A primer on the R2K novelty, with a note on Servetus...
(Tim) If Baylyblog readers have not been warned off the R2K novelty yet, check out this detailed critique of R2K by Pastor Nelson D. Kloosterman of Community United Reformed Church here in Schererville, Indiana. Also this R2K critique by Pastor Steven Wedgeworth. Finally this post and comments by Pastor Wedgeworth following up on his critique and answering some objections.
Way down in the comments, an exchange occurs between Doug Wilson and Darryl in which, several times, Doug raises the spectre of the wholesale slaughter of unborn children in these United States. Yet Darryl never seems able to look full in the face of the obscene bloodthirstiness of the modern secular state from which he takes such comfort and security.
Imagine the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition...
and join Darryl in patting yourself on the back for the end of religious warfare and persecution we enjoy today in our enlightened secular state.What?
During the years of the Spanish Inquisition, at most 3,000 victims died while 3,500 little babies are slaughtered each day in these United States--week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade.
As we've mentioned before, in order for R2K's novelties to gain adherents, it's necessary that no one give a moment's thought to the religious materialists' oppression that has engulfed us in rivers of babies' blood. We live in the most oppressive, bloodthirsty, murderous regime the world has ever known, but Darryl and his R2K friends have this idea that the modern secular nation state is so much better than Calvin's Geneva or the Pope's Spain during the Spanish Inquisition because we're enlightened concerning religious liberty and we don't kill people for the sake of our religious convictions.
But who's ever listened to an unborn baby's lament after he was aborted? He's absolutely and permanently silenced, isn't he? Fifty million of these little ones have been murdered in these United States. A billion have been silenced worldwide during the past couple of decades, but not one of them has ever spoken of the pain and suffering of his death throes.
Darryl Hart comes on here to shame John Calvin over Servetus centuries later, but pray tell, who's shaming Darryl Hart himself over the one billion slaughtered babies who are only some of the victims of the religious persecution perpetrated by the modern secular state?
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (18)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Tree service The Woodlands on Musical worship must be manly...
- Sue McKeown on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Fr. Bill on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- K. Bartholomew on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
Comments
Hey, fellas. I enjoy your blog as it is thought-provoking but I'm a little confused and I'm sure the problem is that I just haven't been here long.
I know what 2K is and I'm guessing that R2K is a variation on 2K (thought they sound suspiciously similar to me).
What's most confusing is this: I can't figure out if you're for it or against it. You seem to disagree with Darryl Hart who believes 2K but at the same time seem to disagree with the DC pastor from "the Escondido tradition" who is marketing his church to incoming legislators in seeming violation of 2K (or did I miss something).
I'm not trying to pick a fight; I'm simply trying to get the lay of the land.
Thanks,
Michael
Yes, and all the time they would rather mock Christ's Lordship, and wonder why "transformationalism" (a loosely-defined term if ever there were) can't come up with ways to Christianize baseball and metalworking.
That hardly seems relevant in a world of wholesale slaughter of innocents. Yet, they cannot see the forest for the blood-stained trees.
Re-reading Kuyper's Stone Lectures yesterday, I am amazed by just how clearly he foresaw what was happening in the world, and what would happen if the crown rights of King Jesus weren't asserted by Christians.
Michael,
The early church fathers and the reformers were very clear on there being "two kingdoms." Augustine, Luther, Calvin and many others wrote about it. However, the main distinction between this reformed doctrine and the modern version that is labeled R2k [Radical Two-Kingdom] is the definitions of those two kingdoms. The reformers spoke of a spiritual kingdom and a temporal one, a kingdom of light and a kingdom of darkness, but this is not synonymous with the modern concept of Church and State. When Darryl Hart and others equate the visible church and the secular state with those reformed categories, what they end up with is a doctrine that allows them to completely wash their hands of the wickedness perpetrated by the state by divorcing the christian life from any practical responsibilities in the secular world. Furthermore, they oppose the use of the pulpit as a platform to oppose abortion, claiming that this is political interference in a dispute that resides squarely under the authority of the state, or the "secular kingdom."
R2K'ers seems to believe that the only available options are Theonomy, with the church usurping the role of the state, complete with the burning of heretics, or their own R2K system, in which the church is completely uninvolved in "secular" life, focusing instead on the work of the "spiritual" kingdom.
There are many other problems with this doctrine, and Steven Wedgeworth gives a much more detailed assessment on his blog, which Tim has linked above. However, the discussion can easily devolve into one rabbit trail after another. For that reason, keep in mind what Christ said "By their fruit shall you know them."
Yes, when you reject an R2K error and point out the biblical alternative it seems so often the response is that if you don't accept R2K the only other position is "X" where "X" is both improbably and irrational. The refusal to admit/conceive of other alternatives is a serious problem in discussions.
Yes, I've been accused of creating two classes of vocation: important and unimportant, of exalting god-like doctors, of obscuring the gospel, of being a theocrat, of confusing law and gospel (because i said a Christian sports league that honored the Lord's Day and taught godly sportsmanship would be a good thing) and probably kidnapping the Lindbergh baby.
I'm not sure I understand your point about abortion. I have read enough of Darryl Hart's blog to know he opposes abortion as sinful, so I don't think he would disagree with you that elective abortion is utterly wrong, and that its practice is a great shame on America. He would argue (I think, without putting words into his mouth) that natural law should drive the secular state's outlaw of abortion, the same way it should outlaw murder. Your point seems to be that the secular state allows abortion because it has abandoned its Christian roots.
But this is far from true. I'm sure you're aware that most European states were ruled by Roman law (the notable exception being England) until the Enlightenment, and Roman law did not forbid abortion or infanticide. Thus abortion has almost always been legal in the civil realm in "Christian" societies, and there were no ecclesiastical sanctions in the Roman Catholic church until relatively recently. What's more, prostitution was also legal and widespread in Christendom - it's naive to assume abortion wasn't relatively commonplace.
I think we all agree (R2K or otherwise) that elective abortion is a great evil and should not occur in America (or anywhere) today. But its existence in our society does not automatically invalidate the R2K position.
Dear William,
Even the Hippocratic Oath of the Fourth Century B.C. condemned abortion, and that condemnation was further strengthened by the high rate of infection and death that radically discouraged abortions until antibiotics took away the risk this past century. So, trying to compare the pre-antibiotic situation with the post-antibiotic situation is almost impossible.
Even so, Ancient Greece's position concerning abortion is clear from the Hippocratic Oath's statement: "I will neither give any deadly drug, having been asked for it, nor will I guide the same advice. Similarly, I will not give an abortifacient pessary to a woman. In purity and in holiness I will maintain my life and my art."
Yes, R2K men talk about being against abortion, occasionally, but when Darryl's having a discussion of the obligation of the Christian to pursue justice today, somehow it just doesn't seem to come up. Also, when Doug raises the subject, somehow Darryl just doesn't seem motivated to respond to that specific subject while he does respond to many others. Even when I bring it up, Darryl refers to it as my obsession with the Sixth Commandment.
Which is to say that he resembles Teddy Kennedy who was personally opposed to abortion, he assured us constantly during his lifetime.
Why is this important in this discussion?
Because the slaughter of the unborn going on around us today has no parallel in history in terms of bloodshed, oppression, injustice, barbarity, cruelty, and so on, yet in all the discussions by R2K men of the superiority of the modern secular state to the governments of Geneva, Scotland, or New England, it's either a footnote or not mentioned at all.
When I see R2K men demonstrating concern for the unborn billion who have been slaughtered, and taking action to oppose those secular governments that have betrayed the rule of law by neglecting to protect those billion babies, I may then begin to consider that R2K men have not simply come up with their novel position out of a desire to hide out with Lot in Sodom.
Calvin, like the Apostle Paul, had wound marks from the civil magistrate that proved he was not an appeaser. Edwards had wound marks. Doug Wilson has wound marks. John Piper has wound marks. Whitefield had wound marks. Knox had wound marks.
Where are the wound marks of our R2K men? And if they have none, as I've perceived, why would I even consider their novel proposal?
What we need today are prophets and reformers; not appeasers who try to read their appeasement principles back into church history.
Love,
"I may then begin to consider that R2K men have not simply come up with their novel position out of a desire to hide out with Lot in Sodom"
Dear Tim,
I'm surprised that you assign to the R2K men a desire even as noble as Lot's, ignoble as he may have been. Throughout this debate I've repeatedly thought of 2 Peter 2:8 "for by what he saw and heard, that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds)." I've been wondering just how lawless the deeds of America would have to be for Darryl to be feel torment. But then, if infanticide isn't against the law, then I guess his soul doesn't have to feel torment over our "lawless deeds." Convenient.
Thank you for the refernences. Wedgeworth is particularly good. It seems incredible that people could claim support from Calvin and Luther for strict separation of church and state. As Wedgeworth notes, not only did those two take it for granted that pastors should get involved in politics, they also thought government officials should intervene to shake up the churches. One could make a less silly case by going straight to the Bible, though still failing, but that's the anabaptist tack.
I analogized R2K in an earlier post to sitting back in Paris sending goody baskets to the troops in the trenches. I see it's worse than that; it's like the Royalists in 1940 who scoffed at the war, saying a German takeover wouldn't make things much worse than the elected French government was anyway, or the Communists who said it would be an improvement because by heightening the contradictions of capitalism it would make them too satisfied to look to want a revolution.
Quoting from van Drunen:
"Perhaps we should be secretly pleased when these turn into disorder and depression. We have noted how many Christians today yearn for the days of public virtue present years ago in our nation's history... such memories distort the biblical understanding that we live in Babylon, when we see how they cause our hopes to seek fulfillment not in the next world, but in this.. If God answered our prayers and blessed our cultural efforts by bringing us days of unparalleled peace and prosperity, would that not in itself be a tremendous temptation to set our sights no higher than Babylon? " (http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV11N1A4.asp, Biblical Theology and the Culture War)
"Time and again the New Testament emphasizes the present suffering of Christians, the transitory and fleeting nature of the things of this world, heavenly citizenship, and the hope of the age to come. The things that it says about broader cultural affairs are so infrequent and so sparse – basically, submit to legitimate authority and work hard – that it is quite incredible to think that Christ and his apostles intended to instill a vision akin to the neo-Calvinist world and life view. (Hart quoting van drunen," http://oldlife.org/2010/11/25/nelson-kloosterman-may-not-be-but-i-am-thankful-for-david-vandrunen/)
Hey, Adam, I feel torment over the blasphemy and idolatry that goes on in America, some of it even countenanced in churches like the Baylys. I think contemporary music a very undignified and unworthy form in which to sing praise to God. But my torment doesn't count with Tim or David or you. You may think that I have become numb on the 6th commandment, but have you grown cold over the first four commandments? Is love of God chopped liver?
So in case you're wondering, the problem with the Bayly's harping on abortion is that they neglect all the other commandments. What's their exegetical reason for doing so? They don't have one. Apparently, they have a word from the Lord.
Dr. Hart,
I'm afraid your great learning is driving you mad.
You equate the slaughter of unborn babies with...contemporary music in worship???
Seriously???
You think that Scripture is just as clear about the instruments, meter, volume, and style of music in worship as it is about slaughtering unborn babies???
Do you blush?
And why do you constantly mock those who say "love" in their salutations?
Bizarre.
dgh,
What is the root of abortion if not idolatry?
Has Molech ceased to be an idol just because we've renamed him "prosperity and convenience"?
Sincerely,
DGH: "the problem with the Bayly's harping on abortion is that they neglect all the other commandments."
I invite any reader to compare Darryl's assertion that the Bayly's neglect "all the other commandments" to the categories to the left on the Bayly Blog and the categories of Darryl's posts on the right of his "Old Life" blog. Even take the time to read from those categories.
>>I think contemporary music a very undignified and unworthy form in which to sing praise to God. But my torment doesn't count with Tim or David or you.
Just to put this in perspective:
While the Bayly's shepherd and smack poison from the hands of sheep to protect them, Darryl would rather talk about the torments of taste.
Man's commands will always pursue a dignity which leads to destruction. If the purity of God's worship was Darryl's concern, he'd realize the first and second commandments are inextricably linked to the sixth and are still not fully fulfilled unless there is also obedience to the fifth (which reflexively has the first commandment and implies a command to parents to honor the first by reflecting God), the seventh, eighth and tenth as well.
I'm not sure there can be a much clearer point of contact for the gospel than opposition to abortion. The entire moral law is broken through it, and opposition to it epitomizes what is constantly described as "justice" throughout the Scriptures.
I question whether R2kers even comprehend the law, let alone being tormented by those who break it...it's amazing how "keeping" the law, according to R2k, looks like being "couth". Love is decidedly uncouth...which means obedience is as well.
Dr Hart, if you are more tormented by the Bayly's musical errors than you are by the mass shedding of innocent blood I think you may wish to stand down from public comment and review your priorities.
DGH - "I think contemporary music a very undignified and unworthy form in which to sing praise to God. But my torment doesn't count with Tim or David or you. You may think that I have become numb on the 6th commandment, but have you grown cold over the first four commandments? Is love of God chopped liver?"
Wow. Am I to understand that both musical and thological development ceased in 1646?
Stagnant pools produce no life and apparently those who drink deeply suffer the same.
al sends
As was pointed out over at Green Baggins WCF 1:2 states:
II. Under the name of holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:[list of the 39/27 book canon omitted for brevity] All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.
So if one is confessional one believes that the scriptures are to be the rule of life. Consequently R2K advocates may need to be counseled and/or disciplined if they cannot confess what the WCF confesses.
Would a R2K man apply church discipline to a man who forced his 16 year old daughter to have an abortion?
How do you debate natural law? It's perfectly natural for the strong to destroy the weak. Show me the natural law that prevents the president from carpet bombing Haiti. It's obviously perfectly natural for men to commit sodomy. Scientists have even discovered homosexual animals! And have you ever seen an animal retreat to the privacy of their own home to engage in sexual relations? Why, I've seen two cats in my own backyard. Maybe that's why Amsterdam now allows public, open air sexual union or sodomy in plain view in public parks.
Where is the book of natural law? How can you convince me I'm interpreting that law incorrectly?
Pfffft.
David Gray - Actually, R2K men do have an exception to the WCF which is not often mentioned - WCF says that there are two covenants - the covenant of Works, made in the garden, and the Covenant of Grace, made with Adam, Noah, and everybody thereafter, including Moses. R2K men hold that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works, in direct contrast to WCF. I have never heard a R2K man take an exception to the WCF on this point.
I just read the comments. Mr. Hart's sarcasm alone is enough to turn one off from his brand of Christianity. The fact that Mr. Wilson absolutely schools him just icing on the cake.
J.Kru, natural law in a Christian context refers to the law that is written on fallen man's heart (Rom. 2:14).
As for the Mosaic Covenant, it *is* the Covenant of Works republished (not reestablshed). It is what Jesus fulfills. For Jesus is it the Covenant of Work Adam in the Garden failed to fulfill. For all of fallen man it becomes part of the Covenant of Grace as Jesus fulfills it.
I just found this post linked on CO-URC, the unofficial United Reformed Churches listserve.
I wrote this there. I think I need to say the same thing here.
Dr. Darryl Hart is actually comparing abortion to contemporary Christian music. I would not have believed it if I had not seen it in his own words, here:
"Hey, Adam, I feel torment over the blasphemy and idolatry that goes on in America, some of it even countenanced in churches like the Baylys. I think contemporary music a very undignified and unworthy form in which to sing praise to God. But my torment doesn't count with Tim or David or you. You may think that I have become numb on the 6th commandment, but have you grown cold over the first four commandments? Is love of God chopped liver? So in case you're wondering, the problem with the Bayly's harping on abortion is that they neglect all the other commandments. What's their exegetical reason for doing so? They don't have one. Apparently, they have a word from the Lord.
Posted by: dgh | Tuesday, 04 January 2011 at 11:44 PM"
Numerous commenters pointed out the problem with this. As one person wrote: "Dr Hart, if you are more tormented by the Bayly's musical errors than you are by the mass shedding of innocent blood I think you may wish to stand down from public comment and review your priorities."
I think I now understand why Dr. Hart has probed, in some of his interactions with me on other boards, about my views on Reformed worship. (Hint: I'm probably more strict or more "Old School" in my views of worship than the vast majority of Dutch Reformed people, and Dr. Hart didn't probe further after he realized I hold to the regulative principle, including predominant psalmody, though I'm not convinced of exclusive psalmody.)
There was a time many years ago that I said some very bad things about Reformed worship, largely because I had been reading the wrong books given to me at Calvin College and Calvin Seminary about Reformed worship and pretty strongly rejected their advocacy of "traditional" worship because the authors failed to make a case from Scripture. I used to argue that there's nothing wrong with "modern" music in church, praise bands, use of drums/guitars/keyboards/etc., and other stuff designed to excite those in attendance, as long as the focus remains on the proclamation of the Word from the pulpit -- basically, I was advocating views that would be common in certain segements of fundamentalism.
It was not until I started going back to the primary sources from the 1600s that I finally understood that the Reformation's views on worship were not only about eliminating Catholic superstition from worship, as Luther did, hut also about having worship that was regulated by God's Word on the grounds that anything we did in worship that wasn't clearly prescribed by God's Word would always be sinful because of our own human depravity. The books Calvin College and Calvin Seminary gave me didn't make a serious Scriptural case and rejecting those authors left me with an essentually Lutheran view of worship, but that simply is not the position of the Reformers of the 1500s and 1600s or of most of the Reformed world until the late 1800s.
I say that because it's important before I say what comes next.
God cares deeply about how we worship Him. He cares so deeply about it that under the Old Testament people were killed for false worship practices. Worship is not a minor matter according to the Reformers, though it has become a minor matter for too many modern Calvinists. On that, Dr. Hart and I will have no disagreement -- much of what passes for worship in Reformed churches owes more to Charles Finney than to John Calvin.
But how, in any remotely Biblical understanding of Christian doctrine, can we argue that failing to act against the deliberate slaughter of tens of millions of unborn children in America alone is comparable to toleration of contemporary Christian music in Reformed churches?
Both are wrong. One proceeds from a wrong view of how to use music and excitement to motivate an emotional response from churchgoers. The other proceeds from a devaluation of human life and leads to outright murder. In other words, CCW in worship is doing the wrong thing out of at least possibly right motives, but abortion is committing murder with the motive of financial profit on the part of the abortionist or the motive of getting rid of an inconvenient "problem" (i.e., child) on the part of the woman getting the abortion.
Even if we grant that contemporary Christian music in worship is sinful man-centered idolatry -- and I'm very close to that position -- it is almost always in Reformed churches a sin committed in ignorance. How can we even remotely compare that sort of sin to planned murder of babies for profit or convenience?
I do not use the word "Pharisee" lightly. I am especially hesitant to do so because I think that I not only understand but also agree with Dr. Hart's views on Reformed worship. However, I would not want to stand before God saying I had spent much more of my time defending Reformed worship than defending the lives of babies. That comes perilously close to tithing mint and dill and cummin while leaving the weightier matters of the law undone.
Understand clearly that I am not pronouncing the "woes" of Matt. 23:23 against Dr. Hart. He is an Orthodox Presbyterian elder in good standing and needs to be treated as such. What I am saying is that he seems to have a prioritization problem that comes very close to what is condemned in that passage, and he has given good reason, as a respected teacher of Reformed doctrine and history, to explain just why defending Reformed worship is more important than defending the right to life of babies.
If the "Two Kingdoms" answer is that Christians need to be more concerned about Refomed worship in their churches than child murder in abortion clinics, it says a great deal about "Two Kingdoms" theology, and I don't think what it says is very good.
Regards,
Darrell Todd Maurina
The point was not that contemporary worship music is the moral equivalent of abortion. The point was that the 3rd commandment is the equivalent of the 6th, maybe even more important since our Lord says that love of God is the great commandment. But I do appreciate all the charitable readings of my remarks. I see the love of Tim Bayly extends to his fans.
I did take a look at the posts at this blog on Roman Catholicism. From a quick glance it seems that most have to do with sex and women's roles. I'd be surprised if I saw a post on the idolatry of the Mass (or that the godly magistrate should abolish the Mass).
Can you say Nadab and Abihu? Sure you can.
Dr. Hart, do you understand what "if" means?
Dr. Hart,
As I asked before, "You think that Scripture is just as clear about the instruments, meter, volume, and style of music in worship as it is about slaughtering unborn babies?"
Evidently your answer is yes.
It seems to me that your Fundamentalist background remains more formative in your views than you are willing to admit.
It is ironic that you accuse the Baylys of being Fundamentalists. Why? Because they are teetotalers? No.
Because they think women shouldn't wear pants? No.
Because they think a movie theater is an intrinsically evil place? No.
Because they think playing cards is sin? No.
Because they measure men's haircuts at the door of the church? No.
No, you call the Baylys Fundamentalists because they oppose abortion. They oppose the murder of those made in the image of God.
You, on the other hand, go beyond Scripture in the particulars of musical style and instrumentation in worship (in classic Fundamentalist fashion), claiming that your particular tastes are just as revealed as, "You shall not commit murder."
And again, your Fundamentalist background is also revealed in the way you interact with every blog on which you comment. You snipe, mock, and dismiss. Then, when other writers express love for you and one another, you make fun.
You can't seem to conceive of engaging in a theological dispute without devolving into personal hatred.
Could it be that, to the thief, every man steals?
Stephen Baker, and apparently you have the fundamentalist hermeneutic of hearing what you want to hear to condemn someone else. I said that contemporary music is not the moral equivalent of abortion. And then you charitably interpret that to mean that I think Scripture is as clear about musical elements as about abortion.
Wow.
But do you think that Christians should be as zealous to observe the first four commandments as they want non-believers to be in observing the sixth commandment? And don't you think it looks a little hypocritical for Christians to argue for one commandment without being as scrupulous about others?
Though Dr. Hart, being a preacher of the Gospel, should have already known it, other commenters on this blog have patiently and repeatedly taught him how our churches and nation continually violate the first and second commandments through the sin of abortion. Yet he continues his nonsensical accusations that any commenter here who questions him must be a fan of the Bayly brothers (which is not logical, let alone true) and also must not care as much about the other commandments (even less true). Let the reader understand. . .
Hi Mr. Santal -
>>J.Kru, natural law in a Christian context refers to the law that is written on fallen man's heart (Rom. 2:14).
Yes, I agree there is "natural law." Paul's point is that whether you have natural revelation or special revelation, you have failed to obey it. Furthermore, special revelation is an advantage over natural. Thus, a law that people do not obey, and one that is inferior to another, is hardly a reasonable basis for a society.
>>>As for the Mosaic Covenant, it *is* the Covenant of Works republished (not reestablshed). It is what Jesus fulfills. For Jesus is it the Covenant of Work Adam in the Garden failed to fulfill. For all of fallen man it becomes part of the Covenant of Grace as Jesus fulfills it.
I understand that many good men hold to that opinion; I happen not to. I don't wish to debate that. My point is that the Westminster Confession of Faith does not recognize the covenant with Moses as a covenant of Works (WCF ch. 7). An ordained minister subscribing to the WCF would have to take an exception to several points of ch. 7 to hold the position you describe.
Mr. Bayly -
I don\'t think you realize it, but your response to me is a great defense of R2K thinking. You mention the \"wounds\" of men like Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Whitefield, and I could add the Apostles and men like Hus, Luther, Athanasius, and others to the list. But why were those men persecuted? It was entirely because of their devotion to Christ, biblically correct theology, and purity in the church. None of those men were ever persecuted for opposing unjust war (and there were plenty in Europe at the time), or slavery, not to mention abortion and infanticide. When was Calvin wounded for opposing the immoral wars of the day? Paul for speaking out against the systemic rape and pillage practices of the Roman army? Knox for the constant unjust wars in Britain? Whitefield even supported slavery in Georgia!
I assume Dr. Hart is all for taking a beating for matters of faith, but there is no Scriptural command to martyrdom for wicked practices of the state. Calvin even notes that men and women will have to endure many \"evils\" perpetrated by ungodly rulers. Abortion is an evil that must stop, but nowhere is there a \"call\" to taking action against the government other than legal measures, namely the ballot box. I don\'t agree with Dr. Hart on everything regarding 2K/R2K, but in this I think he\'s right on target.
And the fact that Hippocrates opposed surgical abortion (medical abortion was allowed) shows God\'s natural law is sufficient for a clearly pagan culture to reject it.
Dear Mr. Suffolk,
>>None of those men were ever persecuted for opposing unjust war
Have I ever said they were? Over and over, I've pointed out the early church was persecuted and died for two principal crimes: atheism and anarchy. Anarchy! Read Workman's "Persecution and the Early Church" for an end to all of the ridiculous talk about the Church of the first centuries being apolitical.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1151777579?ie=UTF8&tag=davtimbayouto-20...
My point is not that R2K men should be condemning American imperialism in Afghanistan and Iraq, but that their entire system is an abuse of the Reformers' 2K system and that R2K is, it seems to me, precisely designed to help us avoid being charged with atheism and anarchy.
"But that's not our goal," an R2K man may respond. "We're willing to suffer persecution for the Lord, but it's just not happening!"
Throughout Church history, those who have been faithful--and particularly church officers--have suffered for that faithfulness. Often their suffering has come in the public square. The Evil One is not nearly as observant of R2K's much-ballyhooed boundaries between church and state as R2K men would like him to be.
Thus, so far as I know Doug Wilson has not suffered in the public square for opposing any part of American imperialism, or even abortion. Nevertheless, he's been attacked and suffered.
The burden of proof is on R2K men to show that our fathers never were prophetic against notorious public evils. Never. The burden of proof is not on historic 2K men to prove that every one of our fathers addressed every public evil of their day. In other words, all we need to settle this argument is a few cases where our fathers and the men of Scripture did what R2K men tell us should never be done.
So, do we have a precedent for what R2K men condemn?
Yes. For starters, we have John the Baptist losing his head for rebuking Herod. Too, we have many records of our Lord publicly rebuking the civil magistrates in Jerusalem. Three, we have the Apostle Paul in Athens attacking their city's idolatry when he preached to the Areopagus. Down through church history we find God's servants doing the same and suffering and dying for it.
In fact, had any of these men observed the scrupulous boundaries between private religion and public affairs, between church and state, between church officers and their jurisdiction and civil magistrates and their jurisdiction that the R2K men cling to, it's arguable every one of them could have avoided giving offense, and thus suffering and dying.
>>Hippocrates opposed surgical abortion (medical abortion was allowed)
Actually not. A "pessary" was equivalent to what we call a chemical abortion, today. It was a non-surgical abortion. Again, keep in mind that abortions then, prior to antibiotics, were extremely dangerous and therefore almost nonexistent compared to our bloodthirsty age.
Further, the Didache condemns abortion and such condemnations are no anomaly in the Early Church. Read Michael Gorman's excellent work, "Abortion and the Early Church," for a record of the Early Church's witness against this notorious evil of the Ancient World.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579101828?ie=UTF8&tag=davtimbayouto-20...
As for natural law being sufficient to condemn abortion, I've not said anything against using natural law to oppose abortion. Of course one can argue from nature against the wholesale slaughter of the unborn! Of course one can also argue from nature against sodomy! It's child's play to make such arguments but those arguments. What I repudiate is the chronic timidity of Christians to use the authority of the Word of God, particularly here and now when the majority of our fellow citizens and elected representatives believe it is God's Word.
But for those who would like to stick to natural law arguments in the public square, would you understand me if I said that the proof is in the pudding and I'd like you, please, to show me where R2K men have been persecuted and suffered even for arguments, warnings, and condemnations based on natural law? Also, would you please show me where R2K men are known, publicly, for saving children who were about to become the victims of abortion as the Early Church was known for saving children who were about to become the victims of exposure on the slopes of the Roman Empire?
Men of God down through Church history have shown courage in opposing the sexual immorality of the civil magistrate (John the Baptist and Herod), the cruelty of the civil magistrates and their laws (Jesus and the chief priests), the public idolatry of the civil magistrates and their subjects (the Apostle Paul and the Areopagus), and many other notorious evils of civil magistrates and their subjects and laws down through history. Our Church fathers had courage and were bold in opposing such sin, trusting in the Name of the Lord and loving the lost enough to preach the Law and Gospel to them.
We too must show faith and follow in their footsteps, trusting that the suffering we undergo is not the result of our foolishness and failure to apply proper boundaries and distinctions, but rather of honoring God and preaching in public what our own civil magistrates would rather we preached only behind closed doors to Gnostic initiates equally committed to keeping our own precious secret of God's Moral Law, the only schoolmaster to the precious Cross of Jesus Chirst.
The blood of the martyrs is still the seed of the Church, and I'm convinced that where the R2K novelty reigns, seed, evangelism, fruit, and growth will be absent.
Love,
PS: In your first comment, you wrote: "Your point seems to be that the secular state allows abortion because it has abandoned its Christian roots." For the record, that's not my point at all. I've never thought, let alone written, such a thing.
PPS: I'm closing the comments, but will be happy to receive an e-mail from Mr. Suffolk and to post that e-mail as the final word, here, should he wish to do so.