God’s Abiding Law – Page 2

Interrogating Dr. Stephen Wolfe & His Book, “The Case For Christian Nationalism” V

“Pastors as pastors are no more competent to analyze or make civil law than any other person.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 275

We might first add here that while it may be true that Pastors as pastors are not competent to analyze or make civil law neither is it the case that, typically speaking, lawyers, legislators, nor politicians are likewise competent to analyze or make civil law.

The above is true now but it has not always been true. Indeed, in our now most pastors are incompetents at both analyzing civil laws and shepherding their flock.

However, this should not be true today since the political/governmental jurisdiction is constantly now invading the ecclesiastical realm with their immorality and death dealing. Today Pastors should be equipped to analyze civil laws as interpreting them and so reading them through a Biblical grid.

We are at the point that neither the greater or lesser magistrates are going to help the Christian people/Church and so the principle of interposition has to fall to the Elders in the ecclesiastical realm to correct the legislators in the civil realm. As such the clergy need the ability to analyze legislation.

We should note that once upon a time the clergy did have this ability. Samuel Rutherford wrote the masterpiece Lex Rex and George Gillespie with him wrote the Civil Government section of the WCF. John Calvin, who was a law school graduate before theology, wrote most of the laws of Geneva, and a number of them are still in place today, and Geneva and the cantons have largely been peaceful and civil ever since. Many of the leaders in cause for American Independence were members of the clergy. Pastors in Puritan America were the most wise and educated people in the community. The fact that the clergy has fallen so far should not be used to excuse the necessity of pastors once again being competent.

Another point to be made here is that if would only give our clergy a thorough worldview training it would be a far less strenuous reach for them to analyze law since law is such a religiously oriented discipline. Once upon a time, pastors took it upon themselves to master the workings of the world to the best of their abilities in order that they might rise above it. Now they just believe whatever CNN tells them and focus on exclusive psalmody.

Let’s keep in mind that St. Paul said that the Church ought to be able to adjudicate in the affairs of this world;

“If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? ²Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? ³Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!”

II.) “Modern theonomy provided both a universalist alternative to prevailing visions and promised to reverse moral decay.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism – p. 269

1.) All who contend for any unique law order project are offering a universalist alternative. Indeed, Wolfe’s own plea for Natural law likewise offers a universalist alternative. There is no shame in offering a universalist alternative to paganism.

2.) Do keep in mind that Rushdoony, while eschewing movement Libertarianism, did advocate for a law order that was decentralized in terms of Governmental enforcement. This mitigates against Wolfe’s “universalist” accusation that suggests that Rushdoony was going to force Theonomy on the world.

3.) It is true that an acceptance of God’s law by a redeemed people would indeed reverse moral decay. Nothing else will. Certainly not Wolfe’s Natural law Humanism.

Stephen Wolfe’s book “The Case for Christian Nationalism,” is unlike any other book I’ve ever read in my whole life with its pillar to post statements. Sometimes I want to stand and cheer Dr. Wolfe. Other times I wonder where in purgatory he will spend time.

Interrogating Dr. Stephen Wolfe & His Book, “The Case For Christian Nationalism” IV

I.) “Since Scripture contains the natural law (in scripturated form), Scripture can and ought to inform our understanding of the natural law, the common good, proper determination for civil laws, and the means to heavenly life.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 262

Ummm… if Scripture contains natural law then why do we need natural law? In brief, if Natural law agrees with Scripture it is un-necessary. If Natural law disagrees with Scripture it is un-true.

I would like to take credit for that simple but brilliant insight but I learned it from the Zacharias Ursinus;

“Furthermore, although natural demonstrations teach nothing concerning God that is false, yet men, without the knowledge of God’s word, obtain nothing from them except false notions and conceptions of God; both because these demonstrations do not contain as much as is delivered in his word, and also because even those things which may be understood naturally, men, nevertheless, on account of innate corruption and blindness, receive and interpret falsely, and so corrupt it in various ways.”

Zacharias Ursinus

Commentary on Heidelberg Catechism

II.) “Put differently, God has ordered man by a rule which he discerns what he must do and must avoid in order to achieve his ends.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 245

And here is all we need to read to realize that Wolfe’s worldview cannot be entirely trusted. This sentence demonstrates that the Natural Law types do not comprehend the noetic effect of the fall upon reason. It is true that Natural Law proclaims the will of God but what is also true that what the Natural Law types like Wolfe don’t get is that man’s reason is fallen and fallen man has an agenda to read wrongly what God is making known by General Revelation as contained in Natural Law.

Better to listen to Rushdoony on this score;

“Now, what does the Bible have to say on the subject? As we saw at the beginning, the Bible says nothing from cover to cover about a law of nature. It speaks about God’s law, for men and nations, God’s requirement in every area. Hs moral law, his civil law, his law for the church, his law for the family. It’s all God’s law, directly from God.”

Or, if one prefers Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer;

“Law is rooted in God’s essence. Apostasy means forsaking justice. For atheists, there are only natural inclinations, no natural law. Conscience and moral inclinations are merely weak reverberations of God’s Law, and wherever the latter is done away with, duty is replaced by pride and selfishness.”

Now some from the Natural law school will warn us here that. “we have to be careful here lest you accuse the entirety of Protestantism of never taking the effect of sin seriously.” However there is a proper response to this well intended warning and that is to note that historically Protestantism embraced a Natural law concept that could work in the context of a Christian people. Protestantism in its origins never paused to consider if Natural Law would work per their theories in a culture that was no longer described as Christendom.

We must keep in mind that there are as many Natural laws as their are different schools of philosophies. Can Natural law tell me which one of those contending Natural law theories is the right Natural law theory?

Nope … I’ve done my work here. Natural Law is a wax nose driven by the unstated presuppositions of those who are reading Natural Law.

God’s world does shine forth Natural Law but fallen man suppresses the truth (all truth) in unrighteousness except when convenient. This is what the Synod of Dordt teaches when it notes;

Article 4

“There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”

Rev. Spurgeon and Rev. McAtee Chit Chat on Natural Law

Dear Pastor Bret,

“Couldn’t your criticism (of natural law) be lobbed at scripture and the fact that different people interpret it differently? The fact that there are (Creedo)Baptists and paedobaptists both arguing from scripture could be used to argue against it (Scripture) being the highest authority. It seems the problem to me is not natural law any more than the problem would be scripture. God’s revelation whether in nature or in scripture is clear. We sinful humans twist it.”

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon
Sovereign King Church
Jeffersonville, Indiana

Rev. Spurgeon,

Greetings.

Before I answer your question I want to make it clear to people my support of your work there in Jeffersonville. Were I not in the ministry and were I living in your area I do believe I could find a home in attending your Church (as long as you kept me away from the Baylys.) According to everything I hear you are doing a good work in Jeffersonville. So, even though we disagree on this matter I would not have people thinking that I do not appreciate your labors for Jesus Christ.The answer to your opening question is definitely, “No.”

1.) You seem to think I deny the reality of Natural Law. I do not. What I deny is that fallen man has the ability to create a proper working social order by usage of only the means of Natural Law, apart from special revelation. This conviction is consistent in what we read and what I affirm confessionally from the Canons of Dordt;

“There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders WHOLLY polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”

2.) If even Christians can’t agree on God’s special revelation at points how much more will it be the case that non-Christians will not agree on general revelation and Natural law? The problem with putting forth Natural Law for social order regulation among a pagan people, as Dr. Stephen Wolfe advocates, is that such a position does not take seriously the noetic effects of the fall.

3.) Natural law can only be consistently read aright and understood properly when read through the prism of special revelation, or at the very least, when read through the presuppositions that arise out of special revelation.

4.) With the Scriptures I have the text right in front of me to appeal to. With Natural Law all there is are impressions and insistence. For example, Yuval Noah Harai, via appeals to Natural Law, can argue for the fittingness of sodomy. Start @ the 2 minute mark.

Therefore I would not say the fact that Christians disagreeing on biblical texts is no different from people disagreeing on the interpretation of Natural Law. In point of fact, to make that argument suggests a putting of Natural Law on the same level of special revelation in terms of clarity. The doing so only has the effect of lowering the importance of Scripture vis-a-vis Natural law.

5.) Of course people disagree regarding Scripture but unlike Natural law the argument is made from the text and not some ephemeral esoteric “out there-ness.”

It is the case that if people disagree while arguing from Scripture that would impress people with the idea that even if there is disagreement at least all believe in the Scripture as being the authoritative source for all truth.

6.) You might counter that “Natural law as a vehicle for social order arrangement was supported by many Reformers throughout history.” And to that I can only concur while offering at the same time that the difference between then and now is that the Reformers (and other Christians) could appeal to Natural law as a vehicle for social order because the culture(s) in which they already were living were largely organized around Christian premises. A people living and saturated in Christendom in the 16th century are going to see Natural Law as teaching Christian principles as more obvious because they have borrowed worldview capital from Christianity without even realizing it. But we in the 21st century no longer live in Christendom, no longer begin with Christian presuppositions, and no longer are living off of the borrowed capital that is necessary to make Natural law work among non-Christian people living in a Christian social order context.

No, Joseph, I might wish you were correct, but the Scriptures and confessions are against such thinking as well as the existential moment in which we live.

So, we see your objection, while understandable, is not well founded.

Thank you for the inquiry.

p.s. — Spend some time investigating Alfred the Great and his book of Doom and see how Alfred relied on special revelation to organize the social order of his day.

Baptist Prof Analyzes Theonomy … McAtee Analyzes Baptist Prof

“Theonomy is a facile hermeneutic that channels an eschatology of triumph. Historically undesirable, it instrumentalizes religion, blurs church-state relationships, and jeopardizes religious dissent. And it proves unnecessary because of how other covenants showcase the benefits of common grace and natural law.”

Andrew T. Walker

Associate Prof. – Christian ethics @ Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center

The Gospel Coalition Article

1.) If the Bible teaches a eschatology of triumph (and it does) then there is no problem with having a hermeneutic that channels an eschatology of triumph

2.) Historically undesirable according to whom? According to Satanist or Humanists or Baptist? But I repeat myself.

3.) Any religion that isn’t instrumentalized is useless as a religion.

4.) Only a Baptist would complain about the blurring of Church and State relations since the Baptist religion requires the Church and State be divorced. As such anyone who disagree with the idea that the Church and State must be divorced is someone, per the Baptists, who are guilty of blurring Church and State relations.

5.) The jeopardizing of religious dissent is a good thing when that religious dissent is dissenting against Christianity. The jeopardizing of religious dissent is only a bad thing when it is Christian dissent against false religions like Baptistianity that is being jeopardized.

6.) Common grace and natural law are myths in the way Walker wants to define them.

7.) Walker is an over educated not wise man.

McAtee Contra Dewey Roberts in Defense of Bahnsen and Theonomy

What then are Bahnsen’s fundamental flaws with respect to the law? His emphasis on being obedient to the law in exhaustive detail brings about a possible conceit that such obedience is actually possible for the believer…. The moral law is the rule for the obedience of the believer, but no Christian can perfectly fulfill it. To the unbeliever, the law is a fearful threat of impending doom.”

Dewey Roberts

Federal Vision and Historic Christianity — p. 196

Roberts really jumps the shark in this chapter titled, “Federal Vision and Theonomy,” from his book “Historic Christianity and the Federal Vision.” In this chapter Roberts seeks to tie Federal Vision to theonomy and in doing so Roberts reveals that he is a clown, who on this subject is NOT to be taken seriously.

Keep in mind that I write all of the below as a adamant opponent of Federal Vision.

Regarding the quote above,

1.) Bahnsen never taught the necessity of obedience to God’s law in exhaustive detail. Bahnsen taught the necessity of obedience to God’s law in exhaustive detail in the context of the law’s general equity. Roberts is wrong.

2.) Would Roberts have clergy so emphasize the inability of God’s people to honor God’s law that it becomes possible that God’s people no longer bother even paying attention to God’s law?

3) Bahnsen never came close to teaching that the believer could keep God’s law in its exhaustive detail so that the believer ended up conceited. Bahnsen understood the necessity of the law to convict and expose as well as the necessity of the law as a guide to life.

4.) If I were to avoid preaching on every subject wherein my hearers might possibly come to carnal conclusion I would never preach a word. The same was true for Bahnsen. What people might possibly do upon Bahnsen emphasizing the truth is not the same as what Bahnsen (or anybody) intends for them to do.

5.) Is Robert’s desire that we preach the law in such a way that all believers say to themselves, “Well, since I can never keep God’s law perfectly therefore I shall never try to keep God’s law.” Clearly Roberts preaching on the law so emphasizes the believers inability to keep the law perfectly that it is possible that some people will hear that they shouldn’t ever bother seeking to honor God’s law.

6.) Bahnsen never denied that to the unbeliever God’s law is a fearful threat of impending doom.

Elsewhere Dewey Roberts writes,

“Second, he (Bahnsen) emphasized obedience to the law so strenuously that he often comes close to the dangerous Pelagian spectrum of errors. Pelagius, as we have seen, taught that mankind could live in obedience to God’s requirements. ‘Theonomy in Christian Ethics’ often makes it seem that the believer can fulfill all of God’s laws. There is very little emphasis on the threatening aspect of God’s law…. Concerning the law, Pelagius taught;

‘But we do praise God as the Author of our righteousness, in that He gave us the law, by the teaching of which we have learned how we ought to live.’

Pelagius, likewise, almost completely discounted the threatening aspects of God’s law and saw the law as a gracious act of God which revealed the way the righteous should live.”

Dewey Roberts

Historic Christianity & The Federal Vision — p. 197

1.) Look Dewey, just as a woman is either pregnant or not pregnant so someone is either a Pelagian or he is not a Pelagian. The whole idea that someone is “close to the dangerous spectrum of Pelagian errors” is like a woman being close to being pregnant. Either she is or she isn’t. Either Bahnsen is Pelagian or he is not. If he is not then shut your ignorant trap. I mean if you don’t your close to committing libel. (Did you get the joke in that last sentence Dewey?)

2.) I read Theonomy in Christian Ethics. I did not put it down upon finishing it, thinking, “Wow, now I can go out and perfectly fulfill all God’s laws.” So, I guess we should say Dewey, that when YOU read “Theonomy in Christian Ethics” that YOU wrongly came away from it thinking that it SEEMED to teach that the believer could not fulfill all God’s laws.

3.) Now, about that weasel word “seemed.” Seemed to whom? Seemed to whom by what standard? It seems to me that on this score you’re an idiot. But it only seems that way. In reality it might not be that way.

4.) There is little emphasis on the threatening of God’s law in ‘Theonomy in CHRISTIAN Ethics,’ because Bahnsen was writing to Christians. Christians have already been delivered by Christ’s work on the Cross from the threatening of God’s law and so arise as a people who are zealous for good works. Bahnsen in his book is instructing the believers who are zealous for good works as to what those good works look like. As the Heidelberg Catechism teaches Dewey;

Question 91: But what are good works?

Answer: Only those which proceed from a true faith,5 are performed according to the law of God,6 and to His glory;7 and not such as are founded on our imaginations or the institutions of men.8

Tell me Dewey, is the Heidelberg Catechism here, because it does not threaten with the law here, “close to the dangerous spectrum of Pelagian errors?”

5.) I don’t care who talked about “the law as a gracious act of God which revealed the way the righteous should live.” whether it was Pelagius, Socinius, or Fosdick, if they were talking about the law in its usage as a guide to life they were or would have been absolutely correct and for anybody to deny that makes them a full blown antinomian.

6.) And speaking of Antinomianism, honestly Dewey, these criticisms sound to my ear to be the criticisms of someone close to the dangerous spectrum of Tobias Crisp or John Saltmarsh errors.