Archive for March 2019

“Two Kingdoms at Once” Antinomians Think They can be Loyal to Christ, but Ignore Christ’s Law When they Kill for Their Other Kingdom

March 1, 2019

Even Protestants who don’t believe in the second coming of Jesus believe in “original sn” and that we all are sinners. Many Reformed writers about politics conclude that this makes even liberals like Niebuhr
Protestant, even though he did not believe in the new birth. Because even if you do happen to believe in the new birth, these Reformed wrtiers assume it very likely thaat you confuse new birth with some revival experience (not the means of grace found in their true church ). Who know for certain if you are born again? But one thing these Reformed writers do know for sure is hat sinners have to kill
sinners or no Christendom or even “the culture” will remain. WHAT WE DO NOW IS SECULAR. Therefore incomplete, therefore we do it as sinners, without distraction from any “perfectionism” about what Jesus

Richard Mouw— Bavinck is one of the few people in the Neo-Calvinistic tradition who actually writes about the imitation of Christ. Christ fulfilled the law and we can’t fulfill the laaw by keeping the law, but to be likeJesus is to obey Christ’s commands.

Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture — “Culture is that total process of human activity and that total result of such activity, therefore we cannot escape culture any more readily that we can escape nature.”

Glen Stassen: “The farther Niebuhrs book goes, the less specific it gets about the ethics of the New Testament Jesus. ..Nowhere does the chapter on transformationism indicate Christ’s practices. The result is that readers may be convinced to call themselves transformationists without committing themselves to any specific ethics. Niebuhr is working with a liberal Protestant notion of Christ, a Christ who provides little more than the ideal of self-sacrificial love (expressed as an intention), along with the concept of theocentrism.

Crawford Gribben— Rutherford’s Free Disputation, set in the context of its times, challenges any idea that the modern, politically passive Presbyterian main- stream can be identified either with the theology of the Westminster Confession. Rutherford’s commitment to shaping an entirely Presbyterian world, where public deviations from orthodox faith or practice should be met with the most severe of legal consequences, is a world away from the political complacency of modern evangelicalism and its self-justifying myth of pluralistic benevolence. Rutherford did believe in “liberty of conscience,” but, as the Confession argued, this was a liberty that provided no license to sin (WCF 20.3-4). The Westminnster Confession is not committed to the separation of church and state in any modern understanding of that idea. The doctrine of the “two kingdoms,” where church and state operated independently but with mutual reliance on the law of God, did not at all favor a religiously neutral state. Thus the Confession charged the state with the highest of responsibilities: “The Civil Magistrate. . . hath Authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that Unity and Peace be preserved in the Church, that the Truth of God be kept pure, and intire; that all Blasphemies and Heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in Worship and Discipline prevented, or reformed; and all the Ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed” (WCF 23.3). (Crawford Gribben, “Samuel Rutherford and Freedom of Conscience,” Westminster Theological Journal, 2009)

By all means, the 2k aantinomians instruct us, let us not use the Christian model when we are working together with non-Christians. Since non-Christians can’t do what we can do (we are more and more sanctified, and more and more united to Christ , so let us Christians agree to do what non-Christians also can do. M aybe we could use a Christian model, but we shouldn’t because if we did that, we woud not be able to participate in our duty to manage the world.. So some other model ( no religious test except willingness to kill for American democracy) is better, even if it doesn’t work either.

Instead of telling anybody what Jesus said about not killing, the “conservative worldview ” answer has always been to kill Servetus . Instead of calling evil evil and attempting to fight evil with good,
” conservatives” always accuse others of denying that evil is part of God’s plan. Their theodicy seems to have not yet considered the possibility that what God has ordained is evil. Yet this does not stop “conservatives” from trying to stop “ordained killing” with more “ordained skilling”. Whaat God has predestined is thus confused with God’s law or command.

Why do “conservatives” keep fighting against “social justice warriors”. Does the continued existence of “pacifits” cause them worries about their own collaboration with evil? Why can’t “conservatives” stop asking God so many questions about God’s having planned a history in which radicals fight against slavery and war?

p 223—The events in Wittenberg reveal what had become a pattern in Luther’s life. Time and again, though Luther might rail against them and insult them with surprising impudence, Luther in the end would always align himself with the authorities. The account first propagated by the Catholic side–that Karlstadt had engaged in subversive preaching, which has caused armed sedition—Luther now adopted as the official
narrative of what had happened in Wittenberg. It was a convenient fiction for all sides, because it minimized the extent to which the council, leading reformers, and others had been actively involved in introducing the Reformation. In fact, until January, Melanchthon had taken a far more radical line than Karlstad, but someone had to be blamed. It is hard to resist the conclusion that Karlstad was made a scapegoat

Mark 14: 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will demolish this sanctuary made by human hands, and in three days I will build another not made by hands.

People who try to change and reform the world are rebels against God’s predestination and should be killed by the authorities, not of course by the church but by the state after the revolutionaries are handed over to the state. And after the discontents are killed, this proves that the world can’t be changed but it doesn’t matter because there is no purgatory and the people killed go right away to different worlds.

Sure, those religious people always use very religious language when they go to war or bury their dead presidents, but separation of church and state only works one way, because it is the duty of good
Christians to defend the rights of Nero and Pilate to do whatever social injustice they want to do, legal or not legal. George Bush asked Billy Graham to come to Washington, D.C., but did not say why. “They put me in the Lincoln Room and all of a sudden there came a knock at the door. They turned on CNN and watched the beginning of the air war against Iraq. “We had prayer together,” Graham says. At dinner they prayed again. And then, Graham says, just before Bush spoke to the nation

Theodore D. Bozeman, “Inductive and Deductive Polities”, Journal of American History, December 1977, p 722–, Old School contributions to social analysis may be viewed as a sustained attempt to defend the nherited social structure…The General Assembly found it necessary to lament the practice of those who ‘question and unsettle practice which have received the enlightened sanction of centuries’… The desire was to draw the ought out of the is…to make facts serve a normative purpose”

Does confessing with the WCF that you are becoming and more sanctified put you in the immanentize-the-eschaton school?

“The spirituality of the church” is the sneaky slogan in defense of killing for the status quo. Supposely those who support the military offense of the American empire are not “political” but those who talk about racism or political are “leaving the gospel for the sake of humanism”

Peter Leithart (p 75. Against Christianity) — The Reformers had a spiritualizing reading of redemptive history. We still see this today. Listen to Terry Johnson: ‘When Jesus removed the special status of
Jerusalem as the place where God was to be worshipped, he abolished all the material forms that constituted the typological OT system.’(157, in With Reverence and Awe, ed Hart and Muether).” Israel’s prophets inveighed against empty formalism, and some Protestants today conclude from this that the prophets condemned ritual as such.. They say that religion is a matter of private ideology, ideas and belief and that those who tie religion to public rituals tempt us to be hypocrites.

Carlos Eirie “As Luther saw it, his interpretation of the Word of God could never be wrong, and no step taken in the proclamation of that Word could ever be false. Luther saw himself as a prophet, and an agent of God’s wrath. Knowing how much he was shaped by St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, it is easy to imagine him identifying personally with this passage: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”

“Luther dismissed all ‘radicals’ in his midst by saying that they had ‘swallowed the Holy Spirit, feathers and all’ and that they were “so stupid that it makes one feel like vomiting.” To the pope he could
say, “You are the head of all the worst scoundrels on earth, a vicar of the devil, an enemy of God, an adversary of Christ, a destroyer of Christ’s churches; a teacher of lies, blasphemies, and idolatries; an
arch-thief and robber.” Belittling the high and mighty became one of his great skills. To the great humanist Erasmus he once said, “Perhaps you want me to die of unrelieved boredom while you keep on talking.”