Category: Apologetics

Dr. R. Scott Clark (Typhoid Bob) tried to suggest that Federal Vision and Theonomy were separated at birth Siamese twins born of the bitch mother legalism. My purpose is to continue to seek to erase that false and libelous characterization. Since I have no tuck with Federal Vision as it concerns their doctrine of justification I will let them defend their own house. However, when it comes to theonomy, I have a few sympathies. So, I offer the following quotes to continue to help reveal the silliness is Dr. R. Scott Clark’s presentation.

“The Protestant revolt was significant primarily…for its proclamation of the radical doctrine of justification by faith, which abolished…the whole social order which depended on the soteriology of mediating institutions.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Politics of Guilt and Pity, — p. 263

Does that sound like somebody who believed that justification was by sanctification? Does that sound like somebody who was anything but Reformed? Of course the problem with TB is that if one isn’t infected with the R2Kt virus then one can’t be Reformed.

“This legalistic principle,” says Rushdoony, “against which Romans, and all Scripture, is directed, is as invalid politically as religiously.” (Ibid., p. 294.) Moreover, “[M]en cannot seek justification socially by law and works of law, and long retain a concept of individual salvation through justification by faith….Men who have Christ as their all-sufficient priest cannot create or tolerate a priestly and soteriological state.” (Ibid., p. 299.)

Here is another quote that throws a ton of sand into Typhoid Bob’s theory of the close relation between Federal Vision and Theonomy.

“Scripture centers on the obedience of Christ — both active and passive — because it is the necessary requirement for the full justification of sinners.”

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Theonomy in Christian Ethics, p. 152

So here is the grandfather and the father of modern day theonomy clearly articulating the standard Reformed doctrine of Justification. Obviously they are NOT Federal Visionists on the doctrine of justification.

The chief carrier of the R2Kt virus is Dr. R. Scott Clark. It is hard to guess how many other people (students) he has infected with this viral strain. Recently he re-published a hit piece on theonomy. Bob hates theonomy so much because it is the antidote curative to R2Kt virus.

A little running commentary with Bob’s recent libelous hit piece.

The question comes concerning the relations between Theonomy and the Federal Vision. There is reason to think that there is some connection between the two movements. Several well-known theonomists are also proponents of the FV. One of the FV leaders recently described the current FV controversy as a renewal of the theonomy argument. Interpreters on both sides have seen connection between the two controversies and movements.

Certainly there are those sympathetic to theonomy who are in the Federal Vision camp. The problem is that there are those who have sympathy to theonomy who have spoken out with clear antipathy toward the Federal Vision. Bob is trying to create guilt by association in this article. The fact of the matter is, is that the situation is far more complex then Typhoid Bob admits in this article.

There are good reasons for seeing connections between the two movements. Both movements date to the mid-1970s. In the early phase of the argument, Norman Shepherd found much support among theonomists and the FV movement today finds considerable support among theonomists. There are ambiguities, however. There is open debate among theonomists about WWBD? (What would Bahsen do?) Would he support the Federal Vision? Support for Norman Shepherd is a point of connection between the theonomists and the Federal Visionists. In turn Shepherd, though not overtly identified with theonomy, shares their their neo-postmillennial eschatology. Further, not all theonomists are Federal Visionists nor are all Federal Visionists are theonomists. At least one theonomic denomination (the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the US, not to be confused with the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America) has been highly critical of the FV.

First, the drive to go to the moon and the hippie movement both date to the 60’s. That doesn’t mean they had anything to do with each other. Second, Typhoid Bob (hereinafter TB) makes all kinds of allegations until he finally, briefly admits, that in all of this there are ambiguities which effectively undercuts all the correlation TB tries to make. Does he mean the ambiguity that it was a theonomic denomination (RPCUS) that originally blew the disciplinary whistle on the Federal Vision? Does TB mean that kind of ever so slight ambiguity? Third, TB next tries to throw in post-millennialism into the mix thus trying to suggest that there is something inherently heterodox about post-millennialism. I’m sure B. B. Warfield would be glad to know that. TB completely voids the argument he has made thus far with the last two sentences in the blockquote immediately above.

Though not identical movements, Theonomy and the Federal Vision movements are analogues. Both movements reflect a similar pathology in the Reformed corpus. Both reflect what I call the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty (QIRC). The FV does it by making the doctrines of covenant, justification, and perseverance, a little more “reasonable,” by reducing the scandal of the cross and the offense of the gospel. As it turns out, according to the FV, it’s not really filthy sinners that Christ justifies, but those who are sanctifed, who cooperate with grace. As we’ve seen, in the FV, the sentence “A justified man is sanctified” becomes, “A man is justified because he is sanctified.” The elect, as it turns out, are those who have cooperated with grace. That’s just a little more “sweetly reasonable” than the confessional Protestant alternative.

I have no tuck with the Federal Vision doctrine of justification so I won’t bother to engage with any of this except to say that the Apostle Paul could speak of legitimate Religious Certainty when he said, “I know whom I have believed….” Notice, he didn’t say, “by way of induction I am 99.9% certain that I know whom I have believed.”

I can’t help but comment that I seriously doubt that any Federal Vision aficionado would say that “A man is justified because he is sanctified.” But, still, I am glad to agree with Typhoid Bob that FV doctrines of justification are seriously messed over.

Theonomy represents another side of the same quest. It offers a kind of ethical precision and a kind of ethical authority that reduces ambiguities to certainties and, on its premises, makes Christian ethics a little more “reasonable.” In contrast, non-theonomic ethics aren’t nearly as attractive. First, we non-theonomists don’t have any catchy slogans. Our ethic, like our eschatology, is paradoxical. Theonomy is attractive because it flattens out the tension between what is and what shall be. For theonomy there is a continuum between the now and the not yet. For non-theonomic amillennialism there is a sharp disjunction between “the now,” or “this age,” and the “not yet,” or “the age to come.” They are two different types of existence. The consummate state exists in heaven and is interjected into this life in small ways, but, for the most part none of us seems to have a plan to bring out the Kingdom of God on the earth. The theonomists definitely have a plan and Americans like a plan. Do most American Dispensationalists really understand the complicated eschatological charts? Probably not, but they do have implicit faith in their leaders that someone has figured out what the news means and what’s going to happen.

First off, I would say that the problem with TB’s form of ‘Christianity’ is that he desires to introduce ambiguities into what God has clearly spoken in regards to ethics. This serves to allow Bob to convert pagans without having to suggest that the Christian life actually has a profound ethical impact on their life.

Second if TB wants some catchy slogans for his belief system I can help.

“Embrace Our Jesus, He’s easy on the lifestyle.”

“Want To Keep Your Economic Marxism? — Our Jesus Is Your Man”

“Come To Jesus, He’s A God Who Minds His Own Business.”

“Christianity — A Religion Where Lordship Means What You Want It To Mean.”

Third, since Theonomy insists on self-denial, and cross-bearing I don’t know how Typhoid Bob can suggest that theonomy makes ethics more reasonable. Of course TB might mean that theonomic ethics are more reasonable when compared to his ethics which are irrational.

Fourth someone needs to tell Typhoid Bob that a paradox is defined as a cramp between the ears. If his ethics are paradoxical does that mean that it is ok both to commit adultery and not to commit adultery? Is it ok to both support the Messianic state in violation of the 1st commandment and not support the Messianic state in keeping with the 1st commandment? Hey, baby, its all paradox, you know.

Fifth, Typhoid Bob’s eschatology is grossly under-realized which forces him to say that theonomy flattens out the tension between what is and what shall be. The rest of his kvetching in the blockquote above all stems from his a-millennialism which builds a impenetrable barrier between the age to come and this age so that increased righteousness among any people in any culture is impossible since righteousness has to wait from the abrupt in breaking that will come on the final day when the Gospel has been defeated in this age.

In contrast, Non-theonomic, Amillennial, types confess that all 613 Mosaic laws were civil, ceremonial, and moral and at the same time, that the moral law, grounded in creation, continues to obligate all creatures before, during, and after Moses. That creational law is a set of general principles (embodied in the Decalogue and in the golden rule and taught throughout Scripture and revealed in nature [Rom 1-2]) not an extensive civil code. Thus, confessional Reformed folk must seek wisdom as they attempt to apply the moral/creational law to difficult civil problems, but without the certainty that any particular application is necessarily is the correct “Christian” application.

Listen to what Typhoid Bob has said here. There is no certainty that the way the Christian family has been organized in Christendom is the correct “Christian” application. Family organization is all a crap shoot. There is no certainty that two thousand years of Christian just war theory is the correct application. Doctrines of just war are just as likely to come from Hindus as they are from Christians. There is no certainty that education can be done in a distinctly Christian fashion. It is all a crap shoot.

Second, Theonomists insist that the moral law, grounded in creation, includes what Typhoid Bob is calling the Civil law. That is to say that what is known as the civil law is only the practical application of the Moral law. The civil law is to the Moral law what case law is to Constitutional Law. Typhoid Bob is assuming an intrusion ethic that he has not, nor can not prove. TB wants to embrace the moral code in the abstract so he can ignore it in the concrete.

Thirdly, Theonomists completely agree that Confessional folk (which they are part of) must seek wisdom as they apply God’s Law Word to today’s world. TB keeps suggesting that theonomy makes all of this simple but any theonomist worth his salt will tell you that application takes great wisdom.

Theonomy, however, under the slogan, “abiding validity of the law of God in exhaustive detail,” seems to offer “the” Christian answer to difficult problems. Unsure about “the general equity thereof” in a given case? Put the quarter in the slot, pull the handle and out comes the correct ethical and civil answer to one’s particular question. They even have ready-made civil code in Theonomy in Christian Ethics and in the Institutes of Biblical Law.

Yeah, everybody knows that God can’t make His mind known on difficult problems. What are people thinking that God’s word would apply to all of life, including our ethical conundrums?

That both movements came to prominence in conservative Reformed circles at the same time, during the years of post-Nixon, post-Haight-Ashbury period, the time of disco and cocaine propelled self-indulgence, during the moral “malaise” of the Carter administration, suggests that they may both reactions to the same stimuli. Neither movement was driven by the Reformed confession. Rather, when these movements were born attention to the Reformed confessions was at a nadir. In an autobiographical passage in his essay, “In Defense of Something Close to Biblicism,” John Frame comments that his seminary education wasn’t marked by sustained, focused attention to the Reformed confessions. The attitude of the period seemed to be that as long as one had a high view of Scripture and divine sovereignty, everything else was negotiable. I remember reading things from the period that said, in effect, “we all know what we believe about justification,” let’s get on with applying the Scriptures to every area of life.

This is just stupid. I have a post on this blog that cites extensively theonomic literature throughout the history of Reformed thought. If one in interested to see that one need only google ‘The Magistrate and The First Table — Contra Intrusionists.’ The advent of Theonomic thought may indeed have made a comeback during a time of moral laxity but if it did it did so with a long Reformed pedigree which started with the advent of Reformed Confessions and historic Reformational thought.

Both Theonomy and the Federal Vision are theologically and socially conservative. Both movements have in common a deep concern for the collapse of the culture and our place in it. Some versions of theonomy/reconstructionism envision the culture being gradually regenerated through Christian influence and some expect a cataclysm out of which arises a Reconstructionist phoenix. The FV wants to regenerate the culture through sacerdotalism (baptismal union with Christ whereby all baptized persons are, ex opere operato (Rich Lusk has spoken this way), temporarily, historically, conditionally united to Christ). Both are visions aimed at the restoration of Christendom. One is primarily ecclesiastical and the other primarily civil. These common attitudes, interests, and approaches, however, help explain why so many theonomists have been attracted to the FV and vice-versa.

Both Westminster West and Cultural Marxism have no use for Christendom. Both movements have in common a deep concern that Christianity is wrongly embedded in our culture. Some versions of Westminster West Theology teach that the Church should have nothing to say regarding homosexuality in our culture and so Westminster West wants Christianity to ignore the culture choosing instead to get souls saved. Cultural Marxism likewise wants Christianity to ignore the culture desiring a Christianity that won’t get in the way of their agenda to de-Christianize the West. Both are visions aimed at destroying Christendom. One is primarily ecclesiastical and the other primarily civil. These common attitudes, interests and approaches, however, help explain why so many Cultural Marxists have been attracted to Westminster West Theology and vice-versa.

See, two can play that game.

Billy Bob

I don’t have to “prove” anything. The burden of proof is on those who insist that the Bible furnishes us with the kind of economic- or foreign policy that can be legitimately held forth “prophetically” to the state.

My view is that the Bible is the account of the creation, fall, redemption, and consummation of all things. But if it’s economics or foreign policy we’re interested in, then we should go to the local library and read the experts.

I cut this from Green Baggins comment column. It is written by somebody infected with the R2Kt virus.

In this snippet Sal says that the Bible is about the Redemption of all things. What does Redemption look like in the realm of economics and foreign policy? Sal says it doesn’t look like anything we can measure because Economics and Foreign policy apparently aren’t part of the all things that Christ has come to Redeem.

Second, I would say the burden of proof is on Sal and the others infected with the R2kt virus who insist that the Bible doesn’t furnish us with the kind of economic or foreign policy that can be legitimately held forth. Sal, is part of the crowd who insist that the Bible is about individuals getting their souls saved but not about what embodied saved souls look like in the culture they live in once they’re saved. I mean, come on, you can only expect King Jesus to do so much after all.

Quite clearly the Bible does speak to Economic issues in the 8th Commandment. Not stealing is a great guideline for a nation and its government to follow. Salvation in the Economic realm thus looks like a government that is restrained in stealing money from the people. But those experts in the Library that Sal says we should check out keep insisting that stealing and redistribution of wealth does work so we should believe Marx over God’s Word according to Sal.

And how could Sal disagree with me about taking my Economic cues from Marx as discovered in the Library? After all the Church can’t speak to those things so it is fair to say that we can genuinely have Christian Marxists. Indeed, it is reported that in Sal’s Church Christian Marxists sit next to Christian Supply Siders and even though they fight like cats and dogs in the common realm they live in peace in the Church because the Church just keeps reminding them that their souls are saved.

And what of Foreign Policy? Does the Bible really have no guidelines for us in that realm? Is Sal suggesting that 2000 years of just war theory is just so much dung? Is Sal suggesting that there really isn’t any Biblical base in Just War theory?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it till the cows come home, Sal and his kind are gnostic. Salvation is for the soul but it doesn’t apply to anything else. Jesus saves us for heaven and does not rule by command in any realm in this life saving his ruling here as that which happens by secret divine decree.

This theology is called so only by way of courtesy.

Dear Herbert Goforth Marcuse,

Let’s start with a definition of culture.

Culture is the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs.

Culture thus reflects and incarnates the God and the theology that it worships. As such culture is hopelessly theological and while in itself not redemptive it does reflect some kind of theology. The R2kt insists not only that culture is not in and of itself redemptive (something all Reformed Christians agree with) but goes on to insist that it isn’t theologically rooted and imbued, as if it is a-theological. This is more than unfortunate.

Your letter seemed to affirm the idea of a ‘wall of separation between Church and State. The Puritans never agreed with the pagan idea of a wall between church and state. The puritans believed that there were two distinct realms, (one responsible for ministering grace while the other was responsible for ministering justice) but that the realms were complimentary and interdependent. The Puritans never held that the Church should have a wall between itself and the State and later protestants wanted a wall only in order to keep the State from meddling in the affairs of the Church, not to keep the Church from influencing the State. Frankly, the idea of a ‘wall between Church and State’ is a pagan idea and one that isn’t possible anyway as the current arrangement in this country reveals where the Church is located in the government schools and serves as the State Church.

The idea that ‘by looking for religious significance not in this world but in the world to come, liturgical Protestantism lowers the stakes for public life while still affirming politics’ divinely ordained purpose’ is an idea that creates a kind of platonic dualism with religious significance, including what happens in Church, being placed in the upper story while the ‘common realm,’ including what happens everywhere but what happens in Church, is located in the lower story. This is why it is often accused of gnosticism. This argument completely divorces nature from grace seeing them as two completely different and irreconcilable realities. Now, to be sure, there is always the danger of over identifying nature with grace not making the necessary distinctions between the two but the danger of one extreme doesn’t justify embracing the danger of R2kt virus. The danger of immanentizing the eschaton isn’t solved by making the eschaton so transcendent that it touches only the cultus.

Second, you quote somebody who talks about politics as the divinely appointed means for restraining evil but ‘evil’ is a theological category. In order to know what evil is we need Christian theology to inform the magistrate as to what evil is. As one example of the problem here, Natural law, in a community of homosexuals, is not going to restrain the evil of sexual license. So, even your quote above advocating R2Kt virus must presuppose my position in order to deny my position.

Third, since Theocracy is an inescapable category and since we are living under one even now, I see nothing un-Biblical in desiring a Theocracy that is increasingly reflective of Biblical categories then one that is increasingly reflective of the values of Marx, De Sade, and Freud. I am amazed at your disparaging attitude that Christians should desire the Kingship of Jesus in the communities in which they live.

Fourth, Woodrow Wilson had divorced Christian anthropology and soteriology from His eschatology and as such he was a defacto operating humanist. Accusations against him don’t lay a glove on post-millennialism. In a biblical post-millennial theology it is Christ who is bringing His Kingdom to earth and not in your words, ‘his followers who are trying with their human effort to build utopia.’ Therefore your criticism on that count doesn’t stand either, though as a functional a-millennialist I am not surprised that you would accuse post-millennialism of being just another brand of Oneida type utopianism.

Fifth, it is true that the R2Kt virus does define morality but only on an individual and personal level. They may say that murder is wrong but they dare not, if they are consistent, proclaim from the pulpit during the preaching of the Word, that killing Jews is wrong for that is something that belongs to the political realm and so not something that the Church should speak to since the Church’s responsibility is to proclaim personal salvation as found in Christ. As such, Church members are free to advocate killing Babies or not killing Babies in the public square and if R2kt virus types are consistent they will not be disciplined. Now, it may be that they will be inconsistent and speak to the issue but given their position if they are consistent they will follow their own theology and recognize that the Church as the Church has no voice on these matters.

You may indeed voice your concerns as a Christian in the public square on a host of issues. You may even contend that your position is THE Christian position proving it from scripture. BUT theoretically it is the case that a person who shares membership with you at the local R2kt Church can voice just the opposite view as yours, likewise proving it from Scripture and likewise insisting that theirs is the truly Biblical position. And since the Church as the Church can’t speak to such issues believers are left without a Word from the Lord and with each man doing what is right in his own eyes.

Give my best to the family,

Pastor Bret

Herbert Goforth Marcuse,

Keep in mind that I am not opposed to two Kingdom theology. I am opposed to radical two Kingdom Theology. Princeton certainly was two Kingdom (as am I) but they certainly were not, in any shape way or form, radical two Kingdom. For pete’s sake Herbert, much of Princeton was post-millennialist. You can’t be post-millennialist and be radical two Kingdom theology.

The idea that there is no neutrality is something I got from Jesus who said, “He who does not gather with me, scatters” and “You can not serve two masters” (he didn’t mention that it was possible to be neutral and so serve no masters). There is no such thing as neutrality Herbert … no such thing in any realm or sphere. One cannot go to the ‘common realm’ and think that in the common realm positions will be pursued and ideology developed (which is the animating catalyst for those positions) that is not beholden to some God or some Theology. Culture is not neutral, never pluralistic, and is always the public declaration of a peoples cultus and theology. This is why we can speak of ‘Christian Culture,’ ‘Hindu Culture,’ Muslim Culture, or even Balkanized culture (synonymous with R2Kt culture). Indeed, even the position that culture is neutral, that it should be pluralistic, and is not the public declaration of a ethnos’ cultus and theology is a declaration of that people’s cultus and theology — and it is a declaration of a cultus and theology that is not Biblical. When you attempt to pluralize the public square Herbert (something that can never be achieved for very long without brute force — think Tito’s Yugoslavia or Stalin’s Soviet Union) the consequence is that there must be a god that arises that serves as the god of the gods. This god is THE god in the culture and it makes rulings on how far the other gods can and cannot go in the public square. This god in the radical two kingdom virus theology is the State. This theology most assuredly cannot be rescued by ‘natural theology’ if only because in order for ‘natural theology’ to work you must have a homogeneous people who are sin bent in the same direction and so agree on what natural theology reveals. And yet, it is this very homogenization that radical two Kingdom theology is against as it argues mightily for the pluralization of the public square. Herbert, lift your eyes and look at the horizon. Natural law is being used to condone homosexual marriage. Natural law will not get us out of the morass that our culture is in, for by appealing to natural law theory every man will be well grounded to explain that what is right in his own eye is indeed supported by Natural law. And this is because, Herbert, those who advocate natural law theory don’t really believe that those who are receiving the natural law revelation are suppressing it and making a false version of it to support their own sin perversion.

Just this week, at a book sale, I was leafing through a recently released volume on Natural law from one of those chaps at the Acton Institute. In his book I noticed that he cited all kinds of churchmen (Rutherford, Althusius, etc.) who used Natural law. Such citations, given as proof for why we need to return to natural law theory, don’t really hold water for the men they cite were writing and working in an epoch and time dominated by a thing called Christendom. This is important for it explains why their works were able to be received by Europe and by their countrymen. They were received and accepted because there existed a certain homogeneity that Christendom had created. Take their works and arguments and put them in a pagan and non-Christian environment and they would be just laughed at. Natural law theory doesn’t take the noetic effects of sin seriously Herbert.

Herbert, you wrote something in your letter I wanted to quote directly because I find it so interesting,

It is your mockery of Christians, and not just nominal Christians — but the keepers of the “old Princeton” theology, the keepers of Reformed theology in America (that I find so objectionable). You actually make a mockery and a caricature of yourself by attacking them so harshly. And you contribute to the caricature that “feminists and homosexuals” have of Christians, by simply being another Jerry Falwell, pointing the finger and saying “Listen, America,” and America “listened” and now we have George Bush, the stupidest president in history. And you give them the spectacle of Christians killing other Christians in the public forum.

First, I hope that I have cleared up for you that ‘Old Princeton’ certainly was not infected with the R2kt virus. Now, neither do I claim ‘Old Princeton’ for my position but the post-millennial strain that you can find in the likes of Warfield, Archibald Alexander, J. A. Alexander, and the Hodges bodes better for my theology then it does for the R2kt.

Second, as I have mocked with equal gusto the moral majority and the Falwells of the world as I have the R2kt gang I hardly think your charge hits home.

Thirdly, as I think it is a disastrous thing for the R2kt gang to be speaking for Christians in the public square, on this particular issue I hardly worry about the spectacle of my exposing the lack in their reasoning for all to see. If I am really the embarrassment that you claim me to be I shouldn’t think you should be to worried about my effectiveness, though I am humbled by your concern for my reputation.

Fourth, are you suggesting that the way to win God’s enemies is by them seeing how reasonable we are? What standard shall we use in order to determine what is reasonable Herbert? Allow me to suggest that Homosexuals and feminists will only find Christians to be ‘reasonable’ when Christians quit holding that such ideology and lifestyle is sin in the same way that Jews and Muslims will only find Christianity reasonable when we quite insisting that Jesus is the divine Son of God who is the Messiah. There is nobody alive Herbert that wants to be liked more then me but I just can’t sacrifice fidelity to Christ in exchange for being seen as reasonable by homosexuals and feminists.

Fifth, we might be in agreement about the ‘stupidest President in history.’ Still, you have to keep in mind that I was saying that 8 long years ago.

You close by noting that ‘I really should trust that God can save his world, with or without my help.’ I thank you for that reminder. Now, allow me to sign off with a reminder to you. While it is the case that God can save His already saved world with or without my help it is also the case that, for reasons that are quite beyond my ability to fathom, He has condescended to involve His people in His ongoing work of saving His saved world. For His people to retreat in this work because, “God can save His world, with or without them” has a gnostic whiff about it.

You might want to beware of that whiff Herbert.

Thanks for your friendship and your love for me that impels you to warn me of my failures.

Pastor Bret