Steven I appreciate that you don't allow your opponents to get under your skin , which allows you to keep being clearminded on these important issues. I'm finding your stuff very helpful.
This is another example of why Escondido theology is fundamentally antinomian. Out of the three branches of government, the one off-limits for vigorous Christian participation is the legislative.
And even their OT theology by itself is partial. In the exile narratives of Daniel and Esther, for example, the result of faithfulness to the Lord in that exile is that the civil rulers actually acknowledge the authority of Jehovah and require their subjects to honor it. It is never some kind of "perpetual defeat," but even in the time of ineffective shadows resulted in victory, with kings and nations bending the knee to the Living God (Ps. 2 & 22).
Their Biblical Theology is also totally nearsighted. The New Covenant is actually fulfilled in Christ. Christians are not just re-enacting Abraham or Israel: we have actually received the promised inheritance, which is, in Christ, the nations (Psalm 2 is fulfilled in Matt. 28) The apostolic preaching in the book of Acts doesn't say "accept this message that will lead your heavenly end." It says: "This man Jesus is ruling now, and you must serve Him." They hover on this one verse in Peter, but there's a whole lot more in the NT than just that.
They keep on saying "Yes, we need to seek the good of the city." But what is "the good"? Are true worship and right belief part of "the good"? Are righteous laws part of "the good"? And what are *means* by which we seek the good of the city? Only spiritual? But now what are they going to say about the example of Daniel, Joseph, or Esther--who all used the political power of their time to accomplish the good? In the list of accomplishments by faith in Heb. 11, "conquered kingdoms" and "administered justice" are included along with the suffering. So, there are different roles and applications of faith at different times and in different places. Finally (!), these guys aren't even in agreement with the confessional standards. Look at WLC 129-130 on the duties and sins of superiors, or 191 on what we are asking for in the second petition.
More than half way thru; I think you find yourself repeating many of the same (obviously true) points in response to every few sentences of theirs, so I think you should probably let the video play for longer stretches, and perhaps even just say "Rewatch my response before this point."
It was good for Solomon, the typical prince of peace, to build his city and amass goods (a productive economy) for the good of the people of God. The endeavor was not a confusion of seeking the heavenly city. Solomon, who uniquely received God’s gifted wisdom, was also in the know of these things pointed forward AND he was still about that good earthly work.
Their argument is built on vagueness. Elaborating on “looking for the heavenly city” would reveal how close the positions actually are. Gordon is unclear: affirming on the one hand that we should seek to influence government and then spinning and speaking as though his former admission somehow is abandoning the seeking of the heavenly city. These are the same guys that say “We don’t build the kingdom, Christ is the one building his kingdom.” In that sense, it’s hard to avoid the implications of passivity (per their argument) and the contradictory nature of his former admission. How about this: seeking the good of the commonwealth doesn’t negate, replace, or contradict the heavenly city because it didn’t in either circumstance of Israel in exile or Israel rebuilding the city after exile. Seeking the polis’s highest good honors God and neighbor. And at the very least, to work is good and there’s not been a good reason given to abandon Christian civic work as “not good.” Also, never seen a sojourner walking in exile with a library as extensive as Gordon’s. 😎 I must not be exiling as hard as him because my library is pequeno.
43:26 Read Matthew 13:24-30. God’s will is not that unbelievers/sinners would be “pulled up” but that they would share the land with believers in a common way. At judgment day they will be dealt with. We can all agree that the good would be a land that acknowledges Christ, but it’s not promised and for anyone to say we can have it is to say what the slaves in the parable say to Jesus “should we fix it?” To which Jesus said “no!” That’s God’s will, we don’t need to guess about it. “How then shall we live together?” Live and let live with liberty for all.
I understand your objection re: having a principle for wars, but wouldn't the principle governing their view of state sponsored violence be proportional retributive justice/just-war, whereas they would classify sabbath laws outside the realm of secular government's legitimate authority? It's simply a matter of jurisdiction -- the principle thereof arising from DVD's interpretation of the Noahic covenant.
When you say “secular government” are you stating secularist who are the leaders in government or the Christians who are in government? I think Dr. Wolfe is basing his argument from a “Christian ruling” perspective not from a secularist perspective. If Christians hold power, they can have the political will to foster an environment that points to a heavenly good which may include sabbath laws.
@ I understand Wolfe’s perspective. I’m stating from the perspective of Gordon and the WSCAL guys. They argue that the government is a common institution that, because it’s not in a special/gracious covenant with God, has no authority to mediate sacred/priestly matters such as sabbath laws. DVD makes extensive arguments about this. I tend to agree with Wolfe on most things, but him saying they have no principle to base their divisions isn’t a fair treatment. I get that Gordon and this other guy aren’t particularly sharp on this topic, but he seems to clump this in with DVD, who is a very thorough thinker.
I think the presumption made by the DVD/Escondido group as it pertains to Sabbath laws is an underlying “forced worship” conflation by denying open commerce on Sundays. Having laws that deny open commerce on a Sunday is not the same as creating a law requiring people to attend church. These two terms are often conflated. A Christian nation can create laws to deny certain cultural practices, i.e. businesses being opened on Sunday, as a means to ENCOURAGE, people to attend church. This legislated ENCOURAGEMENT is not the same as MANDATED Church attendance. Again, our nation’s history once understood this difference and created Blue Laws for this purpose. DVD is thoughtful, yet he still tends to conflate categories/terms also.
The "broad themes" approach is not a problem from R2K point of view, it's a solution to remove the concrete and make everything exclusively spiritual, severing the political principles from the Scriptures. Once that's done the Scriptures only speak to personal piety, and then political morality can be free of any constraints from the Scriptures. Their misdirected strong political will seems to me to be related to a rejection of the Ordo Amoris, saying political will can benefit everyone except your own people.
Isn’t the heavenly city coming down to earth on the last day? God did not create man for ethereal/immaterial existence. It just seems that these guys have a sophisticated form of left behind theology when it comes to political or cultural engagement.
Wilderness isn’t the only motif in scripture. There is also the motif of patterning things below after things above, and that fairly extensively.
Steven I appreciate that you don't allow your opponents to get under your skin , which allows you to keep being clearminded on these important issues.
I'm finding your stuff very helpful.
This is another example of why Escondido theology is fundamentally antinomian. Out of the three branches of government, the one off-limits for vigorous Christian participation is the legislative.
And even their OT theology by itself is partial. In the exile narratives of Daniel and Esther, for example, the result of faithfulness to the Lord in that exile is that the civil rulers actually acknowledge the authority of Jehovah and require their subjects to honor it. It is never some kind of "perpetual defeat," but even in the time of ineffective shadows resulted in victory, with kings and nations bending the knee to the Living God (Ps. 2 & 22).
Their Biblical Theology is also totally nearsighted. The New Covenant is actually fulfilled in Christ. Christians are not just re-enacting Abraham or Israel: we have actually received the promised inheritance, which is, in Christ, the nations (Psalm 2 is fulfilled in Matt. 28) The apostolic preaching in the book of Acts doesn't say "accept this message that will lead your heavenly end." It says: "This man Jesus is ruling now, and you must serve Him." They hover on this one verse in Peter, but there's a whole lot more in the NT than just that.
Oh... the left wing G-A-Z-E!
That was cracking me up.
They keep on saying "Yes, we need to seek the good of the city." But what is "the good"? Are true worship and right belief part of "the good"? Are righteous laws part of "the good"? And what are *means* by which we seek the good of the city? Only spiritual? But now what are they going to say about the example of Daniel, Joseph, or Esther--who all used the political power of their time to accomplish the good? In the list of accomplishments by faith in Heb. 11, "conquered kingdoms" and "administered justice" are included along with the suffering. So, there are different roles and applications of faith at different times and in different places.
Finally (!), these guys aren't even in agreement with the confessional standards. Look at WLC 129-130 on the duties and sins of superiors, or 191 on what we are asking for in the second petition.
Yes, too much subjection to the left gaze [sic]. 😏
38:01 Locke on exiling atheists bc there’s no accountability of conscience without the concept of judgement.
More than half way thru; I think you find yourself repeating many of the same (obviously true) points in response to every few sentences of theirs, so I think you should probably let the video play for longer stretches, and perhaps even just say "Rewatch my response before this point."
It was good for Solomon, the typical prince of peace, to build his city and amass goods (a productive economy) for the good of the people of God. The endeavor was not a confusion of seeking the heavenly city. Solomon, who uniquely received God’s gifted wisdom, was also in the know of these things pointed forward AND he was still about that good earthly work.
Their argument is built on vagueness. Elaborating on “looking for the heavenly city” would reveal how close the positions actually are. Gordon is unclear: affirming on the one hand that we should seek to influence government and then spinning and speaking as though his former admission somehow is abandoning the seeking of the heavenly city.
These are the same guys that say “We don’t build the kingdom, Christ is the one building his kingdom.” In that sense, it’s hard to avoid the implications of passivity (per their argument) and the contradictory nature of his former admission.
How about this: seeking the good of the commonwealth doesn’t negate, replace, or contradict the heavenly city because it didn’t in either circumstance of Israel in exile or Israel rebuilding the city after exile. Seeking the polis’s highest good honors God and neighbor. And at the very least, to work is good and there’s not been a good reason given to abandon Christian civic work as “not good.”
Also, never seen a sojourner walking in exile with a library as extensive as Gordon’s. 😎
I must not be exiling as hard as him because my library is pequeno.
43:26 Read Matthew 13:24-30. God’s will is not that unbelievers/sinners would be “pulled up” but that they would share the land with believers in a common way. At judgment day they will be dealt with. We can all agree that the good would be a land that acknowledges Christ, but it’s not promised and for anyone to say we can have it is to say what the slaves in the parable say to Jesus “should we fix it?” To which Jesus said “no!” That’s God’s will, we don’t need to guess about it. “How then shall we live together?” Live and let live with liberty for all.
No
I know you said "gaze of the left", but I keep hearing "gays of the left".
I understand your objection re: having a principle for wars, but wouldn't the principle governing their view of state sponsored violence be proportional retributive justice/just-war, whereas they would classify sabbath laws outside the realm of secular government's legitimate authority? It's simply a matter of jurisdiction -- the principle thereof arising from DVD's interpretation of the Noahic covenant.
When you say “secular government” are you stating secularist who are the leaders in government or the Christians who are in government? I think Dr. Wolfe is basing his argument from a “Christian ruling” perspective not from a secularist perspective. If Christians hold power, they can have the political will to foster an environment that points to a heavenly good which may include sabbath laws.
@ I understand Wolfe’s perspective. I’m stating from the perspective of Gordon and the WSCAL guys. They argue that the government is a common institution that, because it’s not in a special/gracious covenant with God, has no authority to mediate sacred/priestly matters such as sabbath laws. DVD makes extensive arguments about this. I tend to agree with Wolfe on most things, but him saying they have no principle to base their divisions isn’t a fair treatment. I get that Gordon and this other guy aren’t particularly sharp on this topic, but he seems to clump this in with DVD, who is a very thorough thinker.
I think the presumption made by the DVD/Escondido group as it pertains to Sabbath laws is an underlying “forced worship” conflation by denying open commerce on Sundays. Having laws that deny open commerce on a Sunday is not the same as creating a law requiring people to attend church. These two terms are often conflated. A Christian nation can create laws to deny certain cultural practices, i.e. businesses being opened on Sunday, as a means to ENCOURAGE, people to attend church. This legislated ENCOURAGEMENT is not the same as MANDATED Church attendance. Again, our nation’s history once understood this difference and created Blue Laws for this purpose. DVD is thoughtful, yet he still tends to conflate categories/terms also.
The "broad themes" approach is not a problem from R2K point of view, it's a solution to remove the concrete and make everything exclusively spiritual, severing the political principles from the Scriptures. Once that's done the Scriptures only speak to personal piety, and then political morality can be free of any constraints from the Scriptures.
Their misdirected strong political will seems to me to be related to a rejection of the Ordo Amoris, saying political will can benefit everyone except your own people.
Isn’t the heavenly city coming down to earth on the last day? God did not create man for ethereal/immaterial existence. It just seems that these guys have a sophisticated form of left behind theology when it comes to political or cultural engagement.