Comments on: Response to Darryl Hart: The Radicality of Christian Obedience http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/ The Reign of Christ Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:09:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1293 stevez Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:24:47 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1293 "If common grace is so reliable, how can you explain why so many people think homosexuality is a perfectly normal and healthy phenomenon?" Reliability doesn't seem to imply perfection--at least to me. Doesn't a (high and rigorous Augustinian-Calvinist, which is to say, biblical)doctrine of sin figure in to explain why things go amuck? And if the question is to imply that special grace helps in transcending humanity (either instituionally or personally), how do you explain Christians who have mucked things up? "If common grace operates as you think it does, why has the west largely abandoned its former conviction that murder should be punished by death? Capital punishment is Justice 101, but only a minority accepts the talion principle’s validity." Really. I happen to agree; I am in that minority when it comes to the particularities of justice (sigh...yet another minority for me. Darryl's right, Andrew, live it large, guy But why is that some sort of litmus test? As persuaded as I am, why can't the other side of the table exist without being notched up as, at best, culprits to the fall of justice in the west, or, at worst, God-haters who need to watch over their left shoulder? And, why has this abandonment not made the narrow list of "why God should burn down America" per the co/belligerents of the Right? Let's see, we have the abortionists and all within a 100 mile radius and the gay marriage folks (then other rather minority platforms)...where are the CP abolitionists? I never see them on the monger list. Maybe it's because that's the only rule they keep: stay two-dimensional at all costs (that and "admit nothing"). Steve “If common grace is so reliable, how can you explain why so many people think homosexuality is a perfectly normal and healthy phenomenon?”

Reliability doesn’t seem to imply perfection–at least to me. Doesn’t a (high and rigorous Augustinian-Calvinist, which is to say, biblical)doctrine of sin figure in to explain why things go amuck? And if the question is to imply that special grace helps in transcending humanity (either instituionally or personally), how do you explain Christians who have mucked things up?

“If common grace operates as you think it does, why has the west largely abandoned its former conviction that murder should be punished by death? Capital punishment is Justice 101, but only a minority accepts the talion principle’s validity.”

Really. I happen to agree; I am in that minority when it comes to the particularities of justice (sigh…yet another minority for me. Darryl’s right, Andrew, live it large, guy But why is that some sort of litmus test? As persuaded as I am, why can’t the other side of the table exist without being notched up as, at best, culprits to the fall of justice in the west, or, at worst, God-haters who need to watch over their left shoulder? And, why has this abandonment not made the narrow list of “why God should burn down America” per the co/belligerents of the Right? Let’s see, we have the abortionists and all within a 100 mile radius and the gay marriage folks (then other rather minority platforms)…where are the CP abolitionists? I never see them on the monger list. Maybe it’s because that’s the only rule they keep: stay two-dimensional at all costs (that and “admit nothing”).

Steve

]]> By: MarkPele http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1292 MarkPele Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:14:59 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1292 In fact, Dr. Hart, you disagree that Christianizing America is noble and Biblical. And, it seems that you're unwilling to "dig in" to any of my arguments, but instead throw out Red Herrings to get me off of the scent. Let me restate my arguments so that you can deal with them: 1) Justice and morality are uniquely Christian and reflect a view of the creation that only Christians can obtain. While other religions and non-religions may claim morality, their view of morality is, of necessity, skewed. Thus, only a Christian state can offer justice and morality. God through common grace has allowed the reprobate to show some level of these in an external way, but that is not the same. "A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal,But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel." (Prov 12:10) 2) It is impossible to separate secular (temporal) from eternal in any meaningful way with regard to the state. The Christian cannot turn off his soul to deal with politics, or tell God to "take a hike" while he decides matters of policy. Church and State divide along this boundary, yet the Church must, of necessity, deal with temporal matters in guiding her members to eternity. In the same way, the temporal actions of the state cannot be removed from their eternal consequences, like the wicked kings of Judah who led their people into idolatry. 3) Like it or not, the Bible has a "national" view, as well as an individual view. Search for "nation" in the Bible and it's pretty hard to deny that. Thus God is particularly interested in the actions of nations, as is seen in Psalm 72: 1-2, "Give the king Your judgments, O God, And Your righteousness to the king's son. May he judge Your people with righteousness And Your afflicted with justice." and Psalm 2: 8-9 "Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware." 4) Our desire to bring all of creation under the rule of Christ is a noble and Biblical goal. Jesus Himself, in teaching us to pray said, "Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven." Also, as is seen above in Psalm 72, we ask for God to give the king (our leaders) righteousness, why? that he may "judge Your people with righteousness". To "immanantize the eschaton" as you seem to sneer at, is not condemned, but is in fact what we are to pray for in our model prayer. Do you sing Psalm 72, or do you sneer at verses that say, "And let all kings bow down before him, All nations serve him.", or do you eternalize it to say that it should never be our goal that nations serve Christ before He comes again? In fact, Dr. Hart, you disagree that Christianizing America is noble and Biblical. And, it seems that you’re unwilling to “dig in” to any of my arguments, but instead throw out Red Herrings to get me off of the scent. Let me restate my arguments so that you can deal with them:
1) Justice and morality are uniquely Christian and reflect a view of the creation that only Christians can obtain. While other religions and non-religions may claim morality, their view of morality is, of necessity, skewed. Thus, only a Christian state can offer justice and morality. God through common grace has allowed the reprobate to show some level of these in an external way, but that is not the same. “A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal,But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.” (Prov 12:10)
2) It is impossible to separate secular (temporal) from eternal in any meaningful way with regard to the state. The Christian cannot turn off his soul to deal with politics, or tell God to “take a hike” while he decides matters of policy. Church and State divide along this boundary, yet the Church must, of necessity, deal with temporal matters in guiding her members to eternity. In the same way, the temporal actions of the state cannot be removed from their eternal consequences, like the wicked kings of Judah who led their people into idolatry.
3) Like it or not, the Bible has a “national” view, as well as an individual view. Search for “nation” in the Bible and it’s pretty hard to deny that. Thus God is particularly interested in the actions of nations, as is seen in Psalm 72: 1-2, “Give the king Your judgments, O God, And Your righteousness to the king’s son. May he judge Your people with righteousness And Your afflicted with justice.” and Psalm 2: 8-9 “Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.”
4) Our desire to bring all of creation under the rule of Christ is a noble and Biblical goal. Jesus Himself, in teaching us to pray said, “Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven.” Also, as is seen above in Psalm 72, we ask for God to give the king (our leaders) righteousness, why? that he may “judge Your people with righteousness”. To “immanantize the eschaton” as you seem to sneer at, is not condemned, but is in fact what we are to pray for in our model prayer. Do you sing Psalm 72, or do you sneer at verses that say, “And let all kings bow down before him, All nations serve him.”, or do you eternalize it to say that it should never be our goal that nations serve Christ before He comes again?

]]> By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1288 D Hart Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:45:02 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1288 Mark, the entire point of this exercise is a debate on what is noble and Biblical. I have yet to affirm that Christianizing America is noble or biblical. And if I have scorn it is only because many today have not considered efforts in the past to Christianize America and how those efforts invariably compromised the gospel. Why would you, then, threaten someone who is trying to defend the integrity of the gospel with the sword? Scorn indeed. Mark, the entire point of this exercise is a debate on what is noble and Biblical. I have yet to affirm that Christianizing America is noble or biblical. And if I have scorn it is only because many today have not considered efforts in the past to Christianize America and how those efforts invariably compromised the gospel. Why would you, then, threaten someone who is trying to defend the integrity of the gospel with the sword? Scorn indeed.

]]> By: MarkPele http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1285 MarkPele Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:42:57 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1285 Dr. Hart, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "immanantizing the eschaton". In following the logical conclusion, the argument "do not sin so that grace may abound" applies. If it is a Biblical and noble goal to bring everything in subjection to Christ, then how do people following a Biblical and noble goal thus draw your scorn? If it is more than the mere attitude of bringing in eternity, as you seem to be saying, then what other things ought I to disobey God in to prevent your scorn? Maybe a well placed smack on the faces of those I love will keep eternity far away? Seriously, though, you're poking holes in the Great Commission by saying that "discipling the nations" is a sinful and counterproductive goal. Dr. Hart, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “immanantizing the eschaton”. In following the logical conclusion, the argument “do not sin so that grace may abound” applies. If it is a Biblical and noble goal to bring everything in subjection to Christ, then how do people following a Biblical and noble goal thus draw your scorn? If it is more than the mere attitude of bringing in eternity, as you seem to be saying, then what other things ought I to disobey God in to prevent your scorn? Maybe a well placed smack on the faces of those I love will keep eternity far away? Seriously, though, you’re poking holes in the Great Commission by saying that “discipling the nations” is a sinful and counterproductive goal.

]]> By: MarkPele http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1284 MarkPele Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:35:13 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1284 Don't worry, I'd only use the sword to cut your connection to the internet ;). I guess a Red Herring is the same as walking away. The point is not whether or not other cultures have similar laws, but that those similar laws, of necessity derive themselves in the truth. I think it was Greg Bahnsen who talked of the two buildings. Both buildings have light, but upon careful inspection, you see that there is a wire plugged into the Christian building running into the non-Christian building. So, in effect, his notion is that all of the "truth" that the secular world enjoys is derived from the Christian faith. So, as Andrew already pointed out historically in the case of Islam, laws concerning homosexuality stem from the Christian understanding of marriage. As Romans 1 points out so eloquently, there is a progression from truth to wickedness. The first step is to replace the truth of God with folly, and then the subsequent steps lead to worship of creation. Maybe Muslims have laws regarding homosexuality, but they also allow polygamy, condone terrorism and murder of "infidels". But Romans put this clearly into perspective - the basis for this is primarily a rejection of God. So, Romans 1 says that the eventual result of rejection of God is gross immorality. I may be a bit on a logical limb, but, since Romans says "they", I will say that I can arbitrarily replace it with any group of people, let's say, nations. <I>For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of NATIONS who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to the NATIONS. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though the NATIONS knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, NATIONS became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave NATIONS over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For the NATIONS exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave NATIONS over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although NATIONS know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.</I> We see that groups of people (they) must acknowledge their creator, or they, of necessity end up in the darkness of human depravity. Maybe this is why the sole judgment of kings in the Old Testament was whether they served God or rejected Him. Those who rejected God drove their people to do the same, and those who served God encouraged their people to do the same. Thus it seems evident that the critical mistake (or rejection) of the Founding Fathers was to ignore the Creator and instead pay homage to the created (We the people). Now, we are paying the price with a nation that not only is unrighteous, but encourages others to be unrighteous. Don’t worry, I’d only use the sword to cut your connection to the internet ;). I guess a Red Herring is the same as walking away. The point is not whether or not other cultures have similar laws, but that those similar laws, of necessity derive themselves in the truth. I think it was Greg Bahnsen who talked of the two buildings. Both buildings have light, but upon careful inspection, you see that there is a wire plugged into the Christian building running into the non-Christian building. So, in effect, his notion is that all of the “truth” that the secular world enjoys is derived from the Christian faith.

So, as Andrew already pointed out historically in the case of Islam, laws concerning homosexuality stem from the Christian understanding of marriage. As Romans 1 points out so eloquently, there is a progression from truth to wickedness. The first step is to replace the truth of God with folly, and then the subsequent steps lead to worship of creation. Maybe Muslims have laws regarding homosexuality, but they also allow polygamy, condone terrorism and murder of “infidels”. But Romans put this clearly into perspective - the basis for this is primarily a rejection of God.

So, Romans 1 says that the eventual result of rejection of God is gross immorality. I may be a bit on a logical limb, but, since Romans says “they”, I will say that I can arbitrarily replace it with any group of people, let’s say, nations.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of NATIONS who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to the NATIONS. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

For even though the NATIONS knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, NATIONS became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave NATIONS over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For the NATIONS exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave NATIONS over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although NATIONS know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

We see that groups of people (they) must acknowledge their creator, or they, of necessity end up in the darkness of human depravity. Maybe this is why the sole judgment of kings in the Old Testament was whether they served God or rejected Him. Those who rejected God drove their people to do the same, and those who served God encouraged their people to do the same.

Thus it seems evident that the critical mistake (or rejection) of the Founding Fathers was to ignore the Creator and instead pay homage to the created (We the people). Now, we are paying the price with a nation that not only is unrighteous, but encourages others to be unrighteous.

]]> By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1282 D Hart Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:22:13 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1282 Andrew, regarding the staleness of ideas, the theology of the cross/theology of glory is hardly old news. I've actually been accused of being Lutheran, and that was not meant as a compliment. The ideas that are stale are actually the Lordship of Christ minus some tension with the NT language of exile and alienation. Covenanters, Kuyperians, theonomists, evangelicals and mainline Protestants have all trumpeted the Lordship of Christ. To dissent is to be dismissed as fundamentalist or Lutheran. You, Andrew, are in the majority, and your tactics against the minority position are ironically defensive. Live large. Modern Protestant history is on your side. These comments might also shed some perspective on Andrew's aside that W2K is unassailable. If only. Andrew also writes: "You (DGH) say that establishing governments and laws which reflect the rule of Christ is to prematurely immanentize the eschaton. That’s an assertion which has yet to be proven." Read Voegelin, read any number of books on millennialism in the U.S., think about Reagan invoking the city on a hill, read A Secular Faith. None of these items may prove it to you. But it is not exactly an obscure position to suggest that establishing Christ's rule leads magistrates to think of themselves or their state in millennial terms. It is what humans -- you know the fall and making ourselves gods -- do. BTW, if Andrew wants to claim that Muslim prohibitions against certain forms of wickedness stems from a prior influence of the gospel, wouldn't the same cultural logic apply to secular forms of thought which originated in the Christian West? Andrew, regarding the staleness of ideas, the theology of the cross/theology of glory is hardly old news. I’ve actually been accused of being Lutheran, and that was not meant as a compliment. The ideas that are stale are actually the Lordship of Christ minus some tension with the NT language of exile and alienation. Covenanters, Kuyperians, theonomists, evangelicals and mainline Protestants have all trumpeted the Lordship of Christ. To dissent is to be dismissed as fundamentalist or Lutheran. You, Andrew, are in the majority, and your tactics against the minority position are ironically defensive. Live large. Modern Protestant history is on your side.

These comments might also shed some perspective on Andrew’s aside that W2K is unassailable. If only.

Andrew also writes: “You (DGH) say that establishing governments and laws which reflect the rule of Christ is to prematurely immanentize the eschaton. That’s an assertion which has yet to be proven.” Read Voegelin, read any number of books on millennialism in the U.S., think about Reagan invoking the city on a hill, read A Secular Faith. None of these items may prove it to you. But it is not exactly an obscure position to suggest that establishing Christ’s rule leads magistrates to think of themselves or their state in millennial terms. It is what humans — you know the fall and making ourselves gods — do.

BTW, if Andrew wants to claim that Muslim prohibitions against certain forms of wickedness stems from a prior influence of the gospel, wouldn’t the same cultural logic apply to secular forms of thought which originated in the Christian West?

]]> By: Andrew Matthews http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1280 Andrew Matthews Sun, 29 Jul 2007 06:58:16 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1280 Darryl, I'm not a professional historian, but I thought I learned somewhere that Islam arose in an area that the Gospel had already reached. Mohammed self-consciously constructed his new religion out of the pre-existing materials of Judaism and Christianity (as well as pagan sources, I believe). Biblical morality was common intellectual currency in that time and place. If common grace is so reliable, how can you explain why so many people think homosexuality is a perfectly normal and healthy phenomenon? If common grace operates as you think it does, why has the west largely abandoned its former conviction that murder should be punished by death? Capital punishment is Justice 101, but only a minority accepts the talion principle's validity. You say that establishing governments and laws which reflect the rule of Christ is to prematurely immanentize the eschaton. That's an assertion which has yet to be proven. It certainly isn't obvious to me. And just because the Church doesn't possess the power of the sword per se, it does not therefore follow that the wielder of the sword isn't answerable to the Church's judgment. Just because the bar of justice is not holy as the communion rail is holy, it does not follow that Christ's rule is parsed into discrete redemptive and providential dispensations. A lot more is required to establish W2K's unassailability than constant reiteration of stale theological jargon (theology of cross/glory, immanentizing the eschaton) with anachronistic appeals to Augustine, Calvin and Westminster. These appeals are anachronistic because no account has been given of how these revered men of the past understood the relation of their theory to their own practice. Are we really to believe these fathers in the faith were blind to an inconsistency that moderns find self-evident? I submit that this "inconsistency" is neither so obvious nor so self-evident as W2K men suppose. Darryl, I’m not a professional historian, but I thought I learned somewhere that Islam arose in an area that the Gospel had already reached. Mohammed self-consciously constructed his new religion out of the pre-existing materials of Judaism and Christianity (as well as pagan sources, I believe). Biblical morality was common intellectual currency in that time and place.

If common grace is so reliable, how can you explain why so many people think homosexuality is a perfectly normal and healthy phenomenon? If common grace operates as you think it does, why has the west largely abandoned its former conviction that murder should be punished by death? Capital punishment is Justice 101, but only a minority accepts the talion principle’s validity.

You say that establishing governments and laws which reflect the rule of Christ is to prematurely immanentize the eschaton. That’s an assertion which has yet to be proven. It certainly isn’t obvious to me.

And just because the Church doesn’t possess the power of the sword per se, it does not therefore follow that the wielder of the sword isn’t answerable to the Church’s judgment. Just because the bar of justice is not holy as the communion rail is holy, it does not follow that Christ’s rule is parsed into discrete redemptive and providential dispensations. A lot more is required to establish W2K’s unassailability than constant reiteration of stale theological jargon (theology of cross/glory, immanentizing the eschaton) with anachronistic appeals to Augustine, Calvin and Westminster. These appeals are anachronistic because no account has been given of how these revered men of the past understood the relation of their theory to their own practice. Are we really to believe these fathers in the faith were blind to an inconsistency that moderns find self-evident? I submit that this “inconsistency” is neither so obvious nor so self-evident as W2K men suppose.

]]> By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1278 stevez Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:33:24 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1278 "...how would Mark explain Muslims coming up with prohibitions on homosexuality, fornication, murder, and treason without their having a Biblical view of morality?" I wonder if the explanation would cover how "whiter" governments (i.e. those with Christianly influence) at once upheld strictures against these things and persecuted Christians? I don't think the Third Reich tolerated either homosexuals/treason/theft or Christians. I don't think Stalin did either. If the thumbnail litmus test about how "biblical" a society is, how does one explain societies that officially point to institutional Christianity, attempt to prove that influence by how it upholds certain moralities, yet also have crushed God's own people? Steve “…how would Mark explain Muslims coming up with prohibitions on homosexuality, fornication, murder, and treason without their having a Biblical view of morality?”

I wonder if the explanation would cover how “whiter” governments (i.e. those with Christianly influence) at once upheld strictures against these things and persecuted Christians? I don’t think the Third Reich tolerated either homosexuals/treason/theft or Christians. I don’t think Stalin did either. If the thumbnail litmus test about how “biblical” a society is, how does one explain societies that officially point to institutional Christianity, attempt to prove that influence by how it upholds certain moralities, yet also have crushed God’s own people?

Steve

]]> By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1275 D Hart Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:14:47 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1275 I hope MarkPele doesn't own a sword. Sounds like he'd use it on me. But Mark, if you're so tired debating, how do you think I feel? And for what it's worth, how would Mark explain Muslims coming up with prohibitions on homosexuality, fornication, murder, and treason without their having a Biblical view of morality? (Is a biblical view of morality the same as biblical morality, or a redaction of it?) Andrew writes: "Of course, at this point you’ll say we do have a King—in heaven. My response then, is why wouldn’t we want to have a form of gov’t and laws that reflect this reality?" Swordless Hart answers: because that would immanentize the eschaton. Maybe this is why patience is a Christian grace. I hope MarkPele doesn’t own a sword.

Sounds like he’d use it on me. But Mark, if you’re so tired debating, how do you think I feel?

And for what it’s worth, how would Mark explain Muslims coming up with prohibitions on homosexuality, fornication, murder, and treason without their having a Biblical view of morality? (Is a biblical view of morality the same as biblical morality, or a redaction of it?)

Andrew writes: “Of course, at this point you’ll say we do have a King—in heaven. My response then, is why wouldn’t we want to have a form of gov’t and laws that reflect this reality?”
Swordless Hart answers: because that would immanentize the eschaton. Maybe this is why patience is a Christian grace.

]]> By: MarkPele http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1274 MarkPele Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:07:18 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/07/05/response-to-darryl-hart-the-radicality-of-christian-obedience/#comment-1274 Not to be entirely "me too", but it seems like Dr. Hart clams up every time we get to the logical conclusion of his argument. I've challenged him on this very point many times, that many of the state goods and evils are derived SOLELY from the Bible. Without a Biblical view of morality, we cannot declare homosexuality, fornication, theft, murder, treason and a host of other things "wrong". Thus, Dr. Hart's secular state cannot have ANY law, because all law finds its basis in morality, and all morality must find its basis in a God-created, Biblically-understood order. Thus, Dr. Hart is always backed in the corner, through multiple means, of justifying any law and why it should exist on our books. Instead, it turns into a cliche fest about "Christian coffee mugs", Magistrates "turning the other cheek", etc. I, for one am tired of debating something so ridiculous as arbitrarily and purposefully misrepresenting the context of Christ's words. Dr. Hart, remember, this is the same Christ who told his disciples to "buy swords" - was that for the purpose of turning their cheeks, or do you want us to just ignore the parts of the Bible that don't jive with your pluralistic view of the public sphere? Not to be entirely “me too”, but it seems like Dr. Hart clams up every time we get to the logical conclusion of his argument. I’ve challenged him on this very point many times, that many of the state goods and evils are derived SOLELY from the Bible. Without a Biblical view of morality, we cannot declare homosexuality, fornication, theft, murder, treason and a host of other things “wrong”. Thus, Dr. Hart’s secular state cannot have ANY law, because all law finds its basis in morality, and all morality must find its basis in a God-created, Biblically-understood order.

Thus, Dr. Hart is always backed in the corner, through multiple means, of justifying any law and why it should exist on our books. Instead, it turns into a cliche fest about “Christian coffee mugs”, Magistrates “turning the other cheek”, etc. I, for one am tired of debating something so ridiculous as arbitrarily and purposefully misrepresenting the context of Christ’s words. Dr. Hart, remember, this is the same Christ who told his disciples to “buy swords” - was that for the purpose of turning their cheeks, or do you want us to just ignore the parts of the Bible that don’t jive with your pluralistic view of the public sphere?

]]>