Exodus account proves that God is a Cultural Marxist? Why, of course. God let all those poor oppressed people go from Egypt thus giving prima facie evidence that God is ALWAYS for the poor and ALWAYS against the rich and powerful.

Let’s just keep it our secret that the poor that God was for were HIS PEOPLE and not the poor that claimed a different god(s).

Besides, much of what God says is ambiguous anyways, though the words of Martin Luther King are clear as a bell and are to be cited w/ authority.

And did you know the fact that as minorities disproportionally comprise the prison population that means that Institutional Racism exists and the Jim Crow laws didn’t really go away? Why a book even said that was true so it must be true.

This institutional racism is everywhere you know. Why, it is even the case that Institutional Racism is the reason we elected B. Hussein Obama. You see, we supporters of institutional racism pulled our famous “Institutional Racism” ju jitsu trick and got people to elect Obama so we could keep up our Institutional Racism in place knowing that the foolish masses would believe that the charge of “Institutional Racism” could not be hurled at us any more if we elected a 1/2 black, 1/2 white man. Clever of us wasn’t it?

And did you know that we need to pass the Belhar just like the Germans passed the Barmen declaration because, jeepers creepers, there are still Nazis that exist today and we need to put those bad critters down.

I learned all this from my pastors and pastorettes yesterday in the “Church service” as they sang the praises of the Belhar Confession and instructed me how God delights in Christianity being reinterpreted through the Worldview grid of Cultural Marxism.

Not that they have any earthly idea what Cultural Marxism is. I mean to them, Cultural Marxism = Christianity and the idea that cultural Marxism might actually exist as a threat to Biblical Christianity is just something to be gently mocked and laughed at.

And you wonder why the West is dying?

But it sure made them feel good about themselves that they could stand with the poor and oppressed and the suffering. Never mind that that which they’ve embraced is guaranteed to increase the poverty of the poor, increase the oppression of the oppressed and increase the suffering of the Suffering. Their good intentions are paving the road to hell. They are nice people. Really they are. They’d give you the shirt of their backs.

And the shirt off my back.

And if I didn’t think somebody really was in need of the shirt off my back they’d make sure that the Government took the shirt off my back.

All in the name of justice you know.

So, if you really want to stand with the poor, the suffering, and the oppressed you will stand against those who stand for the Belhar. They are the ones, with the best of intentions, whose advocacy will result in the blooming of poverty, suffering, and injustice all across the world.

Bad Theology hurts people.

The Bayly Brothers Are Indeed Out Of Their Minds

Tim Bayly,

Ron Paul is to national politics what R2K is to the salt and light of the Church. Both Paulites and R2Kites have never seen a battle they want to fight. So instead they come up with sophisticated reasons why Little Round Top is the wrong hill to defend and Colonel Chamberlain’s bayonet charge was over the top. The wrong man led the wrong troops in the wrong charge using the wrong weapons at the wrong time and the wrong location.

This has to be the most asinine thing I’ve read in a very long time. Bayly has found the Nirvana of perfect stupidity where sheer, utter lunacy is of such a high grade and refined variety that one can only weep at the site of purity of perfection. With the paragraph above the Baylys have gone from the stupidity inhabited by mere, though great demigods and have found lodging in the Inn of the sixth ignorance where demigods in stupidity are canonized as Sainted demigods in Stupidity.

But, these days that Inn is adding new wings daily because business is booming.

Ron Paul and Paulites have never seen a battle they want to fight?

Is Bayly unaware of Paul’s constant fight against the Federal Reserve? Has Tim never viewed the clips of Paul arguing with Ben Bernake or Alan Greenspan? What corner of the universe is Tim troglodyting in that he is unaware of Paul’s book, “End The Fed?”

Not only has Paul been fighting a epic battle he is fighting THE EPIC battle. Anybody who pretends to understand politics knows that money is the mother’s milk of politics. Because of the FED all of life and society has become political because it is all driven by large interests groups who are kept afloat, directly or indirectly by the FED. By Paul fighting the Money Interests he is fighting at the root all those battles that the Baylys are fighting at the periphery. Winning the fight against the FED would change EVERYTHING in this country from Abortion to the Homosexual Agenda to Mega-Churches. But the St. Baylys are too stupid to get this and so, in keeping with their approaching sainthood in Stupidity they hurl stupid charges at Paul and the Paulites that they don’t fight against anything.

Ron Paul and Paulites have never seen a battle they want to fight?

What about the Battle against Empire that all those who love Freedom fight? Ron Paul has his faults, to be sure, and I have chronicled them more than once on this site, but to suggest that his ongoing Battle against the Leviathan State has not been a battle just leaves the mundanely moronic with their jaws agape over the perfection of the moronic now dwelling in their midst. The Federal Government is a Behemoth that Paul and the Paulites want to slay and they are fighting to do so. The Federal Government continues to seek to accrue more and more power and sovereignty and Ron Paul has been fighting against that non-Constitutional and non-Biblical idea for decades.

St. Bayly continues with his tryst with irrationality,

In fact, watch these men closely and you find the only battle they’re willing to fight is the battle opposing battles. But of course, I use the words ‘battle’ and ‘fight’ quite loosely because both require courage. I don’t write this to demean them, but so readers will see the connection between their techniques, commitments, and character.

They’re the skinny boy in the corner of the schoolyard shouting “Nanny nanny boo-boo” at the real boys over on the baseball diamond trying to catch the ball, swing the bat, hit something, and run. Over in the corner of the playground with his back to the wall is R2K’s favorite cultural icon, Woody Allen, making jokes about how he refuses to play baseball because baseball is a stupid game with stupid rules played by stupid boys. But of course, he did try to play baseball once, and when the ball was flying toward his face, he misjudged where to put his mitt, he took his eye off the ball, and the ball hit him square in the face, and it really really hurt. He’s never forgotten it and now he makes fun of boys who play baseball.

All the boys who play baseball think he’s a coward, but he’s always surrounded by the other boys who got punched in the face with a baseball and decided never to play baseball again. They laugh at his jokes. Then there are the girls who never wanted to play baseball and don’t know a coward when they see one, and they think he’s kinda cute and sweet. They pity him for being an outcast and one day that pity will cause them to allow him to kiss them.

Here’s my modest proposal. Let the R2Kites go out and sidewalk counsel outside the abortuaries and write legislation against assisted suicide and lobby against the pornographers and run for appointment to the county planning commission and enlist in the Marines. You get the idea. Let’s see them do the good works they’re always arguing the church shouldn’t do because it’s not the right person at the right time in the right place with the right weapon. Then, when they’re awarded a Purple Heart for valor in battle, we may listen to them. But as long as they’re over in the corner of the playground making passive aggressive jokes and refusing to put a mitt on, let weaklings and girls pay attention to them.

Conceding that the squirrel Baylys do find a quality acorn occasionally here are two of the problems with the Baylys that explain how they can be right about bashing R2K but wrong about so much else.

1.) The Baylys are walking contradictions. On one hand they rightly rail against R2K but on the other hand they run theonomists and postmillennialists out of their congregations because the theonomists and postmillennialists take issue with amillennialism — the very foundation of the R2K they rail against. So, the Baylys are not systematic in their thinking and it shows (again) in articles like this one.

2.) The Baylys seemingly want the “ring of power.” I don’t want the damned thing. I want it cast into Mt. Doom. I want to see sphere sovereignty and subsidiarity re-established so that the power of the ring is no longer centralized. My issue with R2K is that R2K doesn’t believe that these different spheres can be Biblically governed and R2K believes that the Church, submitting to Scripture, should have no counsel in what these Biblically ordered spheres might look like. The Baylys issue with R2K seems to be that R2K is stopping them from grasping the ring of power. So while the Baylys and I might agree that R2K is horrendous theology, we are disagreeing with R2K for very different reasons. The fact that the Baylys can rail against Ron Paul and compare him to the Escondido boys is indicative of the Baylys discontent that Frodo Paul’s battle is to pull down Mordor on the Potomac. The Baylys don’t want to pull down Mordor on the Potomac, they just want to take it over and occupy it. The Baylys seem to think that all Mordor on the Potomac needs is just the right Captain to guide the ship of state.

Idiots.

The Baylys finish with a perfect pirouette of protracted puerility

Similarly, let Ron Paul stop running for national public office. That’s the wrong battle at the wrong time with the wrong weapons and the wrong man. The man who sits in the Oval Office needs to be a man who knows how to do and say something other than how very deeply he’s convinced that every battle is the wrong battle at the wrong place and wrong time fought by the wrong men with the wrong weapons holding those weapons in the wrong way. I mean, really! How can anyone not see what’s going on with this man?

He’s asked about things like sodomite marriage and murdering babies conceived through rape and the starvation of Terry Schiavo and all he can do is whine about how conflict is so very difficult and if we’d all learn to fight the way he does–ECPs and states rights and all that–the world would be a better place.

What can I say?

This is the kind of tripe you get from manly men who think Peggy Noonan is profound.

Paul’s position on abortion is wrong. Paul’s position on sodomites in the military is horrendous. Paul’s position on illegal immigration is disastrous but what people like the Baylys don’t get is that Paul’s intent to pull the foundations of Mordor on the Potomac down will change the whole landscape as it pertains to these issues. As we have had precious little success on these issues for 50 years with the current landscape it would seem that we would want to leave our insanity of doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results and vote for somebody who wants to give us a change of scenery.

Hat Tip to Darryl Hart for bringing my attention to this Bayly Babble.

D. Gnostic Hart Responded To … Again

Dr. D. Gnostic Hart tees matters up again at Old Life and takes aim at yours truly while continuing to advocate for his “theological” spin called R2K.

Two of Old Life’s regular voices, Zrim and Jed, are having an interesting discussion — in response to a post questioning the political machinations of the hallowed Bonhoffer — about whether 2kers may legitimately appeal to the Bible in their civic duties. Zrim argues that the Bible forbids civil disobedience while Jed questions whether a 2ker may employ the Bible in this way.

Meanwhile, Rabbi Bret responds to me that his case for Ron Paul and paleo-conservatism come directly from biblical teaching on the fifth and eighth commandments.

Several points of clarification seem to be in order. First, 2kers do appeal to the Bible. They do so in their personal lives all the time. They even appeal to the Bible — you know, “my kingdom is not of this world,” does not come from Aristotle — to argue for legitimacy of 2k.

Bret responds,

The problem is not with John 18:36, but with Darryl’s Gnostic reading of it. I do not think the words mean what he thinks they mean.

“‘My kingdom is not of [ek: out from] this world,’” is a statement about the source — not the nature — of His reign, as the epexegetical ending of the verse makes obvious: ‘My kingdom is not from here [enteuthen].’ The teaching is not that Christ’s kingdom is wholly otherworldly, but rather that it originates with God Himself (not any power or authority found in creation.”

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
God & Politics — pg. 27

B. F. Wescott speaking of John 18:36 could comment,

“Yet He did claim a sovereignty, a sovereignty of which the spring and the source was not of earth but of heaven. My Kingdom is not of this world (means it) does not derive its origin or its support from earthly sources.”

The Gospel According To John — pg. 260

John 18:36 along with Matthew 22:15-22 are two of the passages that are often put forth as defeaters for the comprehensive sovereignty of the Lord Jesus over this world. Bahnsen clearly shows here, quite in agreement with the Greek scholar B. F. Westcott, that God’s Kingdom, as it manifests itself in this world, is energized by a source outside this world. This is important to emphasize because many people read John 18:36 as proof that the Kingdom of Jesus does not and should not express itself in this world. Often this verse is appealed to in order to prove that God’s Kingdom is only “spiritual” and as such Christians shouldn’t be concerned about what are perceived as “non-spiritual” realms. Support for such thinking, if there is any, must come from passages other than John 18:36.

What we get from some contemporary Calvinists, like Darryl and the R2K boys, is the quote of Christ telling Pilate that ‘His Kingdom is not of this World,’ as if that is to end all conversation on the Lordship of Christ over all cultural endeavors. What is forgotten is the way that John often uses the word ‘World.’ John often uses the word ‘World’ with a sinister significance to communicate a disordered reality in grip of the Devil set in opposition to God. If that is the way that the word ‘world’ is being used in John 17:36 then we can understand why Jesus would say that His Kingdom ‘was not of this world.’ The Kingdom of Jesus will topple the Kingdoms of this disordered world changing them to be the Kingdoms of His ordered world, but it won’t be done by the disordered methodology of this World and so Jesus can say, “My Kingdom is not of this World.” Hopefully, we can see that such a statement doesn’t mean that Christ’s Kingdom has no effect in this world or that Christ’s Kingdom can’t overcome the world.

John 18:36 is often appealed to in order to prove that the Kingdom of God is a private individual spiritual personal reality that does not impinge on public square practice(s) of peoples or nations corporately considered. Those who appeal to John 18:36 in this way are prone thus to insist that God’s Word doesn’t speak to the public square practice(s) of peoples or nations since such an appeal (according to this thinking) would be an attempt to wrongly make God’s Kingdom of this world.

The problem with this though is it that it is a misreading of the passage. When Jesus say’s “My Kingdom is not of this world,” his use of the word “world” here is not spatial. Jesus is not saying that His Kingdom does not impact planet earth. What Jesus is saying is that His Kingdom does not find its source of authority from the world as it lies in Adam.

Jesus brings a Kingdom to this world that is in antithetical opposition to the Kingdom of Satan that presently characterizes this world in this present wicked age. The Kingdom that Jesus brings has its source of authority in His Father’s Word. As a result of Christ bringing His Kingdom w/ His advent there are two Kingdoms that are vying for supremacy on planet earth. Postmillennialism teaches that the Kingdom of the “age to come” that characterizes Christ’s present Kingdom will be victorious in this present spatial world that is characterized by “this present wicked age,” precisely because, in principle, Christ’s Kingdom is already victorious in this present spatial world.

All nations will bow to Jesus and all kings will serve him and his mustard seed kingdom will grow to become the largest plant in the garden with the nation-birds finding rest in its branches. His kingdom is the stone which crushed the kingdoms of men in Daniel 2 and which is growing to become a mountain-empire which fills the whole earth, until all His enemies are made His footstool.

Because Christ’s Kingdom is victorious on this planet His Kingdom extends beyond the personal private individual realm and so impacts the public square. Another way to say that would be precisely because Christ’s Kingdom continues to be populated by a swarming host of individuals those individuals take that Kingdom that has overcome them and in turn overcome all that they touch with the Kingdom.

Dr. Geehardus Vos was not a postmillennialist but some of the things he taught captures what I am trying to communicate regarding Christ’s Kingdom while at the same time delineating Darryl’s misconceptions. Vos wrote,

“The kingdom means the renewal of the world through the introduction of supernatural forces.” (page 192)

“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

So, what Christ was saying to Pilate when He said “My Kingdom is not of this world” was “My kingdom does not gain it’s authority from Rome or the Sanhedrin. My authority comes from on high.” Pilate understood this. The irony is that the pagan tyrant understood, but Christians like Darryl expressly insist that it doesn’t mean that today. So the authority of Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, but nonetheless, the kingdom has invaded this civil realm, the family realm, law realm, economics realm, and every other realm you can think of for “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” Every aspect of our social order is touched by the kingdom of God.

Darryl continues,

Two-kingdom theology is thoroughly biblical (or at least tries to be) and its advocates don’t let differences between the kingdoms prevent them from seeing that — to borrow a line from the old E. F. Hutton commercials — when the Bible speaks, believers listen. As I have repeatedly insisted in different forums, the eighth commandment compels me to question whether I should shop at Walmart or at Gelzer’s Hardware. After Sam Walton is not my neighbor, the one whose welfare I am supposed to seek. But Mr. Gelzer is. The Bible gives some instruction about economics. I should try to apply to my life. I don’t see how that is inconsistent with 2k because it is not.

Here Darryl is trying to have his R2K cake and eat it too. He holds to a position that expressly advocates that the Bible doesn’t speak to the common realm. When it comes to common law wisdom we are told we must look to Natural law. Only here now Darryl insists that the Bible doesn’t speak to the common realm except when it does. So, what it comes down to is that Darryl wants to suggest that it is acceptable for him to appeal to the Scriptures for insight in how we shall then live in the common realm when he wants to but it is not acceptable for me to appeal to the Scriptures for insight on how we shall ten live in the common realm. When he does it, it is the very marrow of wisdom. When I do it, I am “bible thumping.”

I have read the R2K boys expressly state that there is no such thing as Biblical economics and yet what is Darryl advocating above but a micro Biblical Economics?

Second, this appeal to the Bible does not mean that I may require Rabbi Bret to shop locally or Jed to drink only the beers made by San Marcos breweries. Individual believers need to respect the consciences and interpretations of other believers. Some may eat meat offered to idols, and others won’t. Both will appeal to the Bible. But appealing to the Bible doesn’t settle whether believers will act in the same way about a host of matters.

Here we see the inherent cultural relativism of R2K. If appealing to the Bible doesn’t settle whether believer will act in the same way about a host of matters then what does? What becomes the canon for behavior when it is not the Scripture? Each man doing what is right in his own eyes? The problem with Darryl is that he keeps wanting to invoke Liberty of conscience (a doctrine which I strongly support) into areas where the conscience isn’t given liberty (or license, as the case may be). There are matters where liberty of conscience can be rightly invoked but I strongly suspect that Darryl wants to invoke liberty of conscience where the Scriptures don’t give us liberty.

The indefatigable Hart presses on,

Third, the critics of 2k — aside from uncharitably disregarding 2kers’ appeal to Scripture — can’t seem to fathom the difference between the claims made by individuals about biblical teaching and those of church officers and assemblies. For instance, because the Baylys’ believe the Bible compels them to protest at abortion clinics, they believe that church assemblies must call all believers to similar forms of protest. They even go a step farther and think that anyone who dissents from their application of Scripture disobeys the Bible. (Wow!) Meanwhile, folks like Rabbi Bret don’t seem to understand that his appeal to the fifth and eighth commandments for paleoconservatism leaves little room in the church for other perspectives, such as the Covenanters, libertarians, Democrats, or monarchists. Yet, the Reformed creeds insist that church assemblies should address only matters that are spiritual and ecclesiastical. In other words, when the church speaks as institutional church, she must have a biblical warrant. And that explains why the creeds don’t address education, math, or economics. The Bible doesn’t require God’s people to have a uniform method of delivering education, a base-ten system of math, or a commitment to free markets.

Bret responds,

First, I trust that Darryl has seen in this post that I have not uncharitably disregarded R2K’s appeal to Scripture. I took his reference to John 18:36 and I gave it respectful time and attention showing that Darryl is clinging to a weak reed in the way he reads that passage. Not even the great amillennialist Vos compartmentalizes the Kingdoms like Darryl does.

Second, though the Baylys can defend themselves, I can not understand why Darryl would think that a Church assembly speaking out against murder and encouraging their membership to speak out against murder, as they have opportunity, is somehow malignant in its intention. Will Darryl be complaining next about requests that come to broader church assemblies to speak out against incest?

Third, Darryl is concerned about leaving room for, Covenanters, libertarians, Democrats, or monarchists in the Church but what he doesn’t tell us is that upon his very own principle we are at the same time leaving room for Fascists, Communists, Marxists, Anarchists, and bomb throwers in the Church. If Darryl’s “doctrine” allows for one of them it must allow for all of them. According to Darryl’s ideology there is no way for the Church to say to those who are undermining Biblical theology by their political philosophy that their political or economic belief system is not a matter of liberty of conscience. This is a serious serious problem for R2K. On this point I would also add that, I don’t think there is room for modern Democrats (aka — Cultural Marxists who support the long march through the institutions) in the Church and hard Libertarians like Ayn Rand followers should be given close scrutiny as well. The reason I believe that is that their ideology / philosophy is contrary to a Biblical worldview.

Next on this point, while there may not be room for both Covenanters and non covenanting Monarchists in the same local Church, that is not to say that they there isn’t room in the Church visible for each of them in their own congregations. No more would you expect to mix Covenanters and non-Covenanters in the same denomination then you would expect to mix Continental Sabbatarians and Presbyterian Sabbatarians who each took the matter with great seriousness in the same congregation.

Fourth, to Darryl’s point about Church Assemblies not addressing matters that are not Spiritual, I know of no matter that is not at its beginning point, “Spiritual.” This is a foundational disagreement between R2K and those who are not R2K. R2K wants to cordon and compartmentalize a realm called “Spiritual” and then pretend that there are matters that don’t have any relation to the Spiritual.

And yet Jan Veenhof in analyzing Bavinck’s understanding of the relation of Nature to Grace (Spiritual to Common) is quite different from Darryl’s R2K. Bavinck does not have a compartmentalized Spiritual realm that is isolated from the Common realm.

1.) Veenhof draws out from Bavinck in Veenhof’s book that Grace restores nature because Grace has the effect of removing from nature its participation in sin driven sick reality. Grace never turns nature into grace but the effect of grace upon nature is to restore nature to its healthy reality from the sick reality that sin has it in bondage to.

2.) Nature and Grace remain distinct for Bavinck but Grace has an impact on nature thus indicating that Grace is not divorced from nature (Darryl’s Spiritual from Common).

3.) For Bavinck Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism (SAC) had to be opposed by all right minded Christians because SAC are part of the disordered sin sick reality that nature was poisoned with. SAC creates sick reality because they identify sin w/ nature, and creation w/ the fall, and so in order to attack sin and the fall they attack nature and thus seek to pull down God’s institutional created social order that includes family, state, and society, preferring instead a sinful social order where God’s diversity is blended into a humanistic Unitarian sameness. This creates the sick reality that Bavinck speaks of and it explains why Bavinck can write,

(The special revelation that comes to us in Christ), “keeps the two (nature & grace) in clear distinction; it acknowledges nature, everywhere and without reservation, but it nevertheless joins battle w/ sin on every front. It seeks reformation of natural life, always and everywhere, but only for the purpose and by the means of liberating it from unrighteousness.” H. Bavinck

This insight is also determinative for the assessment of concrete events and movements in social and political affairs. Bavinck could write,

“Because the gospel is concerned exclusively w/ liberation from sin, it leaves all natural institutions intact. It is in principle opposed to all socialism, communism and anarchism, since these never oppose only sin, but identify (through the denial of the Fall) sin w/ nature, unrighteousness w/ the very institution of family, state and society, and thus creation w/ the Fall. For the same reason the Gospel is averse to revolution of any kind, which arises out of the principle of unbelief, since such revolution, in its overthrowing of the existing order, makes no distinction between nature and sin, and eradicates the good together w/ the bad. The gospel, by contrast, always proceeds reformationally. The gospel itself brings about the greatest reformation, because it brings liberation from guilt, renews the heart, and thus in principle restores the right relation of man to God.”

4.) Where the Gospel flourishes and brings Reformation (i.e. counter-Revolution) SAC is brought to heel since SAC is the revolutionary antithesis based on the principle of unbelief. From this I would say that we can legitimately conclude that Reformation is being granted where SAC is seen in abysmal retreat. Where SAC isn’t in retreat there is no Reformation.

So, for Biblical Christianity, Church Assemblies when speaking to the horrors of abortion are speaking to Spiritual realities.

Darryl finishes,

The bottom line is that the Bible does not solve the problems that critics of 2k think it does. If you believe in Christian liberty, which is premised upon the idea that Christians have liberty in matters where Scripture is silent — from whether or not to meet for worship at 11:00 on Sundays to whether or not to drive an SUV — then appealing to the Bible will not yield the unity or uniformity in politics or culture that Bible thumpers tout.

The bottom line that the Bible does solve problems that critics of R2K says it does. Further, the bottom line is that R2K is a public square antinomianism in its refusal to speak against the Spirit of the Age. R2K would rather invoke the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil,” invisibility cloak around the Church so that she doesn’t have to contend against the idols of the age, and then to make it worse it wraps that invisibility cloak in pious language like “liberty of conscience” in order to sanctify its doctrine of capitulation and surrender to this present evil age.

Second, the fact that men can not be united or uniform on the clear teaching of the Scripture no more disproves Scriptures perspicuity on these matters than the existence of Socinians, Arminians, and Jehovah Witnesses proves that the Bible doesn’t speak clearly when it comes to theology proper. All because men are disunited on the meaning of Scripture does not mean that Scripture does not clearly speak and provide a place for common ground for God’s people to rally upon.

Finally, trying to suggest that the Church speaking out on what SUV I drive is in the same category of the Church Assemblies speaking out against abortion is not even worthy of a serious response.

Neither A Borrower Nor A Lender Be … Or … Rabbi Bret Contra Darryl Gnostic Hart

Over at Old Life blog, Darryl Gnostic Hart inks a response to an earlier post of mine taking him to task over his inconsistencies. He titles his article,

Rabbi Bret Borrowing Capital from Those 2k Swiss Bank Accounts

One wonders if Darryl’s choice of Bank Accounts in Switzerland for his title was a Freudian slip as Switzerland is famous for its neutrality.

I really would prefer if Darryl would refer to me as, “Your Eminence,” but “Rabbi Bret,” will have to do until Darryl is cleansed from his Jewish inclinations.

In his article D. G. (“G” is for Gnostic) Hart writes,

On the one hand, I am touched that the good Rabbi would devote ten-plus paragraphs to refuting a minor question I raised about epistemological self-consciousness. On the other hand, I am hurt that Bret shows more charity to Ron Paul than to me. Despite the crusty and vinegary exterior, I am really a pussy cat in person, without claws — the effects perhaps of living with cats for more than two decades — and not to be missed I can cry with the best of them, being the son of a private first-class Marine who was a weeper. I try to console myself that Bret is only opposed to 2k as a set of ideas; he does not dislike (all about) me.

We learn from this paragraph that Darryl and I share life with cats in common. I always figured if cats were good enough for the Egyptians they were good enough for me. I don’t know what drives Darryl’s fondness.

In terms of my sentiments for Darryl on a personal level it is as Michael Corleone said to his Brother Sonny,

“It’s not personal, Darryl. It’s strictly business.

Darryl writes in his post,

Still, the tolerance that anti-2kers show to non-Reformed Protestants (e.g. Ron Paul) and even to non-Christian ideas (more below) is puzzling and suggests a level of personal antagonism that is unbecoming. In the case of Ron Paul, Bret tries to justify his intention to vote for the libertarian Republican as consistent with Christian faith because this proposed vote has received flak from a theonomist …

Here Darryl has a long quote from me lifted from a previous post of my own explaining my support for Congressman Ron Paul.

First, there seems to be some implication in what Darryl writes that a vote for Ron Paul is inconsistent with the Christian faith and yet Congressman Paul can write,

“I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God….”

I offer this quote to suggest that a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote for a pagan, and quite contrary to what Darryl writes above Rep. Paul’s background is of the Reformed stripe (Lutheran and Episcopalian). But let us press on to the heart of the matter.

Darryl writes at Old Life,

“First things first? Does not the first table of the law come before the second table? Does not doing what is right in God’s eyes take precedence over what may be beneficial to the survival of the United States? In which case, could it be that Bret is letting his own political convictions dictate what comes first? As I’ve said a guhzillion times, Covenanters would not construe first things this way. They refused to vote, run for office, or serve in the military because the first thing — Christ’s Lordship — was not part of the U.S. Constitution. I disagree that the Constitution must include such an affirmation. But I greatly admire the Covenanters’ consistency and wish Rabbi Bret would be as hard nosed in the political realm as he is with (all about) me in the theological arena.”

First, I am not a Covenanter, so why Darryl brings them up is unclear.

Second, yes the first table comes before the second table, but the Law is undivided. And as God’s undivided law requires me to show my love to God by showing my love to neighbor there is nothing inconsistent or unbiblical or extra-biblical in a vote for Congressman Paul. Indeed a vote for Paul has Biblical warrant.

If we could reduce this to the simplest illustration that even a Gnostic could understand we, as US citizens, are in a position of being beat up by the schoolyard bully (The State). Now, the law (Sixth word) requires me

That neither in thoughts, nor words, nor gestures, much less in deeds, I dishonor, hate, wound, or kill my neighbor, by myself or by another; but that I lay aside all desire of revenge: also, that I [c] hurt not myself, nor willfully expose myself to any danger. Wherefore also the magistrate is armed with the sword, to prevent murder. (Heidelberg Catechism, answer Lord’s Day 105

A vote for Rep. Paul is a vehicle by which I can stop the dishonoring, hating, wounding and killing of my neighbor that I am in doing by proxy (by another) through the Leviathan State. Ron Paul is not the ideal candidate and I am not looking for societal salvation by means of Ron Paul but I have Biblical warrant to support Ron Paul in order that the violation of the 6th commandment by the State may cease. So, per Darryl’s concern, I am doing what is right in God’s eyes, and this is beneficial to the survival of these united States at the same time. No conflict at all here between the two, and nothing inconsistent in my position, despite Darryl’s insistence to the contrary.

Darryl continues,

What seems to be operative here is that Rabbi Bret borrows selectively from 2k by using non-biblical standards for evaluating the United States’ political order. He says we must follow wisdom in the current election cycle. Well, what happened to the Bible as the standard for all of life? And just how do you get a license to practice such wisdom (when 2kers are the ones who issue them)?

Above I’ve clearly shown that the wisdom I am following is derivative of explicit Biblical sanction and has warrant from the Scripture. Hence, Darryl’s questions are meaningless and without punch. There is no use of R2K methodology on my part.

Darryl continues,

Additional evidence of the Rabbi’s appeal to wisdom and implicit use of 2k comes in a good post he wrote about the differences between “classical” conservatism and neo-conservatism. I’ll paste here only one of the piece’s five points (though the entire post is worthwhile for those who don’t know the differences among conservatism):

Neo-conservatives believe that America is responsible to expand American values and ideology at the point of a bayonet. This was the governing ideology of progressive Democrats like Woodrow Wilson who desired to make the world safe for Democracy. However, before the Wilsonian motto of making the world safe for Democracy (a motto largely taken up by the Bush II administration) Wilson understood the American instinct for a humble foreign policy by campaigning in 1916 with the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” Before American entry into W.W. II the classically conservative approach to involvement in international affairs was one of modesty, as seen in the previous mentioned Wilson approach to campaigning in 1916. Classical conservatism, as opposed to neo-conservatism embraced the dictum of John Quincy Adams who once noted that, “America is a well-wisher of liberty everywhere, but defender only of her own.”

However, today’s conservatism is internationally militantly adventurous. What is sold by those who have co-opted the title of “conservative,” is the exporting of American values but the dirty little secret is that the American values that are being exported in the name of Democracy is just a warmed over socialism combined with some form of Corporate consumerism.

Good point, but where exactly is the justification for this from Scripture or the Lordship of Christ or the antithesis? I’m betting that loads of Christian Reformed Church ministers and laity who invoke the antithesis every bit as much as the Rabbi does, would never countenance Bret’s understanding of U.S. foreign policy. In which case, either the Bible speaks with forked tongue about a nation’s military involvement or all neo-Calvinists are dictating to special revelation what their “wise” observations of the created order and contemporary circumstances require. Why then are 2kers guilty of doing something illegitimate if Rabbi Bret or liberals in the CRC do the very same thing?

Bret responds,

The Justification for this from Scripture comes from the Sixth Word again (see above blockquote of the Heidelberg Catechism). I also could likewise invoke the teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism on the 8th word to show how exporting unbiblical socialism is not a Biblical thing to do. So, I have justification from Scripture for my convictions, and those justifications honor the Lordship of Jesus Christ and they keep the antithesis in place and they do not at all borrow from R2K “thought” processes. As such all of Darryl’s criticisms are irrelevant.

Darryl Gnostic Hart continues,

Which leads me back to the deep emotional wound mentioned at the outset. In his response to my post on epistemological self-consciousness, Bret says that it all comes down to this:

I mean that is what this boils down to isn’t it? Van Til repeatedly emphasized the necessity of epistemological self-consciousness while Darryl is suggesting that each man must do what is right in his own unique epistemological self consciousness. One epistemologically self-conscious Christian likes Kant, another epistemologically self conscious Christian likes Hegel. Vive la différence!

This is an odd summary of the entire difference since at the beginning of the post Bret says that the notion of the Lordship of Christ was hardly a Dutch Reformed idea, and then he goes on to say that it all comes down to a point made (as he understands it) about the Lordship of Christ by a Dutch-American.

Bret responds,

I find it fascinating that Darryl gloms on to a reference to Van Til to try to reinforce his earlier point that all this “Christ as Lord” stuff was a Dutch Reformed phenomenon. This was a point I destroyed with the below quotes from Presbyterians that he completely ignored choosing to make a silly reference to Van Til somehow being unique in advocating for the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

“It is our duty, as far as lies in our power, immediately to organize human society and all its institutions and organs upon a distinctively Christian basis. Indifference or impartiality here between the law of the kingdom and the law of the world, or of its prince, the devil, is utter treason to the King of Righteousness. The Bible, the great statute-book of the Kingdom, explicitly lays down principles which, when candidly applied, will regulate the action of every human being in all relations. There can be no compromise. The King said, with regard to all descriptions of moral agents in all spheres of activity, “He that is not with me is against me.” If the national life in general is organized upon non-Christian principles, the churches which are embraced within the universal assimilating power of that nation will not long be able to preserve their integrity.

A. A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology, p. 283-84

And again from the son of the Charles Hodge,

If professing Christians are unfaithful to the authority of their Lord in their capacity as citizens of the State, they cannot expect to be blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in their capacity as members of the Church. The kingdom of God is one, it cannot be divided.

Princeton President A. A. Hodge, Respected Presbyterian

Then there is Darryl’s favorite Presbyterian, J. Gresham Machen, who could write,

“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.”

J. Gresham Machen
1912 centennial commemorative lecture at Princeton Seminary

“Instead of obliterating the distinction between the Kingdom and the world, or on the other hand withdrawing from the world into a sort of modernized intellectual monasticism, let us go forth joyfully, enthusiastically to make the world subject to God.”

~J. Gresham Machen

Then there is the granddaddy of all Presbyterian John Calvin,

Calvin’s commentary on Luke 14:23 (in Volume 32, i.e. Harmony of the Gospels, Volume 2, at page 173):

Luke 14:23. Compel them to come in. This expression means, that the master of the house would give orders to make use, as it were, of violence for compelling the attendance of the poor, and to leave out none of the lowest dregs of the people. By these words Christ declares that he would rake together all the offscourings of the world, rather than he would ever admit such ungrateful persons to his table. The allusion appears to be to the manner in which the Gospel invites us; for the grace of God is not merely offered to us, but doctrine is accompanied by exhortations fitted to arouse our minds. This is a display of the astonishing goodness of God, who, after freely inviting us, and perceiving that we give ourselves up to sleep, addresses our slothfulness by earnest entreaties, and not only arouses us by exhortations, but even compels us by threatenings to draw near to him. At the same time, I do not disapprove of the use which Augustine frequently made of this passage against the Donatists, to prove that godly princes may lawfully issue edicts, for compelling obstinate and rebellious persons to worship the true God, and to maintain the unity of the faith; for, though faith is voluntary, yet we see that such methods are useful for subduing the obstinacy of those who will not yield until they are compelled.”

Darryl continues,

But aside from the intellectual hiccup,

Bret responds,

After those quotes who is the one can’t find a cure to his intellectual hiccups?

Darryl presses as one going where angels fear to tread,

“But aside from the intellectual hiccup, does Bret really not see that his own support for Ron Paul throws the antithesis to the wind. Paul doesn’t have to be a Reformed Christian affirming the Lordship of Christ to gain Bret’s support. Bret’s analysis of conservatism doesn’t need to follow the dictates of the antithesis in order for it to be wise. And yet, if I or other 2kers don’t follow the antithesis when recognizing a common realm of activity for believers and unbelievers, or when finding truths by which to negotiate this common terrain other than from Scripture (only because the Bible is silent, for instance, on basements or how to remove water from them), we are relativists and antinomians. (We don’t even get a little credit for putting the anti in antinomian.)”

1.) I’ve shown that my support for Ron Paul is consistent with the 6th commandment from God’s law therefore I have not thrown the antithesis to the wind.

2.) Paul doesn’t have to be a Reformed Christ affirming the Lordship of Christ to gain my vote but Paul does does have to and has shown himself to be a tool who can be used consistent with the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

3.) Bret’s analysis of conservatism does follow the dictates of the antithesis either by explicit word or by necessary consequence.

4.) R2K’ers are antinomians and cultural relativists because they insist that the Bible does not speak at all to the common realm and as such all that is left is a “every man does what is right in his own eyes approach” in the putative common realm. R2k’ers insist that there is no such thing as Christian culture thus leaving culture to be animated by the beliefs in false gods since culture is defined as theology animated.

And in terms of basements the Scriptures are clear that they are not to be dug in order to bury people in them and that shovels are not to be used as cudgels to beat people with while digging. Scripture does speak to digging basements.

Darryl finishes,

“Until the critics of 2k can possibly create a world in which the antithesis applies all the time, they will be indebted to 2k for borrowed capital. The reason is that it is impossible to live in a mixed society if the sort of antithesis that will ultimately result in the separation of the sheep from the wolves is going to be the norm. The antithesis requires not only withholding support from Ron Paul, but also opposition to a political order that would allow him on the ballot (not to mention that difficult matter of what to do with Mitt Romney’s Mormons or Rick Santorum’s Roman Catholics). Bret believes that the “Escondido” theology will one day pass away like the Mercersburg Theology did. I too believe it will, whenever God chooses to separate believers from unbelievers. But until then, as long as we live with unbelievers, guys like Bret will need and use 2k theology. I only wish he’d show a little gratitude and start to pay off the debt. He is well behind in payments and snarky about it.”

The critics of R2K readily admit the world isn’t as it should be. In fact the R2K critics can really only explain why. R2K is not and most certainly cannot be agitated about a world that is in rebellion to the Lordship of Christ. Whether it is possible or not to live in a “mixed” society is hardly the issue. The issue is whether or not the Christian should in fact apply the Law Word to every area of life, and judge good and bad based on the Word of God or our feelings. R2K emphatically says “no, we should not.” Biblical Christianity most certainly says “yes.”

In this response I have shown that I am not indebted to R2K for any of their capital and have not borrowed at all from their loony tune reasoning. I have no debt to pay to the fan boys of Dr. Meredith Kline and their completely innovative “theology.” All I can say Darryl regarding those arrears payments is, (insert snarky voice) “the check is in the mail.”

The antithesis, as I have shown, does not forswear me from supporting Ron Paul, and compels me to oppose a social order that is in rebellion to King Jesus. In point of fact, consistent with the antithesis, I support Ron Paul to oppose the current un-biblical social order.

I am sure Escondido theology will one day pass away the same day Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism passes away.

See you in the funny pages Darryl.