Category: Apologetics

A Conversation On Abortion & Cultural Disintegration with a Typical Representative of the Christian Left

This conversation was launched by this clip of Sen. Rick Santorum that reveals his pragmatism on abortion,

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/santorum-would-support-exceptions-to-abortion-ban/64yw0hd?cpkey=cadcf0db-9bec-40c2-9905-e572a76678b4

Emily Dorr

As of YESTERDAY, Santorum admits that he’s not really ‘pro-life’ by any standard that pretends to be connected to the teaching of the Bible.

Pragmatism is sin when applied to Christianity. Sadly, when sitting in church yesterday, nobody told you that.

These evangelicals will sell us all to the devil.

Kerry Culligan

Santorum supported pro- abortion Arlen Spector in the primary some years ago as a good Pennsylvania Republican as well. Iowa evangelicals have tried to pretend that he regrets that now, and wouldn’t do so again. Mind you, he never apologized or pretended to repent for that endorsement. No, these evangelical leaders are intentionally fooling themselves.

Ann Gardner Dorr

How can a law guarantee there will no longer be any abortions? Rich women will always be able to go to their docs and have a “D and C”. Poor women will go to the back alley and be injured or die. Or is that OK with all of you for them committing such a grievous sin? And, is there ever room for redemption after an abortion, or are they condemned forever? Are the fathers who encorage sn abortion equally condemned or are there degrees of condemnation? We outlaw murder yet it still occurs. Or is this the church wanting the gov’t to do their work? It truly is a moral issue and it is rare where laws can successfully legislate morality.

Bret L. McAtee

Sen. Santorum’s support for Arlen Specter, who was pro-choice, over a putative pro-life electable Republican proved to me that Santorum is just another whore politician.

Ann Gardner Dorr

Isn’t that a bit too harsh?

Bret L. McAtee

Observing that somebody is a whore politician because he flaunted his pro-life credentials and then turned around and supported somebody who was pro-death is a whore politician is to harsh?

No … actually, I think it is far to kind.

Referring to your previous comments Ann I would say that it is better if a few poor women to die by pursuing the death of their children then to have a law that supports baby killing so that rich and poor women alike can legally kill their children. Those who die in pursuing illegal abortions are only getting justice. What is unfair is that the rich avoid death in pursuing what would be illegal abortions in a culture where abortion was illegal.

Yes … God can forgive all sins but that doesn’t mean that sins that God has listed as crimes (such as murder) should not be enforced as crimes with the penalty that comes with those crimes.

Since laws can’t legislate morality, according to you, what say you about legalizing mass murder?

Ann Gardner Door

I guess my question has to do more with the separation of church from state and what is state business and what is church business? As you are aware, not everyone believes in the God that you do, yet they live in this country and according to our laws they are entitled to do that (believe differently than you and me). Since they don’t agree with your harsh judgments toward this issue, must they also be condemned to death in the back alley? I really wish Jesus was still with us to speak directly to this issue.

Bret L. McAtee

Ann, it is not possible to separate religion from the State. All Governments, including the current one, is beholden to and derivative of some religion. Why should I be satisfied with the State religion of Humanism that you find so superior over Christianity?

I am not advocating a Ecclesiocracy where the Church rules. I am advocating overthrowing the current pagan government that is ruled by a pagan religion that sanctions the torture and murder of the unborn.

Say, according to your standard why shouldn’t we allow for the Hindu custom (Sati) where widowed wives are burned with their deceased husbands on a funeral pyre? Why should these people be allowed their customs? After all, they don’t agree with our harsh judgments against wife killing.

You don’t seem to understand that all law order is a reflection of some God. Your God that you want to see the country subservient to allows for baby murder mine doesn’t. Why should you be preferred?

Ann Gardner Dorr

I really wish Jesus was still with us to speak directly to this issue. Hell, half the prophets and leaders in the old testament where “whores” by your standards. They had slaves, multiple wives, slept with their hand-maidens and had children by multiple women. I’m just trying to see where the Christ-like view on this whole issue would be. I just can’t be as harsh toward my fellow humans as some express here. I was also taught that to “judge” was God’s job, not mine.

Bret L. McAtee

The OT is full of the record of sin. That doesn’t mean that God approved of it. That’s pretty basic Ann.

The Christ-like view on this subject is the one found in Scripture. Those found guilty of murder by the testimony of two witnesses are to be executed.

Ann Gardner Dorr

I just can’t be as harsh toward my fellow humans as some express here. I was also taught that to “judge” was God’s job, not mine. I also wonder if you view abortion on some kind of “sin plane” and that it ranks as a higher degree of sin than say, lying on your taxes, or stealing from your employer.

Bret L. McAtee

Ann you are one of the harshest people I know in your advocacy of murder. It is incredible (more than incredible) to me that you can accuse me of harshness when I am trying to reverse a policy that has led to the torture and murder of 50 million people and the untold suffering of countless number of women who suffer from post traumatic abortion syndrome?

I must say that it is you that is the harsh one here Ann. Your cruelness and unfeeling character is grotesque in a high degree.

And the funny thing is, is that you are so deadened to reality that you find your cruelty to be the very nard of tender mercy.

Scripture clearly tells us that we are to judge righteously

Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment. (John 7)

And yes … though all sin is worthy of punishment not all sin is equally grave. Torture and murder is definitely worse then not paying your taxes.

Ann Gardner Dorr

Trust me, I don’t advocate abortion.

Bret L. McAtee

Yes you do. Your advocating that it remain legal is a advocating for abortion. You can not advocate for its legality or accuse people who oppose it as being “harsh” and then soothe your conscience with some kind of “but I don’t like it” declaimer.

Ann Gardner Dorr

I am almost 60 and still confused by this issue. I will say, I lived before it was legal and there definitely were abortions. People were dying, lives of all sorts were being destroyed. My own father, Emily’s grandfather, on her Dad’s side, was not as adamant about the position of it being illegal. He talked about knowing young people who were deeply affected by choices they were forced to make before it was legal. I think he was troubled by it too. We talked about it at the time it became legal. Roe v Wade was ruled while I was in college. It was very controversial at that time and remains so today.

Bret L. McAtee

You don’t strike me as confused at all Ann. You strike me as very certain that torture and murder should be continued.

Nobody doubts that abortion happened before its legality. It’s always the case that whatever is illegal is transgressed by people even though it is illegal. That is why we have the word “crime.”

But the fact that it happened illegally Ann isn’t an argument that we should make it legal. If that were the case we would make all kinds of things legal only because some percentage of folks break laws.

The fact that some were aborted illegally, that some lives were ruined doesn’t mean we make it so millions more are aborted legally and that more lives are ruined.

What kind of reasoning is this on your part Ann?

Ann Gardner Dorr,

Sorry, Bret, that still seems self-righteous and harsh, to me. Just like you, I can go through my Bible and cherry pick verses to support my case of compassion over harsh judgement. And, by the way, you have no idea what I find superior as a form of gov’t. I was merely referring to our gov’t as it exists today. And, I am still curious. Does your religion view/belief put varying degrees on sin? And if so, is abortion the lowest, (or highest) level of sin, as you see it?

Bret L. McAtee

Self righteous? I want to see millions of people saved and you call me self righteous?

Do you realize how upside down your thought process is?

I challenge you to find any passage in Scripture that finds God supporting murder.

Abortion is not the highest sin. A higher sin would be people who advocate that abortion should remain legal. Their place in hell will be far deeper then a woman who had an abortion.

Mickey Bolwerk

Bret gets to the heart of the issue here, and I’m not sure there’s much more I can do than reiterate his points in my own words:

1) There is no area of neutrality. All law is religious in nature; it’s only a matter of whose religion is represented in the law code. Ann, whether you realized it or not, you are promoting the law code of humanism.

2) There is no basic dichotomy between the Old Testament and the New Testament. God is immutable, containing no contingency, no unexplored potentials. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. His standards of righteousness in the NT era are the same as those in the OT era.

By the way, John 7:53 – 8:11 is of highly questionable canonicity and, even if it was in the original text, your interpretation of it is not possible, by means of analogia scriptura (the analogy of Scripture; that is, that Scripture is internally consistent and any interpretation of Scripture leading to contradictions is incorrect). If we are to grant that it is Scriptural, then the only possible interpretations of this is that either:

1) Her accusers were themselves guilty of adultery, thus disqualifying them a witnesses, or
2) Christ refused to act in the role of the civil magistrate.

Either way, if the woman was guilty of adultery, she deserved to die. As do abortionists.

Ann Gardner Dorr

All I know, is that if Jesus came to earth with an attitude like yours we would all be Jews today. Your approach comes across as ego driven serving only to show your superiority to others and would make it difficult for someone who is struggling to understand or believe. I thank God every day that Jesus was NOTHING like you. You can’t even listen to my argument, you are so set in your superior ways. I never once said I advocated abortion. My argument is/was with the approach and procedures that anti-abortionists have employed over the years that have done nothing but to harden people against your position. I think your movement has done more to promote the use and choice of abortion, merely by the words and tactics you have employed. Talk about cruel and grotesque. . .

Bret L. McAtee

Ann … are you sober or are you drinking while your write this?

Look Ann … I am far more concerned for the millions who have been tortured and slaughtered then I am about your feelings. You get on your pious high horse self-righteously accusing me of being “superior” and “self-righteous,” and “ego-driven,” while you advocate that we should be sensitive to murder and murderers.

I can’t listen to your argument because you have no argument. Besides, I’ve listened long enough to refute it… thoroughly.

Me thinketh the lady doth protest too much.

Good night Ann.

Please reconsider your position.

Ann Gardner Dorr

I’m praying for your soul tonight Bret.

Bret L. McAtee

Don’t bother wasting your time Ann because there is no God at the address your sending your prayers to because your God is a myth of your own imagination.

Ann Gardner Dorr

‎”I thank God every day that Jesus was NOTHING like you.”

David Opperman

I wonder what Bible Ann has been reading? It seems to me like Jesus was pretty confrontational. The Jews didn’t want him crucified because he turned water to wine…

Misty Richards

Ann – You accuse others of self-righteousness while arguing in favor of murderers who will have their own children sucked piece by piece out of their womb?? Do you understand what abortion is?? Its murder, Ann, plain and simple and all murderers should face the death penalty.

Ann Gardner Dorr

Well, “good morning” all. This has been very eye opening. Once I get past the name calling and viciousness of all of your anger I will contemplate the base of your argument. It seems as though you all are so used to this fight you are blind. I don’t advocate abortion, rape, murder or anything else I’ve been accused of here. But I certainly understand now why this debate has shut down and I’m fairly certain the laws will never change. You scared the heck out of me with your vitriole and I am sure you have that effect on others when it comes to this subject. Ears shut off, hearts close down and the beat goes on. I’m certain that is not what any of you want but your efforts last night were very effective in revealing to me who and what you are all about.

Mark Chambers

What’s the matter Ann? So ashamed of your idiot arguments that you retreat from them?

Ann Gardner Dorr

Not at all, just realize it pointless to discuss this subject with the Christian Taliban pushing your form of Sharia Law. First the abortionists, then the gays, then the public schools, etc, etc until you’ve formed the perfect society accorording to your version of God’s desires for humankind. Now I see where the left came up with their notions about all of you. No wonder they have been so successful in their fight against this agenda. No wonder over 45% of Americans no longer hold any spiritual beliefs. There is very little that is appealing to me coming from you that would draw me to your side of the spiritual fence.

You don’t care to discuss and persuade. You want to bully me into agreeing with your view of everything, then we can be all lovey and friends. No middle ground here. It’s all or nothing. I’ll chose nothing.

Bret L. McAtee

Ann,

You talk about the left and how it came up with their notions of conservative but you seem not to realize that you are the left.

You complain about our form of Sharia but just look at all the sharia that you’re pushing on us. You are pushing a kinder gentler humanist sharia of abortion with hand wringing, of government schools, of homosexuality. In your putative benign acceptance of these things you now are pushing them down our throats dear Ann.

You find us odd and displeasing but we are only what America was before the success of the cultural Marxism that now flows through your veins.

I wish there was a kinder way to oppose torture and murder of the unborn. I genuinely would like for there to be a nicer way of contending that homosexuality is an abomination that has throughout history always been the final indicator of a culture that is in disintegration. I’ve prayed daily that I could find a softer way of telling people that government schools are poison to the souls of our children. But these truths do not allow a “smile in your face while I disembowel you” approach.

Imagine me weeping for you and for the countless numbers like you dear sweet Ann. My tears fall first because of your hostility towards the God of the Bible and His Lord Christ. My tears then fall because I know what your end is and it saddens me beyond naming. My tears fall for all the harm you are doing in your belief system to countless numbers of people. If my weeping would convince people of their hatred and vileness I would take my weeping public and weep before the world.

But it would do no good because people like you would still come back and hurl insults at me because of my desire to protect you, and other people, and you would hurl insults at my desire to see the end of the culture of death which your worldview supports.

Believe me Ann, when I tell you, that if I thought that I could be successful by changing anything in my approach or methodology I would change but having tried every which way, I know that it is not my methodology that turns people off but it is my insistence that the God of the Bible must be kissed lest he be angry and people like you perish in the way.

With deep affection for you but with even more for the Sovereign of the universe,

Top 10 Reasons I am not a Baptist

10.) Doesn’t household mean household?

9.) How do children who are disallowed from the covenant make it a new and better covenant?

8.) Let me get this straight. Does the Baptist really expect me to believe that the Jews were absolutely incensed at the idea that Gentiles were now in the covenant without circumcision but accepted that their children were no longer in the covenant even with circumcision — and they accepted the latter without so much as a whimper recorded in the NT? You want me to believe that on one day Jewish children were included in the covenant and on the next day they had to wait until they were old enough to vote for Jesus on the matter. Hello?

7.) I didn’t wait for my children to ask me into their hearts before I named them and made them a part of my family. Why should I expect God to wait for His covenant seed to ask Jesus into their hearts before He names them in Baptism and makes them part of the family of God?

6.) I can’t get my mind around the fact that Pentecost amounted to the excommunication of children.

5.) “Forbid not the children to come unto me,” must mean something.

4.) If I were a Baptist and required explicit instructions from the New Testament before I baptized infants then I could not give communion to women? Imagine how that would go over.

3.) I read the Bible as one book … one story.

2.) I believe the children go with the parents. Call me old fashioned.

And the number one reason I am not a Baptist,

No one can tell me if I’ve reached the age of accountability yet.

More reasons,

11.) Jesus said infants could be members of the Kingdom of God. I think we can take His word for it.

12.) Who says Infants can’t have faith? Faith is God’s gift after all and He will bestow that gift on whomever He so chooses.

13.) Jesus didn’t say, “You must become as an adult to enter into the Kingdom of God.”

14.) We are saved by faith alone, not by the claim of faith alone.

When Baptists say that what is required is faith, what they really mean is what is required is a claim of faith.

The Issue Of Knowledge

“In the first place, Christian theism maintains that the subject of knowledge owes its existence to God. Accordingly, all its interpretive powers are from God and must therefore be reinterpretive powers. In the second place when the subject of knowledge is to come into contact with the object of knowledge, the connection is possible only because God has laid it there. In other words, the subject-object relation has its validity via God. Theologically expressed, we say the that the validity of human knowledge in general rests upon the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. In addition to this, Christian theism maintains that since sin has come into the world, no subject of knowledge can really come into contact with any object of knowledge, in the sense of interpreting it properly, unless the Scripture give the required light and unless the regeneration of the Spirit give a new power of sight.

In opposition to this, that antitheist holds it to be self-evident that the subject of knowledge exists in its own right and can interpret truly without any reference to God. The ‘natural man’ claims to be able to interpret nature and history properly without the need of any reference to God. The ‘natural man’ claims to be able to interpret nature and history properly without the need of any reference to God, to Scripture, or to regeneration.

It follows from this clear-cut difference, a difference that goes to the bottom so that not a single ‘fact’ or ‘law’ is left for neutral territory, that the one group must naturally regard the other as being blind. Accordingly, it is when the subject-subject relation comes up, that the problem as to what one group thinks of the other group, becomes acute. The reason why Christians have not always been alive to this difficulty is that they have not always been consistent in drawing the distinction between the Christian theistic and the antitheistic system of epistemology clearly and fully. All to often they have allowed a hazy fringe to remain when it came to the question of whether unbelievers really know material facts aright. Christianity has all to often been interpreted in a narrowly soteriological [salvational] fashion.”

Cornelius Van Til
A Survey Of Christian Epistemology — pg. 184-185

For the life of me, I don’t know how R2Kt chaps can claim to be Van Tillian given this kind of quote. Given this kind of language does anybody believe that Van Til would have countenanced the use of Natural law for the common realm?

Is Theonomy Guilty Of Being The Product Of Pelagianism?

Zrimec

Says the theonomist. But I wouldn’t expect he who is trying to circumvent human sin to actually admit that he is trying to circumvent human sin. I don’t expect Arminians to admit they undercut grace, nor Romanists to admit they anathematize the gospel.

This reinforces the anti-nomian nature of R2Kt thinking. Reformed people for generations have understood that the the second use of the law sets a standard of righteousness for the civil realm. This is all the Theonomist is contending for. Apparently R2Kt types don’t believe in the second use of the law.

So, Theonomy doesn’t try to circumvent sin but rather is crying for God’s law to be the law that sets a standard for what is and is not crime. Zrimec is insisting that God’s law is not the standard for what is and isn’t crime. I don’t expect those who are public square antinomians to actually admit they are trying to get rid of the second use of the law just as I don’t expect Arminians to admit they undercut grace, nor Romanists to admit they anathematize the gospel.

Yes, sin is still quite present (in both worship and the civil realm). But worship isn’t primarily an enterprise in law but gospel. Worship isn’t concerned for the ordering of society or even the church. Worship is a response to God’s gospel; worship is the simultaneous response to and perpetuation of a theology. Is the Reformed notion of the RPW the superior formulation of Christian worship? Yes. Does that mean human sin is eradicated when it’s enacted? Not by a long shot. But, then again, that isn’t the point. But even when the cause is to order society (i.e. an endeavor in law), the point still isn’t to marginalize sin but keep evil at bay and maximize the good. My take on theonomy isn’t that it is not simply trying to do the latter, as if it were all that innocent. I am not sure how the concern for the ordering of society should be of such import over against, or even in tandem with, the propagation of the gospel, seeing as how there is absolutely zero data in the NT that even begins to imply that sort of arrangement in priority.

Once again we see the dispensational tendency of acting if the Old Testament doesn’t exist or doesn’t inform the New Testament. But Zrimec is wrong about his NT reading. First we have the great commission which as it is fulfilled among nations always leads to the re-ordering of society. How could the re-ordering of society not be the case where people embrace Jesus and are taught to observe all things which Jesus commands? We see a brief example of this re-ordering of society in Acts 19. Paul has spent a good deal of time in Ephesus teaching and the consequence is that a reordering of society begins to take place in the economic and civil realm to the point that those of the old order who were threatened by the Gospel’s re-ordering of society created a riot.

“I don’t know, Colin, other than to say theonomists evidently don’t listen to their Augustinian-Calvinism very well. I mean, if you are suggesting an innocence by association then the FV should be left alone, as well as the abiding “Bapterinism” in the ranks or Framian notions of intelligibility against the RPW (the list could go on). Remember, the Remonstrants came out of Reformed churches. Reformed have never been ones to give each other a pass simply because of close association—they even devote one whole form of unity against the errors of their closer associates while giving only a passing mention of Romanist errors (HC Q/A 80).

I quite agree with Zrimec here. What Reformed people need to do is purge R2Kt people from their midst. All because they have been closely associated with Calvinist for a long time means nothing at all in terms of their grave error. Whether theonomists or R2Kt types have been around Calvinists a long time is irrelevant. If theonomists have to low a view of sin and are trying to circumvent sin they should be tossed just as R2Kt types should be tossed if they are libertines, anabaptists and antinomians. Clearly though if you put libertines in charge of ruling on theonomy it will go bad for theonomy just as if you put those who esteem the second use of the law in charge of ruling R2Kt it will go bad for the virus.

My Arminians are only scared of theonomy when the theonomists speak as consistently as they ought (like you all). I tell them that this is them, but only when the decibels are cranked up, they get their act together and realize what it leads to. Just as the theonomists don’t listen very well to their Calvinism, Arminians and Pelagians don’t seem to understand that theonomy is really the logical result of their system. (And if I may be permitted to wax personal, it was precisely the out-of-control culture wars in my former funda-Arminian ranks that played large part in my own defection to the dark side of a strict Calvinism. The similarities between theonomy and culture war obsessed Arminians is about as stark as anything I’ve ever seen. Theonomy is the Reformed version of a broad funda-evangelicalism, no matter how much it wraps itself up in the Reformed confessions.)

Theonomy is the result of Pelagianism the way that pregnancy is a result of the fluoride in the water. If you want a more natural fit I would recommend the observation that R2Kt is a result of ana-baptist thought. R2Kt types don’t listen very well to Calvin who said things like.

“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

And again,

Psalm 2

“…without a doubt he is speaking of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus. He admonishes all kings and authorities to be wise and to take heed to themselves. What is this wisdom? What is the lesson He gives them? To abdicate it all? Hardly! But to fear God and give homage to His Son…Furthermore, Isaiah prophesies that the kings will become the foster fathers of the Christian church and that queens will nurse it with their breasts (Isa. 49:23).I beg of you, how do you reconcile the fact that kings will be protectors of the Christian Church if their vocation is inconsistent with Christianity?”

Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 79

Looks like Calvin himself is guilty of Zrimec’s charge of being an evange-fundamentalist. Was Calvin also Pelagian Steve?

Finally, though Zrimec may want to close his eyes and wish for it to go all away the culture wars are with us and they are going find wherever anybody tries to hide. We wouldn’t be having them were it not for the way R2Kt has contributed to the problem.

Yeow, you might want to pick up Meuther’s recent bio on CVT. It’s good for documenting how CVT deliberately resisted and regretted theonomy, the efforts of its architects to foist patron sainthood upon him notwithstanding. But maybe CVT just didn’t even fathom his own presuppositions and it took Greg, Gary and RJ to point them out to him? But for my money, CVT knew what he was rejecting and regretting, just like Machen knew this creature called “Fundamentalism” was not good for the Presbyterian soul.

It is true that Van Til disavowed his child. But in terms of movements that arose around his thinking he was consistently sanguine about all of them.

McAtee Keeps Shooting R2Kt Fish In A Reformed Dispensational Barrel

Steve Zrimec offered,

“The basic problem in any form of theonomy is that in its ironic striving to show forth faithfulness it actually demonstrates less faith, not more. It has great doubt as to the natural law inscribed by God onto the hearts of all men and that is really good enough to get the world from one day to the next in relatively one piece. This is the religious version of not employing one’s mind, conscience, eyes or feet each day simply because these things fail us all the time. If God endowed us with eyes, however sinful, should we really refuse to look simply because we have astigmatism? I know, I know, special revelation is supposed to be like a pair of glasses. But even spectacles can’t correct for every defect. The problem theonomy is trying to circumvent is sin. But no matter how much special revelation one wants to bring to bear on natural revelation sin will always keep things frustrated.”

The great problem with R2Kt theology is that in its striving to be faithless it succeeds tremendously. It has great confidence in Natural law contradicting its professions of presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalism teaches that man must presuppose God in order to reason aright, and yet R2Kt aficionados want to insist that autonomous man, presupposing and starting from himself can read the natural law quite apart from starting with God. So for the R2Kt guys, man must start with God in the spiritual realm to come to truth but in the natural realm man can start with himself and come to truth. The reality of God thus becomes completely irrelevant for knowledge as it pertains to the common realm. Zrimec is practicing common realm agnosticism.

Second Zrimec should realize that it is God who has called us to Holiness not theonomist. Zrimec, quite possibly because of his pessimistic eschatology (amillenialism) has a significantly under-realized eschatology. For Zrimec sin will always keep things frustrated. Zrimec has sin abounding much more than grace. Zrimec seems to suggest that since sin can’t be circumvented sin shouldn’t be contended against. Since we can’t win why battle?

Finally, Zrimec plainly underestimates the power of God in sanctification.

“Vern has a point. Instead of seeing this as a problem of being “too American,” theonomy actually suffers from way too low a doctrine of human sin. Sure, the last four letters in American are “I Can!” but that only proves that Americanism suffers from the same thing theonomy does.”

Actually, the whole premise of Church and State in America is based upon R2Kt reasoning and so it is R2Kt that reflects the American spirit. In the end the problem with Zrimec is that he suffers from way to low of an estimation of the power of God in sanctification.