The offensiveness of Nobles Oblige

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's say I am a police officer. A guy comes up to me in front of others and flips me off. Should I take action? If I don't, I am encouraging this behavior. This is where not enforcing the 5th commandment leads to breaches of the sixth commandment.
This is absolutely right. The Bible is absolutely clear that there are many people who not only may, but must assert their rights: the magistrate, parents, ministers, masters of slaves, etc. Otherwise, good order, which is foundational for a godly society, is impossible. "When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong" (Ecc. 8:11).
 
Let's say I am a police officer. A guy comes up to me in front of others and flips me off. Should I take action? If I don't, I am encouraging this behavior. This is where not enforcing the 5th commandment leads to breaches of the sixth commandment.

I don't "insist on my rights." But I also don't want to create a structure where others sin by not performing the rights and duties due to each one in his several places and relations (that last sentence was a word for word quote from the Shorter Catechism. If you disagree with it, then you disagree with Westminster on this point).
Again, I make a distinction between how those inside the church and those outside respond to breaches of their rights. It is possible to achieve limited behavioral discipline by penalizing breaches of the law, but it does not produce transforming change of the heart that God so desperately wants (and we should want too). To put it another way, you can achieve limited (and embittered) results by penalizing non Christ-like behavior. But what we want to do is to produce permanent, lasting and thoroughgoing transformation by modeling Christ like behavior. Modeling Christ-like behavior means exercising prerogatives only as far as is necessary to insure order in society and showing mercy, compassion and humility whenever possible. Are those outside the church capable of this sort of altruistic behavior? No. BUT WE ARE. It is for those outside our communion to delight in a social order that requires the acknowledgement of superiors and inferiors with the rendering of attendant duties and honors. But this is a concession to the fallen nature of our race. We acknowledge and participate in such a society only insofar as it is necessary to preserve our standing as contributing members of whatever society we are in. We are to delight in transforming our society into something that requires less and less social stratification as the concept and outworking of grace becomes more and more prevalent and we do this by being the exception to demanding honor rather than the rule.
 
Again, I make a distinction between how those inside the church and those outside respond to breaches of their rights.

For 99% of this debate I have been speaking of those outside the church. Inside the church I am like the most humble person in the world (at the risk of contradiction).

You are talking about people inside the church. Everyone else in this thread is talking about those outside the church, hence my examples of aristocracy and policemen.
 
This is absolutely right. The Bible is absolutely clear that there are many people who not only may, but must assert their rights: the magistrate, parents, ministers, masters of slaves, etc. Otherwise, good order, which is foundational for a godly society, is impossible. "When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong" (Ecc. 8:11).
Is good order truly the foundation of a Godly society? Good order is the foundation of an orderly society, but that's all. Christ and Christ like attitudes are the foundation of a Godly society. To teach that good order is the path to a Godly society is almost like teaching that the law is the path to salvation. Do I mean by this that God does not want an orderly society? Or that his church does not know comfort in an orderly society? Of course not. But just don't make law and order an end in and of itself, or even a prerequisite for God's church. If we have to, we can do without it.
 
Is good order truly the foundation of a Godly society? Good order is the foundation of an orderly society, but that's all. Christ and Christ like attitudes are the foundation of a Godly society. To teach that good order is the path to a Godly society is almost like teaching that the law is the path to salvation. Do I mean by this that God does not want an orderly society? Or that his church does not know comfort in an orderly society? Of course not. But just don't make law and order an end in and of itself, or even a prerequisite for God's church. If we have to, we can do without it.
Is English your second language? Literally everything I have ever posted in your threads you misread as being an argument for works salvation, and it's getting extremely annoying. I have been quite patient thus far, but at this point, you need to start trying to the read words that are written and stop injecting them with whatever hobby horse you seem to be dealing with in your own life.

I never said that the way we reach a godly society is to teach order. But order is foundational to a godly society, because "God is not a God of disorder" (1 Cor. 14:33). And, as it so happens, God has created the world according to his order, and has given us a law that corresponds with that order, hence the fifth commandment.
 
For 99% of this debate I have been speaking of those outside the church. Inside the church I am like the most humble person in the world (at the risk of contradiction).

You are talking about people inside the church. Everyone else in this thread is talking about those outside the church, hence my examples of aristocracy and policemen.
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.

8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

To show Christ like love is to show love and self sacrifice for those outside our communion in hopes that they might enter in. We are not commanded to make membership in the Church a condition for this consideration, but rather to hope that by showing this consideration that they might enter in.
 
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.

8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

To show Christ like love is to show love and self sacrifice for those outside our communion in hopes that they might enter in. We are not commanded to make membership in the Church a condition for this consideration, but rather to hope that by showing this consideration that they might enter in.
You are moving the goalposts.

A magistrate has a duty to be a terror to evil doers and to use the sword. Should he forebear the use of the sword just in case they might get converted.
 
You are moving the goalposts.

A magistrate has a duty to be a terror to evil doers and to use the sword. Should he forebear the use of the sword just in case they might get converted.
I think we are converging towards agreement. Yes, a magistrate must bear the sword against evil. The bible is clear on that. This is a concession to the fallen state of man. But before he executes judgment, someone in the church is bound to reach out to the perpetrator, perhaps (maybe even ideally) his victim, and tell him that God is prepared to divert his judgment onto his Son if he will believe. Such an act on the part of the church requires a suspension of the prerogatives of the law abiding to leave the entire matter of law enforcement in the hands of the magistrate.
 
Is English your second language? Literally everything I have ever posted in your threads you misread as being an argument for works salvation, and it's getting extremely annoying. I have been quite patient thus far, but at this point, you need to start trying to the read words that are written and stop injecting them with whatever hobby horse you seem to be dealing with in your own life.

I never said that the way we reach a godly society is to teach order. But order is foundational to a godly society, because "God is not a God of disorder" (1 Cor. 14:33). And, as it so happens, God has created the world according to his order, and has given us a law that corresponds with that order, hence the fifth commandment.
Right. You did not assert that the law was the path to salvation. What I said was stronger than it needed to be. But you did say that order is the foundation of a Godly society. Please examine that assertion. Christ describes himself as the cornerstone of his Church and that is precisely what he is, the rock and the foundation. I am extremely sensitive to any argument that posits any prerequisite for a saving faith (or even a Godly society) other than Christ. I guess that's my hobby horse. All the other things that we promote on this page, orderly society, respect for authority, sabbath observance, the Westminster confessions, are nice, even God glorifying in their limited capacities, but they are secondary. I am sure you believe that too, so I think your choice of language was a mistake. Maybe you should have said that an orderly society is one of the first results of a Godly society. That would not have set off alarm bells in me.
 
Such an act on the part of the church requires a suspension of the prerogatives of the law abiding to leave the entire matter of law enforcement in the hands of the magistrate.

The church never had these prerogatives to begin with, so she can't suspend them. And while it would be nice if someone reached out to the convicted before his execution, that's ultimately irrelevant to whether the magistrate executes him or not.
 
Christ describes himself as the cornerstone of his Church and that is precisely what he is, the rock and the foundation.
I'm not talking about the Church; I'm talking about society. You're letting your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.

I am extremely sensitive to any argument that posits any prerequisite for a saving faith (or even a Godly society) other than Christ.
Good, you should be, but that's not even an implication of anything I said. You're letting your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.

I am sure you believe that too, so I think your choice of language was a mistake.
It was not a mistake. I meant every word I said, exactly how I said it. The problem is that you're letting your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.

Maybe you should have said that an orderly society is one of the first results of a Godly society.
It makes no difference, because God is a God of order. So to say that order is the foundation of a godly society is saying nothing other than that God is the foundation of a godly society, since anything apart from God is by definition disorderly. This explanation on my part would not have been necessary had you not let your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.

See the pattern here?
 
The church never had these prerogatives to begin with, so she can't suspend them. And while it would be nice if someone reached out to the convicted before his execution, that's ultimately irrelevant to whether the magistrate executes him or not.
I did not say the church had the prerogative to leave law enforcement in the hands of the magistrate, but that the law abiding did. And while reaching out to the perpetrator may not have any impact on whether the magistrate executes or not, it is critical if the magistrate does choose to execute. The bible is clear, we are to take the message of salvation to all the world, even enemies of the State, in hopes that God may spare that individual the fate of the unbeliever. It is the will of God that even the worst offender should repent. That includes our own worst personal enemies.
 
I'm not talking about the Church; I'm talking about society. You're letting your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.


Good, you should be, but that's not even an implication of anything I said. You're letting your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.


It was not a mistake. I meant every word I said, exactly how I said it. The problem is that you're letting your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.


It makes no difference, because God is a God of order. So to say that order is the foundation of a godly society is saying nothing other than that God is the foundation of a godly society, since anything apart from God is by definition disorderly. This explanation on my part would not have been necessary had you not let your hobby horse superimpose a meaning on my words that aren't there.

See the pattern here?
I assert that God is the foundation of the Church and that the Church is the foundation of a Godly society. The Mormons have an orderly society, but I don't think there is much Christ there. Basically there is such a thing as Godless order, which God permits because of the common graces he extends to all mankind. This is a kind thing that God does, but it is not the foundation of a Godly society. The thing is that here in the West the Church has been integrated into an orderly society for so long that it has come to equate peace, order and prosperity with the favor of God and therefor it equates order with Godliness. That just ain't so. The Roman Empire was an orderly society that got so distressed at the disruptive impact that the church was having on that they tried to stamp us out. The point I am making is that sometimes when God wants to establish his church he will gut an orderly society for the sake of introducing a new society that has his church as it's foundation. This can require a pronounced period of disorder, but if that's what it takes, God does it. I just don't buy your assertion that anything apart from God is disorderly, I assert the existence of orderly evil and I think history backs me up. And that blows up your theory that an orderly society is the foundation of a Godly society.
 
The bible is clear, we are to take the message of salvation to all the world, even enemies of the State, in hopes that God may spare that individual the fate of the unbeliever. It is the will of God that even the worst offender should repent. That includes our own worst personal enemies.

No one says otherwise.
 
No one says otherwise.
Well, you did say "And while it would be nice if someone reached out to the convicted before his execution, that's ultimately irrelevant to whether the magistrate executes him or not." That kind of implies an indifference on the part of the church to the fate of the convicted.
 
Brother, you and your weird threads are impossible to follow. Your posts rarely make sense, even simply from an English perspective, and your theology is at many points not just unbiblical, not just unconfessional, but abjectly against the Bible and the Confession, as Jacob has pointed out. And when anyone deals thusly with things you’ve said, you proceed to assert that they are legalists or some other such nonsense.

Stick a fork in me. I’m done.
 
Brother, you and your weird threads are impossible to follow. Your posts rarely make sense, even simply from an English perspective, and your theology is at many points not just unbiblical, not just unconfessional, but abjectly against the Bible and the Confession, as Jacob has pointed out. And when anyone deals thusly with things you’ve said, you proceed to assert that they are legalists or some other such nonsense.

Stick a fork in me. I’m done.
I note that you didn't address the substance of my argument. Name calling does not qualify as rational debate.
 
Well, you did say "And while it would be nice if someone reached out to the convicted before his execution, that's ultimately irrelevant to whether the magistrate executes him or not." That kind of implies an indifference on the part of the church to the fate of the convicted.

It's not indifferent. It simply reflects that my reaching out in time isn't relevant to the magistrate's duties to the citizens in executing the criminal.
 
I note that you didn't address the substance of my argument. Name calling does not qualify as rational debate.
1) I still don’t even know what the substance of your argument is, except that you seem to believe anyone who disagrees with whatever your saying is a legalist.

2) I never called you name. I challenge you to find a name that I called you, or else retract your accusation.
 
It's not indifferent. It simply reflects that my reaching out in time isn't relevant to the magistrate's duties to the citizens in executing the criminal.
I don't dispute that duty. And I acknowledge that it does not matter much to the magistrate whether or not the church reaches the convicted in time to reach him, but it is critical to the convicted. I would add as an afterthought that while God honors the role of the magistrate in executing judgment, he takes far more pleasure in the role of the church in attempting to reach the convicted.
 
but it is critical to the convicted. I would add as an afterthought that while God honors the role of the magistrate in executing judgment, he takes far more pleasure in the role of the church in attempting to reach the convicted.

No one said otherwise (starting to sound like a refrain on my part). All I've sought to do in this thread is demonstrate the duties that one (dare I say?) class of people have to others. Further, these duties aren't necessarily open to all.
 
1) I still don’t even know what the substance of your argument is, except that you seem to believe anyone who disagrees with whatever your saying is a legalist.

2) I never called you name. I challenge you to find a name that I called you, or else retract your accusation.
Well the substance of my argument was to challenge your assertion that an orderly society was the foundation of a Godly society by citing examples of orderly societies that were in no way Godly (Mormons and the Roman Empire). I took it a step further by citing an example of an orderly society that God swept away to make way for a Godly society (The Roman Empire). I used those examples to justify the existence of orderly evil, and used that point to challenge your assertion that all order was of God. And while you did not call me any names personally, you said some very disparaging things about my arguments and theology.
 
Well the substance of my argument was to challenge your assertion that an orderly society was the foundation of a Godly society by citing examples of orderly societies that were in no way Godly (Mormons and the Roman Empire).
There is no such thing as evil order. Order is by definition disorder. All things not of God are by definition born of disorder and only produce disorder. By what standard do you call Mormon and Roman society orderly? Certainly not the Bible. There is nothing orderly about Mormon polygamy or Roman incest and emperor worship.

And while you did not call me any names personally, you said some very disparaging things about my arguments and theology.
To speak the truth about error is not disparaging. I and others in this thread have pointed out multiple times where you are out of line with the Standards and Scripture. That you are personally offended is irrelevant.
 
No one said otherwise (starting to sound like a refrain on my part). All I've sought to do in this thread is demonstrate the duties that one (dare I say?) class of people have to others. Further, these duties aren't necessarily open to all.
I said I thought we were converging towards agreement. Just because I make an assertion doesn't mean that I am taking a position that I believe is in opposition to your philosophies, or anyone here. I agree that division of labor and responsibility is necessary for an orderly society. I just maintain that it can be done in a way that does not abridge our freedoms as image bearers but rather re-enforces them. I also hold that the only factors that should be considered in our assigned role in society is merit, whether or not God has gifted us in that role. I maintain that it is the salutary effect of the church in the world that has permitted the gradual re-introduction of non-divine Godlike roles and responsibilities to men in our society. I also acknowledge that our fallen state will never permit a return to our Adamic state, but that the situation for the Church is tolerable, even pleasant, as we wait upon the redemption of our bodies and world that will come at the second coming.
 
The original post reminded me of the term 'woke.'

John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones had a falling out over Stott's insistence on ecumenism If I recall correctly. Doctrine matters.
 
Perhaps we need to back off a bit from singing lead and acknowledge that we are supposed to sing harmony with our family.
I'm not sure what to make of this thread, but it is not the topic that I thought it started out to be.

The above quote is from the first post. It's the closest thing to a theme or topic that I've discerned in the thread.

My guess is that your original point was that confessional people come across as arrogant, privileged, and condescending--and that they shouldn't be.

That is the kind of broad-brush criticism that we had to address in other threads. Of course there are arrogant confessional Christians. There are arrogant oneness Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims, too. We all agree they should not be arrogant.

(Except Ben, of course... :) )

But, aside from the strange attempts to import a social-justice-but-not-really worldview, the biggest problematic assumption I see is the idea that Reformed are leading the singing. Really? How many powerful and mighty in what we loosely call Christiandom are remotely Reformed?

So this all comes across as a straw-man sort of discussion.
 
There is no such thing as evil order. Order is by definition disorder. All things not of God are by definition born of disorder and only produce disorder. By what standard do you call Mormon and Roman society orderly? Certainly not the Bible. There is nothing orderly about Mormon polygamy or Roman incest and emperor worship.


To speak the truth about error is not disparaging. I and others in this thread have pointed out multiple times where you are out of line with the Standards and Scripture. That you are personally offended is irrelevant.

No, there is nothing Godly about Mormon polygamy or Roman incest. Both their societies (particularly the Romans) were orderly enough for them to produce some mighty impressive works. The Bible speaks of the power and knowledge of the ancient Egyptians, they were not Godly, but they had order. The Bible says that God raised them up so that his power might be made manifest to them. Sometimes God raises up orderly evil so that at some date he can show them who is the true God, sometimes he does it out of common graces that he extends to their citizens. God takes no pleasure in the suffering of the reprobate and for their sake he grants them ordered societies.

As far as my personal theology goes, I acknowledge myself to be a sinner, without hope in this world or the next except by Christ's atoning death at the cross on my behalf and his resurrection from the dead. It is on this that I have pinned all my hope. I hold that the scriptures are inerrant and contain everything I need to know about Christ, his church, and my fate. I remain overwhelmed at the magnitude of God's grace on my behalf, and that is the central tenant of any position I take in my life or on this board. I repeat, I am very particular about maintaining the centrality of Christ and his ministry to my theology and philosophy. I acknowledge that Rome has a lot to answer for in promulgating it's various idolatries as aids to achieving salvation and salute the work of the reformers in drafting the confessions as an answer to Roman errors. But, I do not believe exposure to Roman doctrine precludes one from a saving faith if someone has the same attitude towards Christ and his ministry as that put forth in the Bible. I also believe that we in the reformed church have our own idolatries to answer for and that among them are an inordinate regard for the confessions, our worship style and our culture. I am very secure in my position in Christ and therefor am not easily offended. I believe that my relationship with the Lord has imparted some measure of wisdom to me and that is the principle reason for my slow fuse. If anyone here takes issue with these positions I am open to discussion.
 
I also believe that we in the reformed church have our own idolatries to answer for and that among them are an inordinate regard for the confessions, our worship style and our culture. I am very secure in my position in Christ and therefor am not easily offended. I believe that my relationship with the Lord has imparted some measure of wisdom to me and that is the principle reason for my slow fuse. If anyone here takes issue with these positions I am open to discussion.
Daniel, I'm closing the thread now.

It may be that some misguided people make the confessions an idol. But that does not mean that those who hold to the confessions are idolators.

This a confessional board. That is our fundamental distinctive. Arguing against the confessions is a violation of our rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top