Defining "Semi-Pelagianism" by Theodore Beza

My debate opponent (in an upcoming debate), Dr. T. Kurt Jaros, has suggested that we should define "Semi-Pelagianism" as Beza did.  For example, in an interview with Warren McGrew, Dr. Jaros stated: "I think that the term should just be wiped from history and -- you know -- the new definition of 'Semi-Pelagianism' should be what Theodore Beza thought about certain Roman Catholics, not what the fifth century Gallic monks believed." (link)

What Beza thought is not always the most readily accessible things.  One of the oft-cited works in the history of the evolution of the term "Semi-Pelagianism," is the work of Backus and Goudriaan: ‘Semipelagianism’: The Origins of the Term and its Passage into the History of Heresy, Backus and Goudriaan, Jnl of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 65, No. 1, January 2014. doi:10.1017/S0022046912000838 (link)  I'm reliant on their work to summarize the material on Beza, as I have not done my own independent research.  With that caveat, here are their findings:

"[Beza] identifies the Semipelagians as those who think that human nature is prone to sin but not totally dependent on God’s grace for its regeneration." (pp. 35-36)

(p. 36)

(p. 37) 

And from Markus Widler's notes:

(p. 39)

(p. 40)

Based on the above, my own summary is this.  Beza used the term "Semi-Pelagian" to refer to something "infra-Pelagian," something that did not go as far as the Pelagians, but (in Beza's view) in the same direction.  There does not seem to be a rigid standards, but the general errors that Beza identifies as "Semi-Pelagian" seem to include:

• On the Nature of Man: A denial that man's nature is altogether dead in sin due to Adam, while simultaneously falling short of the fully Pelagian error that man's nature was not affected by Adam's sin.  Thus, it is "Semi-Pelagian" to describe man as merely "half dead," "debilitated," or the like.
• On the Will: a denial that man's will is evil and contrary to God, while simultaneously acknowledging that it is weak. 
• On Grace before Faith: A denial that grace does all the preparation for faith, while simultaneously falling short of the fully Pelagian error that man does not require any grace before faith.  Thus, it is "Semi-Pelagian" to suggest that grace merely assists or helps nature or the like. Likewise, it is "Semi-Pelagian" to suggest that faith is "partly a gift of God" but also "partly brought forth by the choice of our will."
• On Original Sin: an affirmation that baptism removes some of the effect of original sin, but that some concupiscence remains and human effort is needed to overcome it.  Thus, it is "Semi-Pelagian" to suggest that God's grace merely brings man part of the way of toward faith. 
• On Merit in Salvation: A denial that our justification is entirely by faith, while simultaneously falling short of the fully Pelagian error of suggesting that man is justified solely on the basis of good works.  Thus, it is "Semi-Pelagian" to suggest that good works play any role in meriting salvation.

Beza seems to treat these errors as somewhat independent from another, rather than requiring all three to be present for the label to apply.  B&G note: "Beza’s invention of the term did not imply, however, that its meaning was fixed from the outset. Most likely, different authors devised new uses for it, applying it to a variety of contemporary positions that postulated a greater or lesser degree of human free will in the process of salvation." (p. 45)

B&G conclude that "Semi-Pelagianism" is "a term invented by Theodore Beza to denote the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace and original sin... ." (p. 46)  While a bit compact of a summary, it seems roughly right, with the caveat that it does seem to primarily relate, as B&G previously noted, to the connection between human free will and salvation.

This sense seems to have been picked up by subsequent Reformed authors.  For example, as R. Scott Clark reports (link)(link to Perkins), "William Perkins (1558-1602), in his 1595 Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, on the question of effectual call, wrote:

Againe, if the Vocation of every man be effectual, then faith must be common to all men either by nature, or by grace, or both: now to say the first, namely, that the power of believing is common to all by nature, is the heresie of the Pelagians, and to say it is common to all by grace, is false. All men have not faith, saith Paul. 2. Thess. 3. 2. nay many to whom the Gospel is preached, doe not so much as understand it and give assent unto it; Satan blinding their minds that the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should not shine unto them, 2. Cor. 4. 4. And to say that faith is partly by nature and partly by grace, is the condemned heresie of the semi Pelagian: for we cannot so much as thinke a good thought of our selves, 2. Cor. 3. 5."

Notice that "faith is partly by nature and partly by grace" is quite similar to Beza's explanation set forth above.

R. Scott Clark explains (in the same post):

Further, Perkins spoke for the entire Reformation when he distinguished between full-blown Pelagianism and “semi-Pelagianism” which admits the federal relationship and original sin but which tends to downplay the effects of sin. As Perkins observed, semi-Pelagianianism also affirmed the necessity of grace but just as it watered down the effects of sin so it weakened the necessity of and the power of grace. Like Pelagius, for the semi-Pelagians, which included some of Augustine’s opponents in the early 5th century and much of the medieval church, faith is “partly by nature and partly by grace.” The semi-Pelagian view is that grace helps but it is not decisive. The free exercise of the human will, or in some cases, the human intellect or affections is decisive and essential for faith, justification, and salvation. According to semi-Pelagianism, from a Pauline and Protestant point of view justification is no longer by grace alone, through faith (trusting) alone, but now through grace and works (our cooperation with grace).

RSC's summary is, perhaps, even more succinct and to the point than B&G's: "The semi-Pelagian view is that grace helps but it is not decisive."

 

Restore Balance in the Two Kingdoms

This is the kind of comment that leads people to call an unbalanced view of the two kingdoms, "radical two kingdoms":

Indeed, in general terms, it seems from the New Testament that the less we have to do with the magistrate, the better it will be for us.

(source R. Scott Clark)

That's the same R. Scott Clark who was recently stumping for civil magistrate on his blog as discussed at this link.

Clark further states:

Nevertheless, when it comes to the visible, institutional church, the Scriptures enjoin on us an attitude of submission and a desire to protect those who look after the welfare of our souls that it does not require of us regarding the civil magistrate, who looks after our outward, common, shared life. The magistrate, in his office, is not enjoined to pray for us.

I respond:
a) The duty of submission is a mutual duty of the brethren, not a one-way duty toward elders.
Peter, in his first catholic epistle, says:

1 Peter 5:5
Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Likewise, Paul teaches us:

Ephesians 5:21
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

b) We are explicitly told to submit ourselves unto those who have worldly authority:
That same Peter in the same book we mentioned above - earlier in the book - says:

1 Peter 2:13-14
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Likewise, still earlier:

1 Peter 2:17
Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Similarly:

Colossians 3:22-24
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

Indeed, these commands are quite closely paired with obedience to the Lord.

c) Clark seems to have in mind the following passage from Hebrews:

Hebrews 13:17-18
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.

But this resembles Paul's exhortation regarding kings:

1 Timothy 2:1-4
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Incidentally, the structure of Hebrews 13 is quite beautiful - it includes "Remember them which have the rule over you ... Obey them that have the rule over you ... Salute all them that have the rule over you ...."

d) Furthermore, while there may not be an explicit command for kings to pray for those entrusted to them, that surely is a logical inference to be drawn from the duties of superiors to inferiors.

e) Moreover, the Scriptures do explicitly norm kings and those in authority:

Psalm 2:10-12
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

f) Certainly, we should not fall into the opposite extreme from Clark, of some kind of democratic congregationalism and denial that those who have rule over us in the church do not have any rule over us in the church. I hope no one will take my criticism of one imbalance to suggest the opposite imbalance.

g) Rather, neither magistrates nor elders of the church are priests whose job it is to stand between us and God. While those who rule over us bring the Word of God to us and set a good example for us (Hebrews 13:7) the great Shepherd of the sheep is Christ (Hebrews 13:20). Christ is Lord over all - both Lord of the Sword and the Gospel. The cattle on a thousand hills are his.

- TurretinFan

Unbalanced "Two Kingdoms" and Political Campaigns

Prof. Clark has a couple of posts up praising Ben Sasse and even including one of his political campaign advertisements ("Ben is a Straight Shooter" | "Ben is Speaking Up About Religious Liberty"). Personally, I can't vouch for Mr. Sasse (nor do I have any particular criticisms), and that's not the point of this post.

Among other things, Clark writes:

So, in light of the drift of the culture and the Christian accommodation to that drift, it has been interesting to watch Ben Sasse’s campaign for the U. S. Senate from Nebraska.

I appreciate Clark's concern against Christian accommodation of the culture. At the same time, that's one of the problems with an unbalanced view of the two kingdoms. It is an accommodation to the cultural norm that the state is to be "secular" rather than being normed by Scripture.

One of the ironies of the posts is that posts like these, which appear to be stumping for a particular candidate, would appear to violate the principles of the Darryl Hart-type unbalanced two kingdoms view. One of the commenters presented this issue, and in response Clark asked:

What about the twofold kingdom means that Christians cannot engage the civil realm?

and again

Now, once more, what is it about the twofold kingdom that prevents Christians from observing and commenting on the civil/political sphere?

I wasn't the commenter in question, so Clark wasn't asking me. I would respond that the more unbalanced forms don't say that people (who happen to be Christians) cannot engage the civil realm, observe the civil/political sphere, or comment on the civil/political sphere. Nevertheless, it does prevent them from doing so as Christians, bringing Christian doctrine and specifically the Bible to bear. In other words, in the so-called R2K system, a Christian cannot comment as a Christian, only as a person. Prof. Clark is not commenting on Ben as one might talk about a particularly skilled quarterback (or simply one wearing the right jersey) but rather he appears to be bringing Biblical principles to bear on the situation (as well he should! and good for him!) This does not seem consistent with the more unbalanced views of the two kingdoms.

For example, recall that Hart wrote:

Christianity is essentially a spiritual and eternal faith, one occupied with a world to come rather than the passing and temporal affairs of this world.

(p. 12 of A Secular Faith) Frame explains, Hart "is opposed not only to the church taking political positions, but even to individual Christians claiming biblical authority for their political views." (Escondido Theology, p. 248)

Contrary to what Hart seems to think (based on his book), the Scriptures have a lot to say about the passing and temporal affairs of this world, even though this is our pilgrimage with the best life yet to come. An error of an unbalanced view of the two kingdoms is creating a dichotomy between them rather than recognizing that the civil magistrate is a minister of God who ought to be normed by the Word of the God of whom he is the minister. Another error is like to it - treating all aspects of this life the same whether the Bible has said much (for example, good laws) or little (for example, plumbing, air conditioning, or pharmacology). Yes, the Bible is not principally concerned with teaching us how to roll aluminum foil quite flat without making it so thin it accidentally tears. The Bible is not principally concerned with teaching us how to build a controlled fusion reactor. But there are oodles of teachings regarding what sort of laws are good. There are oodles of teachings on marriage and family - on the raising of children, and so forth.

-TurretinFan

Calvin as Tyrant?

R. Scott Clark has some antidote to the oft-repeated slander of Calvin as Tyrant (link).

-TurretinFan

The Real Francis Turretin on Faith and Reason

The question is not whether reason is the instrument by which or the medium through which we can be drawn to faith. For we acknowledge that reason can be both: the former indeed always and everywhere; the later with regard to presupposed articles. Rather the question is whether it is the first principle from which the doctrines of faith are proved; or the foundation upon which they are built, so that we must hold to be false in things of faith what the nature light or human reason cannot comprehend. This we deny.

…If reason is the principle of faith, then first it would follow that all religion is natural and demonstrable by natural reason and natural light. Thus nature and grace, natural and supernatural revelation would be confounded.
…A ministerial and organic relation is quite different from a principial and despotic.
…We must observe the distinction between an instrument of faith and the foundation of faith.
…The Lutherans falsely object to us that we hold reason to be the principle and rule of demonstration in controversies because we sometimes draw arguments from reason, and argue from reason against the ubiquity of Christ’s body. For we assign to reason only a ministerial and instrumental, not a principal office. And if, in compound questions, we use reason for the purpose of proof, it bears the relation not of a principle but of means from which the theologian argues; and the are not with us primary arguments, but only secondary and auxiliary forces. Besides, while the theologian uses arguments drawn from reason, he does it rather as a philosopher rather than as a theologian. As to the ubiquity of the body of Christ, we reject this doctrine both philosophically and theologically, because it is absurd and contradicts the first principles of theology and philosophy.

(cited as Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.8.4, 5, 6, 24 at this link)

Churchless Evangelicals

R. Scott Clark has some serious and sobering words to "churchless evangelicals" (part 1) (part 2).  I actually wouldn't agree with everything he says (or at least not as he says it) - I think some of his comments could be taken as suggesting that the ministers themselves are the means of grace, instead of the Word, Sacraments, and Prayer.  They are not the means of grace, nor are they the mediators of grace.  They are not priests and the congregants are not laity.  Yet I suspect that this is just an infelicitous wording on Prof. Clark's part - I'm sure he'd agree with me that ministers are not priests and that there is no priest but Christ in Christianity.

-TurretinFan

R. Scott Clark on "All Heretics Quote Scripture"

R. Scott Clark today responded on his blog to the comment that "all heretics quote Scripture." It's a true statement that simply testifies to the universal recognition of the authority of Scripture. It does not prove what its advocates seem to want to imagine that it proves. R. Scott Clark explains:

According to the Reformed churches, the Bible is the Word of God. It norms all norms. Even though it is contrary to the spirit of the modern age we still hold that the Bible is sovereign over the church (contra Rome) and the reader (contra rationalism and subjectivism). We say that the Scriptures produced the church (not the reverse). The Scriptures fundamentally are the Word of God. That Word was given through human authors but that process of revelation was superintended by God the Spirit. It was Spirit speaking through prophets and apostles. There is a real humanity to Scripture but that humanity does not norm the divine authority, inspiration, integrity, or truthfulness of Scripture.

The churches do not create the canon or the Scriptures. Rather the churches simply receive the Scriptures and the canon. The Scriptures are divinely formed. Contra Rome the authority of the church is ministerial not magisterial. The same principle applies to the autonomous modern rationalist or subjectivist.

It’s true that the Bible must be read. This is where the church enters. Who gets to say what the Scriptures mean? Is it the sovereign rationalist or the sovereign subjectivist? No, it is the divinely instituted and constituted community of interpretation. Does that community (the church) norm the revelation? No. The revelation norms the community. At the same time we are not skeptical. The Scriptures can be understood because they are meant to be understood and interpreted and we are constituted to read and interpret Scripture. We do so, the Spirit helping us, illuminating the Word for us and witness to us that what the Scriptures teach is true.

I would only tweak his statement "the Scriptures produced the church" by pointing out that strictly speaking it was revelation that produced the church, and that the revelation that produced the church has been inscripturated now, though it was in the process of being inscripturated during the apostolic age.

As far as the origin of the quotation goes, Vincent of Lerins was one of the early people to use a line like that one in his Commonitory. But the phrase is used (in a very different sense) today by apologists for Rome, such Bryan Cross, who wrote:

Because the essence of Scripture is not the letter but the meaning, it is not enough to have Scripture as support for one’s doctrine, since “all heretics quote Scripture.”

But this statement presupposes that the letter of Scripture does not convey the meaning of Scripture. Otherwise, it should be sufficient to have the letter of Scripture as support, if the letter and the meaning are harmonious and the letter of Scripture is not ambiguous.

Bryan does not plainly state that he thinks Scripture is ambiguous, but David DeJong in the comment box at Called to (Roman) Communion express the matter straight:

As soon as you recognize that Scripture is ambiguous and that there is not going to be interpretive agreement on every issue (e.g. baptism) and that sincere Christians can sincerely disagree, then you need to account for that in your construal of “essentials.”

It is an old error, one Irenaeus identified with the Gnostics in his "Against Heresies," as we've previously seen (link).

-TurretinFan

R. Scott Clark Answers the Bogus Charge that Calvin was a Sodomite

Having read a letter by John Calvin about his wife, I had no doubts that the bogus charges circulating on the Internet were bogus.  Still, it was nice of R. Scott Clark to debunk them (link to debunking).  I'd say, "debunk them once and for all," but clearly these charges have been debunked for hundreds of years.

-TurretinFan

"The Real Catholics" - R. Scott Clark and Perkins

R. Scott Clark has posted a series (so far two, I'm not sure if more are in the works) drawn from the works of William Perkins (1558–1602) discussing what constitutes true Catholicity. (part 1)(part 2)

In general, both Clark's and Perkins' comments are excellent. Clark notes, "Vatican II changed none of the doctrines against which the Reformation reacted." I would caveat that with "almost none" or "none of the major." Of course, on these points, a "conservative" Roman Catholic might argue that the points of change were never doctrinal issues, despite the fact that things like the use of Latin to the exclusion of the common tongue, forced celibacy of deacons, and rigid rules for orders were defended by Rome's advocates on doctrinal grounds.

And Rome has worsened her doctrines in several ways, in addition to what Clark mentions, Rome has subsequently made the Bodily Assumption and Papal infallibility dogma. Moreover, the exclusivity of Rome has certainly be downplayed to the point where inclusivism is rampant throughout the Roman hierarchy.

Clark states: "Perkins was concerned about a false ecumenism then and we have just as much right to be concerned about it now." Just as much, and perhaps even more. Rome is approaching ecumenism more winsomely today than she did back when she was having the Reformers imprisoned and burnt at the stake.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: Part 3 is up (link).

Response to R. Scott Clark's "Parody or Serious Proposal" Post

R. Scott Clark (of whom I'm fond and whose blog I was very glad to see recently restored to life) asked for clarification regarding Larry Ball's statement: "Historically, the Church has defined the parameters of the civil magistrate and guaranteed its right to redistribute income."  I don't pretend to speak for Mr. Ball, but I assume that he means simply, the churches following Scripture have held that the government may tax (cf. Deuteronomy 17:14-20) and that the government has discretion regarding how that tax is used, under a "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25; and cf. Romans 13) principle.

Prof. Clark wrote: "I’m also wondering where in history the church “defined the parameters of the civil magistrate….” There wasn’t much of that going on in the first 5 centuries and there hasn’t been much of it happening since the 16th century."

I think Prof. Clark is reading "defined" as "dictated."  The churches ought to follow Scripture in defining their teachings regarding the civil magistrate.  Nevertheless, the churches have rarely been in a position to dictate to the civil magistrate.  Again, I don't speak for Mr. Ball, but I assume he meant what he wrote.

-TurretinFan

Response to "Why One Should Read Before Writing" by R. Scott Clark

R. Scott Clark kindly responded to my previous post (link) with a post of his own (link). I write to correct a few errors in his post.

1. My State of Mind as to Understanding

After a brief tangent about my pseudonymity, Prof. Clark characterizes my comments as being that I didn't "understand how [Prof. Clark] could have raised questions about possible plans by federal officials to force teachers/schools to monitor Facebook for “bullying.”" That characterization is not correct. I understand how he could raise questions about such plans.

2. My Recognition of the Status of Prof. Clark's Blog

While Prof. Clark leads with this:

First, since rotting fish stink, let’s clear away the red herrings from this discussion.

1. The Heidelblog is not the church. It’s a personal blog devoted to Recovering the Reformed Confession (theology, piety, and practice). I discuss things here that, as a minister, I would not discuss from the pulpit.

I myself had written this in the original article:

I think most of the Escondido folks would say it is ok for a minister to comment on political things on his personal blog. Perhaps some would not, but I think most are ok with that - as long as he doesn't use the pulpit for those political comments.

But imagine if Prof. Clark had raised the same point from the pulpit. I think that some of the Escondido folk would have a problem with that, in that it would seem to involve the church getting involved in political matters.

It's hard to say whether Prof. Clark missed this important caveat. His response does not reflect that he saw it.

3. Quotations Seemingly Attributed to Me

Prof. Clark provides a number of items in quotation marks. For example, Prof. Clark wrote:

3. If we’re going to discuss this like gentleman and ladies it would go some distance toward restoring civility to this conversation if the critics would not use Jim Dennison’s grossly misleading nomenclature, “The Escondido Hermeneutic.” This phrase begs the question (i.e., it assumes what it has yet to prove, that there is some distinctive, unique biblical hermeneutic being practiced at Westminster Seminary California). This claim is demonstrably false.

Yet I did not use such a term. I used "Escondido position" and "Escondido folks," but not "Escondido Hermeneutic."

Likewise, Prof. Clark wrote:

5. There is no such thing as “the two-kingdoms view.” Distinguishing between two kingdoms is nothing more than applying Calvin’s categorical distinction to contemporary questions. Different folks will do it differently.

Yet I didn't write "the two-kingdoms view." I wrote "the Escondido position on the two kingdoms" and "as extreme a view of the two kingdoms as Darryl Hart or others who are associated with Westminster West."

I acknowledge, of course, that Prof. Clark uses quotation marks in a variety of ways in his post.

4. What I Said/Suggested About The Escondido View of the Two Kingdoms

Prof. Clark wrote:

It seems to me a significant misunderstanding of a two-kingdoms analysis to say suggest [sic] that one who distinguishes between Christ’s general, sovereign providence over all things and his saving work through the visible church may think about or comment on only one sphere.

Yet I did not write or suggest such a thing. Quite the contrary -- as noted above -- I indicated that I believed that those holding the Escondido position on this subject not only would say that people can think about the other sphere but also would say that they could comment on it on their blogs.

6. Reformed Theologians Holding to Perpetual Virginity and Geocentrism

Prof. Clark wrote:

The 16th and 17th-century Reformed theologians held several views that most of us would not want to hold today (e.g., theocracy, perpetual virginity of the BVM, geocentrism).

This comment is true but a little misleading. While Reformed theologians did express opinions about the latter two subjects, they didn't place those topics in their confessions (at least not any of the confessions of which I'm aware). On the other hand "theocracy" (broadly understood to mean a system of government in which the first table is enforced to some degree or other) they did put in their confessions.

Moreover, we reject the perpetual virginity position on the strength of the Scriptural testimony, confirmed by a more thorough examination of the historical testimony. Even though I suppose few Reformed Theologians today would argue for geocentrism, few would think it important to argue about it. It's not simply a matter of wanting to.

Finally, of course, the standard of what "most of us" "want" is not the way we should conduct ourselves.

Prof. Clark goes on to state:

We’re not bound to the mistakes of the past but to the degree the tradition helps us to understand what we confess, we should learn from them. The distinction between the two kingdoms is one of those valuable resources we need to recover but before folk start commenting on these questions they do need to do some basic reading.

It's true that we're not bound to the mistakes of the past, but the use of the Reformed theologians is not just to help us to understand what we confess - the fact that they held to things should be something that helps to persuade us as a fallible guide.

Moreover, the "distinction between the two kingdoms" was something that they held and held consistently with what Prof. Clark refers to as "theocracy." It's remarkable to see Calvin cluelessly quoted on the issue of two kingdoms, as though he would have supported the Escondido position. In point of fact, Clark in this very post quoted Calvin thus:

Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man (duplex esse in homine regimen): one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the “spiritual” and the “temporal” jurisdiction (not improper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life—not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority (Institutes 3.19.15.

So why didn't he quote Calvin's consistent comments here:

This consideration ought to be constantly present to the minds of magistrates since it is fitted to furnish a strong stimulus to the discharge of duty, and also afford singular consolation, smoothing the difficulties of their office, which are certainly numerous and weighty. What zeal for integrity, prudence, meekness, continence, and innocence ought to sway those who know that they have been appointed ministers of the divine justice! How will they dare to admit iniquity to their tribunal, when they are told that it is the throne of the living God? How will they venture to pronounce an unjust sentence with that mouth which they understand to be an ordained organ of divine truth? With what conscience will they subscribe impious decrees with that hand which they know has been appointed to write the acts of God? In a word, if they remember that they are the vicegerents of God, it behaves them to watch with all care, diligences and industry, that they may in themselves exhibit a kind of image of the Divine Providence, guardianship, goodness, benevolence, and justice. And let them constantly keep the additional thought in view, that if a curse is pronounced on him that "does the work of the Lord deceitfully" a much heavier curse must lie on him who deals deceitfully in a righteous calling. Therefore, when Moses and Jehoshaphat would urge their judges to the discharge of duty, they had nothing by which they could more powerfully stimulate their minds than the consideration to which we have already referred, - "Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgement. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons nor taking of gifts," (2 Chron. 19: 6, 7, compared with Deut. 1: 16, &c.) And in another passage it is said, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods," (Psalm 82: 1; Isaiah 3: 14,) that they may be animated to duty when they hear that they are the ambassadors of God, to whom they must one day render an account of the province committed to them. This admonition ought justly to have the greatest effect upon them; for if they sin in any respect, not only is injury done to the men whom they wickedly torment, but they also insult God himself, whose sacred tribunals they pollute. On the other hand, they have an admirable source of comfort when they reflect that they are not engaged in profane occupations, unbefitting a servant of God, but in a most sacred office, inasmuch as they are the ambassadors of God (Institutes 4.20.6.)

Is it simply because Prof. Clark doesn't confess that? Perhaps so, yet it is strange for him to quote Calvin so selectively while suggesting that some of his readers haven't done basic reading on the subject. If his readers haven't done basic reading, he should be more careful to provide them with a complete picture.

7. What Does VanDrunen's Book Suggest?

Prof. Clark wrote:

4. I say “demonstrably” because anyone who has bothered to read David VanDrunen’s book (see above) on the question of the history of the two-kingdoms ethic could see that there’s nothing novel about this way of analyzing the relations between church and civil life or between Christ and culture more broadly.

I'm not sure whether there's nothing novel in what Kline did with Vos' groundwork, but we don't really need to go there. Certainly the Escondido view of the two kingdoms is in fundamental disagreement with Calvin's Institutes (4:20), the Westminster Confession of Faith (23:3), Belgic Confession (Art. 36), 39 Articles (Art. 37), and the Second Helvetic Confession (Ch. 30). This is not something like geocentrism, but is rather something that the Reformed creeds generally taught.

8. What's So Extreme?

Prof. Clark wrote:

I have no idea what TF means when he says “extreme.” It seems like more question begging. It’s true that VanDrunen and others are seeking to apply the two-kingdoms distinction in a post-theocratic setting but it’s hard to see how that’s radical unless one wants to go back to a pre-1789 status. In such a case, who is the radical here, those seeking to work within the status quo or those seeking a theocracy?

At least here Prof. Clark acknowledged that he had no idea what I meant. He then went on to suggest that the comment was question-begging, but at least he started from acknowledging that he did not know.

I provided some clue as to what I meant by extreme: "as extreme a view of the two kingdoms as Darryl Hart or others who are associated with Westminster West" (emphasis added). Darryl Hart (author of Secular Faith) has indicated that he does not believe that the Bible norms the civil magistrate. He specifically wrote:

If the Bible reveals a set of standards that are required of the government, and if Christians believe the Bible, then they have an obligation to make sure that their state follows the Bible.

...

I don’t understand how the Bible functions as the norm for both civil society and the church and yet you can have women barred from office in the latter but not the former. Is not the state bound to conform to biblical norms? f not, why not. Just because the state applies biblical law with the sword, doesn’t mean that the law is not in effect. Remember John Knox? On biblical grounds he was not real pleased with queens running affairs in England or Scotland. Ever heard of the Baylys who regularly claim, on biblical grounds, that women should not hold public office?

In which case, you have your own fancy footwork for separating the norms of the church and the state but it is riddled with a major inconsistency — namely, that the Bible is the norm for the state but it is not really the norm for the state, or only the norm on the matters on which you say it counts. Please tell me how I too may become pope.

...

if the Bible requires rule by elders, why doesn’t the state have elders? You simply keep peeling off another layer of the onion.

The reason why this is important is because 2k is constantly criticized for not advocating biblical morality or biblical norms in public. Well, now you, who are not 2k, tell me that it is okay for the state not to be ruled by elders. But that means that the state doesn’t have to follow Scripture. So it’s okay if you say the state doesn’t have to follow the Bible, but not if I do it. Huh?

...

But again, if you think the Bible is the norm for the state on murder, why isn’t the Bible the norm for the state on worship (i.e. religious freedom or lack thereof), or on which sex gets to rule. I am baffled at a hermeneutic that allows you to pick and choose from Scripture which norms apply to the state, unless, of course, that hermeneutic is convenience.

(source - comment box here)

I consider that extreme or radical in at least two ways. The first way is that it takes the principle of the two kingdoms and extends it too far. There is a difference between church and state, but Hart's approach takes that difference and extends it to an extreme. The second way is that it is outside the bounds of even the revised Westminster standards. The denial that the Bible norms the civil magistrate logically involves a denial that the Scriptures teach what the revised Westminster standards say are the duties of the magistrate.

9. Missing the Point

The point of my post was two-fold: (1) to point out to my reader (who had the question) the easy resolution of the matter; and (2) to highlight the fact that on the other hand such material would seemingly be unwelcome in the pulpit. I think that Prof. Clark actually accepted these. His comment, "I discuss things here that, as a minister, I would not discuss from the pulpit," suggests he agrees (violently) with my comment: "I think most are ok with that - as long as he doesn't use the pulpit for those political comments."

There was also an additional point or two lurking in the shadows. Is the Escondido position that the Bible teaches that the Civil Magistrate ought to give people religious liberty or not? If so, it looks like (according to that position) the Bible norms the Civil Magistrate at least that far. Moreover, if the Bible teaches it, it is hard to see why it would not be proper subject matter for the pulpit. Or is it the Escondido position that the Bible does not teach that the Civil Magistrate ought to give people religious liberty, but that the light of nature does teach it?

10. Unanswered Questions

And it seems, after reading Prof. Clark's reply, that he has left the important questions of the original article unanswered. Those questions were these:

This, however, would create an odd tension. Why? Because the Westminster Standards (in the American revision) as well as the Belgic Confession (in the American Revision) call for the civil magistrate to protect God's church. Yet, the duties of the civil magistrate are always a political matter.

So, can the church speak to political issues or not? Or is there an exception for certain political matters and not others? If there are exceptions, it starts to look like the prohibition on political speech by the church is ad hoc. And if the church can speak to political issues, then why are the Escondido folks so upset when people like the Bayly brothers preach sermons on highly politicized topics like abortion?

-TurretinFan

P.S. If Prof. Clark should desire to hold me accountable to the appropriate elders for my words, I'm more than happy to provide him with their names and contact information - I believe I've already previously offered to give him my name, so long as he keeps it confidential.

A Sensible Comment Policy

R. Scott Clark has decided to institute a sensible new comment policy (no comments allowed). I am sure that some people are disappointed that they won't be able to comment on his blog, but he will save oodles of time moderating comments. The only other comments policy that makes sense (for a popular blog, like his) is to be extremely liberal, and permit comments from almost anyone.

R. Scott Clark on the Second Commandment

R. Scott Clark has extensive notes on the Heidelberg catechism, including notes on the questions related to the second commandment (link to notes).

The following is just a portion of his notes on the second commandment, since I'm reluctant to do a bulk quotation from his outline:

2. Worshiping the Right God Rightly

1. God's Attributes

1. Communicable

2. Incommunicable

2. Representations v. Reality

1. Gregory I: "Books for the people"

2. Second Helvetic Confession (1561/66) Art. 4.3. The Scriptures of the Laity. Furthermore, wherever we turn our eyes, we see the living and true creatures of God which, if they be observed, as is proper, make a much more vivid impression on the beholders than all the images or vain, motionless, feeble and dead pictures made by men, of which the prophet truly said: "They have eyes, but do not see" (Ps. 115:5). Lactantius. Therefore we approved the judgment of Lactantius, an ancient writer, who says: "Undoubtedly no religion exists where there is an image."

3. Sec. Helv. 4.4 We also assert that the blessed bishop Epiphanius did right when, finding on the doors of a church a veil on which was painted a picture supposedly of Christ or some saint, he ripped it down and took it away, because to see a picture of a man hanging in the Church of Christ was contrary to the authority of Scripture....

4. The purposes of pictures

1. Worship/Inspiration (cult)

2. Instruction (culture)

5. Iconodules v. Iconoclasts (8th-9th centuries)

1. Icon worshipers (Nestorians)

2. Icons and the person of Christ

6. The Reformed Rejection of Images

1. The Creator/creature distinction

1. Creatures may be imaged, but not worshiped

2. The Creator may never be imaged.

3. Second Helvetic Confession (1561/66) Art. 4.2 Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come "to abolish the law and the prophets" (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (2 Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (2 Cor. 3:16). But "what agreement has the temple of God with idols?" (2 Cor. 6:16). Images of Saints. And since the blessed spirits and saints in heaven, while they lived here on earth, rejected all worship of themselves (Acts 3:12f.; 14:11ff.; Rev. 14:7; 22:9) and condemned images, shall anyone find it likely that the heavenly saints and angels are pleased with their own images before which men kneel, uncover their heads, and bestow other honors? But in fact in order to instruct men in religion and to remind them of divine things and of their salvation, the Lord commanded the preaching of the Gospel (Mark 16:15)--not to paint and to teach the laity by means of pictures. Moreover, he instituted sacraments, but nowhere did he set up images.

2. Pictures and the Doctrine of Christ

1. Two Natures

2. One Person

3. The incarnation

1. A cause for worship

2. Not a license for icons

3. Denial of pictures is no more denial of humanity

7. Word Signs v. Picture Signs

1. Picture signs necessarily distort in ways word signs do not

2. No picture of the 2nd person is ever accurate

3. Every image of the second person is necessarily the product of the human imagination

4. Jesus and the Apostles left us the Word not pictures

5. Pictures (and films) are theology of glory, word is theology of the cross (1 Cor 1-3; Romans 10; 1 Peter 1.8)

3. The Word at Sinai

1. The same Word who spoke at Sinai became incarnate

2. The Son prohibits images

3. The Word Incarnate

4. Word and Sacraments: God's Pictures for Us

-TurretinFan

R. Scott Clark Responds to Molinism

I am glad to report that R. Scott Clark provided a fairly concise response to Molinism on his blog (link to response). Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

UPDATE/ADDENDUM:

RSC is getting some heat for characterizing MK this way:

According to MK, God knows all the contingencies which could be actualized in the world by persons with free will but he doesn’t know which one will be actualized in the world because he has determined to allow humans to exercise their free will to choose these contingencies.

I understand the basis for the criticism. The criticism is that now, at the present time, Molinism (notice that I say “Molinism” not “middle knowledge”) does claim that God knows what world the free agents will choose. Unless I’ve missed RSC’s point, the criticism misses the mark.

Middle Knowledge isn’t relevant at the present time. Middle Knowledge is only relevant prior to God’s decree, and prior to God’s decree God does not know which possible world his free creatures *will* actualize, though God does know (within the framework of Molinism) what worlds the free creatures *would* contingently actualize under various imagined (by God) conditions.

Now, I agree with RSC that he could have been more precise – and furthermore I’ve seen that RSC has conceded that WLC’s definition of Molinism is a reasonable one. However, if folks are going to police him for precision, they need to be precise themselves.

More to the point, the substance of the criticism of Molinism remains untouched. Notwithstanding a little imprecision (and the fact that not enough Turretin and too much Voetius were used :grin:), I thought the post was a concise capsule of the issues.

-TurretinFan

Comments Policy Silliness

I noticed that there seems to be some well-intentioned silliness in R. Scott Clark's new blog commenting policy (link to his discussion of his policy). The new policy requires those commenting to provide their real names, so as to take responsibility for their comments.

Before I get to the silliness, let me acknowledge that there are small number of vocal folks who abuse what they perceive to be the web's anonymity. That is to say, there are a number of folks who post anonymously to harass, annoy, inflame, or otherwise act as trolls. This is irritating and it leads to blog-owners requiring some additional barriers to commenting to deter these trolls.

Nevertheless, imposing a policy that says those commenting must provide their real names fails to make people responsible for their comments. First, the current policy only requires that a part of the person's name be provided. There's no requirement that the whole name be provided. Unless someone has a rather unusual (for the blogosphere) first name (yes, Thabiti, I'm thinking of you) then even using a real name wouldn't help. Same, though perhaps a little less so, for family names. Even when we combine first and last names, there are still many common combinations. Adding a middle initial or perhaps a full middle name would be helpful in further reducing the number of possible people a particular might refer to.

Such measures, however, fail to provide full responsibility for two reasons. First, as the tax folks know, there are plenty of cases of people with identical names. Second, even if your social security number of passport number were provided (we have to keep the blogosphere international, after all), simply identifying a person's name doesn't tell you much that permits you to hold that person responsible. We would also need an address, some sort of physical description (several people can live at the same address), and for church discipline purposes, membership information.

Furthermore, in the U.S. and South Africa, as well as some other places, gun ownership is rather common. Thus, if we really want to keep folks who comment on blogs responsible, we need some ability to get to them. Thus, they would need to be required to post some sort of bond with a neutral third party (such as a bank), that the blog owner could seize if the blog commenter violated the bounds of proper behaviour - at least as an initial form of responsibility. Hostage giving by blog commenters would be another way: who is going to write mindnumbing screeds in your comment boxes if you have their firstborn child?

And, of course, not only is the mechanism proposed by my dear brother in Christ, R. Scott Clark, not enough to ensure responsibility, it is a way that's easily foiled. I would not be shocked if Clark started to see a lot of the John Smiths and Jane Does of the Internet start commenting (in surprising volume) on his blog.

In fact, the only people who Clark's policy will adversely affect are those morally upright folks who don't want to reveal their real names. They are the only ones who will not intentionally violate Clark's policy (some may unintentionally violate it, based on not carefully reading the policy, or not noticing that the policy exists), while the unscrupulous will easily beat his safeguard.

When pseudonymous comments are outlawed, only outlaws will comment pseudonymously.

Regeneration - Baptism - Circumcision

In a recent post responding to some comments from R. Scott Clark, Dr. White states:

In the same way, once we see that fulfillment of circumcision in the New Covenant is regeneration, not baptism, the consistency of the biblical revelation is seen.

(source)

I have heard Dr. White make this claim repeatedly, but it seems odd to me for two reasons:

1) The claim from his Presbyterian brethren is not that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, but that it is the replacement. The unbloody sign of baptism replaces the bloody sign of circumcision (just as the unbloody Lord's Supper replaces the bloody Passover).

2) Regeneration is the the thing symbolized by both Circumcision and Baptism. I guess one could call it the "fulfillment" of the sign, but it is properly speaking the antitype of which both circumcision and baptism are the type. Both the type and the antitype coexisted in the Old Testament, and there was an incomplete overlap then as now. For example, Abraham believed (demonstrating regeneration) before he was circumcised, whereas we can question whether Ishmael ever believed - yet he was circumcised.

So, I find Dr. White's claim puzzling. It doesn't make sense to me to say that "fulfillment of circumcision in the New Covenant is regeneration" because on the one hand it would be more appropriate to say "fulfillment of circumcision in the Old Covenant was regeneration" or on the other hand "fulfillment of baptism in the New Covenant is regeneration."

-TurretinFan

Religious Pluralism and the Christian Magistrate

I like R. Scott Clark. He's a good guy, and smart guy. I don't know why he is so fond of what appears to be a practically Lutheran version of Two Kingdoms. It comes across pretty clearly in this post of his today (link to his post).

RSC writes:

If the real “problem” for the critics is religious pluralism then their real agenda would seem to be more profound than they have hitherto admitted: one-church theocracy (i.e. state advocacy of one church and enforcement of the first three commandments, as numbered by the Reformed churches).

I'm not sure what RSC has precisely in mind (or why he stops at 3). I think, though, that what a lot of folks in the more traditional Reformed ranks think would be proper would be a civil magistrate that does not treat anti-christian religions with equal dignity to the Christian faith. Yes, that's not very pluralistic. That doesn't mean that "king" (or whatever mode the magistrate might take) would have to permit only a single denomination, but it does mean that you wouldn't be letting folks set up mosques in your land, to take a "for instance."

It doesn't mean that the king could force anyone to love God, but it does mean that he could use the FCC (to select the American example) to stop folks from breaking the 3rd commandment by profaning Jesus' name on the airwaves. It does mean that religious idols could be destroyed throughout the land to help folks abide by the second commandment. And, yes, it means that the king might want to consider whether the general equity of "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is pretty much to shut down palm readers, fortune tellers, and so forth in keeping with the first commandment.

I don't know why any of this should shock RSC. Yet I get the distinct feeling that it does shock him - perhaps because he associates that kind of zeal not with Joshua or Gideon but with certain Muslims. Perhaps it is because he wouldn't like to be under a non-pluralistic non-Christian regime. But those aren't logical or Scriptural reasons for having a negative reaction to the rejection of religious pluralism.

Would R. Scott Clark Respond to the Enthusiast-Calvinist Accusation?

I'd love to see R. Scott Clark or one of the other pre-eminent "Truly Reformed" folks from Westminster West respond to this Lutheran charge that Calvin was an "Enthusiast[]" who "separat[ed] the Holy Spirit from the Word." (link)

For myself, I'd point out that it is mistaken to blame Calvin (or Calvinism) for the errors of Enthusiasm (emphasizing emotional experience, especially in an unguided way, as allegedly being the leading of the Holy Spirit), Pietism (focus on piety without regard for orthodoxy), or the Church Growth Movements (a movement that focuses primarily on expanding the rolls, often at the expense of preaching repentance from sin).

Enthusiasm and Pietism have been consistently rejected by Calvinists over the years, and while the Church Growth Movement may have taken hold in some Presbyterian churches, it is not fairly blamed on Calvinism or Reformed theology more generally. These sort of accusations drive me to view Confessional (LBCF 1689) Reformed Baptists as closer brethren to Presbyterians than Confessional Lutherans are (which, of course, is not to deny that confessional Lutherans are our Christian brethren). My understanding, though, is that R. Scott Clark and some others at Westminster West see things differently, and would actually view Lutherans as closer to Presbyterians.

-TurretinFan

Calvin on the "Free Offer"?

I found R. Scott Clark's very brief post (link) puzzling. He asserts, "Yes, that’s right, Calvin said “offer” (not demand) as in “free” or “well-meant” offer of the gospel." That's a rather odd way of putting it.

a) Calvin obviously didn't use English.

b) Calvin did use the Latin cognate word to our English word "offer."

c) In this place, however, Calvin used the word "offer" as a verb, not a noun - much as it is used in WSC Answer to Question 31 or WCF VII:III (7:3).

d) It's not clear whether RSC is aware of the controversy that exists over the use of the expression "well-meant offer" as contrasted to the Reformed doctrine of the freely offered gospel. If so, it is mischievous of RSC to suggest that Calvin using the word "offer" is Calvin taking a position on one side or the other of that controversy.

e) The fact that Calvin doesn't (in the particular instance to which RSC points) use the word "demand" is inconsequential. Calvin naturally agrees with Paul who states that God "commandeth" all men everywhere to believe (Acts 17:30). Thus, even though we gospel preachers offer salvation to the masses, we do not necessarily refrain from preaching that it is men's duty to repent of their sins and appropriate Christ's sacrifice by faith.

I suspect that RSC just intended to tweak the nose of one or more of his regular readers who have a scruple against using the term "offer" because of its association (via the afore-mentioned controversy) with liberal tendencies towards synergism. I wish he wouldn't do that.

-TurretinFan

R. Scott Clark on Theonomy and the Reformed Confessions

R. Scott Clark has a piece that, from its absurd opening, I at first thought was intended as a humorous article (link).

RSC writes, "One of the more interesting ways in which theonomy is contra confessional is its Barthian-like rejection of the classic Reformed doctrine of natural law and implicitly it’s skepticism regarding natural revelation."

I. The Evidence
Let's explore this claim, using the WCF as approved by the PCA. Nature as a revelatory source is mentioned exactly five times in the WCF.

1) I:1

1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manner, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.

2) I:6

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

3) XX:4

And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account.

4) XXI:1

The light of nature sheweth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

5) XXI:7

As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

II. The Analysis
1) Of the five instances, all are fully acceptable to "theonomists," at least in the broad sense of the term "theonomist" (which itself is a problem with RSC's post).
2) Of the five instances, three (numbers (1), (4), and (5)) are fully supportive of the theonomist position that (where it speaks) Scripture is more clear than nature.
3) Of the remaining two instances:
i) The first (number (2)) assigns to the "light of nature" a role in determining the circumstances of worship. If this contradicts theonomy, then it also (and even more clearly - since the section is on the law of worship, not of nations and societies) contradicts the Regulative Principle of Worship. But, however, such a conclusion is absurd. Therefore, the premise that this contradicts theonomy is false. In fact, a better interpretation is to suggest that "light of nature" in this section means that we use "common sense" to govern the circumstances of worship.
ii) The second (number (3)) is negative: it prohibits people from using the pretense of Christian liberty to publish opinions that are contrary to the light of nature. If the meaning of the "light of nature" is roughly the same here as in the other sections, i.e. essentially "common sense," then there is nothing unacceptable to the theonomist here either. Furthermore, this does not relate specifically to the law of nations (to civil law), but to the moral law.

***

A second claim by RSC: "For the divines, as for Calvin, civil government is one thing, salvation is another. Theonomists confuse these two things far too often." This sounds absurd. RSC unfortunately fails to provide any examples to substantiate his over-the-top claim.

***

A third claim by RSC: "Unlike our theonomists, the divines believed that there is a natural law, that it can be and is known, that it contains specific precepts that are revealed with sufficiently clarity to be applied, even by the unregenerate, to specific instances." If, for the sake of the argument, we grant this assertion, that kind of claim is not embodied in the confessions. Instead, quite the opposite. The Confession clearly contrasts the general (it even uses the term "in general" in instance 5 above), vague light of nature with the clear light of Scripture.

Given that the confession appears to contradict RSC's claim that "natural law ... contains specific precepts that are revealed with sufficient clarity to be applied ... to specific instances," and given that the light of nature itself reveals that nature's light provides general principles rather than specific precepts, we can properly reject this RSC's claim.

Furthermore, even if it were not the case that the confession outright contradicts RSC's claim and even if the light of nature did not undermine RSC's "specific precept" assertion, still RSC's indictment would not address theonomy. Why? Because theonomy simply maintains the Reformation hermeneutic that the less clear should be interpreted by the more clear. Scripture is more clear than nature, as it itself teaches and the confession (following Scripture) clearly indicates.

Therefore, I would respectfully call on RSC to revise his posting against "theonomists," or perhaps come up with a new title for those who
a) confuse civil government and salvation (unlike any "theonomists" I know);
b) refuse to accord the light of nature a revelatory role (unlike any "theonomists" I know); or
c) argue that the light of nature is a non-existent thing (unlike any "theonomists" I know).

Or perhaps RSC meant his post as a joke, in which case the pie is on my face for getting at first and then falling for his very out of season April Fools' Joke.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: From his comment box, RSC adds this sentiment: "I don’t write these posts to convince the invincible theonomists but to provide help to those who know that theonomy is wrong but who are unaware of the alternative offered by an adaptation of the historic Reformed theory of natural law." That's an interesting thought, don't you think?