This is part V of one of the dumbest articles ever written by a Seminary prof. His name is Andrew Walker. The reason it is so dumb is that all of this has been answered in the past and yet he puts pen to paper to recycle all this again. This article is posted on “The Godless Coalition” Platform.

AW wrote,

As J. Budziszewski writes, “Government enforces those parts of the divine law that are also included in the natural law, such as the prohibition of murder.” The argument for overcoming moral lawlessness is not Theonomy, but arrangements that better accord with the creation pattern God has ordered and continues to uphold in the Noahic covenant, natural law, and Scripture (2 Tim. 3:15–17).

1.) Really? Government does that? Does our government enforce the part of divine law that is also included in the natural law, such as the prohibition of murder committed against babies in the womb? Or is murder not a crime according to natural law? Or maybe, natural law doesn’t cover that because there is no such thing as the kind of natural law that Walker is championing since all natural law is, is the projection of the presuppositions of those who champion their versions of natural law? If governments followed God’s law instead of natural law then people guilty of murdering unborn babies would receive capital punishment. So much for natural law.

2.) How can we interpret the creation pattern God has ordered unless we interpret it through God’s Law-Word? Fallen man, left to himself, apart from God’s inscripturated law will misinterpret the creation pattern God has ordered and make laws that are grounded in a humanist theonomy. When natural law worked in Christendom it worked because those who were “reading” natural law were reading it through their Christian presuppositions. Natural law doesn’t work now because pagans are reading natural-law through pagan presuppositions. Walker expects that if fallen men in the West just give muscle to natural law again that all will be fine. That is ridiculous on steroids. As long as social orders are comprised of men with different faith commitments (religions) the best natural law can do is to be fought over in terms of which faith commitment will be in charge in order to read it the way their faith informs them. We will never have a workable social order/legal order until men are converted, own Christ, and engage the politicus usus of God’s law to make law in their societies.

AW wrote,

God’s Word is indeed supreme—every person and culture owes it ultimate allegiance. To make that declaration, though, we must understand how God’s Word functions in the civil sphere outside the church’s direct jurisdiction. Rather than the Mosaic covenant, a better starting ground for political reflection is the covenant of creation and the Noahic covenant as upheld in the full witness of Scripture. And given what these covenants offer, Scripture highlights the intelligibility of nature and reason as self-attesting witnesses to God’s authority in the structure and design of his world. This necessarily includes the moral law (Ps. 19:1–3; Rom. 1:32; 2:15).

BLMc responds,

1.) Understand that Walker is introducing a dualism here. God’s inscripturated law functions as normative in the realm of grace (Church) but in the realm of nature (Civil) where God’s jurisdiction does not apply we use a different law (natural law). In the civil realm, it is wrong to appeal to God’s word as the norm that norms all norms. Instead, we appeal to the generic norm of natural law to norm all norms. Now Walker may respond with his nonsense that natural-law, eternal law, and inscripturated law all contain the same content but if they all contain the same content then why do we need any of them except the law that is written down in Scripture? In order for Walker’s system to work, he has to introduce a dualism between the realm of grace and the realm of nature. I wonder where in Scripture dualism is taught?

2.) Walker insists that going by God’s inscripturated law in the civil realm would be the “church’s jurisdiction.” This is nonsense. Theonomy never argues for ecclesiocracy. Theonomy merely insists that God rules over all and that if God rules over all then the civil realm should be ruled by God’s inscripturated Law-Word.

3.) Scripture teaches that the magistrate is God’s servant (Romans 13:1). If the magistrate, as serving in the civil realm, is God’s servant then the magistrate should rule by God’s law and not an amorphous “pin the tail on the donkey” natural law.

4.) Walker talks about the intelligibility of nature. Nature is indeed intelligible. However, fallen man works his damnedest to suppress in unrighteousness the intelligibility of nature and succeeds in doing so because of the noetic effects of the fall. See installment IV and the Belgic Confession of faith.

AW wrote,

Fallen reason, however, obscures our understanding of the moral law and obscures God’s creation ordinances—which is why revelation is required for true moral righteousness to surface in society. What’s necessary is special revelation in the form of understanding creation ordinances, not the application of the Mosaic covenant.

BLMc responds,

Here Walker appeals to special revelation in the creation ordinances. However only special revelation as it pertains to the creation ordinances. Application of the Mosaic covenant is not allowed.

1.) There is nowhere in Scripture where God says the civil law found in the Mosaic covenant does not apply in principle. The Westminster Confession teaches that the judicial law does apply in its general equity. So, Walker has the Westminster Confession against him.

2.) Jesus said,

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Matt. 23:23

Here the Jews are not living in their OT social order and yet Jesus himself states the requirement in the civil law to tithe on all the produce from the land (Lev. 27:30). Jesus says the civil law did apply.

Jesus also said,

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18)

Sounds like Jesus and the Church Fathers thought differently about the civil law then Andrew Walker thinks about it.

Continuing to Fisk Dr. Andrew Walker’s hit piece on Theonomy posted on “The Godless Coalition.”

AW writes.

The allure of moral, religious, and cultural uniformity cannot come at the expense of religious freedom. A baseline of religious liberty is essential. Unless all religions receive equal recognition under the law, one religious group will set whatever exacting standards it desires as the basis of membership and participation in society.

BLMc responds,

1.) Here we are introduced to Walker’s God. Walker’s God is the humanist notion of religious liberty. Per Walker religious liberty is a higher god than the God of the Bible and His Law-Word. Per Walker, we must serve the god of humanist religious liberty as opposed to serving God.

2.) Note that Walker himself, even if he gets his way on humanist religious liberty has not avoided the moral, religious, and cultural uniformity that he decries. In Walker’s social order there is moral, religious, and cultural uniformity inasmuch as all other gods must bow to the state god who disallows anyone God (including the God of the Bible) from being a God above the state God who demands humanist religious liberty. Per Walker, all the gods must be governed in the uniform moral, religious, and cultural realm by the State God to make sure that none of them replaces the State God thus providing a different uniform moral, religious and cultural social order than offered by Walker’s State God.

3.) We don’t have religious liberty right now. The God of the Bible is not at liberty to be God over all other gods. That is not religious liberty.

4.) Understand that what Walker desires is that Allah, the Jewish Talmud God, Confucius, Buddha be given equal recognition by Christians as the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible per Walker and the Godless Coalition cannot (must not) be lifted higher and seen as superior to the pagan gods. How can a Christian say such a thing without being rightly labeled as a treasonous bastard to the Crown Rights of King Jesus?

5.) Finally, remember we already have the exacting standards of one God lifted above all other gods. We currently have the God-State in the name of humanist “religious liberty” exacting on us his diabolical standards. In the name of religious liberty, abortion is pursued, sodomites can enter into marriage, boys can enter the girl’s locker rooms, and boys can compete against girls in girls’ sports. Talk about an exacting standard.

AW writes,

Whether Catholic versus Protestant or Protestant versus other Protestant, one group is always tempted to exclude based on some religious criteria. As a Protestant, I shudder thinking about many of John Calvin and Martin Luther’s attitudes toward the state’s involvement in religion. Baptists did not fare well as religious minorities under the reign of church-state union, and I have no longing to return.

BLMc responds,

1.) Walker can’t see that all Christians are right now being excluded based on the religious criteria of humanism? Walker can’t see that as the sodomite comes out of the closet the Christian is the one being pushed back into the closet? Christians are being excluded from being able to say “no” to sodomites who want a Wedding cake baked for them, or photos of their God-forsaken weddings taken, or flowers provided for their gross nuptials. Christians are right now on the edge of being told that in their churches they are required to hire sodomites, catamites, and other assorted perverts… all in the name of the humanist god Walker desires to be ensconced as God. Is this man daft that he can’t see all this?

2.) Now you can understand why Baptists were treated the way they were treated. Baptists with their foul humanist religious liberty doctrine are the ones who have opened the door to all the perversion that I have listed above. It is Baptists who have brought us to the place we are by their bone-headed doctrine of humanist religious liberty. Walker would prefer a godless social order than a social order where the God of the Bible is prioritized above all gods. As a Protestant, I shudder at Baptists like Walker continuing to support an idea that has taken Biblical Christians and put them on an equal footing with perverts and anti-Christs. God raises up a Calvin or a Luther or even a Knox to put an end to pestilent thinking like Walkers.

AW writes,

Theonomy is right to criticize our society’s lawlessness. But the alternative it proposes presupposes a Christian society that does not exist and, where it once did, did not contain the theological coherence to perpetuate itself.

BLMc responds,

It is Walker’s presuppositions that are skewed. What else can we propose as God’s people except for a return to God’s Law-Word? Would Walker propose being ruled by some other god and His Law-Word?

1.) Walker seemingly desires some neutral social order. But neutrality and religious liberty are a myth. They don’t exist. There is never a culture that exists that doesn’t descend from and isn’t an expression of some God or god concept. Walker seems to think we can have a culture where all the gods are welcome but fails to see that in that kind of culture there has to be some authority somewhere to make sure none of these gods get out of line. Some authority has to be present to make sure all these gods remain equal. Where ever that authority lies, Walker misses, is the god over the gods. In our setting that is the state.

2.) And of course, with people like Walker, it is not possible to reach theological coherence for a Christian culture. The lack of ability to perpetuate Christian culture lies at the feet of the Anabaptist (paging Roger Williams) and the Anabaptists are the intellectual forbears of Walker’s humanist religious liberty.

Be careful to understand what I am saying here. I am saying that Walker can bleat for humanist religious liberty all he wants but such a beast is not possible. This concept of religious liberty only worked here as long as it did because the country was salted for so long with Biblical Christians. But now that what passes as Christianity is now being trodden underfoot (thanks to people like Walker) the false mask that “religious liberty” always wore is being torn off.

AW writes,

And if Theonomy is right and history is working toward the telos of a Christianized society, why does precisely the opposite seem to be the case? Is Christ’s church less faithful because Western culture is increasingly pagan? What if the Lord uses difficult moments to prune? What results from a reciprocating relationship between church and state, however, is the husk of civil religion and the kernel of saving faith instrumentalized for cultural cohesion.

BLMc responds,

1.) Question #1 – Because God’s people, like Walker, are in rebellion to God’s Law-Word and the implementation thereof. If people won’t champion “No God, But God,” if people won’t champion God’s Law Word for the civil sphere, if people want to champion the presence of every false god as being equal to the God of the Bible for the civil sphere how can we be surprised for a second that a Christianized society is always out of reach?

2.) Question #2 – Christ Church is less faithful where Christ’s Church advocates that all gods be treated equally thus disallowing the God of the Bible to be the God of the 1^st commandment.

3.) Question #3 – Invoking the Lord’s pruning to justify our disobedience is odd logic.

4.) We have the civil religion we have now precisely because Biblical religion has not been allowed to flex its muscle thanks to people like Walker. Saving faith that is not expressed in the public square is a saving faith of the most immature variety.

5.) Notice the lack of cultural cohesion that we have now is directly related to the current lack of faith of Biblical Christians who are too fearful to champion God’s Law-Word for the public square.