Touching Vaccines, Prudence and Multi-colored Windchimes

The Master of Moscow writes,

Someone with a loathing of guns can certainly refuse to have one in his home. And if he lives in a part of town that is otherwise heavily armed, his home can enjoy the same kind of safety from burglars as do the armed ones. Such is the nature of the world.

One of the reasons why we are even able to have a debate about vaccines is that vaccines have been so successful. The gunless fellow is certainly free to claim that his house is left alone because of the good vibes put out by his multi-colored wind chimes. We all think that’s cute, and are glad we live in a free country where there are guys like that.

But the analogy breaks down with something like whooping cough. That’s not so cute.

Bret Responds,

All of what Doug says here and says throughout this piece is premised on the idea of “herd immunity.” This is a concept that is not scientifically indisputable.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/media/Obamsawin_Vaccination_Tables.pdf

Now what is statistically indisputable is if one lives in a neighborhood where people point guns at bad-guys while pulling triggers you will be safer in that neighborhood even if you dislike discharging weapons. But as we see in the above link (lots of good science there for those who practice scientism) it is the case that when comparing guns in neighborhoods with  vaccines and herd immunity one of these things is not like the other.

So Doug, right out of the gate, indulges in the false analogy fallacy. (Don’t tell anyone or his Canon press logic course sales might dip.) This, boys and girls, is what I like to call the kumquat – Rutabaga fallacy.  I suspect Doug only used this fallacy because

1.) He is ignorant regarding the facts on herd immunity theory
2.) He was just seeing if anyone was paying attention

The Credibility of the CREC continues,

Now I do have views on the efficacy of vaccines, but I want to address another element of this — the idea that even if they were effective, a requirement that everyone get vaccinated is necessarily statist and tyrannical. Why isn’t this a matter of personal choice and conviction? The answer is that it is not a matter of personal choice because everyone else is involved.

“And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, saying, When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests: And the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh: and when the hair in the plague is turned white, and the plague in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a plague of leprosy: and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days” (Lev. 13:1–4).

Bret responds,

1.) Doug assumes a great deal here and we are being asked to do a large amount of reading between the lines to gain his meaning.

In a pretend world where it is everywhere known and proven that vaccines are effective does it remain true that the State would have role and responsibility to force vaccines on the population?

What if the vaccines were effective but with dire possible consequences Doug? What if the vaccines were cultured on aborted babies and what if vaccines were full of heavy metal (no, not “Metallica” Doug) like mercury? Would it be wrong for a Christian to object to State mandated vaccines — even if they were effective — if it meant that one was taking a bath in mercury and formaldehyde? Would it be un-Christian — even if vaccines were effective — to resist the State’s requirement for vaccines if it were known that the side-effects could be worse then the disease contracted?  Would it be un-Biblical for a Christian to protect his children from vaccines — even if they were effective — if the Christian didn’t want to tacitly support the abortion industry?

Really though, in the end vaccines are just so much junk science and the fact of the matter is, is it is far from conclusively proven that vaccines are effective but even if they were and are effective it would not be a slam dunk that they could be forced on us by the State.

2.) The Scripture verse is nice Doug. When we get God speaking with the kind of authority on vaccines such as He has on leprosy we will be sure to tune in and adjust our beliefs and practices accordingly.

The fomenter of Federal Vision finishes,

So take this as a very limited claim. This is not a claim that vaccines are always perfect, or that the side-effects are not a problem, or that frauds can never interfere with the science (as happened with the Lancet article which claimed a correlation with autism), and so on. This is a fallen world, and no problem of this nature can ever be addressed risk-free. The claim I am making here is very limited. If a person has decided personal convictions about the contagious disease he is carrying, the society in which he lives has an equal right to have decided and contrary convictions about that same contagious disease he has. And if there is an outbreak of such a disease, and the government quarantines everyone who is not vaccinated, requiring them to stay at home, the name for this is prudence, not tyranny.

Bret responds,

Doug is assuming here that those vaccinated are not the carrier of the disease. However,

a.) with live virus vaccines, in the period after people are vaccinated, those vaccinated can still be the ones carrying and transmitting the disease

b.) vaccinations is not equal to immunization. Those who are vaccinated are not immune to the disease. Nobody knows how long these vaccines last. Nobody knows just how often booster shots are needed. Further, the vaccinations have created mutant forms of the diseases that they are now trying to eradicate and so the vaccinated are not necessarily protected from the new form of the disease. Plus, a quarantine of those non-vaccinated is not going to do any good since the vaccinated can carry the disease as well as the non-vaccinated.  The only good quarantine is the quarantine of those who actually have the illness or who have been exposed.

Maybe Doug meant all this. Maybe we were supposed to read this into everything he said. I suspect it is more the case that Doug shouldn’t have even written the article because he seems to know more about multi-colored wind chimes then he does about vaccines.

Now to wrap this all up. Let’s keep in mind that the FEDS never do anything they do without citing prudence as the reason. When they were seizing guns in the aftermath of Katrina that was done for prudence’s sake. When the FEDS were entering into private homes after the Boston bomb without search warrants or reasonable cause that was done in the name of prudence. The FEDS never do anything illegal except in the name of prudence. For Doug to suggest that the FEDS could act with prudence in this kind of matter is to just invite the FEDS to create a false flag in order to do just that.

Mark 1:29-39 — The Lord Christ Dismisses A Fever — The King and Kingdom Have Arrived

We are still considering the Church calendar, and in that context we are still considering Epiphany. Epiphany, as we have stated means “manifestation.” As we’ve been looking at these texts we’ve then been considering the manifestation of the Lord Christ and the manifestation of the purpose of His coming.

As it pertains to the Epiphany of the Lord Christ and the purpose of His coming Mark gives us bullet points as to these matters. Condensed and packed tightly Mark makes known the person of Christ and the purpose for His coming.  In Mark 1:5 we are alerted that the coming of the Messiah has to do with the forgiveness of sins. There the Messiah’s “advance man” makes that clear. Eventually the promised “One who is coming” arrives and is Baptized thus identifying with the sons of Adam and in order to consecrate a new Priestly line. With the Baptism of Christ the heavens are split and the approval of the Father is heard communicating that God has come near to man in Christ. Unlike both Adam in the Garden and Israel in the Wilderness the Lord Christ overcomes the trials of Satan’s temptation and begins to announce that the Kingdom of God is at hand (1:15). After Messiah begins to re-establish Israel by calling what will be 12 disciples the Lord Christ immediately (a word used 14 times in Mark 1-2) begins to demonstrate the impact of the Kingdom upon this broken world. Last week we looked at that Kingdom impact in the Lord Christ casting out the Demon. This week we consider the healing ministry.

Clearly what Mark is doing here (and all the Gospel writers do, each in their own way)  is that he is giving us the impact of the Kingdom of God against this present wicked age. The coming of the Messiah, with His Kingdom is with authority and power.  Because of the Messiah and His Kingdom, the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. A pretty impressive resume. It might be helpful to you to keep this in mind when you are reading the Gospels.

I.) The Kingdom & Simon’s Home

Very well then, we get to this account that we have read this morning. After the Demoniac is healed in the synagogue Jesus attends to Simon Peter’s home. Upon arrival Peter’s mother-in-law is discovered as ill with a fever. Mark does not give us details here but we can well imagine this wasn’t a case of the sniffles. In the ancient world fevers could easily lead to long term debilitation and even death.  The text indicates that no time was wasted between the time of the discovery of the illness of this loved one and the communication of this state of affairs to the Lord Christ.

With vs. 31 the problem is as quickly addressed as it was introduced. However let us consider a couple of the verbs in vs. 31. The text says “he raised her up,” and then “she served them.” The verb “raised her up,” will be used again in Mark 16:6 in application to the resurrection of the Lord Christ.  It is a verb that Mark will use frequently to apply to healings .

Jesus simply “raises her up.” In Mark’s direct and uncomplicated style he says, “…and the fever left her and she served them.” The verbs are interesting. Simon Peter’s mother-in-law is “raised up” by Jesus. This Greek word takes on powerful meaning in Mark’s gospel. In 16:6, in reference to Christ’s resurrection, the same word is applied to Jesus himself. Mark uses egeiro in many healings (see, for example, 5:41, 9:27).  This word communicates that strength is restored so that those ill, possessed, or even the dead, are renewed to their former place. Do not miss the fact that the healing was immediate and instantaneous. No recovery period required.

Something we should interject here, before we look at the second verb is who Jesus is dealing with. Jesus comes to those who would have been considered low on the Hebrew societal pecking order. His Kingdom is not only for the well healed and well placed. Mark establishes this by noting Jesus calling of Fishermen as disciples.

The Kingdom sweeps into its vortex all types of men and women — the high born, the low born, the crippled, the healthy, the fisherman, the tax collector. In terms of entrance into the Kingdom there are no credentials that one must bring in order to enter. Jesus here heals a daughter of Eve. Also we would add that it is interesting that Mark records Jesus’ first healing to be of a woman. A woman brought sickness into creation and a woman is the first who is healed in the coming of the re-creation.

The second verb we want to consider in vs. 31 is that “she served them.” The word is where we get our word “Deacon” from. She is healed and she returns to the task that God had assigned her. This is no lowly or mean position. After all, our Lord Christ will us this same word later in Mark to describe His own ministry.

Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Peter’s Mother-in-law was healed and upon being healing she rendered Kingdom service. All who are brought into the Kingdom are brought in to serve even if their service is by way of providing Leadership. Jesus underscored this when He washed His disciples feet.

II.) The Kingdom and the Crowd

A little context here. In the ancient world the homes typically did not have doors like we do today. The openings of the houses were such that one simply walked in and out. This helps us make sense of the whole city being at the door. They were crowded around and pressing in to have audience with the King and the Kingdom. This idea of door traffic is mentioned again in the next chapter. In 2:2 we are told that the traffic was so heavy that there wasn’t even enough room around the door.

Mark’s notation that the “sun had set” is likely indicative that the people were waiting until the Sabbath had ended in order to bring their loved ones. The people had been taught that work was not to be done on the Sabbath and healing was considered work. Keep in mind though that the Lord Christ had already healed on the Sabbath.

As we saw last week, so here, the Lord Christ does not allow the Demons to acknowledge Him. Perhaps it was a matter of not desiring the sulfur tongued  to be His heralds.

Herman Ridderbos in his book “The Coming of the Kingdom offer here,

“From the beginning of his public activity Jesus’ power over Satan had already asserted itself. This is not only proved by the casting out of devils in itself, but also by the manner in which those possessed by the devil behave in his presence (cf. Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; Mark 5:7; Matt. 8:29; Luke 8:28,31). When Jesus approaches they raise a cry, obviously in fear. They show that they have a supernatural knowledge° of his person and of the significance of his coming (cf. Mark 1:34; 3:11). They call him “the Holy One of God,” “the Son of God,” “Son of the most high God.” By this they recognize his messianic dignity (ef. Luke 4:41). They consider his coming as their own destruction (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34); their torment (Matt. 8:29; Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28). They feel powerless and try only to lengthen their existence on earth (Matt. 8:29; Mark 5:10), and implore him not to send them into “the deep,” that is to say, the place of their eternal woe (Luke 8:31, cf. Rev. 20:3ff).9 All this shows that in Jesus’ person and coming the kingdom has become a present reality. For the exercise of God’s power over the devil and his rule has the coming of the kingdom for its foundation.”

Perhaps, also there was a desire to keep the sensationalism at a minimum so that He could more freely be about His work. This insistence that His work be kept as low key as possible is not unique here.

Mark 1:43-44, 3:11-12, 4:10-11, 5:19, 8:30, 9:9

This insistence on the stealth approach has sometimes been referred to as the Messianic secret. The idea is that the Lord Christ constantly kept tamping down his fame so that the Father’s plan for His death would not be accelerated by popular enthusiasm.

The question is asked why we do not continue to see these kinds of healing and miracles today since the Kingdom is still present and for the answer we have to consider the place of all this in God’s redemptive History. The reason that all this is happening is that a very particular time in Redemptive History has arrived. All of this activity is giving testimony that this unique time in History has arrived.  All of what is happening here and then later with the Apostles after Pentecost is part of a single, comprehensive crescendo part of history. All this is done in light of the Historical coming of the Kingdom and it is done only with the arrival of the Messiah and His Kingdom and the establishment of His Church.  Here, in this point in History, the cornerstone and foundation is laid. From the close of the canon forward the superstructure is built upon this unique point in time history. To ask for more of this Historical uniqueness is like asking to be 25 again. That historical moment has passed. This is not to say that remarkable providences or inexplicable healings don’t still happen as God ordains. It is to say that we are at a different time of Redemptive History.  Do keep in mind that were it the case that we were to have the same kind of demonstration of authority and power as we find in this Redemptive time, this time would no longer be seen as a time that was unique and Historically epoch. That time of Christ would be “just another” day.

While the Pentecostals and Charismatics are full of good intentions they sully the record and uniqueness of Redemptive History with their insistence that 2015 and every year must be the same Historical Epoch as the 1st Century when Jesus and the Apostles ministered.

III.) The Kingdom & Continued Ministry

A.) Prayer

In the midst of this Kingdom expansion the Lord Christ takes time to commune with He who, according to His divine nature is one with.  This bespeaks the intimacy between the Father and Son. The text says a solitary place. Some translate it as deserted.

There is a theme that runs through Scripture of God’s man and the desert or solitary space. Often you find that God raises His man up for service but before He employs him for service God puts him on the back side of the desert.

Elijah — I Kings 19 // Moses — Exodus 3 // David — I Samuel 23:14 // John the Baptist — Desert prophet // Paul — Desert years

It is beneficial to see an implied connection made between the Kingdom work of the Lord Christ and the intimacy with the Father that accompanies it. The Lord Christ is no rogue agent but in His work he is about the will of the Father whom he spends solitary time.

B.) Purpose statement — Mark 1:38 -39 — Purpose statement — “Therefore came I forth … that I might preach there also.”

“That I may preach there also” //  Preaching, healing, and casting out. // Preaching is shorthand for all three

Though shorthand for all three the primacy is on preaching the good news of the Kingdom.  The miracles only have meaning to the end of confirming what was being preached. The disciples want to constrain Jesus to a theology of glory where everyone is being wowed by the next miracle. Jesus insists on pressing on to the next community to preach the glad tiding of the presence of the Kingdom.

We would be wrong to quickly glide by the purpose statement made by the Lord Christ here. He tells us here why he came.

Christ is concerned that the message of the Kingdom receive the widest of audiences. This is consistent with what we find in the OT concerning the Messiah.

Isaiah 61 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
    because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;[a]
    he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
    and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;[b]
2 to proclaim the year of the Lord‘s favor,
    and the day of vengeance of our God;
    to comfort all who mourn;

These “I have come” purpose statements are important inasmuch as they presuppose the pre-existence of the Lord Christ. In saying, “I have come” there is an implied idea that He has come from somewhere previous. So,   the “coming” mentioned here must be conceived as a “coming out of heaven.”

Further the “I have come statements,” reveal that the Messiah was epistemologically self conscious about who He was as Messiah and what His task was.  Jesus has come to call “sinners to repentance” (Mark 2:17ff); “to throw fire on the earth” (Luke 12:49); “to bring the sword and not peace” (Matt. 10:34ff, cf. Luke 12:51ff); he has not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but “to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17); “to proclaim the kingdom of God” (Mark 1:38), He has come “to seek and to save the lost”  (Luk 19:10), He has come “not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”  All of this suggests that the Lord Christ knew His supernatural origins and His task of bringing in the Kingdom.

Conclusion — Recap

Obama And His Idiotic Prayer Breakfast Remarks

At the annual prayer breakfast Wednesday the guy who poses as our President channeled his College Sophomore speech writer saying,

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.  Michelle and I returned from India — an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity — but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs — acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation….

1.) Obama here employs the classic “postmodern maneuver” by intimating that all religions are the same. It’s as if he says, “Sure, Muslims kill people but Christians have killed people also.  This is just the nature of all religions.” Clearly Obama sees all Religions as morally equivalent. It’s just the nature of all religions to be violent at times. One wonders what religion it is that tells Obama that violence is wrong?

2.) The whole “high horse” reinforces #1. Obama’s clear intent there is to remind his audience that Christianity has no reason to think itself morally superior to any other religion. Fascinating that as Obama warns against “High Horse(ism)” he, at that very moment, mounts his high horse.

3.) Obama intones the Crusades as a comparison to Islamic barbarity. But the Crusades were consistent with Christian “Just War” teaching. The Crusades were a Christian counter maneuver to Islamic offensive Jihad that had been going on for centuries. To suggest that wars fought in self defense is morally comparable to putting someone in a cage and dousing them with lighter fluid and making someone a human torch is, at best, rhetorically reckless, and at worst morally reprehensible on Obama’s part.

4.) Obama intones the Inquisition as a comparison to ISIS bringing to us televised live be-headings of Christians. Frankly, I’m amazed Obama didn’t throw in the Salem Witch trials for good measure. Needless to say that if one had a resume that included being responsible for all the deaths of the Inquisition as well ass the Salem Witch trial deaths for bonus bodies one probably couldn’t get a job ISIS or Boko Haram due to inexperience.

5.) It’s interesting that Obama even goes so far as to invoke the name of Christ, and yet does not mention once the name of Muhammad in who’s name all these deaths are being pursued.

6.) Obama ties up slavery and Jim Crow with Christianity but fails to mention the huge slave trade that was pursued by Muslims for centuries in Africa long before the Christian white man came along. Neither does he bother to mention the Muslim blood tax in Christian Europe that found the followers of Muhammad sizing Christian children in order to turn them into special forces troops for Islam — often against their own people in Europe. Neither does Obama mention that it was Western Christian Civilization that ended Slavery. Something that neither Jewish nor Muslim culture has yet done.

Obama’s moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam is just brain dead and it’s a obvious demonstration of how much Obama and his administration hate both Christianity and white people.

7.) Is there any Cultural Marxist History that Obama doesn’t embrace? Gandhi was a monumental hypocrite and here is Obama invoking him. When in South Africa Gandhi had been totally unconcerned with the situation of South African blacks. In point of fact he hardly noticed they were there until they rebelled. Gandhi was as intolerant as Obama is ignorant.

Obama continues,

And, first, we should start with some basic humility.  I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt — not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth — our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments.  And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing and we’re staggering and stumbling towards Him, and have some humility in that process.  And that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse His name to justify oppression, or violence, or hatred with that fierce certainty.  No God condones terror.  No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number.

And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion — any religion — for their own nihilistic ends.  And here at home and around the world, we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom — freedom of religion — the right to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.

1.) Obama calls for basic humility as he proudly begins to lecture a room full of Ministers, Priests, and other “Holy men” on the what they need to learn about religion. The minute he calls for basic humility he demonstrates his own lack of the very thing for which he calls. Perhaps Obama should show his humility by suggesting that he has doubt about what he is about to say and about what he believes is needed?

2.) Obama calls for doubt as he, full of confidence and with no doubt whatsoever, gives a spiel that communicates that he alone has truth when it comes to this demand to realize that none of us have all the truth. Note again, that this section of the speech underscores again that Obama (and his College Sophomore speech writer) believes that all religions are equal. All religions speak truth. All religions hear from God, god, or some god concept. Of that we all must not doubt, of that we all must be certain, and with that we alone are in possession of truth.

3.) Again with the postmodern epistemology. Note, in the second paragraph above, where Obama speaks of “our notion of truth,” as if there is nothing but human “notions of truth.”  Old Obama had a farm …. EIEO. And on that farm there were some notions of truth … EIEO. With a Islam notion here, and a Christian notion there, here a notion, there a notion, everywhere a truth notion … EIEIO.

4.) Do you suppose that Obama would confess that he is confused in what he is saying here?  Notice that in Obama’s world “fierce certainty” is the sin we must fight against. Obama is fiercely certain that we must fight fierce certainty.

5.) Obama says that “No God condones terror.” But the Quran disagrees with him. The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do not join the fight are called‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Here are just a couple,

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing…but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah

Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”

6.) In terms of the last paragraph above just keep in mind how Christians businesses in this country are being persecuted and discriminated against for their faith.  Obama and his administration has done more to squelch freedom of religion then any Presidential administration in the 20th century.

 

 

Tullian On “Morning Joe”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4hdC0GJY0g#t=20
1.)  Tullian is introduced in identity with his Grandfather. Clearly he is trading off his Grandfather’s name.  Maybe it is fitting because, like his Grandfather before him, he is serving up heterodoxy as orthodoxy.

2.) Tullian is on the program to hawk his book.  Tullian, you cannot serve both God and mammon.

3.) Tullian tells us that there is a problem with people trying to fix themselves so he offers his new book as a fix for people who are always trying to fix themselves. How ironic Tullian.

4.) Notice in this 6:45 second interview the name “Jesus Christ” does not fall from his lips once.

5.) Quoting Tullian, 3:15f

“It is not so much religion in the public sphere as much as religion  in the pulpit (behind the pulpit). That’s my primary concern. That as a preacher, my job when I stand up on Sunday Morning to preach is not to, first and foremost to address social ills or social problems or to try to find social solutions. My job is to diagnose people’s problems and to announce God’s solutions to their problems. So … over the course of the last 20 to 30 years — Evangelicalism specifically — their association with the religious right (Conservative politics)  has done  more damage to the branding of Christianity then just about anything else.”

a.) Notice Tullian’s Dualism. He can diagnose people’s problems and announce solutions but only as those problems and solutions are private and do not impinge upon the public sphere.

b.) Wouldn’t it be a solution to unborn people’s problems to preach, in keeping with the sixth commandment, against abortion. Wouldn’t outlawing abortion be God’s solution to unborn people’s problems Tullian?

c.) I wonder what Tullian would identify concretely as the damage that conservative politics has done to Evangelicalism? I am neither an Evangelical nor part of the religious right (since I don’t think such a thing has existed in any numbers of significance in the 20th century) but still, I would love to hear how he answers that question.

d.) Tullian is offering a solution to the problem of social issues. He is saying, by his demanded pulpit silence, that God has no solution to social issues. Tullian, by his silence, is offering that there is no “thus saith the Lord” on issues from sodomite marriage to abortion, to the social justice of Marxism, to Corporate & Statist machinations (Corporatism) to connive together against the righteous.

6.) Tullian is no friend of Biblical Christianity. The fact that he seized this pulpit upon D. James Kennedy’s passing should cause thoughtful people to ask serious questions about how such a man, who is philosophically the polar opposite of Kennedy, was able to get away with this coup.

Considering Rev. Bordow’s Defense of R2K — #4

Todd writes,“So if the Mosaic Law cannot be used as a political blueprint of laws for common grace nations outside a theocracy appointed by God, and the New Testament is silent concerning such civil laws, the conclusion must be that the Lord has not chosen to reveal such things to us in his Word. Thus pastors, as heralds of the Word only, cannot instruct the government on public policy questions without going beyond the Word of God. So the Law of Moses, because of its religious purpose in the history of redemption, cannot be used as a legal guide for all nations, and that most directly addresses the theonomic critique of E2k.”

1.) Notice the word “cannot” in this paragraph.This would suggest that to violate Todd’s “cannot” is to sin. If the Lord has not chosen to reveal public square morality as codified by the State then it must needs be sin to suggest otherwise. Why won’t Todd just be honest and say that “Ministers who speak to the state concerning civil laws are in sin?”

2.) Note that Todd calls the Law, “the Law of Moses.” In all actuality it was the Law of God handed down to Moses. The reason that this is important to point out is that what Todd, and all R2K, is telling us is that the Law of the Old Testament God is not valid in the New Testament God’s world. This R2K theology gives us a Marcion and non-immutable God. Orthodox Reformed theology has always taught that God changes not. R2K theology is giving us a mutable god and this only on the barest and most contrived hermeneutic. It has always been understood that God’s law is His character but Todd tells us that God’s character, while emblazoned upon the pages of the Old Testament, has been strangely muted in the New and better covenant.

I’ve been trying to think of pithy ways to say all of this.

R2K — The theology where Christ dies to save us from God’s law for the public square

R2K — The theology where the New Testament God is more social order friendly then the Old Testament God

R2K — Christ dying to make bestiality safe for the public square

R2K — Where the Old Testament was a better covenant because the Kingdom ethic wasn’t yet taken away as intrusion

R2K — The theology that allows Theologians to envision laws allowing sodomite unions

Maybe my readers can improve on distilling R2K even more succinctly.