God of the Mundane, my Heidelblog review

Status
Not open for further replies.

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Senior
It's theological. Natural law participates in the Divine Ratio, the mind of God. I understand that makes it sound like it can't function in the "naked public square." That does not matter, though. A fully worked out natural law system can address those concerns.
Would you say that system is somewhat presuppositional? As usual, sin is the problem…. At least from fallen man’s side, not what is existentially accurate or true. Hence, Jefferson’s conception of natural law is stunted.
 
Last edited:

MChase

Puritan Board Freshman
Everyone who tied him in with the "Escondido" theology and then identified that with Horton's more outlandish statements.

No one said he nor Horton were liberals. Abysmal on political theory, but not a lib.

It is also hard not to tie Clark, Horton and Hart together. I randomly stumbled upon two Clark articles in which Hart was referenced. It is not like they are in different arenas.
 

MChase

Puritan Board Freshman
What is meant by Transformationalism? Sorry, I just want to understand what others thinking. I have seen it defined differently in various ways. Strawmen arguments like Jacob made above don't help.

Politics is downstream of Culture which is downstream of Religion. I have no interest in flipping that order. The problem with transformationalism is that religion largely becomes transformed by the culture rather than the other way around. The Church's mission isn't to win culture wars. Where R2K gets it wrong is they pretty much end up thinking it is the Church's job to lose them, because you know Christians shouldn't want a Christian populace or Christian laws..

A state church and enforcement of the first table are downstream of a Christian populace. This is why Jacob's questions are largely irrelevant. The establishment of religion can only come about if the church has half a sense of what is going on in her own midst. For instance, you can't have Sabbath laws when 80% of NAPARC thinks the Sabbath is optional at best.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
Well, this is what Clark's R2K teaches him - right off of his Twitter. He also uses the liberal Episcopal Church as an example of why the institutional church cannot speak about what the government is doing with abortion...

So...

1651867254552.png
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Senior
Their Law Grace hermeneutic does effect other doctrines. It has been written about quite a bit. If they land on a topic and get it correct it may be by accident. That happens. We all do that. I am not making false claims. You should know that Jacob. The hermeneutic is the problem.

Just interested.... What do you make of the following statement brother?

"The book that we still need is one that critically challenges rather than promotes the Kuyperian captivity of the church.” (Modern Reformation (November/December 2002, pages 48-49). David Van Drunen.
Just curious, when you come back, your take on this…. https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/republication-of-the-covenant-of-works-2/
What, do you argue, is a proper Law Grace hermeneutic? Are you relating this to theology, the civil sphere, or most probably it’s all interconnected, correct? National? Individual? …. Covenant in a National or individual sense? Distinctions between grace and group covenants are tripping me up. Grace is required throughout the ages, but how far it extends and is administered is whats trips me up from an Old vs New Testament covenantal
perspective and how it is to be applied within the Church and Civil communities. That’s why I think natural law systems/theory are vitally important.

“The Law-considered as a national covenant, by which their continued possession of the land of Canaan, and of all their privileges under the Theocracy, was left to depend on their external obedience to it,- might be called a national Covenant of Works, since their temporal welfare was suspended on the condition of their continued adherence to it; but, in that aspect of it, it had no relation to the spiritual salvation of individuals, otherwise than as this might be affected by their retaining, or forfeiting, their outward privileges and means of grace. It may be considered, however, in another light, as a re-exhibition of the original Covenant of Works, for the instruction of individual Jews in the principles of divine truth; for in some such light it is evidently presented in the writings of Paul (Justification, BoT edition, pp. 38-39).” James Buchanan, in his monumental work on justification https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/republication-of-the-covenant-of-works-2/
 
Last edited:

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Senior
This is pretty interesting….

“Being fully committed to the Protestant Reformed tradition--especially as it is represented at Westminster Theological Seminary--I have developed a basic understanding of natural law theories over the years. If by "natural law" we mean a moral order that is (a) revealed by God in nature, (b) stands behind conscience, (c) obligates all people to worship and obey Him, and (d) is sufficient to leave all without excuse and liable to divine judgment for sin, then I affirm it. However, one standard theistic account of natural law (NL) as a moral theory goes further. This account claims that all people can not only apprehend certain moral truths by unaided reason - apart from biblical revelation - but that people can, in principle, espouse and properly act upon those truths, again, apart from saving grace. It's this feature of NL theory--perhaps the critical feature, it seems to me--that allegedly opens up "common ground" for Christians to cooperate with people of other faiths (or of no faith at all) on issues pertaining to the "common good.

Now, I have learned to leave the majority of negative assessments to my colleague and resident pessimist, Carl Trueman. But I must say that, from a Reformed perspective, this additional claim by many Natural Law theorists runs into a number of obstacles. I wish to briefly mention two.…. https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/natural-law-and-the-public-squ.php
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Senior
I appreciate the offer, but debates convince no one. The only thing one may reasonably expect from a debate is a clarification of issues.
I thought you’d find this interesting….


 
Last edited:

TheInquirer

Puritan Board Sophomore
I still think you're caricaturing Piper. As far as I can remember, the man lived in a rather nice house in downtown Minneapolis.

When I walked by his house in 2003 he lived in a corner lot, elevated above the freeway, in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the state. From my understanding, all his book royalties went into a fund that he didn't have access to. For all his faults, I don't believe hypocritical extravagance is one of them.
 

TheInquirer

Puritan Board Sophomore
A little push back; these are the nominalists. Their Christianity is CCM and Joel Osteen. The nominalists come in various forms. They come with lifted hands to these conferences and go back to living their nominal life. Christ as Lord has no implications on their living. Eternity has no pace in their thinking. It's about being cool. And raisin' hands is cool.

There was a time in my Christian life early on that Passion Conferences were attractive to me because that is all I knew. None of those other things you say were true about me - I just wasn't mature and didn't know how to parse the wheat from the chafe. Joel Osteen would have had no appeal to me but John Piper did. I would recommend caution pronouncing such judgments upon motives of people you do not know.
 

TheInquirer

Puritan Board Sophomore
The bigger question is, once you dealt with us Baptists, then what would you do? Probably turn on one another until you had a denomination of exactly 1 individual singing psalms and preaching to himself out of the KJV while falling into an existential crisis regarding which version of the WCF is the right one.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
The bigger question is, once you dealt with us Baptists, then what would you do? Probably turn on one another until you had a denomination of exactly 1 individual singing psalms and preaching to himself out of the KJV while falling into an existential crisis regarding which version of the WCF is the right one.
Why is establishment always spoken of in this fashion? Do we have this little respect for our forbears in the faith? That some disagree is acceptable, but the frequent descent into this type of mockery I find to be distasteful.
 

Tychicus

Puritan Board Freshman
There was a time in my Christian life early on that Passion Conferences were attractive to me because that is all I knew. None of those other things you say were true about me - I just wasn't mature and didn't know how to parse the wheat from the chafe. Joel Osteen would have had no appeal to me but John Piper did. I would recommend caution pronouncing such judgments upon motives of people you do not know.
Others defended Piper saying that the message was apt to the nominalists. Jacob replied that these folks are not the nominalists as they have some lively worship sessions. I was merely pushing back and saying that raising hands and being alive at those conferences doesn't necessarily imply that they're not nominalists.

Your point still is noted. I should've may be been more clear and cautious with my words.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
Why is establishment always spoken of in this fashion? Do we have this little respect for our forbears in the faith? That some disagree is acceptable, but the frequent descent into this type of mockery I find to be distasteful.

In addition, it reflects poorly on what such men think the Holy Spirit is able to do in Christ's Church. That the saints are always going to war with each other. May the Lord's prayer that we be one be answered. The Father loves the Son and I believe He will answer when the set time comes.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Others defended Piper saying that the message was apt to the nominalists. Jacob replied that these folks are not the nominalists as they have some lively worship sessions. I was merely pushing back and saying that raising hands and being alive at those conferences doesn't necessarily imply that they're not nominalists.

Your point still is noted. I should've may be been more clear and cautious with my words.

I should have been clearer. They were faithful Christians who didn't understand that God meets us in the promises in His Word and at the Table.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Why is establishment always spoken of in this fashion? Do we have this little respect for our forbears in the faith? That some disagree is acceptable, but the frequent descent into this type of mockery I find to be distasteful.

It might have been phrased in a caustic manner, but it represents a historical fact. The Covenanters almost immediately turned on each other (and I am not saying the Protestors were wrong). I used to go to church with first generation theonomists. They frankly admitted that theonomists will often split churches. Research Tyler, Texas.

 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
It might have been phrased in a caustic manner, but it represents a historical fact. The Covenanters almost immediately turned on each other (and I am not saying the Protestors were wrong). I used to go to church with first generation theonomists. They frankly admitted that theonomists will often split churches. Research Tyler, Texas.


You are confusing theonomists for those in the Covenanter tradition. And that group has been reformed and purged over time and now has a policy against theonomy. As you well know as you are a member of it.

The critique must remain Biblical. We can also speak of the failure of denominationalism and rule by elder and all other setbacks in Church history too.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
You are confusing theonomists for those in the Covenanter tradition. And that group has been reformed and purged over time and now has a policy against theonomy. As you well know as you are a member of it.

The critique must remain Biblical. We can also speak of the failure of denominationalism and rule by elder and all other setbacks in Church history too.

I'm still a member of that group? I totally forgot about that. Yes, covenanters are MUCH better than theonomists. I grant that.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
It might have been phrased in a caustic manner, but it represents a historical fact. The Covenanters almost immediately turned on each other (and I am not saying the Protestors were wrong). I used to go to church with first generation theonomists. They frankly admitted that theonomists will often split churches. Research Tyler, Texas.
I can certainly grant the historical accounts, in many cases with sadness. But I’m sure you know that the misuse of a thing does not invalidate it. Besides, while I can’t necessarily speak to the Covenanters’ history, I can say that I know personally many theonomists who have not split churches, as well as anti-theonomists who have. Let us deal with substance and not anecdote.
 

MChase

Puritan Board Freshman
I can certainly grant the historical accounts, in many cases with sadness. But I’m sure you know that the misuse of a thing does not invalidate it. Besides, while I can’t necessarily speak to the Covenanters’ history, I can say that I know personally many theonomists who have not split churches, as well as anti-theonomists who have. Let us deal with substance and not anecdote.

I’m not the biggest fan of the societies and those who didn’t accept the revolution settlement and much Covenanter history in the US. However, the history of the RPCNA is remarkable. The Lord really has blessed their faithfulness in so many ways and unlike so many American denominations they have not split and continue to be a wonderful light for good historic Presbyterian practice. Particularly in areas many Americans are woefully deficient: psalm singing and the sabbath.
 

PuritanCovenanter

The Joyful Curmudgeon
Staff member
Just curious, when you come back, your take on this…. https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/republication-of-the-covenant-of-works-2/
What, do you argue, is a proper Law Grace hermeneutic?
I am going to check in a few times during the ay Joseph. Busy day. We are getting ready for the Month of May. It is Pagan Month here. The Indianapolis 500, Roundy Round Races and a Points meet at the Drag Strip. I have a full Month. A lot of gardening and cleaning up to do. I also have to fix my Camaro. I will sleep all June.
I agreed with a lot of what Lane wrote. He is not addressing me or my positions as far as I can tell. As you know I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years and after discussing the issues with Clark and other R2K advocates I became Reformed over a decade ago. I have posted this a lot in the past years.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
I have some posts on Natural Law also and how it was defined by Rutherford. As these guys can pull up what others say concerning republication or reinstatement of the moral Law I can pull up those like Rutherford, Ball, Durham, Antony Burgess... Sure there were people that differed. It was the Westminster Assembly. Samuel Bolton was admitted as a Commissioner after Chapter 7 was complete and his views were not in line with Chapter 7. I have to work through what Lane said about Chapter 7 because I think he may get it wrong a bit by his emphasis without the context of the whole. Clark does the same thing with Chapter 19 as Stimple points to what it says as opposed to what Clark's position is. Clark and his ilk are wrong. Oh well.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
I’m not the biggest fan of the societies and those who didn’t accept the revolution settlement and much Covenanter history in the US. However, the history of the RPCNA is remarkable. The Lord really has blessed their faithfulness in so many ways and unlike so many American denominations they have not split and continue to be a wonderful light for good historic Presbyterian practice. Particularly in areas many Americans are woefully deficient: psalm singing and the sabbath.

I praise the Lord for His kindness to us and that the Lord would deal with our many areas where we are unfaithful. But that was very kind of you to say, brother. We have a deep affection for our brethren in the PRC and are very thankful we are both part of NAPARC in the hopes that we might receive that unity we long for in Presbyterian and Reformed churches in Christ's set time.

The world needs to see this caricature painted of Establishmentarians is untrue. We can and must labor shoulder to shoulder to resolve our differences - which are all a matter of our sinfulness. Yes, we are still afar afield from Establishment of National Religion in the United States - for now we must labor for Reformation and ask for Revival as we proclaim the biblical gospel and search out the Biblical truths concerning worship, and Christ's kingship over both commonwealth and church.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Senior
A few thoughts/considerations:
“The reason we do not see great periods of revival today is that the glory of God in all things is been largely forgotten by the contemporary church.

We talk about revival but it is not the glory of God we have in mind… what we have in mind is somehow moving to make things nicer for us.. to solve our problems ..somehow cut down on the crime in our neighborhoods.. we’re not considering the glory of God. …we’re not likely to see revival again until the truths that exalt and glorify God and salvation are recovered … How can we expect God to move among us greatly again until we can truthfully say as the reformers did that for God alone be the glory forever.” https://www.truthnetwork.com/show/the-bible-study-hour-james-boice/21604/


I guess we would all be in agreement with this as per Calvin (on The Threefold Use of the Law) which ultimately appears to cover all the bases:
“Its first function is to be a mirror reflecting to us both the perfect righteousness of God and our own sinfulness and shortcomings. As Augustine wrote, "the law bids us, as we try to fulfill its requirements, and become wearied in our weakness under it, to know how to ask the help of grace." The law is meant to give knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20; 4:15; 5:13; 7:7-11), and by showing us our need of pardon and our danger of damnation to lead us in repentance and faith to Christ (Gal. 3:19-24).

A second function, the "civil use," is to restrain evil. Though the law cannot change the heart, it can to some extent inhibit lawlessness by its threats of judgment, especially when backed by a civil code that administers punishment for proven offenses (Deut. 13:6-11; 19:16-21; Rom. 13:3, 4). Thus it secures civil order, and serves to protect the righteous from the unjust.

Its third function is to guide the regenerate into the good works that God has planned for them (Eph. 2:10). The law tells God's children what will please their heavenly Father. It could be called their family code. Christ was speaking of this third use of the law when He said that those who become His disciples must be taught to do all that He had commanded (Matt. 28:20), and that obedience to His commands will prove the reality of one's love for Him (John 14:15). The Christian is free from the law as a system of salvation (Rom. 6:14; 7:4, 6; 1 Cor. 9:20; Gal. 2:15-19, 3:25), but is "under the law of Christ" as a rule of life (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2)."
 
Last edited:

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Senior
This is the bit that is the most shocking and saddening to me - Christians seriously considering that the magistrates Christian duty is to provide a level playing field amongst all view points as equally valid. It is one thing to disagree on the path forward in certain circumstances or to disagree about certain policies or procedures. It is entirely different to suggest that having a Christian magistrate enforce both tables of the law would be immoral and outside of his purview. So someone like Darryl Hart can suggest that killing Christians was within Nero's God-ordained purview, but it is not good if a Christian magistrate were to establish Sabbath laws.
:doh:I think his schtick is “gotten” old….. at the very least, blue laws, would be much more honoring to God in helping to establish an environment in which First Things are cherished or at least valued and promoted.
 
Last edited:

Anti-Babylon

Puritan Board Freshman
I appreciate the offer, but debates convince no one. The only thing one may reasonably expect from a debate is a clarification of issues.

I learned a lot and made up my mind a lot from debates. I think you are only referring to your opponent and forgetting the audience. Also, why would you minimize clarification of issues as if that was all that could be attained, it would not even be worth the effort?
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I learned a lot and made up my mind a lot from debates. I think you are only referring to your opponent and forgetting the audience. Also, why would you minimize clarification of issues as if that was all that could be attained, it would not even be worth the effort?

Those who want to learn all the issues will devote the hard, often painful efforts in independent research with top scholarship. There is no substitute for that. Debates are often seen as a way to short-cut the issue, and it doesn't usually work. Some of my thoughts on debates here:
 

Anti-Babylon

Puritan Board Freshman
Those who want to learn all the issues will devote the hard, often painful efforts in independent research with top scholarship. There is no substitute for that. Debates are often seen as a way to short-cut the issue, and it doesn't usually work. Some of my thoughts on debates here:

Very well-witten and reasoned piece for *not debating Day Jyer*. This didn't show why debates are not worthwhile in themselves; more so, this did a great job of showing why having debates with someone who does not fully engage all necessary parameters of a topic are certainly not worthwhile.

It didn't answer my original point though since debates often help guide to where top scholarship is in order to begin said hard and painful research.

If you don't formally debate, fine, but you do a lot of *informal* debating here (and I love it) and please don't act like it is isn't a valid format when you yourself give credit to Bahnsen-Stein etc in the piece you wrote.

I don't understand why "clarification of issues" is such a low endeavor as to make debates unwarranted in the whole?
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Very well-witten and reasoned piece for *not debating Day Jyer*. This didn't show why debates are not worthwhile in themselves; more so, this did a great job of showing why having debates with someone who does not fully engage all necessary parameters of a topic are certainly not worthwhile.

It didn't answer my original point though since debates often help guide to where top scholarship is in order to begin said hard and painful research.

If you don't formally debate, fine, but you do a lot of *informal* debating here (and I love it) and please don't act like it is isn't a valid format when you yourself give credit to Bahnsen-Stein etc in the piece you wrote.

I don't understand why "clarification of issues" is such a low endeavor as to make debates unwarranted in the whole?
To be fair, I think all Jacob was saying is that debates never convince anyone. Obviously that’s hyperbolic, but in today’s low-attention-span culture, it’s not far from the truth. Most people go to “debates” (most “debates” hardly deserve the name) just to see the other side get beat up.

As for me, the debate between Bahnsen and Stein convinced me not of Christianity, but of presuppositional apologetics. ;)
 

Anti-Babylon

Puritan Board Freshman
To be fair, I think all Jacob was saying is that debates never convince anyone. Obviously that’s hyperbolic, but in today’s low-attention-span culture, it’s not far from the truth. Most people go to “debates” (most “debates” hardly deserve the name) just to see the other side get beat up.

As for me, the debate between Bahnsen and Stein convinced me not of Christianity, but of presuppositional apologetics. ;)

Ugh, I realize I myself wrote "debates convinced me" when I actually meant "debates sparked the flames that led to my newer conviction" and I unfairly gave more credit to the ultimate beginning of the path (debate moment) and not the research that followed it up. But otherwise, I think Jacob is extending an issue with debating this guy who will not engage with the Biblical languages (a perfectly legitimate reason to refrain from accepting a debate challenge) to all potential debates

Unless I am misreading his article and his point, I am saying that is unwarranted.

Further, his lack of importance to "clarification of issues" as to why debates are not worthwhile is curious to me. I guess I am wondering if that is merely a personal preference he has (not to debate solely for clarification of issues to others while he has such clarification for himself) or if he sees every one who participates in debates as performing such a low endeavor that one day they may "grow out of" as he himself has done?

Thanks in advance, Jacob. I really am a fan of your posting here by the way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top