Bellisario Swings and Misses

Matthew Bellisario has a new post up (link to post). It purports to respond to an earlier post I provided (link to my post).

The title of the post is "Another "Expert" on Catholicism Misrepresents Church Teaching." The person he's referring to as "Expert" is me. I'm flattered! No, I jest. I'm not really flattered, because those little quotation marks are being used by Bellisario to indicate sarcasm.

But sarcasm is just the opening. The first sentence claims I'm someone "often misrepresents Catholic teaching" (no evidence provided). The second sentence calls my post my "latest rant."

You might think he'd met his quota of negative assertions with those two sentences and the title, but you'd be wrong. He's just getting started. In the third sentence, Bellisario says both that my argument "is based on pure fallacy" and then questions whether you can call my article an argument.

That third sentence is a set-up for the fourth sentence where Bellisario states: "Lets [sic] take a quick look at how this pretended "Reformer" misrepresents the Catholic Church here regarding infallibility." This sentence combines the sarcasm quotation marks, with the negative adjective "pretended," and a further negative assertion that I misrepresent "the Catholic Church" - a three-for-one special!

That concludes his opening paragraph. One might expect that he's about to unleash some demonstration of how I misrepresent his church.

But his very next sentence acknowledges that I quoted two documents from Cardinal Ratzinger from when he was prefect of the CDF and that I characterized the situation as "pretty clear." Bellisario's next sentence, remarkably, agrees that it is pretty clear!

Bellisario writes:

Yes its [sic] pretty clear, and dissent has no bearing on whether it is infallible or not. In fact, the reason why they were restating the Ordinary infallible teaching is because idiots in the Church were not following it.

At least it is nice to know that Bellisario's negative words are not reserved for us pretended reformers! And nothing that Bellisario has said here actually disagrees with what I wrote - in fact the one place it interacts, it explicitly agrees with me!

Bellisario then provides another block quote from and responds:

The document itself does not have to be "infallible" since the Church has long taught the doctrine as being infallible. In order for a doctrine to be considered infallible it does not have to be proclaimed formally by the Pope in any one given document. So a Catholic who understands how the Church defines doctrine does not care if the document itself is infallible, it merely becomes part of the same Ordinary and Universal Magisterial teaching that has always taught it as being infallible.

And, of course, nothing of what Bellisario has said disagrees with what I wrote. In theory, as Bellisario has said, something can be "considered infallible," even though no pope or council has defined it as dogma.

But, of course, the only way that these allegedly infallible teachings are known are through fallible means. In other words, someone could try to do personal research to see whether this teaching is really something that has been promulgated by the universal and ordinary magisterium, or one could rely on the CDF, but both of those techniques are fallible. One relies on private judgment, and one relies on a fallible authority. One could even rely on one's own interpretation of Scripture to conclude that male-only ordination is an infallible teaching. But one could be wrong. Neither one's private judgment nor the CDF has the charism of infallibility in Romanism.

Bellisario then provides another block quotation from me and comments:

No it is not even possible that a future Pope [sic] could change the doctrine, and only someone like Turretin Fan with limited knowledge about the Catholic Church would ever make such a statement like this. It is impossible for a Pope [sic] to come along and change Ordinary Infallible doctrines of the Church. It is not like Protestantism where teachings on contraception can change virtually overnight. The fact that there are dissidents in the Church who are active despite the Church's infallible teaching, again has no bearing on the argument at hand. There have always been dissenters in the Church despite the fact that the doctrine they oppose has been defined infallibly. We see this fact clearly with the heretical theologians who call themselves Catholic, who still do not accept the infallible teaching on Transubstantiation. No one cares, and it has no bearing on the infallibility of the teaching.

Finally, Bellisario says he disagrees with something! But note how he goes about it. First, he states the fact that he thinks he disagrees. Then, he makes a negative comment about me. Neither of these sentences is actually an argument, so we'll pass over them.

Getting to his argument, Bellisario alleges: "It is impossible for a Pope [sic] to come along and change Ordinary Infallible [sic] doctrines of the Church." But here we see the problem - the reason why Bellisario has disagreed: he has not understood what I wrote! I didn't say that it is possible for a pope to come along and change an infallible doctrine. I said it is possible that the pope could come along and define a doctrine that is contrary to what the CDF has claimed is an infallible doctrine. After all, the CDF is fallible. Consequently, the fact that the CDF claims that something is an infallible doctrine doesn't make it an infallible doctrine, just like Bellisario asserting that something is infallible doctrine doesn't make it so.

Bellisario's next sentence is an irrelevant aside on his disturbingly favorite topic of contraception. I'll leave it aside in the interest of time.

Bellisario's next assertion is that "The fact that there are dissidents in the Church who are active despite the Church's infallible teaching, again has no bearing on the argument at hand." Part of the problem, as noted above, is that Bellisario hasn't grasped the argument at hand. Another part of the problem is that "dissidents" are the way that something avoids being universal.

Let's try to help out Bellisario with an example. If we look at the Western church from Augustine to Aquinas, excluding the heretics, one will find that almost everyone acknowledged the universality of original sin, with Christ being the one exception because of his virginal conception. Yet, nevertheless, at some point folks (you could refer to them as "dissidents" or simply as "a vocal minority" if you like) began to allege that Mary was an additional exception.

This is not something that "change[d] virtually overnight." It is something that was very gradual. It took a long time from when Bridget of Sweden and Catherine of Sienna were having conflicting alleged private revelations to when Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

It happens in Romanism - sometimes what was the viewpoint of a tiny minority becomes an allegedly infallible dogma later. That's why appeals to the "ordinary and universal magisterium" are illusory.

Bellisario provides a counter-example regarding theologians who deny transubstantiation. Suffice to say that this counter-example doesn't undermine what I've said. The dogma of Transubstantiation was defined at Trent. It's not something that's defined by the "ordinary and universal magisterium." So, even if Bellisario's characterization of the situation with them is accurate, it's not particularly relevant.

To put it another way: Bellisario has no consistent way to distinguish between a true dissident and a minority voice prior to an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium.

Bellisario concludes his post with the same kind of non-argumentation that characterized his opening:

Ordinarily I would not waste my time with such things, but pointing out this post gives us an example of how little the opposition truly understands about Catholicism. Let the buyer beware before they believe anything they read on Turretin Fan's website that pertains to Catholicism.

After seeing how Bellisario failed to rebut or refute anything that was said, spending his time arguing against a position not expressed in my article, perhaps a different moral emerges: understand what the critic of your church is saying, before you accuse the critic of not understanding your church's teaching, particularly when the critic quotes at length from your church's official documents.

Or you can just slap a lot of negative assertions together and call it a response!

-TurretinFan

Vatican Bank - Money Laundering Investigation

The press is reporting that funds have been seized at the Vatican Bank, aka the Institute for Religious Works (link to article). The chairman of the bank is apparently being investigated with respect to "a series of omissions in financial transactions," and the alleged wrong-doing is that "the Vatican bank had neglected to communicate to financial authorities where the money had come from."

Bryan Cross places the Cart before the Horse, Theologically Speaking

Over at Called to Communion, in the comment box, Bryan Cross wrote:

In the first century, no one needed to confess that Christ is homoousious with the Father. But after the fourth century, to deny the homoousious is to fall into [at least material] heresy.

This is dead wrong and gets things exactly backwards. It has always been heresy to deny the Son's divinity. Arius was a heretic before Nicaea, and the Nicene council simply affirmed (with respect to Arianism) what was always the teaching of the Bible.

The church does not make up orthodoxy. When the church does its job correctly, it merely recognizes the truth that was already once delivered to the saints. There was no new delivery in the fourth century or any of the succeeding centuries.

Of course, Romanists have to put the cart before the horse, because they've added to the gospel. If they tried to claim that it was always heresy to deny the Immaculate Conception, they'd have to treat Augustine, and the Augustinians down through Aquinas as heretics. So, they place the cart before the horse and say that it is only heresy to deny the Immaculate Conception after "the Church" makes that doctrine part of the gospel.

The absurd result is the one that Bryan Cross has illustrated above, where the Son's divinity becomes something that it was ok to deny before 325 A.D.

Amazing - absolutely amazing.

- TurretinFan

Test Case of the Infallible Magisterium: Ordination of Women

Here's the Official Roman Catholic position on the ordination of women:

COVER LETTER TO BISHOPS' CONFERENCE PRESIDENTS

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

November 8, 1995 The publication in May 1994 of the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was followed by a number of problematic and negative statements by certain theologians, organizations of priests and religious, as well as some associations of lay people. These reactions attempted to cast doubt on the definitive character of the letter's teaching on the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood and also questioned whether this teaching belonged to the deposit of the faith. This congregation therefore has judged it necessary to dispel the doubts and reservations that have arisen by issuing a responsum ad dubium, which the Holy Father has approved and ordered to be published (cf. enclosure). In asking you to bring this responsum to the attention of the bishops of your episcopal conference before its official publication, this dicastery is confident that the conference itself, as well as the individual bishops, will do everything possible to ensure its distribution and favorable reception, taking particular care that, above all on the part of theologians, pastors of souls and religious, ambiguous and contrary positions will not again be proposed. The text of the responsum is to remain confidential until the date of its publication in L'Osservatore Romano, which is expected to be the 18th of November. With gratitude for your assistance and with prayerful best wishes I remain, Sincerely Yours in Christ, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS RESPONSUM AD DUBIUM Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith October 28, 1995 Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith. Responsum: In the affirmative. This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith. The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published. Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995. Joseph Card. Ratzinger Prefect Tarcisio Bertone Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli

(source)

It's pretty clear. Ratzinger (then prefect/puppeteer of John Paul II) was alleging that the Roman Catholic Church's position on the ordination of women is an infallible, irreformable teaching, despite the fact that there is presently (or at least certainly was) dissent within the heirarchy as to whether the failure to ordain women is proper.

Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the group formerly known as the Inquisition), and Bertone (Emeritus Archbishop) clearly are teaching this doctrine. Ratzinger is now pope. Furthermore, Ratzinger alleges that John Paul II approved this document. So, it virtually has the approval of two consecutive popes.

But here's the rub.

The document itself is not an exercise of papal infallibility. The document merely alleges that the teaching is something "set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium." But this document itself is not the ordinary and universal Magisterium. This document is fallible.

So it is possible (whether or not it is likely), that some future pope's prefect may decide that Ratzinger erred. The practice of non-ordination of women is just something culturally conditioned and a long-standing discipline ... and hey-presto, this document ceases to have any authoritative weight against the new document.

Worse yet (for the traditionalists), some future pope may infallibly define that both women and men may be properly ordained. If he does, what will be the use of this document!

As many folks know, the women priests movement continues to be active despite the opposition of the current papacy (link to recent example article).

-TurretinFan

Vincent of Lerins on "Development of Doctrine"

Sean Patrick, under the nick Blogahon, wrote:

Unfortunately for Mr. Mathison, the blessed John Henry Newman was not the first to posit doctrine of the development of doctrine.

St. Vincent Lerins wrote on it extensively in the fifth century. ...

Lastly, it is puzzling to always see Protestants kicking the development of doctrine, as if their particular doctrines are explicitly and fully present from the very earliest Christian testimony.

(source)

Now, I don't agree with Vincent (as I explained in much greater detail when rebutting a similar argument for development that tried to utilize Vincent), but what Vincent was arguing for was virtually the exact opposite of development:

Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

You can't really have innovation if you only hold things that were universally held by the ancients. Vincent's rule would rule out:

• Papal Infallibility
• Conciliar Infallibility
• Purgatory
• Indulgences
• The Bodily Assumption of Mary
• The Immaculate Conception of Mary
• ... and so forth.

Vincent's rule would stifle development (in the sense of Newman), because one must find a universal acceptance of the doctrine among the ancients in order to accept a doctrine.

"Protestants" are opposed to the "development of doctrine," in the sense of doctrines emerging without a Biblical basis. We require that all doctrines of the church be supported by Scripture, not merely by widespread acceptance among the ancients.

- TurretinFan

Ergun Caner - Values Voter Summit 2010

Ergun Caner spoke at the Values Voters Summit again this year (see discussion and link to video here).

Here are some interesting comments from Dr. Caner:

(2:29) She [referring to his wife] has trained me, and taught me, and raised me. She taught me "high cotton." So if you can understand what I'm saying it's because of her.

(17:09) I lost my family, I lost my father, I lost my home, I lost my culture, I lost -- you know, you lose what you lose -- and I gained a family known as the body of Christ. (applause) Being disowned is a pittance compared to what takes place around the world.

(19:35) And in a town of 115 people [referring to Wood, NC], where my grandmother found faith in Jesus Christ, where both of my brothers have worshiped, where my youngest brother served as pastor after I did. One little town changed my family. One boy reached my soul. One country gave me the freedom to stand in front of people like you and to beg you not to stop.

It's interesting. Caner's final comment suggests that his grandmother came with him to Wood, NC where he went to serve as a minister. That does not sound like a young man who has lost his family and his home, does it? Yet Caner says he lost his family and his home in the second comment. I think we may generously assume that Caner did not mean to suggest that his wife taught him English, but rather that she taught him Southern-isms.

-TurretinFan

Revised Wesminster Standards vs. R2K

The radical separation of church and state proposed by some folks that I would designate as "R2K" rather than "2K," is contrary to the Westminster Standards. Practically everyone knows that such positions are contrary to the original Westminster Standards (and, of course, to the Standards as modified by the RPCNA testimony), but these positions are also contrary to the standards as amended by the Americans.

Westminster Confession of Faith (American Revisions)

Chapter 23

2. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.

3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

Chapter 31
4. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.

Westminster Larger Catechism
Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate; that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Q. 118. Why is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?
A. The charge of keeping the sabbath is more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors, because they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge; and because they are prone ofttimes to hinder them by employments of their own.

Q. 124. Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
A. By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God's ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.

Q. 129. What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?
A. It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them.

Q. 130. What are the sins of superiors?
A. The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, an inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or favoring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonoring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior.

(these are from the revised Westminster Confession of Faith and the revised Westminster Larger Catechism, as adopted by the OPC)

The Westminster standards, as revised by the Americans, do not have some of the stronger language regarding the civil magistrate's duties, but even the American revisions have language that specifically calls for the civil magistrate to be involved in maintaining piety and justice, protecting the church of the Lord, disapproving and removing false worship, enforcing the sabbath, and providing things necessary for the souls of the populace. Likewise, the Westminster standards permit the churches, as synods, to petition the civil magistrate in extraordinary cases.

That does not mean that the American revisions of the Westminster standards require a reconstructionist view, nor does it mean that the American revisions require the views of 17th century Massachusetts. On the other hand, it does mean that those who are teaching that the civil magistrate is not called to maintain piety in the land, is forbidden to enforce the external provisions of the first table of God's law, or is not required to observe justice, are outside the confessional bounds.

-TurretinFan

Easily Dismissed Propaganda from Hart

Hart has a new post up arguing that 2K is confessional (link to post). He tries to characterize the matter this way: "critics of 2k have repeatedly claimed that two-kingdom theology is outside the bounds of Reformed confessionalism," referring readers to a comment box at Greenbaggins (link to box).

Actually, though, if you look through the comment box, the claims about something being outside of the bounds of Reformed confessionalism are about R2K, not 2K. In fact, some of the comments specifically make it clear that R2K is at issue, not 2K. So, sadly, it turns out that the very framing of the issue by Hart is misleading.

But after framing the matter in terms of the discussion at Greenbaggins, Hart then states:

The argument about the confessional status of 2k can take several forms. One is that 2k is not the position of the original Westminster Confession, or of the other Reformed confessions for that matter. Another is the idea that the Bible calls the magistrate to uphold both tables of the law. And with this duty comes the magistrate’s responsibility to punish blasphemers and idolaters since the first table clearly forbids these sins and since God instructed the Israelites to execute those guilty of such sins.

This characterization is again misleading: The second form is not an argument about confessional status at all. The first form is one way of measuring confessional status, but it is not one that was presented in the comment box. Again, sadly, Hart's characterizations do not honor the truth.

Hart then states:

The problem with this argument is that American Presbyterians revised (see all the revisions here) the original Westminster Confession and churches such as the PCA and the OPC continue to accept the revisions from 1787-1788.

Well, that straw man is soundly defeated to the extent that the right way (or at least, "a right way") to measure Reformed confessionalism is by the American revisions.

Hart then identifies the changes and goes on to characterize the American revisions this way:

Not to be missed is that the revision not only drops entirely the magistrate’s responsibility for suppressing heresy and blasphemy, but it raises the stakes by forbidding laws that would prefer any denomination and insisting that magistrates protect the good names of all people no matter what their religion or their infidelity. It is an amazing change.

It may be amazing. It is a change. It's not a contradiction (as we've already demonstrated).

Hart then goes on to say, in a longwinded fashion, that the RPCNA has (as of 2004, and perhaps before, though he does not say when) removed the same portions of Chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession that the American presbyterians did in the 18th century. Specifically, the RPCNA states that it "rejects" that portion of the chapter (see this pdf).

DGH claims that "This means, for the confessionally and grammatically challenged, that even the logic of national covenant no longer sustains the idea that the magistrate has authority [to do what WCF 23:3 says]." Logic doesn't change, people do.

DGH further claims that: "For the literacy challenged, that means that critics of 2k who insist 2k is outside the bounds of the confession would not even find a home in the RPCNA under the very Blue Banner at least on this point." With whatever respect is due Hart, this claim is pretty vapid. All it means is that the RPCNA does not hold to WCF 23:3, after the colon, and that consequently that portion could not be applied against "2K" or presumably against R2K, in the RPCNA. I don't expect to see a wave of R2K folks heading for the RPCNA, for a variety of reasons - mostly that whole "establishment of religion" thing that is still part of their confession.

But the historical reality is that in the last 20 years, the RPCNA has altered its positions on a variety of things for which it was historically known. I remember when RPCNA ministers had to abstain from alcohol, for example. Are the RPCNA folks radical liberals? Of course not. Have they changed a lot in the last 20 years, definitely.

DGH concludes:

Now some have tried to say that the revisions still assert the magistrate’s duty to suppress blasphemy and heresy. But given what the American divines said and did not say, and given that the Covenanters no longer insist on magisterial responsibility for punishing idolatry, this argument is even less believable than the one about George Washington being an orthodox Protestant.

That's a link back to my post, but that's a claim I never made. I brought this issue to Hart's attention before posting, but we'll have to wait and see whether he posts any sort of retraction.

I cannot figure out whether Hart did not read the post, read the post and did not understand it, or is lying about the post. I'll leave it to Hart to clarify.

What I said there was the revisions do not contradict the original position. They do not state the original position, nor do they deny the original position. The American revisions were a move to broaden the confessional tent. And the American revisions did broaden the confessional tent, in most respects, although the American revisions did narrow the confessional tent with respect to the issue of giving preferences to a particular denomination.

Ah, well. There's a lot more that could be said. Many of Hart's positive statements are absolutely correct. He says lots of true things. For example, Hart writes:

I believe that what Scripture says is true. I believe the true church faithfully ministers the word of God. Those truths are binding on all people. The spiritual and eternal nature of those truth’s claims will not be adjudicated until the judgment day. The temporal and civil aspects of God’s law are deliberated daily by those authorities that God has ordained, and those authorities are legitimate even when they do not follow God’s law or implement it correctly.

That's all good and true. The problem is this, when asked directly whether he affirms the following proposition, "Scripture says things that bind the civil magistrate," Hart indicated that he denies this. He stated, "no, I don’t agree with either of your propositions" to the person who posed this proposition to him.

That position is contrary both to the original standards and to the standards under the American revisions. It is, of course, also contrary to the position held by the RPCNA. That position is a position I view as "R2K" rather than "2K." I may be critical of some forms of 2K, but what is out of bounds is saying that the Scripture does not say things that bind the civil magistrate.

More coming on why R2K can't get along with the Westminster Standards, Lord willing.

-TurretinFan

Dawkins Criticizes Rome and Original Sin

In a recent speech (link), Dawkins has attempted to criticize the Roman Catholic Church.

Dawkins began by pointing out that contrary to the implications of Ratzinger in his recent speech in Edinburgh, Adolph Hitler was more Roman Catholic than Atheist, at least by the standard that is used by Rome when saying how many members her church has (namely those baptized persons who have not renounced their baptism or been excommunicated).

Dawkins then asserted that there is no link between atheism and evil. Of course, there's obviously a connection between atheism and violation of the first table of the law, the relation between men and God. There's also an intuitive link between atheism and the second table, though we expect the correlation to be muted both by the influence of conscience (atheists have consciences too) and the presence of large numbers of members of false religions, as well as hypocrites and the self-deluded (Hitler would fall in at least the latter category, and probably in some sense in both categories), who themselves also have consciences.

Dawkins continues by trying to attack original sin. This was interesting to me, because my friend Dr. White recently debated an atheist on the topic of "is the New Testament evil," in which the atheist's primary argument was about original sin.

After the attack on original sin, Dawkins declares that Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity, identifying children (on account of the sex abuse scandal and making them feel "guilty" in general), "gay people" (one presumes he means sodomites), women (because it won't let them be priests), truth (because he denies the usefulness of a common barrier protection device against AIDS), poor people (because he encourages large, unaffordable families), science (because of opposition to stem cell research), an enemy of the Queen's church (on account of his assertion that Anglican orders are null and void, even while trying to poach Anglican vicars), and education (because of the teaching that "evidence" is less reliable than revelation, faith, tradition, and the pope's own authority).

I'm sure that many of Dawkins' criticisms would be equally or at least similarly applicable to the Reformed churches. Some portions would not be applicable, such as the sex abuse portions, the opposition to the Queen's church, as such, or the portion about denying the truth about the usefulness of barrier protection against infection. Dawkins, however, does not elaborate on the relevant criticisms to much extent, except briefly with respect to original sin.

With respect to original sin, Dawkins' complaints seem to be these:

1) The doctrine of original sin is taught to young children.

This is only a valid objection if the doctrine is false, but the doctrine is true.

2) The doctrine of hell is also taught to them.

The doctrine of hell is also true.

3) The doctrine of original sin is based on an historical Adam, but Romanists now acknowledge that there was no historical Adam.

This criticism is not applicable to us, the Reformed, who affirm that Adam was an historical person. Additionally, there are conservative RCs who continue to affirm that Adam was an historical person.

4) The doctrine of original sin is a "disgusting theory."

This is not really an argument, just a statement of preference (and one that, in the mouth of an atheist, is wholly consistent with the doctrine).

5) The doctrine of original sin leads people to presume that it is godlessness that led Hitler to do what he did.

Perhaps it does lead to that. If it does, then this is only an objection insofar as the doctrine of original sin is false, but the doctrine of original sin is true.

6) The doctrine of original sin indicates that "we are all monsters unless redeemed by Jesus."

Actually, the doctrine of original sin does not entail rejecting the idea that depraved men still have consciences. Thus, while there is a sense in which they are "monsters," they do not all behave monstrously.

7) The doctrine of original sin is a "revolting, depraved, inhuman theory"

This is just a stronger statement of item (4), addressed above.

As for the remainder of Dawkins' complains, we are happy to acknowledge that Divine revelation is more reliable than extrapolations based on the assumptions of contemporary scientists. We affirm the high value of children, and consequently consider those with large families wealthy even if they lack significant financial assets. Our affirmation of the high value of children also motivates our concern about attempts by science to destroy the very young in an attempt to extend the lives of the old. We note that the reason for male leadership is God's design and gifts of leadership to him, the woman being the weaker vessel. We condemn fornication among all those who commit it. Finally, returning again to children, our care for them also motivates to be concerned for their souls, even from a young age.

On these grounds, while we may join with Dawkins in recognizing that the pope is evil, we cannot endorse the significant misguided portions of his criticism.

-TurretinFan

R2K Tries to Biblically Defend Itself

Give Darryl G. Hart some credit: he's attempted to make a Biblical case. Here's his attempted Biblical case:

[We] have explicit repudiation of the kingdom of grace using arms when Jesus said in John 20: 36 “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Jesus’ kingdom was not of this world even among the Israelites who were seeking a heavenly city. But the Israelites did use the sword. Now Jesus says that he will not use the sword in connection with his kingdom. The NT does not say that we will change on giving the sign of the covenant to babies. So there is assertion as opposed to silence in the NT regarding the sword in the prosecution of Christ’s kingdom.

(source)

Jesus' kingdom is not of this world - that means that Jesus' kingdom is a spiritual reality. As Hart admits, this was the case with Jesus' kingdom for all time, both before Christ, while Christ was bodily present, and now that Christ is ascended into heaven. Thus, the fact that the true church of God is a spiritual kingdom is not the basis of discontinuity.

But Hart argues for discontinuity based on the fact that Israelites did use the sword.

Yes, the Israelites did use the sword. Christians use the sword too. In fact, Jesus commanded his disciples:

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

But, of course, that's not the sort of sword Darryl has in mind. He means the civil magistracy. The sword allusion is an allusion (we hope) to Romans 13:

Romans 13:1-7

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

But Christians will be among the civil magistrates - in fact, we are exhorted to pray for the salvation of kings and all that are in authority:

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.

So, there will be Christian kings, just as also there were Israelite kings.

I guess, Darryl could be trying to argue that even though the Christians would have literal swords, and even though Christians would have the sword in the sense of Romans 13, still the civil magistrate would not attempt to use the sword to convert people. But the Israelites did not use the sword to convert people.

Furthermore, of course, Christ's actual point was simply that if Christ were here as an earthly king, his men would fight to save him. The point Christ had in view was not an absence of the sword in the new covenant community, but rather the spiritual significance of Christ's kingdom. More particularly, Christ did not come to displace Caesar as civil magistrate.

Indeed, Christ affirms that Pilate's present position was something ordained by God:

John 19:9-12

And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, "Whence art thou?"
But Jesus gave him no answer.
Then saith Pilate unto him, "Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?"
Jesus answered, "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar."

This actually brings us back to the point that Jesus' words, quoted by Darryl, are addressing. Jesus is rebutting the false charge that he is an earthly King, and the connected (and consequent) false charge that one cannot be a good citizen of Rome and be a Christian.

Remember that on a prior occasion they had tried to trick Jesus into either endorsing the loathsome Roman taxes, or setting himself up against Rome.

Luke 20:19-25

And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them. And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.
And they asked him, saying, "Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly: is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?"
But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, "Why tempt ye me? Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it?"
They answered and said, "Caesar's."
And he said unto them, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."

And, of course, Jesus said these positive things about the Roman government before the crucifixion. The old covenant administration was still in place at that time. So, there is nothing discontinuous about Christ's disciples being good citizens after the entrance of the new covenant.

Moreover, of course, Jesus' words to Pilate about his servants not fighting to save him were also prior to the crucifixion, and consequently during the old covenant administration. So, again, they do not signal a discontinuity.

Perhaps that should be enough to show that Darryl's attempt to use Scripture to justify his R2K theology has failed. I would, however, like to add the following comment that Ron Di Giacomo provided in answer to Darryl's remarks:

Darryl,

Yes, Jesus in John 18 spoke of his kingdom, which as our Confession teaches is the visible church, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation, but that has little to do with the ordained rule of civil magistrates. That the church should not use arms does not mean that civil magistrates shouldn’t. In fact, your point proves too much. If we were to apply the teachings of Jesus in this regard to the civil magistrates, there would be no temporal justice whatsoever (something you do not aspire to).

Blessings my brother,

Ron

(source)

-TurretinFan

Missing Blogger Comments and URI too Big

James Swan has helpfully explained where the missing blog comments have gone (link to his explanation). The bad news is - there is no way to turn off the feature that is causing these comments to disappear, at this time. The good news is that out of about 12,000 published comments, there appear to be only about 24 that have been "disappeared" by blogger's anti-spam software (on this blog at least) so far.

If your comment disappears, please let me know, and I'll try to rescue it from the spam folder. If you simply try reposting it, the spam filter will probably think that it was right, and you're just spamming ("Hey, that's the 15th identical comment: DELETE!").

There's another "known issue" that has been affecting Blogger blogs, including this one. Sometimes, when you try to publish your comment, you may get a "URI too big" warning. That does not mean your comment didn't publish. It just means that the URI that blogger has generated to get you back to the blog is too long for either your browser or some other piece of the Internet architecture. Don't worry about it. The comment probably did publish. Go back to the page you were on and check (use the browser "back" to get there).

-TurretinFan

A Series of Unfortunate Arguments for R2K

Darryl G. Hart is continuing to attempt to defend R2K in the comment box at GreenBaggins. His arguments, however, are getting less and less Biblical - less and less Confessional - and less and less rational. Let me provide some examples:

DGH wrote (source):

Here’s the thing, how many citizens of the U.S. make killing a matter of conscience? ... unless a religion exists that practices human sacrifice, most people are fairly content with the restrictions of the second table.

There are several important rejoinders:
1) No, people are not "fairly content" with the restrictions of the second table. Fornication is rampant in the U.S. Some states are even willing not only to countenance homosexual fornication, but to give legal privileges to those who engage in it, on account of their engaging in it! And, of course, people being content with following the second table is no more significant than people being content to follow the first table.

2) The fact that there are few American Hindus that practice Sati, or few followers of Manson, or few Muslims jihadists, or few followers of the Aztec or religion, or few who follow after Molech is not relevant to the question of whether it is proper for the civil magistrate to prevent them from following the dictates of their very warped and seared consciences and killing people.

DGH wrote (source):

That doesn’t mean that looking to Scripture for cultural guidance is wrong. But it can look downright foolish if the search for guidance on ethics, aesthetics and politics only goes to the Bible and leaves aside Aristotle.

The only infallible rule for faith and life is the Scriptures. That doesn't mean we can't hope to glean insights from pagan philosophers like Aristotle, but where Aristotle and the Bible differ, we favor the Bible.

DGH wrote (source):

if the magistrate does not protect the freedoms of all men you may end up with St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. So it may be more prudent to protect both Roman Catholics and Protestants rather than letting each side slaughter the other depending on who’s in power.

a) This is really a non-argument. It's just two speculative claims placed back to back.

b) This non-argument presents a false dichotomy: there is a lot of middle ground between "slaughter each other" and R2k. The classical Reformed position that DGH rejects lies in that middle ground.

c) It's absurd to imagine that governmental rules of one regime can control those of another. In other words, the Hugenots could not have prevented their own massacre simply through imposing rules on the French nation. The massacre itself was in violation of the existing laws.

DGH wrote (same source):

I don’t think it’s possible for the magistrate to uphold the first table and protect the freedoms of Roman Catholics, Mormons, Reformed Protestants, and Muslims. If you know a way to do that, I’m all eyes.

So what? Some "freedoms" (like the freedom to blaspheme the Lord or the freedom to work on the Lord's day) might not be protected. That's the nature of having laws. Laws restrict liberty.

The question is: which restrictions on freedom/liberty are just and right? The way to answer that question authoritatively is by turning to the Scriptures. You can turn to Aristotle (or Sun Tzu or Machiavelli, whoever you want) but you have to recognize that those other sources are fallible and sinful sources. They may have good things to say, but what they say needs to be taken with a grain of salt. When they disagree with Scripture, they are wrong.

-TurretinFan

The American Revisions to Chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession of Faith

Daryl G. Hart has alleged that:

But at least we have a disagreement by two church synods on what the Bible requires of magistrates. One says the magistrate should abolish false religion. The other says the magistrate should protect the freedoms of all people, including those who hold false religions.

I don't agree with Hart. I think he's misreading the American Revisions.

Let's take a look at the American Revisions in contrast to the original Westminster Confession of Faith:

Original:

Chapter XXIII
Of the Civil Magistrate

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he 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 entire; 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. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

American Revisions:

Chapter 23
Of the Civil Magistrate

3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

Let's break down the American Revisions by sentence:

(1) Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.

The bold item is an addition. The original confession does not list interfering in matters of faith as a duty of the civil magistrate. Of course, "interfering" is pejorative ... but let's not digress.

(2) Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger.

This sentence speaks particularly to the duty of the civil magistrate to protect Christian churches without giving denominational preference. Nothing in the original confession required the civil magistrate to give a denominational preference, and otherwise the idea of protecting the church is something that is consistent with the original confession.

(3) And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief.

This sentence speaks to the fact that the civil magistrate should not interfere with the free practice of religion among Christians. Again, there's nothing here that explicitly contradicts the original Confession, nor vice versa.

(4) It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

This sentence, considered alone, does not specify that the protections provided are to be provided only to Christians. The reference to "religion" is probably best understood to refer to the Christian religion, and "religious and ecclesiastical assemblies" to Christian ones. Nevertheless, even if we view it broadly, it still does not contradict the original Westminster Confession for this key reason that men like Hart seem to be overlooking.

The sentence states: "no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever ... ." The revised confession does not say that the civil magistrate may not criminally punish anyone. The revised confession is limited to the civil magistrate preventing individuals from being little Gideons and taking the law into their own hands. The final phrase about assemblies not being molested should be understood as an extension of the phrase about people going after one another - likewise the civil magistrate shouldn't (says the revised confession) let little Gideons go break up someone else's worship services.

Now, I am aware that some (perhaps many) of the folks behind the revisions were opposed to the original WCF view. However, it appears that they did the politically expedient thing and set forth a new chapter that both supporters and opposers of the original WCF could affirm. That's not surprising, since a lot of presbyterian ministers who were still alive during the time of the revision had subscribed in good faith to the original standards.

I realize that this absence of direct contradiction is not what the R2K crowd will want to hear, but shouldn't they be happy? While they may be out of line with the American Revisions, they are less out of line than they would have been under the original Westminster Confession of Faith.

I'll grant one further point. There's an indirect contradiction between the very active role that the civil magistrate should play with respect to the Christian religion in the original WCF and the relatively "hands off" approach that the civil magistrate should have with respect to the Christian religion in the revised standards. However, the words chosen (words like "interfere") prevent there from being an direct contradiction.

-TurretinFan

Quick Reply to "Mary is Jesus' Mother, So He'll Listen to her"

There's a rather popular Roman Catholic argument that goes something like this: "Mary is Jesus' mother. Jesus never sinned. The Fifth (fourth for RCs) Commandment is 'Honor thy father and thy mother.' Therefore, if Mary asks Jesus to do something for her, He'll do it out of obedience to his mother."

But consider this: the Church is the bride of Christ. Those of us who are believers, we're part of that church. Now, if we're going to apply metaphorical language, who is in a better position to get a "yes" from a man: his mother or his wife? Maybe I'm overly romantic, but I think that generally the flesh of one's flesh gets top priority.

But let's not rely on that metaphor. Jesus so loved us that he laid down his life for us. Is he really going to deny us any good thing?

And God as for God the Father:

Romans 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

So, no one should think that it is either good or necessary to appeal to someone other than God in prayer. Pray to God, not to Mary, saints, or angels. If you are His child, he'll hear you.

Luke 11:11-13
If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

- TurretinFan

Thanks to My Facebook Fans

My friend Matthew Lankford who runs the unofficial fan page for me on facebook has informed me that there are 500 fans (i.e. over 500 people "liked" it). I'm amazed by and appreciative of the interest. Please pray that God will use that page (which, as I understand, aggregates my posts from my various blogs and so forth) to the edification of the brethren and the conversion of many of our lost neighbors across the world. (link to page)

Smoking Books?

Some Brisbane atheist has made himself a minor celebrity by smoking homemade cigarettes using pages from the Bible and the Koran as the rolling papers (link to article).

It seems like a dumb and unhealthy move. It is also a violation of the 3rd commandment to show a lack of reverence for God's word. Obviously, I'm opposed to his actions.

I wonder whether Christians agree with me? Is it no big deal, or is this something that we should be upset about? Also, for those upset that Christians were going to burn Korans, does this atheist's actions also fall within your criticism (he's not trying to evangelize the Muslims, after all - so are his actions indifferent)?

- TurretinFan

Two Kingdoms vs. Radical Two Kingdoms

Pastor Jason Stellman has twice (first time, second time) drawn my attention to a post from Darryl G. Hart disputing the "radical" label with respect to the radical form of two kingdoms theology that he (Hart) advocates (link). Stellman seems to think himself in agreement with Hart, though I cannot confirm that Stellman is aware of the extremes to which Hart takes his position.

Before we get to the meat of Hart's post, I'll address the question posed by Pastor Stellman in his second post: "Hart's point is that you don't get to call 2K folks historically "radical" if your tolerance of [Roman] Catholics and Mormons places you closer to us than to Calvin on the Christ/Culture spectrum." That is a fair point. While that may be a point that is valid with respect to Doug Wilson, it will not apply to present company.

Hart writes:

But to call two-kingdom theology “radical” is silly.

For starters, it is as old as Protestantism is itself. Now for some Reformed Protestants, historic Protestantism is tainted by Lutheranism. This is indeed a puzzle and deserves greater investigation. What is going on among conservative Presbyterians and Reformed that they so carelessly hurl around “Lutheran” as an epithet?

For the main course, two-kingdom theology among Presbyterians goes all the way back to the Adopting Act of 1729.

I answer:

Hart needs to be careful here. Wilson and others use the label "radical" not as a mere pejorative tag to the whole "two kingdoms" concept but as a description of a specific branch of two kingdoms theology that is, well, more radical than the traditional Reformed position.

The claim that it is "as old as Protestantism itself" is to claim that it is Lutheran. Hart does not provide any citation to back this up. I found the following on a Romanist cite that is critical of Luther:

“You are a prince or judge. You have people under you and you wish to know what to do. It is not Christ you are to question concerning the matter, but the law of your country. ... Between the Christian and the ruler, a profound separation must be made. ... A prince can be a Christian, but it is not as a Christian that he ought to govern. As ruler, he is not called a Christian but a prince. The man is Christian, but his function does not concern his religion. ... Though they are found in the same man, the two states or functions are perfectly marked off, one from the other, and really opposed.” (Luther’s Works, Weimar Edition, pp. 391, 439, 440.)

I cannot confirm the authenticity of this quotation, and I have only found it in a number of related Romanists sources. Nevertheless, it seems to reflect the general portrayal of Luther that can be found widely from a number of different sources. It does also seem similar to the view that Hart has expressed

Does the Bible Bind the Civil Magistrate?

Kurt A. Scharping posed a couple of propositions to one member of the radical two kingdoms group (I'm hesitant to name him, lest I embarass him). The propositions were these:

1. The Scripture says things that bind the civil magistrate.

2. The Church can proclaim those things that bind the civil magistrate.

He then asked one of the proponents of a strain of R2K to indicate whether he affirms or denies these propositions. The proponent appears to have answered in the negative, which (if it were really the case) would leave that proponent outside the confessional boundaries.

Even the American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith teach that the Scripture says things that bind the civil magistrate, and the inclusion of these in the public document of the standards shows that the standards believe it is proper for churches to proclaim those things that bind the civil magistrate.

My point in raising this issue is not to tar everyone who calls themselves "two kingdoms" with a broad brush. My point is that even those who call themselves "two kingdoms" eventually have to moderate their tendency to separate church and state. The Bible may not say what form of government is the best, but it does provide teachings that bind the civil magistrate.

We would hope that even the most radical R2K proponent would think that the wall of separation between church and state is something that Scripture itself mandates. As such, it does not seem that any proponent of R2k, even the most radical, could deny the two propositions that Kurt has identified.

-TurretinFan

ISI September 2, 2010, Recording

A handful of folks were wondering what happened to the recording of my September 2, 2010, discussion on Iron Sharpens Iron. Apparently there were some recording difficulties. Despite those difficulties, most of the program was rescued from a backup recording, and is now available (link to mp3). In the discussion, I talked about Dr. White's recent debate with Christopher Ferrara regarding Mary's alleged Immaculate conception and answered one call that dealt with Harold Camping and specifically the objection about the number of people in Moses' family (short answer: God caused the Israelites to multiply greatly).

-TurretinFan

Radical Two Kingdoms - Both Anti-Biblical and Worthless

Jason Stellman wrote an article (link) in which he suggested that preachers preaching against the sins of the nation is somehow improper. I can't imagine an article that would be more universally dismissed by not only all the Reformers but also by all the Presbyterians and Puritans from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Even the Reformed Baptists from that period would likely share the same assessment of this article, despite their stronger view of separation of church and state.

Preaching against sin is not some sort of optional aspect of the gospel ministry. Nor is it proper to draw the dichotomy that Stellman draws, when he writes:

Just admit it: the fact that you’re angry with me right now and want to engage me in political debate in the combox only proves how much you benefit from a two-kingdoms ministry each Sunday, one that refuses to oppress and wound your consciences and insists rather on preaching sermons to you about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection on the third day. I mean, if things get a bit out of hand on this blog after a post such as this, imagine how violent things would become after church if our ministers pulled stunts like this from the pulpit?

Yeah, yeah - we know. People don't like being told that they are in sin, or that their nation is dishonoring God by having unjust laws or unjust policies. They might even leave the church, if the pastor preaches against the horrors of abortion or against injustices in war.

But that's one of the duties of the gospel minister. Preaching sermons about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection on the third day are great, and there is nothing wrong with them, but ... ministers must preach the whole counsel and that includes convicting sinners of their sins. Mr. Stellman may not like doing it, it may not fit nicely in his radical version of two kingdoms theology ("radical" as opposed to the classical version of Calvin, Knox, Turretin, and John the Baptist, who had no problem speaking out against the sins of their contemporary political regime). Nevertheless, if Mr. Stellman is to be faithful to God's word, he must address sins from the pulpit.

But the Radical Two-Kingdoms (R2K) notions that Stellman is promoting are not just anti-Biblical, in that they suggest that ministers may not properly preach against the sins of the nation, they are worthless as can be seen from this:

Since my goal is not to engage specifically the Baylies' main point, I will say this: abortion is a horrific evil, and though I have no idea what should be done about it from a political standpoint, I see it as a sin for which those who participate in it will be held accountable if they do not repent. (In fact, I know of no 2K proponent who would take any other position than this, which makes it kind of weird that I feel the need to say it.)

Even if someone were to say that we should just throw away the Old Testament and ignore the sentence of God against those who take human lives unjustly (Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.), still one would think that R2K would be able to use the light of nature to get some idea of how to handle such matters. If, however, upon throwing away Scripture, the R2K proponent has "no idea what should be done" by the civil magistrate about such a heinous sin as infanticide, what earthy good is R2K?

Perhaps Stellman will not listen to me (and why should he - I'm just some pseudonymous guy), but perhaps he'll consider listening to Paul's inspired counsel to Timothy:

2 Timothy 4:1-2
I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

-TurretinFan