Some Interesting Insights On The State Of Theonomy By Someone Who Should Know

Bret asked Chris Ortiz — Editor Of Chalcedon Magazine,

Do you get the sense that people are giving up on theonomy or are, in their estimation, “moving beyond it?”

Chris Ortiz responds,

A little bit of both, I think.

Part of the problem remains the central dividing line between Rush and North’s emphasis upon authority: Rush says family; North says church. The institutional emphasis of the church led to an over politicization of theonomy and dominion. Now, theonomy is equated with politics. In addition, much of institutional Church (Protestantism) at the same time views theonomy as a cancer to the organized church. Tyler failed, and that still haunts Christian Reconstruction.

On the other side is the Federal Vision where we are witnessing a quasi-repeat of Jordan, Sutton, and Chilton’s high church emphases in the 80s. Only this time, a few are moving all the way to Rome.

At present, those with greatest interest in Theonomy are stemming from the freedom/constitutional movements and the recent revival of conspiracy theory. This is due largely to the fact that reconstructionists have been consistent in identifying the inherent evil of statism, fiat currencies, etc.

Dave Ehnis followed up with a great question,

Chris, where does Bahnsen fit into this Venn diagram?

David, that’s a good question, because, in my opinion, Bahnsen was always the X factor in Christian Reconstruction. Bahnsen did not subscribe to North and Sutton’s five-point covenant model, and he disdained James Jordan’s Interpretive Maximalism. However, he also was a dedicated local church man of the OPC persuasion being very committed to the Westminster Confession. This set him somewhat at odds with Rushdoony. The present leader most reminiscent of Bahnsen’s basic positions is probably Joe Morecraft. They both embody a remarkable consistency to Presbyterian tradition.

A Small Conversation with Paul M.

Election Cycle 2008 and the Christian

Bret 1

Natures proves it is the purpose or proper function for Mammals to kill their young. Nature tells us that this is normative. Similarly homosexuality is normative as it is clearly the purpose and proper function of nature.

Paul M.

Those aren’t arguments, Bret.

Say’s you Paul M.

I took your requirements for Natural law and put my previous statements in your Natural law arrangement demand. Your saying it is not an argument does not make it not an argument. Now, I’m sure that since it refutes your objection you would consider it not an argument but I’m glad to let the reader decide.

Bret 1

No straw man here Paul. Quite to the contrary what I see you doing is using a straw man to try and rescue natural law as being acceptable.

That’s not an argument, Bret.

Sure it is Paul. It is an argument advancing the idea that you didn’t make an argument in your previous post but just an accusation. I took your argument about what Natural law is and I proceeded to show you that what I said could easily fit under your thinking of natural law.

Bret 1

No, but neither was God appealing to Natural law when he said that. The ant provides a proper lesson to those whose epistemic apparatus is working somewhat properly and whose presuppositions are what they ought to be.

Paul

How does the “ant” do that? How would the reasoning go?

That “ant” does that the same way that all the heavens declaring the glory of God does that Paul M. Or are you denying general revelation? Remember all reality points to God. The problem isn’t in the sender but in the receivers. The “ant” is a testimony of God’s reality to all who are not suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Let me guess though Paul M. …. that’s not an argument.

Is unbelief not proper function rational?

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/rru.html

So Sudduth disagrees with Plantinga. I’m quite confident that somewhere out there, there is somebody who disagrees with Sudduth and has written a dissertation showing how Sudduth is allegedly wrong just as Sudduth as shown that that Plantinga is allegedly wrong. I didn’t read the whole thing. When I finish my Polanyi I’ll be sure to turn my attention to it. Thanks for the link though. I hear that Sudduth is a smart guy.

So many books … so little time. I’m sure you know the feeling.

Bret 1

However, allow someone to suppress the truth in unrighteousness about ants and the ant could as easily teach them that we should all live in houses made of cones of sand. Proper conclusions about ants will not be arrived at by people who hate God consistently. Telic conclusions are always affected by presuppositional beginning points.

Paul M.

That’s not an argument, Bret.

Neither is that Paul M. I think they call that an assertion.

You’re arguing:

1. A
______

2. Therefore A.

And you’re arguing

1.) Not A

_______________

Therefore Not A

Ah, but the difference Paul M. … that with Scripture there is a written objective to appeal to. In Natural law each man interprets what is right in his own eyes.

Really, Bret? This is not an argument, again, Bret.

Oh Darn.

And neither is yours an argument Paul. Once again, I think it is called an assertion.

Bret 1

“When the heretic appeals to scripture wrongly to the law and to the testimony we must go.”

Paul M.

“So. The point is that anyone can cite anything they please, this doesn’t “make it so.” Your changing the goal posts doesn’t avoid the non-sequitur you made.”

I never said that anyone citing anything they please “makes it so.” Do you often put words in people’s mouth Paul M.? I’ve often found when one does that it makes it easier to win the discussion.

I said we go to the law and testimony. From that point let the appeal to Scripture unfold.

And please do provide for me my alleged “non-sequitur” and my “changing of the goal posts” that you asserted but did not argue for.

Bret 1

“However when the Natural law theorist interprets incorrectly … well, what objective standard do I appeal to in order to correct him? Right reason? Surely a Van Tillian wouldn’t go for that idea. Whose right reason?”

Paul M. responds

Typical Van Tillian, confuses questions with arguments.

LOL … Typical philosopher wannabee elitist who started with Van Til and now has “grown beyond” him…. confuses rhetorical questions for not being arguments.

By the way you didn’t answer the argument caught up in the rhetorical question. Clever move.

Paul M.

Should I respond, “whose interpretation of Scripture?” The heretics? Yours? Surely the “Van Tilian” hasn’t just been hoisted by his own petard, has he?

Whose asking questions now? Should I snort at you and say … “Typical elitist philosopher wannabee, confuses questions for arguments?

Still, unlike you, I’ll provide an answer. Maybe this will compel you to answer my earlier question.

The interpretation that most consistently aligns with all of Scripture and itself grows out of Scripture. Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority found in a true interpretation of God’s Word, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

What are you arguing? Are you arguing that all there is, is interpretation? How po-mo of you. Or are you arguing that fallen man can start with fallen reason and interpret general revelation aright to the point of being able to construct God honoring cultures?

In terms of petard hoisting … well, you’ll have to explain more clearly, as opposed to asserting, that Van Til has been hoisted upon his own petard. I know that is a common accusation but I’d like to see you flesh it out all the same.

“Paul M>

Of course, what Scripture affirms is objective, same with natural law. but you’re confusing our interpretation with the thing-in-itself.

No, I’m not. I fully recognize that natural law is itself objective. I also fully recognize that the fallen man coming to natural law has an agenda that is informing him not to read the objective natural law aright. However, unlike with Scripture, when the fallen man interprets Natural law in a bent fashion, there is nothing I can check his bent interpretation against. There is no “law and testimony” to repair to in order to dispute with the kind of natural law interpretation that the Nazi’s appealed to, for example.

Now, should we take what sounds to be the implications of your positions then all we have is the interpretation since it seems to be the case that you have given us the Kantian problem of never being able to get to the “thing-in-itself, as located in the Noumenal realm.” But if we can’t get to the “thing-in-itself” then how could we even have an interpretation of the “thing-in-itself?” Indeed, if we can’t get to the “thing-in-itself” how do we know there is a “thing-in-itself” to get to in order to interpret wrongly?

Sorry…. more of those questions.

Paul M.

“You acted as if natural law means “go outside and look at nature” and you act as if simply quoting Van Til has some of sanctifying effects that works ex opere operato.

Says you. Who is Paul M. that I should be mindful of his assertions?

But let’s cut to the chase in all this Paul.

One man says: “God says that it is sin to murder.”

Another man says “Natural Law says it’s wrong to murder.”

2 Observations:

* I know God has authority over my life and I know that HE can cast me into Hell for transgressing HIS law. Natural Law cannot send me to hell because it has no power or authority. In fact, not even special revelation law can send me to Hell. Law has no authority. Only The law Giver does.

* Universals Laws, whether natural or special cannot be justified apart from an appeal to God’s special revelation. Paul, if you think thinks otherwise, demonstrate it! It looks to me that your making law, not the law giver, to be your final authority. In short, you’re deifying law.

Thanks to RD for offering the last section of this response.

Nationalization & Propaganda

Toledo is only about two hours from Charlotte. Yesterday’s Toledo’s Mayor Carty Finkbeier lobbied Congressman Henry Waxman to implement the “Fairness Doctrine.” It seems that Mayor Finkface has had some problems with radio station WSBD actually exposing and opposing “His Honors policies.” Some time ago Speaker Pelosi indicated her support of re-instituting the Fairness doctrine. (If this “Fairness Doctrine” isn’t a classic example of government euphemism doublespeak I don’t know what is.) Many have opined that they will go after freedom of speech on the radio through the back door of what is called “localism” which invokes an arcane aspect of policy that encourages radio stations to be sensitive to local programming concerns.

Now, to be honest, I have a large problem with the depth of much of talk radio, but for all its depth problems it still remains a cut above the New York Times, L. A. Times, Washington Post, and most major newspapers. Talk radio for all its Hannity shallow cheer- leading is still above all the shallow cheer-leading of Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and all the other mindless talking heads of main stream media television.

This is all about State control. The State doesn’t like not being able to control the flow of information and it doesn’t like talk radio rallying the troops to melt phone lines down when significant mindless legislation is being pushed.

I heard Senator Shumer of New York recently try to make the case that if the FEDS are charged with making sure pornography doesn’t go into American homes then why is it so bad to think of the FEDS being in charge of what can and can’t be said on the radio. I will have to say that I would prefer pornography being an option for television viewing if that would mean the FEDS couldn’t control the flow of information on the radio.

You know this statist paternalism is getting suffocating. Shortly, you will be able to murder the unborn, born (remember Obama’s opposition the “Infant Born Alive Act”), and the elderly but not be able to choose to whom you can listen to on the radio. The State is working on total control.

Fellow Americans you better wake up. Fascist nationalization has already begun. The banks, the mortgage companies, the financial industry and the money supply are in government control. It won’t be long until our health care will be nationalized. Having nationalized the economy the next step will be the propaganda step. Talk radio, and the internet alone stand in the way of the total control of information and propaganda.

This is some serious reality we are living through.

What’s Britain Up To?

“Oxford University Press has removed words like “aisle”, “bishop”, “chapel”, “empire” and “monarch” from its Junior Dictionary and replaced them with words like “blog”, “broadband” and “celebrity”. Dozens of words related to the countryside have also been culled.

The publisher claims the changes have been made to reflect the fact that Britain is a modern, multicultural, multifaith society.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3569045/Words-associated-with-Christianity-and-British-history-taken-out-of-childrens-dictionary.html

I know people may be bored with hearing it but no country can survive as a multicultural, multifaith society. Cultures can not survive by being radically heterogeneous. The idea that Britain is moving from the singular culture of Christendom based upon the singular faith of Christianity to a multi-culture of Pluralisdom based upon a multiplicity of faiths is rubbish. What is happening is that Britain is moving from the singular culture of Christendom based upon the singular faith of Christianity to the singular Unitarian culture of Humanismdom based upon the singular faith of humanism.

There is something we need to see here. Christian culture insists that the Christian faith alone is true. Multiculturalism insists that many faiths are true. However, each are claiming that their way alone is true. Thus we see that pluralism isn’t really very pluralistic. Multiculturalism is every bit as mono-cultural as Christianity is. In reality multiculturalism is a singular faith that is built up from a Unitarian religion where people live move and have their being in the State. All faiths are welcome in multiculturalism as long as no faith takes their God more seriously then the State-God who polices to make sure all the gods stay equal and don’t go beyond their boundaries.

Britain is not moving to a culture of one faith to a culture of many faiths. Britain is moving from the one faith of Christianity to the one faith of Statism.

Sorry, I know I’ve said this before.

Doug Keeps Trying To Justify His Vote For Socialist Republicans

Doug Wilson and I had a brief couple of exchanges in one of his Obama Nation building threads.

http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6096&Data=3003#posts

I remain convinced that all of Doug’s cheer leading for McCain / Palin was both counterproductive and just plain wrong. Doug defended his actions and in a post this morning spends several paragraphs seeking to justify his vote. Doug Wilson’s words are in blockquote. My response follows.

One of the valuable things I learned from Rushdoony was the idea of the inescapable concept. It is not whether we will impose morality through our laws, but rather which morality we will impose. It is not whether there will be an ultimate god for every political system, but rather which god it will be. Not whether, but which.

I learned this likewise from Rush. It is a lesson that I wish all Christians would learn. Because this is true, we can and do insist that all governments are theocratically arranged. Theocracy is an inescapable concept. In government there will always be some God or gods at the top of the food chain and all that is being done in the government and in the legislation is being done pursuant to the commands of that god or gods.

Now, here is what Doug did with his vote, in light of this idea of inescapable concept. Doug yoked his strength to John McCain and voted for the god of humanism, in the hopes that the god of humanism would do something (appoint pro-life judges) to cause itself to fall and crumble. How much sense does it make to vote for one of the chief prophets of humanism / socialism (the other chief prophet being Obama) in hope that the chief prophet of humanism / socialism would makes some decision that would lead to the fall of humanism / socialism?

In the same way, all attempts at political engagement (or disengagement, for that matter) provide yet another setting for the same principle to manifest itself. No matter what you do, or where you go, you will find yourself tied to others doing the same thing for very different and frequently disreputable reasons. It is not whether you will have strange bedfellows, but which strange bedfellows you will have.

This is a true observation! However, the question isn’t one of whether the guy next to me who is voting for the same guy I am is a weirdo. The question is whether the guy both the weirdo and I are both voting for is going to be true to the weirdo’s interpretation of the candidates agenda or to the interpretation of the agenda that I have of the candidate we are voting for. Now, as to John McCain there is no doubt what his agenda was. McCain was for open borders. McCain was for stem cell research. McCain was bad on the second amendment. McCain was bad on the first amendment. McCain was he of “we’ll keep the troops there 100 years if necessary” fame. McCain was bad on judges (remember the gang of 14). And yet despite all this Doug voted for McCain. The problem wasn’t that Doug was voting next to a weirdo who actually wanted McCain to do all of that. The problem was that Doug (as a leading luminary in Christian “conservative” circles) voted for the weirdo.

If I vote Republican, as I did in the general, in the hope of getting one or two more pro-life Supreme Court justices, I find myself cheek by jowl with somebody else pulling the lever because he will be getting some sweet kickbacks on a defense contractor.

Let’s review this. Doug is supposed to have a prophetic streak about him, and I admit that Doug often does a good job of reading the tea leaves of the culture. But what Doug was asking us to do in the election cycle was vote for McCain in hopes that Palin was going in influence McCain to nominate pro-life SCOTUS justices. Even on the face of it such an idea is laughable. However, when you combine this idea with the reality that everybody knew that the US Senate, which has to give its approval for SCOTUS nominees, was going to go overwhelmingly liberal, the idea that a President McCain was going to nominate, let alone get through the Senate pro-life judges is double laughable. Doug must have been smoking peyote to believe that a President Maverick McCain, already famous for screwing the conservative base of the Republican party, was going to give the country justices who would reverse Roe vs. Wade.

Like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown and promising this time she won’t move the football before Charlie Brown kicks it, Doug fell for the Republican recurring party line. A wise sage of the Church should not have fallen for such transparent “Lucy” lies.

If I vote for Ron Paul, as I did in the primary, I find myself cheek by jowl with another fellow up here in the sticks of north Idaho with swastikas all over his backhoe. I know, an absurd example, but it is not as though I haven’t seen that kind of thing with my own eyeballs. Now I am not “contaminated” by either one, unless I overtly own or connive at their evil deeds — like Obama did with Ayers. But I am doing the same thing that they are doing, and I am doing it at the same time . . . strange bedfellows. And I can’t get away from this law by forming a political party of one, and heading up for the tall grass of the high mountain pastures. Lots of people have done that, and many of them are fruit loops.

Doug is right again here, however the observation is not an escape route to justify his wrong headed vote. The problem was never with the weirdo that Doug was voting with the problem was the weirdo Doug was voting for. The problem isn’t with strange bedfellows, the problem is with strange head of the household. No one is advocating voting for a party of one. What people are advocating is that Christians quit voting for a known quantity who promises to be other than they’ve always been. Doug should know that you never ever listen to what a politician says. You only look at what they’ve done.

If mere unity of action contaminates, then I am as contaminated by voting for purist Third Party candidates as I am by voting for the Establishment solons. The one difference is that the impurities present more of an intellectual challenge to the Third Party guys, because their raison d’tre is . . . purity. The pragmatists running the big tent circuses don’t really care about that because all they want is warm bodies checking their boxes, clearly and legibly.

Now here we find a glitch in Doug’s understanding at what I and others are doing when we vote third party. The issues for me isn’t “the pure as the wind driven snow purity” of the third party candidate. I realize that there is impurity in guys like Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, or Bob Barr. I could list them for you. No, the problem for me is the impurity of the guys in the major parties. I don’t expect perfection. But what I am looking for is a guy who is actually not promoting government that is trying to crush the basics of a Christian world view. So, my reason for existence (raison d’tre) when it comes to voting is not the pure as the wind driven snow candidate. The reason for existence when it comes to voting is voting for someone who is moving in a different general direction from the two major parties.

So, if I accept the “guilt by association” argument, I have to accept it across the board. If I don’t, then I don’t. As I said, I voted for Ron Paul in the primary, and had he made it to the general, I would have voted for him there. Had he been elected, I would have supported him fully and enthusiastically for the entire three weeks of his presidency. Having said this, anybody who thinks that there weren’t a bunch of unsavory characters and moonbats supporting his run is somebody who doesn’t get out much.

Once again, Doug is correct, but his correctness doesn’t have anything to do with voting habits error. Yes, when you vote third party you are voting with moonbats, however, you’re not voting for a moonbat as he was when he voted McCain.

And having said that, I recognize that there are different kinds of moonbats — for example, there are the kind who draw up working models of a new constitutions in their trailer park near Houston, and there is the respectable kind of moonbat who gives away billions of dollars by the fistful to failing banks in the hope of correcting problems caused by financial irresponsibility. Heh.

But the difference is that neither Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr were drawing up working models of a new constitution, while McCain did vote to give away billions of dollars for … well, who knows where it finally went to? Now, this isn’t to say that Baldwin or Barr didn’t have problems. They weren’t pure and they certainly did have problems. This is to say that at the very least they wanted to move away from collectivism.

Ron Paul understands the Federal Reserve system, and none of the eggheads running that system do. When someone suggests a sane solution to the financial crisis, everyone cries for “realism,” not remembering that it was very similar calls for “realism” that got us into this mess. And so I would be happy to vote for Ron Paul despite unsavory support for him in the background. But when I decide to vote McCain, don’t try to dissuade me by pointing to the unsavory assocations there. I know all about that — but I know about it in every direction, and not just in focused partisan directions. You can’t even identify with Mennonite pacifists without getting into weird associations with communist thugs with blood stains up to their elbows. Welcome to earth. Welcome to political engagement.

NOBODY IS FAULTING YOU DOUG WILSON FOR VOTING WITH WEIRDOS. WE ARE FAULTING YOU FOR VOTING FOR WEIRDOS. As far as I’m concerned Doug could hold a party and invite all the weirdos he voted with to come if he and they hadn’t voted for a collectivist, socialist, anti-second amendment, anti-first amendment, anti-American sovereignty weirdo.

The same kind of observations apply to the Constitution Party, the Libertarians, and anybody else numerous and effective enough to get themselves on to the ballot.

At the end of the day I want to conduct myself in principled ways, caring the most about the advance of the kingdom of Christ, and the preservation of human dignity. And so here is the main point. The litmus test of all principled (biblical) political engagement is this: as you engage, are you willing to recognize and denounce the whackjobs who will (inevitably) associate themselves with what you are seeking to do? If so, well done, and God counts your vote, wherever it is cast. If not, then you are just a shill, whether for the big party pragmatists or the little party pragmatists.

You will not advance the Kingdom of Christ by voting for people (like McCain) who are representatives of the Kingdom of anti-Christ. You will not advance the Kingdom of Christ by thinking that representatives of the false God of humanism (McCain or Obama) will do things that will work to pull down the god of humanism. This is the problem with Doug’s reasoning. Doug has forgotten that a political party divided against itself can not stand and so in order to stand it won’t do things to advance the Kingdom of God. Doug has forgotten that Beelzebub is not going to cast out Beelzebub. McCain, as a representative of Humanism was not going to bring down the God of humanism. No way. Never ever. Wasn’t going to happen. Not a snowball’s chance in Hell. Therefore, he had no business voting for McCain, and worst yet, giving other Christians justification for voting for McCain.

Whenever I write about this, the comments invariably divide down a predictable line, with both sides circling the wagons. Both sides point out the glaring faults in the other side. Big deal. Pagans know how to do that. Point out the faults of your own approach, the one you have decided to take. Remember the beams and motes. If you decide to vote Republican, acknowledge that there is much justice in the observations made from the nickel seats of the Third Parties. If you decide to vote for a Third Party candidate, recognize that there is justice in the criticisms mounted against them. That is a genuine third way.

I’m sorry Doug … I will not recognize that voting for Republicans that are known collectivist and humanists is a wise thing to do. I’m glad to admit that every now and again in some races there are Republicans that can be voted for in good conscience (Ron Paul comes to mind) but on the whole the definition of insanity remains doing the same thing over and over again (in this case pulling Republican levers) while expecting different results. Doug, you were just plain wrong to vote for Republican McCain wistfully imagining that a Vice President Palin was somehow going to keep him honest on SCOTUS nominees. Politically speaking that was the thinking of a novice.

What a field day for the heat,

A thousand people in the street,

Singing songs and they’re carrying signs,

Mostly saying, “Hooray for our side.”

Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again