Calvin on submission to the civil magistrate: "manliness" vs. "effeminacy and cowardice"...

(Tim) Speaking of Shiphrah and Puah, here's Calvin on the godliness of these Hebrew midwives in rebelling against the unspeakable wickedness of Pharaoh demanding the slaughter of Hebrews' infants. It's clear Calvin would not be a 2-K man, today. TODAY.

* * *

Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other was named Puah; and he said, “When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth and see them upon the birthstool, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.”  (Exodus 1:15-16).

The tyrant now descends from the open violence and cruelty which had availed nothing, to secret plots and deceit. He desires the infants to be killed at their birth; and commands the midwives to be the instruments of this dreadful barbarity.

We read of no such detestable example of inhumanity since the world began...

I admit it has occasionally happened, that, upon the capture of a city, the conquerors have not spared even children and infants; that is to say, either in the heat of battle, or because the defense had been too obstinate, and they had lost many of their men, whose death they would avenge. It has happened, too, that an uncle, or brother, or guardian, has been impelled by the ambition of reigning to put children to death. It has happened, again, that in the detestation of a tyrant, and to destroy the very memory of his family, his whole offspring has been slain; and some have proceeded to such cruelty against their enemies, as to tear the little ones from their mothers’ breasts. But never did any enemy, however implacable, ever so vent his wrath against a whole nation, as to command all its male offspring to be destroyed in the midst of peace...

But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live. So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and let the boys live?” (Exodus 1:17).

But the midwives feared God. Moses does not mean that they were then first affected with the fear of God; but he assigns this reason why they did not obey his unjust command, viz., because reverence towards God had greater influence with them. And certainly, as all our affections are best directed by this rein, so also it is the surest shield for resisting all temptations, and a firm support to uphold our minds from wavering in seasons of danger.

Now, they not only dreaded this crime as being cruel and inhuman; but because purer religion and piety flourished in their hearts; for they knew that the seed of Abraham was chosen of God, and had themselves experienced that it was blessed; and hence it was natural to feel, that it would be an act of very gross impiety to extinguish in it the grace of God.

We must also observe the antithesis between the fear of God and the dread of punishment, which might have deterred them from doing right. Although tyrants do not easily allow their commands to be despised, and death was before their eyes, they still keep their hands pure from evil. Thus, sustained and supported by reverential fear of God, they boldly despised the command and the threatenings of Pharaoh. Wherefore those, whom the fear of men withdraws from the right course, betray by their cowardice an inexcusable contempt of God, in preferring the favor of men to his solemn commands.

But this doctrine extends still more widely; for many would be more than preposterously wise, whilst, under pretext of due submission, they obey the wicked will of kings in opposition to justice and right, being in some cases the ministers of avarice and rapacity, in others of cruelty; yea, to gratify the transitory kings of earth, they take no account of God; and thus, which is worst of all, they designedly oppose pure religion with fire and sword. It only makes their effrontery more detestable, that whilst they knowingly and willingly crucify Christ in his members, they plead the frivolous excuse, that they obey their princes according to the word of God; as if he, in ordaining princes, had resigned his rights to them; and as if every earthly power, which exalts itself against heaven, ought not rather most justly to be made to give way.

But since they only seek to escape the reprobation of men for their criminal obedience, let them not be argued with by long discussions, but rather referred to the judgment of women; for the example of these midwives is abundantly sufficient for their condemnation; especially when the Holy Spirit himself commends them, as not having obeyed the king, because they feared God.

Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, saying, “Every son who is born you are to cast into the Nile, and every daughter you are to keep alive.” (Exodus 1:22).

The tyrant, finding that his snares and deceit availed nothing, now shakes off fear and flies to open violence, commanding the little ones to be torn from the breasts of their mothers and to be cast into the river. Lest there should be any lack of executioners, he gives this charge to all the Egyptians, whom he knew to be more than ready for the work. He spares the daughters, that, being enslaved and allotted to the Egyptians, they might produce slaves for their masters, whilst by them the races and names could not be preserved.

Here it may be worth while to meditate on a comparison with our own times. Antichrist, with all his murderous agents, leaves in peace those who by their treacherous silence deny Christ, and are prepared to embrace as slaves every kind of impiety; neither does he exercise his cruelty, insatiable though it be, where he sees no manliness to exist; and he exults and triumphs, as if his end was gained, when he perceives any who had some courage in professing their faith fallen into effeminacy and cowardice. But how much better is it for us to die an hundred times, retaining our manly firmness in death, than to redeem our life for the base service of the devil.

Comments

Let the wiggling and twisting begin...

Calvin on submission to the civil magistrate: "manliness" vs. "effminacy and cowardice"...

Net translation:

"manliness (and courage)" = 1K

"effiminacy and cowardice" = 2K

Tim: sanctimony alert.

Divisive: 2k alert. Be a man and go by your name.

All those criticizing 2k as cowardly in the face of civil authority, tell us which civil laws you have disobeyed in the name of God and the price you paid for it

>All those criticizing 2k as cowardly in the face of civil authority, tell us which civil laws you have disobeyed in the name of God and the price you paid for it

That's weak. That's even weaker than the fools who invoke the "chickenhawk" argument in foreign policy discussions. Nobody gets to criticize 2K unless they go to prison first.

BTW try the breakfast burritos at Golden Pride, the sausage, egg and hash brown ones. You'll never regret it.

So both 1k and 2k are living in submission to his "non Christian regime," but one side gets to call the other cowards, in theory only? If you counseled the Chinese Christians to "bravely" rebuke their government authorities publicly, they would be dead or in prison, maybe even their families also, and their already tenuous churches terminated. Are you ready to counsel them this way?

>>one side gets to call the other cowards

Dear Todd,

I don't mind you calling me a coward. It's the right accusation, but making it doesn't prove it.

Personally, I've long held the conviction we need to restore questions of motive and character to doctrinal debates. Something like the Apostle Paul here:

"For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh" (Galatians 6:13).

And here:

"From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus" (Galatians 6:17).

Love,

Darryl Hart: Non-sequitur avoidance and diversion alert.

P.S. Be a man and repudiate 2K and become a 1K.

>If you counseled the Chinese Christians to "bravely" rebuke their government authorities publicly, they would be dead or in prison, maybe even their families also, and their already tenuous churches terminated.

We are responsible for our government in a way that Chinese Christians are not.

Actually he's right, anonymity is not very manly.

To be fair, I think it would be beneficial to read Calvin's entire discourse on the Civil Government in Book 4, Chapter 20 of the Institutes. As always, it is a superb and edifying read. Cherry-picking select quotes won't do it justice, but it is pretty clear that Calvin was a 2Ker - probably not do the same degree Dr. Hart is, but more toward his end of the spectrum than the Bayly's.

Consider: the chapter starts with a lengthy description of the difference between the two kingdoms, discusses the need for obedience to just and unjust rulers alike (with examples), and admonishes all individuals to obey rulers regardless of "whatever they may be like." He even says: "They are still subject even to those who are wicked or undutiful," using the analogy of children to wicked parents and wives to wicked husbands. He concludes that obedience to a ruler should never lead us to sin.

You can read the chapter in its entirety and draw your own conclusions, but to me it is pretty obvious Calvin is more 2K than not...

>>Consider: the chapter starts with a lengthy description of the difference between the two kingdoms, discusses the need for obedience to just and unjust rulers alike (with examples), and admonishes all individuals to obey rulers regardless of "whatever they may be like." He even says: "They are still subject even to those who are wicked or undutiful," using the analogy of children to wicked parents and wives to wicked husbands. He concludes that obedience to a ruler should never lead us to sin.

Dear Mason,

If you'd read the discussion, you'd know there's not a man here taking on the 2-K error who would disagree with Calvin on this. It's the 2-K men who've been distancing themselves from him.

Truthfully,

Tim

David,

Tim, not what I said, I'll chalk it up to brevity of blogdom. I was responding to the accusations that 2k are cowardly, not calling anyone a coward. I am trying to determine what bravery is according to those who were criticizing Clark's discomfort as a minister with picketing abortion clinics. Are all those not personally comfortable with your tactics at abortion clinics cowards, or are we free to be good neighbors our own way without being cowardly?

>>If you'd read the discussion, you'd know there's not a man here taking on the 2-K error who would disagree with Calvin on this. It's the 2-K men who've been distancing themselves from him.

Pastor Bayly,

That may be true, but my point is that Calvin wrote a much more fully developed discourse on 2K and the church's relation to civil government than what you portray in the passage above. Your post implies that any submission to an evil ruler shows a lack of fortitude, but Calvin clearly advocates complete obedience to evil rulers including those who are guilty of "raping virgins and matrons, and slaughtering the innocent." (4.20.24) The only exception is when a magistrate REQUIRES sin, as Pharaoh did of the Egyptian midwives.

I don't agree with everything the 2Kers say, but I do believe Calvin was at least in the middle or more toward the 2K side of things when his views are examined completely. Again, people can read the Institutes for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

By the way, I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion over the past couple of weeks. Both sides have made excellent arguments and both have had their share of lunacy. Still, it's an interesting, highly relevant issue, and I appreciate your willingness to host such a discussion.

>>Your post implies that any submission to an evil ruler shows a lack of fortitude...

No. It was clear that Calvin is discussing the slaughter of infants--that's the context. And to say he counsels "complete obedience" of such monsters as Pharaoh is misleading. We know he doesn't counsel that they obey him in the matter of killing the babies, but what else? You say nothing else and I say he doesn't say, here. But there are other comments he's made in Scripture that show us his position on specific acts.

Yours,

"Are all those not personally comfortable with your tactics at abortion clinics cowards"

Firstly, what do you think those "tactics" are exactly?

There are many assumptions being made protesting abortion.

-Clint

Whoops, I meant, "about protesting abortion". What do people here think protesting abortion entails?

Clint,

I am suggesting that 1k, 2k, R2k, whatever you call it, basically all live life the same under non-Christian authority. In other words we all live like 2kers. We submit to the laws until we are forced to sin. But that hasn't happened yet so we are all free. So I’m trying to determine what the fuss is all about that started the attacks, concerns, etc... against some 2kers like Dr. Clark. Is it that some do not denounce politicians and what they believe are immoral laws from the pulpit and others do? Considering our authorities are not listening either way, what is the big difference? Since both sides agree that our faith extends beyond the church to be good neighbors in society, care about people, etc… is the difference what particular areas you choose to get involved in and how, such as showing up at abortion clinics to warn mothers and rescue babies?

>I am suggesting that 1k, 2k, R2k, whatever you call it, basically all live life the same under non-Christian authority.

Except 2Kers intentionally like to portray us as living in a pagan dictatorship. Christians in this particular society have both political responsibilities and power. Behaving like we don't is highly problematic.

Bananas,

"Christians in this particular society have both political responsibilities and power."

Being a good neighbor and caring for people in general can be manifested in many other ways besides politics. And does getting involved in politics mean we must agree with your politics? If a member of your church was active in the Democratic Party and the other in the Republican Party, would one need to be rebuked, or would they both be getting involved as you think the Bible demands?

>If a member of your church was active in the Democratic Party and the other in the Republican Party, would one need to be rebuked, or would they both be getting involved as you think the Bible demands?

If a brother was active in the Democratic Party, so long as he was actually fighting on the right side, I'd not rebuke him although I'd question his tactics. If a brother was active in the Republican Party, and was active in the cause of death, I'd rebuke him.

If I may repeat a comment I made a few days ago: may I suggest that the real issue is what our priorities should be in our social witness, for want of a better term? In that, I concur with the Baylys about the need to resist abortion, and I don't especially think that Darryl would disagree with them on this issue anyway.

That said, would we then make the restoration of the old anti-sodomy laws a particular priority? I am not sure that we would. We certainly wouldn't make it a priority for our churches to be involved in environmental activism, even at an individual's level (I have a Christian friend who has a real passion for the issue and who then wonders why fellow evangelicals aren't interested in getting involved with him).

The reformed tradition has the luxury of coming from a time when it was in a situation to see worked out a Christian theology of public policy. Some aspects of Calvin's Geneva we would warm to, others we'd almost certainly say, "No thanx, not now". Not many Christians have had that good fortune. Criticisms of these views welcome.

Our comments are getting weirdest, isn't te?

My comment was attempting to uncover the unspoken stereotype that many people seem to have (including solid reformed people) that pro-lifers are about the same as terrorists or at least screaming, "You're gonna burn in hell, baby killers!" This is a pervasive stereotype that really hurts our cause.

So I asked, what do you think anti-abortion protesters are doing? Dr. Hart said he didn't think pastors should protest abortion, is it because he thinks protesters are all packing or what?

-Clint

Clint,

Oh, I see- no, wasn't asking with that stereotype in mind. I know not all protesters scream and yell at people. And I don't think that's what Darryl means, but you'll have to ask him.

Zrim,

Do you not understand what it means to be forbidden from a blog? We might permit someone who does not claim the name of Christ to traffic in slander and dishonesty as you have and still remain active here, but not a man who professes the name of Christ. Be a man. Apologize or bear the consequences. But don't continue to act in childish ways.

Sincerely,

David Bayly

>The fulcrum this turns on isn’t violence/non-violence, it is this-worldly care/otherworldly care.

Should pastors be concerned if there flock are starving or ill? Are those concerns "this-worldly" or "other-worldly"? When they collected for the saints in Jerusalem was that "this-worldly" or "other-worldly"?

Make that "their flock" lest anyone be confused...

Pastor Bayly,

Zrim is Dr Clark's bulldog

Clark=Hart

Pastor Bayly,

Forgive me

Zrim is Dr Hart's bulldog

If you follow around the net enough & you mess with Dr Hart, you mess with Zrim.

The difference being, Dr Hart and others (Dr Clark) have consequences upon what they say because they are officers.

Their bulldogs have no consequences and can say what they want

Jerry: "Pastor Bayly,

Zrim is Dr Clark's bulldog."

That explains things.

Be that as it may, I think David Bayly has informed the bulldog that he is no longer welcome to expel his droppings anymore on this blog.

David Bayly, I understand it's your blog and you can do with it what you want. So you can exclude Zrim or me if you care to. But it is hypocritical for you to do so in the name of Christ when your own performance is not up to the standard by which you exclude Zrim. Slander is something that you tread awfully close to if not actually crossing the line (see Punch Drunk on Baylys at oldlife.org for the preservation of one of those tainted accusations). Again, it's your blog and if you want to willfully mischaracterize my views it's a free country (something, btw, you'd prefer not to be the case for other unrighteous folk). But the charge of Pharisaism keeps echoing in my computer's memory.

Darryl Hart: "... it's a free country (something, btw, you'd [David Bayly] prefer not to be the case for other unrighteous folk)."

What's that supposed to mean?

"But the charge of Pharisaism keeps echoing in my computer's memory."

Maybe your computer memory is telling your human memory that there's a log stuck in your eye.

In these posts the charge is continually leveled that 2k advocates are ashamed of the Gospel. Is it not possible that that accusation cuts both ways as well? Why is it that 1k advocates feel like Christ Crucified is not sufficient? Is there shame at Spiritual nature of the Gospel because it does not carry a proscriptive political program with it? 2k advocates are not ashamed of the Gospel, instead they are jealous for its purity, knowing that the human mind corrupts whatever it touches with relation to Gospel.

DL:

Patently ridiculous. Christ is Lord of all or he is not Lord at all.

If the human mind corrupts whatever it touches with relation to the gospel, then where is the power of the spirit? Shut up inside of our pretty churches with their impressive pipe organs? With no concern for the unborn or the fatherless or the widow? With concern only for the "covenant family" and not for the ends of the earth?

That's not purity, it is hypercovenantalism in just a different form than you find among the FV. It is not a boldly but humbly advancing world-and-life-view Christianity, it is churchianity.

And it's no wonder to me our churches are dying, if we send out ministers with the attitude of simply preserving our "purity" without advancing the cause of Christ wherever it is under assault.

But, boy do we have great pipe organs.

I think this entire exchange is one more evidence that blogs (at least the comment sections) are poor forums for theological debate. If someone wanted to get a basic understanding of 1K vs 2k then this would be a poor start. Accusations & name calling do not lead to any kind of understanding. At this point most of you are talking past each other.(by the way Daryl Hart is no innocent when it comes to using digs, sarcasm & snarkiness).

Perhaps an online umpired debate?

Ken:

Well, I would prefer good a capella psalms myself. I know these discussions can quickly fall into trading anecdote for anecdote, and I want to avoid that. But I think it is a fallacy to say that 2K advocates have no care for the fatherless and widow. Members of my congregation invest themselves (to the point of serious financial and emotional hurt) in the lives of those around us. I have friends who have taken single mothers into their homes, babysat their kids, and helped them find a Godly husbands. But we do not mistake what we are doing in those actions. We are not transforming the culture. Instead, we are being faithful to those who the Lord brings into our circle out of gratitude for what the Lord has done for us. The Church's scope should be small: real people, really local. Sure, bigger political issues are easier to motivate people to get involved in. Give them a feeling that they are being truly influential. But that is not the calling of the Church. That is not the Gospel. That is not Christ's forensic righteousness imputed to a needy sinner. That is what I want the Church to proclaim with unwaveringly clear voice.

DL,
five years ago I would have said exactly what you have.

For some reason R2K advocates come on here thinking that a specific political program is being advanced...correct me if I'm wrong, but all that is being advocated is that God's Word is not limited in its scope. No one has made political activity a basis for polity, but by the same token those who oppose R2K insist that abortion is NOT even a political issue. Infanticide is what ultimately led me to reject R2K. When Christians believe the sanctioning of the mutilation of the unborn by the State is actually the domain of the State...well, we have a HUGE problem. God's Law is clear and Romans 1 is clear that murder is evil...that the State is given the sword to execute justice (a standard that is defined by God).

Separation of Church and State sounds nice with R2K's boyish approach to Natural Law, but quickly dissipates when one considers that Molechism has entered the State...when you choose to separate Church and State as R2K desires, you are opting FOR Molechism. You've denied the entrance of true religion and exchanged it for the communion cup of violent men who drink the blood of innocents.

In your "heart" you may not bow the knee, but in every other sense you do...and you violate the second commandment that way...you violate the first by giving supreme authority to the State...you violate the whole thrust of God's Law by plugging your ears to the cries for mercy from the womb...sure you personally believe it's wrong...but the pulpit needs to shut up about it and whenever individual Christians talk about it, label them Finneyites or advocates of a social gospel.

There is no good news for the oppressed in R2K's limited gospel. The Law it speaks of is silent toward the law-breaker and the mercy of the Law is silenced to those crying out for relief.

Call my gospel the social gospel, but I'll take the Word in flesh over the ensconced doctrines which hover somewhere in the transcendent noumenal world to be pondered but never really apprehended in the phenomenal.

Prove me wrong...is there a theology for the oppressed in R2K?

DL

Maybe you haven't been following the whole debate. The charge made by the radical 2-kers (and I think most of us are 2K's just greater and lesser) is that those of us who teach and preach world-and-life-view Calvinism are preaching Christless sermons (Horton) or that the enemy is "neo-kuyperians and pietists" (Clark)

The issue is: is the gospel the only message of Scripture, or is Scripture (WCF 1) the all sufficient guide for all of life?

Nobody denies the centrality of Christ, or the gospel,here.

DL

Maybe you haven't been following the whole debate. The charge made by the radical 2-kers (and I think most of us are 2K's just greater and lesser) is that those of us who teach and preach world-and-life-view Calvinism are preaching Christless sermons (Horton) or that the enemy is "neo-kuyperians and pietists" (Clark)

The issue is: is the gospel the only message of Scripture, or is Scripture (WCF 1) the all sufficient guide for all of life?

Nobody denies the centrality of Christ, or the gospel,here

Craig:

Thank you for your pointed comments.
A theology for the oppressed? I guess I am not sure what you mean by that. Is not Sin and the Devil the great oppressors? Is not reconciliation with God what the oppressed man needs? Surely, I know of no R2K advocate or pastor who would not preach against abortion if he perceived a lack of clarity on the issue in his congregation or discipline a member of their congregation who murdered their child or murdered another person's child.

My thoughts keep coming back to the passage in 1 Cor (I am sorry if this verse has been brought up before):
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you." "
(1Co 5:9-13)

Now, I am no expert in exegesis, but that seems to me to be a very R2K statement. I guess I am just not sure how live consistently as a 1K person because there is so much un-Christian injustice in this world. My fear is that we may end up in the same place as pre-WWI Germany and Switzerland where socialization was seen as kingdom work. That those who went on strike over unfair wages were actually doing the Lord's work more than the preacher proclaiming the forgiveness of sins. Say what you will, but that was certainly a theology for the oppressed.

Now, it may be true that there are R2K people who have no care for the oppressed and use their theology as an excuse for silence and inaction. However, I have not met them. However, I have met men who compromise the Gospel in pursuit of social justice.

My concern is that the Church (in rightly condemning abortion and sodomy) gives its congregation an easy out. By preaching against and focusing on the sins which members of the congregation are free from. I feel no temptation to murder my children or committing adultery with a man , so I can make myself feel self-righteous by focusing on a sin towards which I have no propensity. An outward focus on the sins of the world is death to the Church.

>By preaching against and focusing on the sins which members of the congregation are free from. I feel no temptation to murder my children or committing adultery with a man , so I can make myself feel self-righteous by focusing on a sin towards which I have no propensity.

You assume a lot regarding the sinless state of church members.

Truth Divides, you could get the log out of your own self by giving up your real name. Come on, why not be a man?

Ken: you wrote: "The issue is: is the gospel the only message of Scripture, or is Scripture (WCF 1) the all sufficient guide for all of life?" But Scripture isn't even sufficient according to WCF 1.6 for some aspects of worship or for church government. This is a bad way of putting the issue. You claim too much for Scripture and don't even recognize what your church or confession is supposed to teach.

Dr. Hart,

I am sorry I am so ignorant. I mean, I have had the best of teachers. How could I be so stupid!

Quite obviously, the Christian can be a Christian under a variety of governmental forms, and church polities, etc etc.

But to deny that the Scripture speaks to those things principially is to deny the sufficiency of Scripture.

I would really be curious to know whether Dr. Godfrey or any of the board are watching this exchange, and wondering how it might affect churches steering candidates towards or away from Westminster. YOu have the wise as serpents part down, but the gentle as doves part is lacking.

I have done my best to be respectful in answering you. It grieves me that you have your heart set to discourage those of us in the pastorate from your comfortable ivory tower. Well, the pastorate is discouraging enough. I will not be discouraged from proclaiming the whole counsel of God by you.

And I am sorry to have lost my natural good humor. But it grieves me to see the lack of piety by our seminary professors, and the pride it inculcates in your sycophant students.

Dr. Hart,

It grieves me that you lack the Christian gentlemanliness and humility of your great historical subject.

Pastors have a tough job. Thanks for making it tougher, brother, with your broadsides.

Enjoy your ivory tower. It would be a fun, safe place to reside. But remember it is those of us on the front lines of the spiritual war that give you the safety of that tower. You might treat us with a little bit more kindness.

David Gray: I think if that quote is taken in the context of the whole comment you will see that I am actually saying the opposite. I think that the church is full of sinners and therefore the Gospel needs to be proclaimed with that understanding. Sin is not part of "the other."

Ken:

You are right that I have not been able to follow the whole conversation, and I apologize if I say something that as already been hashed over multiple times.

With regards to Dr. Hart, (not that I can speak for him, but as somebody studying for full-time ministry who has benefited from his work and that of other 2k advocates ) I don't think their desire is to discourage preachers, but rather the opposite. To free them to sound the clarion note of Justification by Faith alone without having to become political scientists or Constitutional experts. This has been incredibly encouraging to me and my teaching has become much clearer and focused than it would be otherwise. While it is true that the R2K tone can be harsh and uncharitable at times, I think it has a pedagogical intent.

DL:

One comment, and then I am done, i pray. I agree that justification is central. I think if you ever were to hear me preach, you would hear it interwoven in everything I say.

Justification is central, but not in a way that cancels out sanctification, or the application of Godly principles to family life, or to life as a citizen. I doubt you disagree with that.

I have had rocks thrown at me, and at friends, by R2K men. That's fine. I rejoiced when they sent the rocks the FV way, and joined with them in that, and still would.

I don't know why they have decided to take issue with Kuyperians, for lack of a better term. And it grieves me.

And it also grieves me that I have lost my cool over this. And for that, I am very sorry.

Pages