Singing the Lord’s Song in a Strange Land (Part 6) by Matthew Winzer

Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs (1)

Mr. Murray’s third challenge is more to the point. What evidence is there that the Psalter “must remain the sole manual” for the New Testament? The author examines two main principles which the advocate of an inspired hymnody relies upon to establish his case. First, the “‘regulative principle,’ namely that what God has not appointed he has forbidden, and God has not appointed any second hymnal to supplement the Psalter.” Second, “It is said that the ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’ of Ephesians 5:19 refer solely to different sections of the Old Testament Psalter.”18 The booklet then deals with the second point and refers to the first point afterwards.

Now, the author’s response to the claim that Eph. 5:19 (and Col. 3:16, though he fails to mention it) refers to the compositions which are to be found in the Old Testament book of Psalms is a very strange one indeed. It comes down to this. “We know of no prominent orthodox commentator who takes that view.” He then refers the reader to J. Eadie, C. Hodge, R. C. H. Lenski, and W. Hendriksen; all advocates of an uninspired hymnody. There is no examination of the passage under consideration; not even a quote from Mr. Murray’s esteemed interpreters on this passage, nor a statement as to why their comments persuaded the author to reject the interpretation put forward by the advocates of an inspired hymnody.

Mr. Murray does attempt a biblical answer of sorts. It comes by way of referring to the extraordinary “psalms” of 1 Cor. 14:26. And here the author seems to seize upon the New England Puritan, John Cotton, as if he had to make a concession that the psalms in this passage were given by divine inspiration.19 But Mr. Cotton was not conceding this point, he was insisting upon it. The fact that these psalms were inspired renders an appeal to them as futile. If the composing of these psalms required an extraordinary gift, the directions in 1 Cor. 14 for the regulation of the extraordinary gifts are only precedents “to all such Churches as have received the like gifts.” They cannot provide a precedent for a Church in which this extraordinary gift has ceased. Hence, no warrant can be derived from the Corinthian practice, or from Paul’s directions which regulate that practice, “to compile some spiritual Ditty in verse.”20

So 1 Cor. 14 does not create any uncertainty as to the materials of praise which are to be employed in the New Testament church’s public worship. Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 regulate the “ordinary” matter that is to be sung therein, and these texts refer to the compositions found in the book of Psalms. This may be clearly seen by considering the following facts of the case.

Explaining Differences Among the Puritans on the Application of the Judicial Law

The law that thieves must either restore fourfold, or be bondmen, concerns Canaan, and those counties. In Europe (especially in the Northern and Western parts) a straighter law is required. For the people are much more given to idleness, and consequently to robbing: and they are of fierce disposition and therefore with theft join violence and disturbance of the common peace. And for this cause (excepting some cases) theft is punished with death. And this must not seem hard. For even the Jews when the theft was aggravated with other circumstances, might punish it with death, 2 Sam. 12:6. And it is in the power of the Magistrate, when sins are increased, to increase the punishment.

So said the Puritan William Perkins (as cited in Martin Foulner’s Theonomy and the Westminster Confession). However, we should note that Perkins says this in a section of his works where he is explaining why the Old Testament death penalties are still binding. So why does he conclude that restitution is not to be the modern civil punishment for theft? The answer to this question helps to explain why some early Reformed writers made statements which appear anti-Theonomic to the modern reader. Yet, it is my view that when the vast majority of these statements are examined carefully and contextually, they are not inherently anti-Theonomic at all, even if they differ from the conclusions reached by the vast majority of modern Theonomists.

Before we answer this question let us first note that there are a number of problems with Perkins’ argument concerning restitution. Firstly, the law against theft was a fence to the eighth commandment against stealing, so why should the punishment of restitution not also be considered moral? After all, this is the logic which Perkins employs when defending the death penalty for murder, witchcraft, and so on.

Nonetheless, his methodology is not inherently anti-Theonomic. Firstly, he argues that restitution was circumstantial to Israel (modern Theonomists admit that laws circumstantial to Israel cannot be applied today). Secondly, he argues (unconvincingly) from Scripture that a greater penalty can be applied (2 Sam. 12:6 was uttered by David in an unholy rage, it is hardly good exegesis to say that this proves the death penalty can be applied to thieves as well as restitution). While most modern Theonomists would reject Perkins’ conclusions, they would not deny that his methodology falls within the general Theonomic framework.

There does seem to have been a dispute among the Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters as to whether the law concerning restitution was moral or only circumstantial to Israel; Theodore Beza, William Perkins, Robert Baillie and Samuel Rutherford argue that it was merely judicial (i.e. only applicable in Canaan), while Martin Bucer, James Ussher and James Durham argue that restitution is moral and judicial.

However, it should be borne in mind that this is similar to the debate among modern Theonomists concerning whether or not the seven year prohibition on debt applies today (Deut. 15:1); R.J. Rushdoony argues in the affirmative, while Gary North asserts that this is no longer applicable. Thus we should view the disagreement between earlier Reformed divines as a dispute between those generally committed to Theonomic ethics, yet who differed as to the out working of the principle

This post is an extract from a source-book that I have started compiling on the views of the Reformers , Puritans, Covenanters, and other Reformed divines on political issues and national questions. God-willing, this will be split into two volumes; the first, dealing with the Reformers and Puritans; the second, with the early Covenanters and others.

Comfort For Those With Long-Term Assurance Problems by Thomas Goodwin

The Puritans, despite being portrayed as harsh tyrants, always seemed to know how to say something of comfort to the broken-hearted. Take for instance the following quote from Thomas Goodwin about those who have lacked assurance of salvation for a long time:

Objection - But you will say, if this desertion were but for a moment, it were something; but mine has been for many years.

Answer - How many years? This life is but a moment; and God has an eternity of time to show his love in; time enough to make amends for a few frowns; ‘everlasting kindness.’

T. Goodwin, A Child of Light Walking in Darkness, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, Reformation Heritage Books, vol. 3, p. 313

The Empire Strikes Barak

In this video, Luke Socialistwalker (aka Barak Obama) confronts Darth Hilary and Emperor Bill in his effort to gain control of the White House.

Book Review: The Foundations of Social Order

Author: R.J. Rushdoony; Publisher: Thoburn Press; Length: 233 pages; Available From: James Dickson Books

This book is a study in how the creeds and councils of the early church affected the social order that Patristic Christianity flourished in. In a day like ours, when the vast majority of modern Calvinists fail to see the link between orthodox Christian doctrine and socio-political issues, such a book may appear to be somewhat strange. However, the early church’s creedal formulations were not mere statements of abstract theology. On the contrary, many of them were basically declarations of war against the Statism and totalitarianism of the Roman Empire. How is this so? Well take the Council of Nicaea - which affirmed the full deity of Christ - as an example. By denying Christ’s deity, and His equality with the Father, the Arians opened the door for someone or something else to be the incarnate deity - either the Roman State or the Roman Emperor. Similarly, in modern times, the denial of the deity of Christ by Liberals in Germany gave rise to Hegelian politics - the idea that the state is “God walking on earth” - and ultimately to a messianic figure like Adolf Hitler. However, the pronouncement of the Council of Nicaea ruled out such Statism, as the state was reduced to its Biblical limits as a servant of God (Rom. 13).

In like manner, R.J. Rushdoony examines how the decisions of the Church Councils at Ephesus and Chalcedon laid the foundations for Western liberty, and looks at how various doctrines should affect our social ethics. Except for one brief section where he tries to justify pictures of Christ, I highly recommend this offering as one of Rush’s best books. If more material like this was written, read and understood in the Reformed world, then “cloister Calvinism” would be a thing of the past.

Rating: 9/10

A Conquered Kingdom on sale at ICM Books

Some copies of my book A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government are now on sale at ICM Books in Lurgan for £24.95. Moreover, the shop also sells my earlier book The Regulative Principle of Worship: Explained and Applied.

Readers may also purchase the book over the internet from here.

Theonomy and the Westminster Assembly: A Response

A number of years ago a lecture was given in Northern Ireland on the Westminster Confession and the Old Testament Penal Code, which has been renamed in recent years “Theonomy and the Westminster Assembly”. As this lecture has been promoted by a number of weblogs (one advertising it with the humanistic slogan “Should we stone our children?”, which is basically a denial of Biblical inerrancy), it is necessary for me to post this brief response. As I do not wish to debate the issue, no comments are to be allowed on this post.

> He begins by mocking the idea Sola Scriptura applies to the state; thus he opens the door for human autonomy. If Sola Scriptura does not apply to the state, then the state’s role is arbitrary. Moreover, what other standard is the state to be governed by?

> He mocks the idea that the state is “the enemy”; but all throughout Scripture the totalitarian state is presented as the enemy of the church (as I document in A Conquered Kingdom).

> He introduces the subject by claiming Theonomy has led “many astray”; but what has it led people astray into? It has forced them to go back to the word of God as the sole and infallible rule for civil and social ethics. What is so bad about that?

> He makes the uncharitable assertion that some of those “led astray” by Theonomy are young men who “think they have good minds.” Imagine if a critic of exclusive psalmody said that it has “led many astray, especially young men who think they have good minds.” Would such argumentation be either relevant or legitimate?

> Accuses (by implication) lawfully ordained ministers in the RPCNA of being unconfessional. Not only that, he also accuses (by logical extension) our covenanting forefathers - like Donald Cargill, who in the Queensferry Paper called for Scotland to be governed chiefly by “the judicial law of Moses”, and Alexander Shields - who in A Hind Let Lose said that the penal sanctions had not been abolished because they were part of the moral law - with being against the Confession of Faith which they fought and died for. Moreover, when one considers that the Queensferry Paper was owned by many of the Covenanter Martyrs in their dying testimonies, one can see how far removed the speaker’s views are from the early Covenanters.

> Argument from 1 Cor. 5 that excommunication has replaced the death penalty based on conjecture; Paul is not writing to magistrates. The lecture makes no response to the various Theonomic rebuttals of this argument.

> Argument that death penalty was excommunication from OT church confuses civil punishment and church discipline. The latter is for rehabilitation, the former is administered in terms of strict justice (Heb. 2:2).

> Argument that death penalty was excommunication is contrary to WCF which affirms that the ceremonial law, not the civil law, was given to Israel as a church under age (19:3).

> 1 Cor. 5 argument contrary to the views of George Gillespie and John Calvin.

> Westminster Divines cite penal sanctions as civil punishments, not ecclesiastical discipline, in the footnotes of the Standards. Moreover, the WCF and WLC cite the Older Testament penalties as part of the moral law.

> Argument that Israel was a church-state (i.e. church-civil government) is Erastianism; if the speaker applies the logic he uses to dismiss the penal sanctions, he would also have to abandon social covenanting and the establishment principle etc, saying that these things were unique to Israel as a church-state as well.

> Argument that death penalty was excommunication used by Erastians at Westminster Assembly; argument on 1 Cor. 5 used by tolerationists like Roger Williams, rejected by mainstream Puritans and Samuel Rutherford.

> Fails to deal with Biblical arguments of Theonomy. Such as, the law’s abiding validity, civil law not just for Israel, law upheld by pagan kings, penal sanctions existed before Sinai, penalties quoted and alluded to in the New Testament. Not much of a critique when it fails to examine the evidence or the arguments of Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry. If you do not interact with your opponents main contentions, then you cannot have offered a credible critique of their views.

> Fails to do justice to Theonomic arguments concerning WCF 19:4. No interaction with Martin Foulner, James Jordan, Ken Gentry, Greg Bahnsen or FN Lee’s historical arguments. Until Martin Foulner’s book Theonomy and the Westminster Confession is extensively refuted (a blog post does not count) - and we have been waiting 11 years for someone to attempt this - then we can safely say that Theonomy has one the historical argument.

> Arguments from Calvin taken out of context; this has been answered recently by Chris Strevel. Omits to mention Calvin’s upholding of the death penalties in various commentaries and in his sermons on Deuteronomy. Moreover, fails to explain why Calvin’s close friend Martin Bucer and his disciple John Knox both advocated the abiding validity of the penal sanctions.

> In relation to the Gillespie argument, the speaker takes the view that Aaron’s Rod Blossoming was written after Wholesome Severity just because it was published later; this is erroneous, as Wholesome Severity was a short tract written in late 1644/early 1645, while Aaron’s Rod Blossoming is a very long book which was probably written long before it came out. In Aaron’s Rod Blossoming Gillespie expresses his sympathy with those who hold penal sanctions, he does not call them deluded fools (and remember that Gillespie’s comments are only an aside, he does not go into the matter in detail). Moreover, in the Miscellany Questions, Gillespie holds the same position that he held in Wholesome Severity, yet the Miscellany Questions were written in 1649. See Chris Coldwell’s essay or my summary of the arguments in A Conquered Kingdom for more.

> Rutherford argument on whipping taken out of context. Rutherford did not believe restitution could be applied outside Israel, thus his methodology is Theonomic. Fails to mention that the book he quotes from (A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience) is at odds with his view that only murder is to be punished with death and is thoroughly Theonomic. The Puritans differed over whether restitution could be upheld today, just as modern Theonomists differ over 7 year prohibition on debt etc.

> Unsupported slander that Theonomists are not interested in upholding first table of the law - if this is true why doesn’t the speaker cite anyone? Show me a major Theonomic work where the author says that Theonomy teaches that the state is not to uphold the first table of the law? Now it may be that some Theonomists are weaker on the first table of the law than they should be, but how does that (if true) prove that Theonomy, in and of itself, is in error. It should be noted that Gary North and R.J. Rushdoony use basically the same argument as Samuel Rutherford that the death penalty for Sabbath violation is no longer binding. This was an issue earlier Reformed divines differed over; just as modern Theonomists do.

> Argument R.J. Rushdoony denied the Sabbath is false. Omits to mention that Rushdoony was closer to Puritans, Covenanters than the vast majority of modern Reformed theologians.

> Relevance fallacies concerning Regulative Principle of Worship and papal antichirst etc. Considering that two of the most recent books on the RPW have been written by Theonomists (Doug Comin and Daniel Ritchie) this argument is nonsense. Moreover, we would have to reject Protestantism because Martin Luther denied RPW. And even if it is the case that some people who believe in Theonomy deny the RPW, how does this prove that Theonomy as a doctrine is wrong?

> Argument that Theonomy is “not Reformed” is not proven; how is Theonomy theologically, philosophically or epistemologically anti-Reformed? Indeed, Theonomy is simply Judicial Calvinism, as it recognises that only the Sovereign God has the right to determine what is a crime and how it is to be punished in a manner which is equittable; all other views introduce Arminianism into Christian ethics.

> Claim that Theonomy is a “delusion” is highly uncharitable; how is believing in Biblical standards of justice any more delusion than being a postmillennialist, holding to National Confessionalism, Establishment Principle, Social Covenanting etc.

The Chinese Continue to Persecute Christians

Release International sent me this report of what is really going on in China:

A spate of recent arrests in Xinjiang suggests that China will not easily be cowed by international pressure to clean up its religious rights record before the Olympics.

As the world trains its sights on Beijing, one Xinjiang Christian is facing the prospect of being executed  and many others are being thrown into jail.

The case of Alimjan Yimit, a house church leader and ethnic minority Uyghur (first reported in 7×7 on February 19, 2008), is arousing particular concern. Alimjan, a young professional and father-of-two, has been accused of “illegal religious activities”, “subversion”, and “endangering national security”, crime which can carry the death penalty.

It is believed that Alimjan has been targeted because of his faith. A verdict on his case is expected imminently, according to Christian Solidarity Worldwide.

Concern is also growing for another Uyghur Christian, Wusiman Yiming, who is serving two years re- education through labour after being convicted last September of divulging state secrets. The outcome of his appeal, scheduled for mid-April, has not yet been made public but Wusiman is known to be suffering from malnutrition and a serious hand injury.

And in Kashi city, officials rounded up 46 Christians at a Bible study in a private home on April 13. Most of the group were freed the next day: two were detained for a fortnight.

Meanwhile, in Beijing, bookstore owner Shi Weihan who was held for more than a month for publishing Christian literature last year has been rearrested. The 37-year-old, whose bookshop is near the Olympic village, has been denied family visits. His wife Zhang Jing is particularly concerned as Shi has diabetes.

Federal Visionists in the Days of John Owen

King Solomon tells us that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’ (Ecc. 1:9), and any reader of church history will know that very often the same theological controversies are revived over the course of history. In recent times Auburn Avenue Theology or Federal Visionism has sprung up in the Reformed world; some of the adherents of this brand of theology embrace a heretical view of justification, which affirms that initial justification is by faith alone, but that in final justification - on the day of judgment - good works are taken into account.

However, Federal Visionists were not the first to put forth such false teaching. In William H. Goold’s prefatory note to John Owen’s book The Doctrine of Justification by Faithhe notes that ‘the theory of a twofold justification, as asserted by the Church of Rome, and another error which ascribes the initial justification of the sinner to faith, but the continuance of his state as justified to his own personal righteousness, are examined and proved untenable’ by the the learned Dr. Owen.

The continual re-emergence of the same heresies is one reason why it is important for ministers to study church history and older theological works, because without such knowledge how will they protect the flock of God from such destructive teachings?

Be Careful What You Think! By Thomas Goodwin

The Puritan Thomas Goodwin writes “If you be careful what companions you have, and whom you lodge in your houses, and who live in your bosoms, them much more of your thoughts, which lodge in your hearts, which are not yours but God’s houses, built for himself, and for Christ and his word to dwell in.”

T. Goodwin, The Vanity of Thoughts, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, vol. 3, Reformation Heritage Books, p. 535

William Tyndale on the Curses of the Covenant

Speaking of how the “curses of the covenant” apply to all nations that rebel against God, William Tyndale writes:

“The 28th [chapter of Deuteronomy] is a terrible chapter and to be trembled at: a Christian man’s heart might well bleed for sorrow at the reading of it, for fear of the wrath that is like[ly] to come upon us according to all the curses which thou there readest. For according unto these curses has God dealt with all nations, after they were fallen into the abominations of blindness”

The Pentateuch, p. 521

Book Review: Angels in the Architecture

Authors: Douglas Jones and Douglas Wilson; Publisher: Canon Press; Length: 220 pages; Available From: Amazon

In this book the authors seek to set forth what they consider to be a “Medieval Protestant” view of culture, in contrast with the modernity of the Enlightenment and its near relative postmodernism. They argue that the Christian faith presents a comprehensive cultural vision, with its objective standards of truth, beauty and goodness, and that such a culture came to fruition (albeit imperfectly) with Medieval Christendom.

For what it’s worth, I for one believe that evangelical Protestants spend too much time focusing on the Reformation and Puritan periods (good and necessary as this is) and need to get a firmer understanding of what was good in the Patristic and Medieval eras; without such knowledge, it is difficult to critically assess what was right and wrong in various periods of church history. However, while the purpose of this particular book is to evaluate Medieval Christianity, and to encourage us to follow what is praiseworthy, nevertheless, as that author’s seem to rely on writers such as C.S. Lewis for their understanding of Medieval Christendom, one cannot be sure how accurate a picture they are painting. Having said that, when one considers the absolute mess that modern society is in, it is somewhat strange to hear moderns refer to Christendom as the “Dark Ages”. Not only is that snobbery, it is rank hypocrisy; as modernity has produced societies whose brutality was of the utmost viciousness (i.e. Revolutionary France, Soviet Russia etc.).

Specific chapters in this book deal with many interesting themes, such as, a need to return to a love of what is beautiful, as the Lord is a God of splendour and majesty; the need to shun pagan philosophy, both ancient and modern (the medievals were no more compromised in this regard than contemporary evangelicals); an explanation of why joy, laughter and gratitude are Biblical, which highlights the travesty of “dour Calvinism”; enjoying food and sex as divine gifts; the importance of poetry and literature; and the reduction of the state to its Biblical limits. The chapters on the importance of the church and agrarian-industrial relations are particularly good. The first excellently exposed the folly of individualism and the ecclesiastical freelancer mentality, while the second demonstrated that the Bible does not teach either the romantic agrarianism that would force us all to become farmers or crass materialism, instead it sets forth a harmony of interests between the city and the country.

However, the chapter on “Saying the Creeds” was spoiled by an argument for the so-called Received Text and the Authorized Version that was like something lifted straight out of Romanism (while I am not saying a decent case can’t be made for the TR-priority view, the arguments used here were employed by the Papists in favour of the Latin Vulgate). Moreover, although I am in general agreement with the book’s basic thesis, there are a number of places where the authors need to ground their arguments more solidly in Scripture. Despite these reservations, the discerning reader will find much in Angels in the Architecture which is useful. And, as an added bonus, the last chapter entitled “A Second Christendom” excellently sets forth the post-millennial hope which enables us to labour towards building a Christian society from the bottom-up.

Rating: 8/10

Judgment Against the Nations which oppose Christ by C.H. Spurgeon

Here are a couple of quotes from Charles Spurgeon’s Treasury of David concerning God’s judgments against the nations who oppose King Jesus:

“In the last days [the New Testament age] all the kingdoms of the earth shall be overcome by the kingdom of heaven, and those who oppose it shall meet with a swift and overwhelming ruin. What are kings when they dare oppose the Son of God?” (p. 463)

“If the nations will not have Christ for their Head, they shall find their political heads to be powerless to protect them…The monarch of the greatest nation shall not be able to escape the sword of the Lord…Jesus must reign and they must perish.” (Ibid.)

Shops in Northern Ireland Selling A Conquered Kingdom

So far, two shops in Northern Ireland are selling copies of my book A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government.

These are:

The Covenanter Bookshop at Knockbracken, Belfast

and

John Gowan Books in Enniskillen, Co. Fermanagh

Book Review: Manly Dominion

Author: Mark Chanski; Publisher: Calvary Press; Length: 247 pages; Available From: Amazon

You will notice on the front cover of this book there is a billiards four-ball; for those who do not know, in billiards, the four-ball is passive; it is the one that just gets pushed around. Sadly, most Christian “men” (or, more accurately, males who happen to be Christians) resemble the four-ball. They just get pushed around by their environment, and are basically clueless when it comes to managing difficult situations in their marriages, work-place, families and in the church. Consequently, most Christian “men” are a bunch of big jinny-annes.

Yet Mark Chanski demonstrates that this sorry situation is not what God intended; on the contrary, going back to the creation mandate in Genesis 1:26-28, and Biblical examples of the godly exercising dominion, Pastor Chanski contends that Christian men are not to be sitting on the back of the cultural bus, instead they are to be aggressively exercising godly dominion on the earth, and, by the grace of God, subduing and ruling in the midst of life’s difficulties.

To this end, a vast number of topics are covered, as the author seeks to show how manly dominion is to be exercised in all of life. These include vocational labouring - where he shows that the old “sacred/secular” dichotomy is unbiblical and that aggressive profit making can be done to the glory of God (another reason why Capitalism, as opposed to Socialism, is Scriptural); decision making - this section is particularly good at refuting mystical misreadings of providence and gooey feelings of inner peace, contrasting such nonsense with wise, Biblically informed decisions, at the same time refuting the dithering approach to decision making; in personal and family devotions, and churchmanship, in husbanding and child-rearing - which gives a good defence to smacking, and practical advice on how to take the stick to them.

However, I particularly enjoyed the last section on manly dominion in romance managing. Here the author shows that parentally controlled courtship (overseen by the father) - as opposed to the dating game, where the youngster is boss - is the Biblical model for relationships between Christian young people. How much upset would be avoided if this pattern were followed, and fathers forbade their daughters from seeing unsuitable young men. This is not a popular concept; but so what! A society like ours - with its ever increasing number of failed marriages - is in need of drastic change in this area; and Christian fathers, exercising manly dominion, should take the lead.

No Christian man could read this book and not be rebuked for his sinful sloth and be challenged to exercise dominion under Christ. A book like this cannot be recommended highly enough. Don’t read it, eat it!

Rating: 10/10

The Need For Causitry

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

One of the great mistakes of much of evangelicalism (in the past 200 years or so) is the idea that the Bible is only a book which tells us how to get to heaven. Reformed churches are not exempt from this type of thinking; all too often, we have acted as if the Scriptures are little more than a doctrinal textbook with devotional material. Now don’t get me wrong, the Bible does tell us that eternal life is in Christ alone, and the Scriptures have been given to instruct us in proper “doctrine” and “teaching”. But that is not all that the Bible has been given to us for. The passage cited above reminds us that the word of God exists to reprove us (tell us when our conduct and thinking is wrong), correct us (tell us what our conduct and thinking should be), and to train us in righteousness, so that in every situation we face, we will be equipped for every good work.

In other words, God’s law-word in Scripture is to govern every aspect of our life and thinking. As a result, we need to build a Christian world-view upon the solid foundation of Holy Scripture. Therefore, if we want to think properly about anything, we must consult our Bible’s to find out what the will of God is (Rom. 12:1-2). Hence, our views concerning domestic duties, marital relations, economics, church issues, warfare, politics education, science, philosophy, history, civil government, work and labour, enviromental questions and so on, must be supremely guided by what the sovereign God has revealed in Holy Scripture.

But how will Christians ever develop such worldview thinking if they are not being taught how to think like Christians? Hence, the need for causitry. What is causitry? Causitry is the practice of examining what the Puritans called “cases of conscience”. For instance, if you find yourself in a situation, then you need to know what your duty is and how to perform it in order that you will have a conscience void of offence before God. Some of the Puritans wrote extensive works examining such cases of conscience, and these can be found in modern reprints of the writings of George Swinnock, Robert Bolton, Thomas Goodwin, Henry Scudder and (supremely) Richard Baxter.

Baxter’s massive volume A Christian Directory is a Christian guide to just about everything (I read this on consecutive Sabbath days for 3 and a half years), but since it was published works of Protestan causitry have been few and far between. Yet the practice has been (at least partially) revived by R.J. Rushdoony’s work The Institutes of Biblical Law, a book which sought to examine that social and civil laws of Scripture and highlight their superiority to the ethics of humanism. His son in law Gary North has carried on this practice chiefly through his economic commentaries on the books of the Bible, which strive to draw out the social, political and economic relevance of the Biblical text (something that is omitted by most commentaries).

Although these men (and others) have sought to apply Biblical principles to many areas of life, there is only so much a few authors can do, and so we need a new generation of authors who are prepared to search the Scriptures, and apply its principles to everyday life.

The Explicitly Christian Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til by R. Scott Clark

This post is an extract from a review Dr. Clark did of John Muether’s Recent biography of Cornelius Van Til on the Heidelblog:

Cornelius Van Til He made a great and important contribution to the defense of the faith, chiefly by defending it in a way that is consistent with the faith itself. Many other approaches to defending the faith don’t really defend the Christian, Trinitarian faith. Other approaches attempt to defend Christianity by trying to make it seem reasonable or probable modern autonomous man. Van Til defended Christianity come to its own. He defended the Reformed faith and he did it as a Christian.

Pelagian Social Theory and Education

Ideas have consequences: if one believes that he has evolved from pond slime, rather than being a man created in God’s image, then, in all likelihood, one will live in accordance with such an idea. The same is true of theological ideas, as one’s view of God, man, sin, salvation and so on will drastically affect how one lives in the world, and, if widely held, such ideas will have a decisive impact on the society in which it prevails.

To this end, in the quotation below, R.J. Rushdoony points out how the heresy of Pelagianism (which denies the need for sinners to be saved by divine grace) affects one’s social outlook: “Pelagianism is essentially the assertion of man’s ability to save himself; it is a belief that man does not need God to attain the perfect life. The implications of this doctrine for both church and state, as well as for every other sphere, are very great. If man is able, then the state, the church, and the university are able to save man.” R.J. Rushdoony, The Foundations of Social Order, Thoburn Press, p. 155.

It should be noted that the state education system is based on thoroughly Pelagian ideas, and Christians who seek to defend it often reason like Pelagians (and that includes those who are Calvinists). Why do I say this? Firstly, it is often assumed that without Statist education, everyone will be incompetent and unable to prosper. Therefore, in order to “save” men from such a fate, collective man (i.e. the state) needs to educate its citizens in order to bring about their temporal salvation. Hence, Statist education is Messianic in its character and aims, usurping the priestly office of Christ.

Secondly, by teaching most subjects from an autonomous standpoint, state education is a declaration of man’s desire to be independent of God (Gen. 3:5). Moreover, by assuming that man can attain true knowledge without the guidance of God’s infallible word in Scripture, man’s total depravity is denied and the state usurps Christ’s prophetic office by assuming that fallen sinners can attain true wisdom from a source other than the word of the Lord.

Thirdly, by ignoring the fact that God has sovereignly delegated the duty of education to the family (Deut. 6, Eph. 6:4), the state usurps Christ’s kingly office by denying His sole right to determine what is the proper role of the various spheres of authority that He has ordained in society. Thus, the result of Pelagian social theory being manifest in the state education system is a practical denial of Christ as the sole Mediator and Messiah, because due to the influence of Pelagianism autonomous man, or more accurately collective man as manifest in the state, becomes men’s prophet, priest and king.

Free the Confederate States of America

Recent calls for the Chinese to free Tibet have been at the forefront of recent media coverage, especially as China is due to hold the Olympic games later this year. Hence, as the Olympic flame makes its way across the globe, protestors are venting their rage against Tibet’s Chinese oppressors.

This whole controversy has got me thinking: “why don’t those who condemn the Chinese occupation of Tibet also condemn the occupation of the Southern States by the USA.” For the last 143 years, the Confederate States of America have been subjagted by their Northern aggressors. After these states - led by the lesser magistrates - seceded in 1861, they were subjected to an aggressive war in which they were forced to rejoin the Federal Union which they had left. The so-called American Civil War - which was really the Northern War of Aggression - was launched by the late President Lincoln on the pretext of preserving law and order.

However, this Statist and Centralist view of civil power, contradicts the Biblical doctrine of interposition, which allows the lesser magistrate to lead a Secession (1 Kings 12). And so, the Confederate States have been unlawfully oppressed by the United States. Yet why do we never hear much about that in the media? “But the North wanted to free the slaves!” I hear you cry. Not so, the Union did not enter the war to emancipate the slaves, and Lincoln promised not to interefere with the institution until it became necessary as a tactic of war, instead the war was launched to reassert Federalism. It is true that the war led to the abolition of private slavery, but it led to the erection of public slavery to the centralized state - a practice radically at odds with Scripture (1 Sam. 8).

A Conquered Kingdom in Northern Ireland

Copies of my second book A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government, have just arrived at my house. Readers from Northern Ireland may purchase a copy of me for the amiable price of £25 (remember it is a 787 page hardback).

For more information contact me via e-mail at dritchie05@qub.ac.uk

I will notify you if the book becomes available in shops.