A Few Words On Covenant Theology

After listening to Jeff Johnson (advocate of Baptist covenant theology) and Michael Horton (advocate of one take of Presbyterian covenant theology that I don’t agree with) debate

I can understand how we are awash in anti-nomianism. Each emphasize in their own way how the New and better covenant does not have a necessary bilateral echo, each insisting that the covenant of grace is only Unilateral without a bilateral echo.

And yet every time I baptize a baby the formulary I read speaks to the bilateral nature of the covenant. These words follow the initial words that teach the unilateral nature of the covenant of grace;

“Third, the covenant of grace contains both promises and obligations. Having considered the promises, we now consider the obligations. Through baptism, God calls us and places us under obligation to live in new obedience to Him. This means that we must cling to this one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We must trust in Him and love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. We must renounce the sinful way of life. We must put to death our old nature and show by our lives that we belong to God. If we through weakness should fall into sin, we must not despair of God’s mercy, nor use our weakness as an excuse to keep sinning. Baptism is a seal and totally reliable witness that we have an eternal covenant with God.”

It strikes me that both Michael Horton and Jeff Johnson must deny this aspect of the formulary because

1.) Horton denies the bilateral nature of the covenant because he insists that those requirements set forth in the Mosaic covenant were an aspect of the works nature of the Mosaic covenant. For Horton, the Mosaic covenant has a broad aspect that should be thought of as gracious but it also has an aspect that should be thought of as narrow and that narrow aspect (the law requirements… “Do this and live”) belongs to the covenant of works. In the new and better covenant that narrow aspect is no longer in operation since Christ has fulfilled the narrow aspect of the Mosaic covenant. For Horton (and R2K) because Christ fulfilled all the righteous requirements of the law, the bilateral aspect of the covenant of grace seems no longer to have any application. Four times in that formulary above you find the words “WE MUST.” This is emphasizing our obligation (that word is even used three times above) in the covenant of grace. I don’t see how Horton or R2K could use the formulary above given their insistence that in its narrow aspect the Mosaic covenant is a legal covenant that was completely fulfilled in Christ.

My insistence would be that the Mosaic covenant was a completely gracious covenant and that the law requirements were not so that Israel could assist in meriting grace, but rather the law requirements were given as the proper response of gratitude expected from a people completely saved by grace alone. The Mosaic law was never given with the intent that Israel could merit either righteousness with God or the ability to stay in the land. The law was given to a redeemed people (see the prologue to the 10 Words in Ex. 20) to answer the question, “How Shall We Then Live.” The law was given to Israel in what today we call “it’s third use.” However, because many in Israel desired to put God in their debt they turned God’s gracious law-Word into a means to put God in their debt. At that point the law’s intent was to reveal to them their sin in never being able to keep God’s law. Instead of being tutored by this first use of the law, many instead chose the route of hypocrisy and insisted that because they kept God’s law God was a debtor to them.

2.) While Horton introduces a covenant works element into the Mosaic covenant of grace, Johnson goes one better and insists that the Abrahamic covenant was also a mixed covenant characterized by works and grace and then notes the Mosaic was consistent with the Abrahamic covenant of being both a law and grace covenant. He insists, that with the New and Better covenant all of the OT covenants in terms of their bilateral realities are eclipsed and the New and Better covenant is completely unilateral with no obligations or “We Must” found in the formulary reading.

Because of this it strikes me the inevitable consequence of both Horton’s and Johnson’s covenant theology is an unfortunate antinomianism.

Biblical covenant theology is Unilateral with a bilateral echo. Christ has done all the saving. He has kept all the covenant of works conditions that was required by Adam and all the typology found in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant is fulfilled. Christ is the one who, in the Abrahamic covenant, takes on all the covenant curses while Abraham sleeps, and Christ is proleptically present in all those Mosaic covenant sacrifices and ceremonial laws communicating that they all spoke a better word. Christ brings in the new and better covenant which is first spoken in the proto-Evangelium of Gen. 3:15 and then found flowering into incremental full growth in the subsequent OT covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic). The Lord Jesus Christ, introduced typologically in an ever burgeoning way in each and all of the subsequent OT covenants is the one old testament covenant of grace now in full flower. Once the new covenant is present in Christ then all the OT shadows fall away much like different stages of a rocket fall off during a moon shot, leaving only what was always the main point all throughout revelation.

However, the bilateral echo of our obedience as read in the formulary above was always part of the Unilateral covenant of grace. The idea that, by the outpouring of the Spirit, we as God’s people would increasingly become what we have been freely declared to be in Christ has always been part of the covenant of grace. God has saved a people, in Christ, and that people in both the covenant in the OT and in the new and better covenant have always been described as a people who are hungry to glorify God and who are zealous for good works and in order to be zealous for good works there must be a standard by which good works are measured and that standard has always been God’s gracious Law-Word.

The Heidelberg catechism puts it this way:

Question 91: But what are good works?

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

But if the law has been eclipsed the way Horton and Johnson want to suggest by insistence that obedience to God’s standard was only a “covenant works” aspect of either the Mosaic (Horton) or the Abrahamic and Davidic (per Johnson) then the bilateral aspect spoken of in the infant Baptism ceremony should be excised.

Again, the bilateral aspect of the covenant does not deny its unilateral reality. In light of our walking obedience we are not adding anything to Christ’s finished work for sinners. After all, as Christians we all know that the best of our works still need to be imputed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ in order to be found as a sweet aroma before the Father. No, our obedience, just as the obedience found in those who were the Israel of God in the Abrahamic and the Mosaic and the Davidic covenants is always graciously given and received only by grace. It was true for our OT fathers as it is for us today as New Covenant Christians that it was required to work out our salvation in fear and trembling knowing that it is God who works in them and us to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose.

Exposing the R2K Agenda of Dr. Kevin De Young’s In His Interpretation of the WCF

The duties required in the Second Commandment are…the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Westminster Larger Catechism 108

It seems pretty clear from the above that those clergy who subscribe to the WCF, are required to be adamantly opposed to a “principled pluralism” that allows for all the gods to be in the public square and yet Rev. Kevin DeYoung can write;

‘”Gone from WCF 23:3 in the American revision are any references to the civil magistrate’s role in suppressing heresies and blasphemies, in reforming the church, in maintaining a church establishment, and in calling and providing for synods…. In its place, the American revision lists four basic functions for the civil magistrate relative to the church…(4) protect all people so no one is injured or maligned based on his or her religion or lack of religion.”

With this quote above DeYoung puts the WCF in contradiction to itself. De Young would interpret WCF 23:3 as in direct contradiction to WLC 108, and while not trying to be too persnickety, Dr. Rev. De Young also, via his interpretation of the American revised WCF 23:3 put the Westminster Confession in contradiction with itself in WCF 19:4;

To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

WCF 19.4

19:4 teaches that a general equity relating to the judicial laws remain and further teaches that Christian Magistrates are required (obliged) to enforce that general equity where it remains. R2K chaps like Kevin De Young don’t like that idea because it doesn’t fit with their pursuit of a body politic devoted to principled pluralism (polytheism) with its god named “Natural Law,” as represented by the priesthood of government officials who interpret the will and Law-word of the god “Natural Law.”

That I am correct about this R2K Tom-foolery is seen in a quote from team R2K Reformed clergy member Dr. R. Scott Clark

“All orthodox Christians affirm that God’s moral law is enduring and binding to all people—to deny that is antinomianism. What is at stake here is the magistrate’s role in enforcing that moral law. The framers of the Statement (Statement On Christian Nationalism and the Gospel) have a plan, to which we have not yet arrived, but it entails some enforcement of the first table, and thus is theocratic.”

R. Scott Clark
Sub-Christian Nationalism? (Part 4)

Clark here is raising the horrors in the idea that the Magistrate might actually enforce the 1st table of God’s moral law. The danger he is bemoaning is “theocracy.” Like De Young, Dr. Clark desires a principled pluralism (polytheism) for the body politic with the god named “Natural Law” sitting as the God over all the gods. This god “Natural Law” has his word discovered and implemented by the governmental and bureaucratic priesthood who do his bidding.

DeYoung, along with Clark, and all the sycophants of R2K are insisting that the revised WCF now yields a required “principled pluralism,” and yet if DeYoung’s reading is correct on 23:3 then WLC 108 must be either revised or ignored. Note that WLC 108 explicitly says; “according to each one’s place and calling.” Clearly, Christian magistrates are being told that according to their place and calling they are to disapprove, detest, and oppose all false worship by removing said false worship and yet R2K in its pursuit of a non theocratic (principled pluralism / polytheism) theocracy (ruled by the god named Natural Law as interpreted by the governmental and bureaucratic priesthood) is denying their own confession with their errant theology.

DeYoung, wearing the uniform of team R2K is seeking to officially change the WCF from a Christian confession to a polytheistic confession. I say “officially,” because most Presbyterians already treat the WCF as a confession that requires the magistrate to rule over a polytheistic body-politic.

Refuting Rev. Chris Gordon’s “Babel Christianity”

This showed up in my newsfeed today as coming from Rev. Chris Gordon. I find it so interesting because both Gordon and his conversational partner here, Dr. Stephen Wolfe embrace Thomistic Natural Law thinking and yet they are vehemently disagreeing on the effects Christianity should have when landing among different social orders. So, they are both Thomists, philosophically, and yet they are at distinct loggerheads here.

A couple more things, first, Rev. Gordon teed this up by writing;

“Most important moment in my CN discussion with Stephen Wolfe:”

Chris clearly thinks he had Wolfe on the ropes here in this part of the interview.

Chis Gordon: Most people in CA are mocha, a mix of different ethnicities, do these people have a homeland?

Stephen Wolfe: California is unique though. If I stayed in CA…I don’t know. I bring this stuff up because of the importance of it…do you have a homeland? When I hear the stories of old CA…horseback riding in hills of Napa, 22 riffles…there is a sense of loss…

Bret Interjects:

1.) Gordon here clearly concedes that race and ethnicity are realities. After all, you can’t get to a “mocha, a mix of different ethnicities” without acknowledging that there were different ethnicities that existed that are now mixed.

2.) Second, I would say that if the decided majority of California was a thorough mix of different ethnicities than the homeland for those who were a thorough mix of different ethnicities would be California. It would be the homeland for those who had successfully embraced the Babel project that God judged in Genesis 11. California would be the homeland of the multicultural, multiracial and multi-faith people.

3.) Notice Wolfe’s response is to say that the previous people who occupied California have been run out by the new multicult crowd who now owns California, and that there is a certain sadness about that. I don’t know how anybody could disagree that it is sad when a particular people group is extinguished in favor of another people group whose bond is established by the fact that they have no bond except the bond of no bond.

Chris Gordon; The great message of the Christian gospel is I get to tell these people the church is the people and place, you have your soil, you have your place on the kingdom of God. Is this really the message that Christians want to give people, that previous generations lost all that was good with horses and guns, and that all of these many different “Johnny come lately” people groups really don’t belong with us? Is that our message, as Christians? Or might we seek to live in peace and harmony in this age together but with a distinctively Christian message that elevates us to a better salvific good, that God does give people a true homeland together in his kingdom, the church as Christ’s body, tearing down walls of hostility until we reach the heavenly land together of a multitude of nations worshipping God?

Bret responds,

1.) I’ll start at the end of Chris’ peroration here. One simply cannot have a multitude of nations worshipping God in the heavenly land if those nations have been bred out of existence, so that all that exists is a polyglot Babel stew in the land that is not yet heaven.

2.) As to this sentiment by Chris:

“The great message of the Christian gospel is I get to tell these people the church is the people and place, you have your soil, you have your place on the kingdom of God.”

All I can say is that it is contradictory to what John Calvin taught;

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

The Reformed faith does welcome all to “taste and see that the Lord is good.” It does not say that there is no grace for the mulatto, mestizo, or whasian. All men everywhere are commanded to repent and if they do repent they are members of the Kingdom of God. However, just as repenting doesn’t change one’s gender, so repenting doesn’t change one’s ethnicity or race. Differences remain and those differences should be acknowledged.

I have a friend who Pastors a church in a large urban area. This church is comprised of different ethnicities and races and yet this Pastor friend tells me that he repeatedly tells his flock, from the pulpit, that even though they are all one in Christ that when it comes to marriage they should not intermarry because race/ethnicity matters.

3.) As to this portion by Rev. Gordon;

Is this really the message that Christians want to give people … that all of these many different “Johnny come lately” people groups really don’t belong with us? Is that our message, as Christians?

I would say the answer to that question is, “yes, that is the Christian message.” Just as the stranger and alien could never own land in ancient Israel because they were not Hebrews so Christianity teaches that it is not ideal to give your nation as a homeland to those who do not belong to your nation by way of descent.  Chris really need to consider reading James Hoffmeier’s book on immigration to understand that Christianity has never taught that “Johnny come lately” people groups belong with us. Until Chris does read Hoffmeier maybe he’ll consider this quote from Robert Putnam on the subject;

“Immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to `hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”

Robert Putnam
E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture

I am of the conviction that what Gordon is giving us here is a Anabaptist paradigm. The Anabaptist were (and remain) the great levelers and what Rev. Gordon is calling for here is for leveling, whether he realizes it or not. Gordon is offering here a “All colors bleed into one” Christianity. He is, as Calvin describes above, a flighty and scatterbrained dreamer.” If Gordon gets his way the result will not be some Christian paradise composed of a Babel organized social order. If Gordon gets his way he will get a social order such as described by Putnam in the quote above.

Finally, note here that Gordon, who is R2K, is doing what R2K says should never be done by ministers. He is getting out of his lane talking about an issue that isn’t a “Gospel issue.” However, if Gordon wants to insist that this is a “Gospel issue” notice once again how liberal/progressive R2K is when it takes up social issues. R2K forever wants to present itself as uncommitted on political issues but here is Gordon being the raging liberal.

 

A Few Words On I Corinthians 15:20 & Resurrection, Age To Come, and Union With Christ

I Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

This passage is commonly used as a Easter Sunday sermon text. That is appropriate. However, in this post we are considering that even more can be taught from this text than might be first thought.

The most common and accurate point from this text that is taught is the reality of solidarity between Christ and the believer. This solidarity is of such a nature that what is predicated about Christ in terms of His resurrection is predicated about the believer. This is true, however this passage teaches more than solidarity, it teaches Union with Christ … it confirms what Christ Himself said earlier when He said;

5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

There is a vital union between Christ and the believer of such a nature that in life the believer produces the fruit of Christ and in death the believer, because of their union with Christ, is part of the harvest because he is one with Christ.

Referring back to I Cor. 15:2o we are told that Christ in His resurrection was the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. As is well known firstfruits comes from the Hebrew agricultural world. Paul’s usage of it here in relation to the resurrection is the motif of this whole chapter.  Firstfruits, in the OT described the firstfruits of sacrifice that were brought each year at the beginning of the spring grain harvest in Israel (e.g., Ex. 23:16, 19; Lev. 23:10, 17, 20; Prov. 3:9). Obviously enough, what was being communicated in part was the idea that with the cultic sacrifice the firstfruits were promissory of the whole to follow. However, there is more going on then mere temporal priority. There is also the idea communicated that their is a vital union between the firstfruits and the harvest that will eventually follow. The firstfruits harvest represents the harvest of the whole crop which will come. Christ as the resurrected firstfruit, is promissory of the whole crop because the firstfruits with the whole crop are one.

This whole Pauline concept teaches that just as the harvested firstfruits offered could not be separated from what was to to soon be harvested from the whole field so Christ as the firstfruit of the resurrection life cannot be separated from the whole crop that will follow. To talk about a firstfruit without a following harvest is like talking about a bride walking down the aisle that doesn’t end with a “now you may kiss the bride.”

So, there is more going on here than just the idea that because God raised Jesus from the dead therefore God will raise believers as well, as absolutely true as that is. The more that is here is that in Christ the resurrection harvest has begun and since believers are all part of that same harvest resurrection in Christ the firstfruits, believers themselves as the latter fruit have already experienced the beginnings of resurrection. In Christ’s resurrection, God has begun fulfilling the promise that includes our resurrection.

Dr. Richard Gaffin in his book, “In The Fullness of Time,” provides a helpful illustration;

“If we were to have Paul at a prophecy conference or some other venue and were to ask him, ‘When, Paul, will the resurrection event take place in which believers share?’ The first thing he would likely say is, ‘It has already begun.’ In Christ’s resurrection, the final harvest of bodily resurrection has become visible. He will argue that in some detail later in the chapter, particularly in 15:42-49.”

In having union with the resurrected Christ we as Christians because of our union with Christ likewise partake of His resurrection. This is explicitly taught in Ephesians

2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,

Because of our union with Christ, objectively we were made alive with Christ in His resurrection while subjectively this resurrection awaited our regeneration where the objective truth was published to our consciousness. And all this because as the Elect in Christ we were united with Christ from eternity.

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,

With this teaching that Christ’s resurrection is our resurrection because of our vital union with Christ we see that even though Christ’s resurrection lies in the past, because His resurrection is organically related to our future resurrection we can say that the past resurrection of our great Captain, the Lord Jesus Christ, lies still in the future. Christ’s resurrection is the initial part of the eschatological harvest of the resurrection of the saints at the end of history and because of our union with Christ His resurrection has entered into history because Christians are partakers of Christ’s eschatological life. With Christ’s resurrection, the age to come is operational in this present wicked age, through those who have been, because of union with Christ, been raised up with Christ.

A couple implications here. If this is accurate (and it is) then the whole idea of the errant theology of “full Preterism” comes crashing down. Full Preterism teaches that bodily resurrection of the saints is already past and that the age to come has already arrived, not only in an inaugurated sense, but in all its fullness. For the full Preterist (at least some variants. They argue among themselves) there is no “not yet.” All there is for them is realized eschatology. I have even had one of their teachers tell me that while the person will be resurrected his body will not be resurrected. This thinking breaks the chain of logic that unites Christ’s bodily resurrection with His people’s bodily resurrection.

Secondly, given this explanation we should understand that given the tight relation between Christ’s resurrection and the believers future resurrection that we are not talking about two different events here but rather are talking about one event though separated by a time lapse. Christ’s resurrection and our resurrection is of one piece and really is the same event.

So, Christ’s resurrection was the firstfruits of our resurrection to follow but that firstfruits, because of its union with the rest of the harvest, was, in principle, the resurrection of the whole crop. Since our great Liege Lord has been resurrected and since we have union with our great Captain we Christians experience now the inaugurated resurrection life that is itself promissory of the fact that what we live now as inaugurated will one day be completely realized in the future as we, as latter day fruit, follow the firstfruits into God’s presence. This, of course, means that we in Christ are living, in an inaugurated sense, in the future age to come while living at the same time in this present wicked age. 

Continuing To Refute Nonsense That Advocates For Government Schooling For God’s Covenant Seed

JA writes,

1. Homeschoolers fall into the error of univariable analysis. “Literacy is bad at 63% of schools. Since they are run by the government, the only reason for poor literacy must be the fact that they are government run.” No, to meaningfully understand the data, you have to dissect it. What is the literacy rate when you eliminate all the schools in blue cities? What is the literacy rate of a public school that has the same demographics as Christian schools – usually white, middle-class two parent families?

Bret responds,

You really seem not to get the macro picture Josh. Government schooling, by design, prohibits connecting what we know from how we know what we know. Government schools, by force of law, does not allow education to teach Christian ontology, epistemology, anthropology, axiology, or teleology. This means the foundation upon which everything the government schools sit upon is anti-Christ. As such, it is irrelevant if some government schools exist in a white, middle-class two parent family and if because of that those students escape some of the even worse outcomes that are characteristic in blue states. It’s all premised on anti-Christ presuppositions and you seem to not be able to understand that in our conversation. Maybe  you have an interest in not understanding?

JA writes,

2. You can read books on the state of public education, read all the bad headlines, but you still don’t really know how things are going at the school half an hour away from you. The PhDs in the Dept. of Education, or in school administration might announce all kinds of LBGT stuff that is going to get taught, but it often doesn’t happen. Teachers quietly shelve it, because they’ve got to get their students ready for next math, physics, English or chemistry test.

Bret responds,

Oh, I see… so all the books I’ve cited from all the authors I’ve read (some like Gatto criticizing Government schools as a teacher of the year recipient and as from inside the workings of the government schools) don’t really know how things are going on, but you do. Sorry … I’ll cast my lot with Gatto and wait for your book that details how Gatto (and others) have been wrong.

Secondly here, you expect me to take your word that “it often doesn’t happen.” Sorry, I don’t believe you. I might believe “it sometimes doesn’t happen,” but I don’t believe that it “often doesn’t happen,” and I doubt you have anything to back that spurious claim up.

JA writes,

3. You can go to school/college with bad students who don’t want to learn anything, but the resources are there if you want to learn. I went to a “conservative” public university in the South. Plenty there who just wanted to party. But a lifetime wouldn’t have been long enough to make use of all the resources there – including calculus, science, logic professors who professed faith in Christ and were ready to spend hours giving one-on-one tutoring.

BLMc responds,

Again… more anecdotal statements and mere assertions on your part.

If it is only about resources being there, one doesn’t need to attend government schools because there has never been a time when resources are more present outside of the government schools. Indeed, it is kind of what makes your end of the conversation moot. The resources are so ubiquitous in our information age that we hardly need to send God’s covenant seed to brain dead teachers in dreadful peer settings  in order for them to be educated. Indeed, sending them there is in pursuit of anti-education.

I notice you love to talk about the exceptions as opposed to the rule. The rule teaches, as the stats show, that American government schooled children test at the bottom when compared to students from other countries.

JA writes,

4. Public school students spend about 25% of their waking hours at school. Homeschoolers, after you add up time at homeschooling co-ops, athletics programs at the local high school, and the workplace, might spend 15% of their time in the same kind of environment, hearing and seeing all the trash you rightly condemn.

BLMc responds

This argument is “because Homeschoolers are not as superior as they might be therefore they should be even more inferior.”

JA writes,

5. If the child comes from devoted Protestant Christians, he will likely value education like all Protestants once did. He will easily get into honours classes, where they study Newton’s physics (a professing Christian, at least), electricity theories of Faraday (another Christian), and the medical guy who invented anethesthics (also a Christian). He will study advanced math – exercises in pure logic, and “the language of God’s universe,” as one Christian mathematics teacher in the homeschooling movement put it. If you want to exercise dominion over the earth as commanded, you need to know its language, he says.

Bret responds,

And all as presupposing a humanist (and so anti-Christian) starting point.

JA writes,

6. Public education is constantly producing useful studies – just look at all the academic papers cited in “Who is My Neighbour?” There’s a paradox in higher education that is often missed: the LGBT communist profs always making headlines and pushing globalisation, vs. the researchers who are publishing paper after paper demolishing the assumptions of those profs, eg. more diversity means less social trust, interracial marriages more likely to fail, interracial children less healthy and less fertile when adults etc etc.

Bret responds,

The case made by “Who Is My Neighbor” (the whole book) taken as a whole only reinforces my case. If you want to escape your children becoming egalitarian don’t send them to Government schools which is the seedbed for all things egalitarian. Indeed, Government schools are completely premised on egalitarianism. That some children come out having, by God’s grace alone, triumphant over the system is not a rational reason why we should send Christian children into a system that is, by design, thoroughly pagan. You are arguing here that we should go on sinning because grace has been present in a few cases.

JA writes,

8. Our children should do what Paul did as a child: study pagan thinkers. Then they could go to Mars Hill and point out their contradictions like Paul did. “You have all these altars to all kinds of gods, but your pagan poet says you are the offspring of one God who doesn’t need anything.”

BLMc responds,

How many Pharisees who studied pagan thinkers tried to kill Paul? You take one example of God’s marvelous grace and then try to argue from that one instance that therefore we are allowed to raise our children as pagans.

Joshua, the schools are anti-Christ. They are premised upon the anti-Christ foundation that all the wisdom and knowledge is not founded on Christ. This is contrary to God’s revelation which teaches that all the hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge are known in Christ (Col. 2:3). A child (or adult) cannot be educated with an education that is dedicated to eliminating the God of the Bible as the locus for all knowing.

Then, of course, one has to add in all the social diseases that arises from putting children in a vast peer setting. Postmen writes about this in some of his books. You might want to read them. “The Disappearance of Childhood” could be a good place to start.

Joshua writes,

9. Michael Spangler just posted a very good analysis of homeschooling: it produces domesticated, effeminate young men, because they’re at home all the time with little kids and a female as their main teacher. They’re not getting educated well, they don’t have a public spirit, they develop a bunker mentality that lasts well into adulthood.

BLMc responds,

Shrug … just because Rev. Spangler writes something doesn’t make it true. It sounds like it is all anchored in anecdotal reasoning and not on proof. Honestly, this just sound like the warmed over  nonsensical “but homeschooled children aren’t properly socialized” argument. An odd argument since its inception. Still, I don’t doubt that the above might in some instances be true but on the whole I’d rather have the errors found in homeschooling than the errors found in Government schooling. Similarly, I don’t have a very high opinion of “Christian schools,” though again, I’m sure there are some fine ones out there.

Joshua writes,

10. The Roman Empire supposedly became Christian or at least tolerated Christianity when only approx 15% of the people were Christian. Lots of school districts have more than this amount. If Christians exercised their rights, they could make big changes. The problem is the Christian parents don’t want to confront the nonsense. They just put up with it or take their kids out and hide. That’s a lot easier than seeking grace to boldly but meekly confront teachers and principles about objectionable material.

BLMc responds,

We’ve tried reclaiming the swamp for decades and decades. It’s time to just drain the swamp. See Rushdoony’s “The Messianic Character of American Education.”

Secondly, I seriously doubt that more than 15% of Biblical Christians live in these school districts because if 15% of Biblical Christians did live in these school districts the big changes would’ve been made long ago.

Thirdly, taking their children out is not a matter of hiding. Nice try at poisoning the well there. They take their children out because children are not equipped to withstand or refute the bilge that is characteristic of all Government schools.

As an example… in my little corner of the woods which is largely middle class and white (the standards that you previously mentioned) the Government schools are doing the whole “furrie” thing and the whole Trannie thing and the whole sex education thing.

You’re just massively in error Joshua about all of this. Indeed, for whatever it is worth, you really need to repent for being an advocate for Christians sending God’s covenant seed to anti-Christ government schools. It is sin for you to do this.

Josh writes,

11. A lot of Christian parents don’t take the LGBT crowd head on, because they are shaky on it themselves. They attend churches that say homosexual acts are sinful, but the orientation is not. They let their kids watch movies, listen to songs, spend hours on social media where this stuff is promoted non stop. Their kids are going to get swept away no matter where they go to school.

Bret responds,

So… because parents are rotten therefore it is OK for them to be maximum rotten?

Look, I quite agree that parents are a problem but maybe that is, in part, because the parents attended government schools?

Joshua writes,

12. High school kids are getting more conservative, according to some polls. At my children’s high schools, PRIDE displays get vandalized. Most despise the LGBT crowd. It’s against nature, so they naturally hate that whole agenda.

Bret responds,

When these children become adults with children I’ll then know the general population as gotten “more conservative,” when they refuse to send their children to government schools. Until then, it’s all anecdotal.

Look Joshua… I think we have covered this pretty well and it is clear that we are not making much progress. As such, I don’t know if I will be posting your future protestations. Thanks for being a contestant. There are some lovely parting prizes for some of our contestants who played but didn’t win.