Covetousness Is Worse Than Government Sanctioned Murder?

Strange as it may sound to modern ears used to hearing so much about the right to life, or the right to decent housing, or the right to choose, the Bible says that natural rights and wrongs do not exist: Only God's commands make some things right and other things wrong. -- John Robbins

It is truly amazing when a so-called Scripturalist becomes a libertarian and then says something that is just so far beyond the pale that it approaches the level of Donald Trump's ludicrous remarks.  The late Dr. Gordon H. Clark was a Puritan who upheld the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) as the basis for civil and criminal law in our nation.  But we have Sean Gerety over at the God's Hammer blog completely rejecting the Decalogue as the basis for laws passed by the civil magistrate and replacing it with economic policy instead.  This is really nothing more than blatant liberalism and secular humanism.

Gerety says:

Many people think the worst and most pressing sin confronting our nation today is abortion.  After all, well over 54 million babies have been slaughtered since abortion on demand was first declared the “the law of the land” by the Supreme Court in 1973. Today we see videos of the butchers at Planned Parenthood wining and dining while discussing the price of fetal body parts to be sold for medical research that would have made the Nazis proud.  As grizzly and inhuman as wholesale legalized abortion is, the fact that abortion is legal doesn’t mean that a single baby must die.  A moral God fearing people would simply refuse to murder their own children.  Besides, the government isn’t lining up pregnant women forcing them to undergo abortions at gun point … at least not yet.

God's Hammer:  The Sins of Nations

Following this logic, criminal laws are unnecessary and should be done away with and so should jails and prisons.  After all, "a moral God fearing people would simply refuse...." to do anything wrong.  But how do we know what is right and wrong in the first place?  The only way to know right from wrong is from the revealed moral commands in the Bible. (Romans 3:20; 7:7). This is what both Dr. Gordon H. Clark said and what Dr. John Robbins said.  Gerety claims to be a Scripturalist and he claims to follow the theology and apologetics of John Robbins.  But even John Robbins would be appalled at Gerety's blatant disregard for the Ten Commandments and his disregard for Scripture:

Clark's ethical philosophy is also derived from the axiom of revelation. The distinction between right and wrong depends entirely upon the commands of God. There is no natural law that makes some actions right and others wrong. In the words of the Shorter Catechism, sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. Were there no law of God, there would be no right or wrong.

This may be seen very clearly in God's command to Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Only the command of God made eating the fruit sin. It may also be seen in God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God's command alone made the sacrifice right, and Abraham hastened to obey. Strange as it may sound to modern ears used to hearing so much about the right to life, or the right to decent housing, or the right to choose, the Bible says that natural rights and wrongs do not exist: Only God's commands make some things right and other things wrong.

John Robbins, "An Introduction to Dr. Gordon H. Clark,"  Trinity Review, July/August, 1993.

Further, it should be noted that the Decalogue or Ten Commandments is ordered in descending order of importance with the first four commandments, addressing what God commands in regards to Himself, taking priority over the second table of commandments, what God orders in regards to human relationships.  Although the fifth commandment is to honor one's parents and is more important than even the command not to murder, the command not to murder, commandment number six, is still a higher priority of importance than the command not to covet.  This is so simple that even a very young child can understand it.

The Westminster Confession of Faith clearly says that the obligation of the civil magistrates or civil authorities of nations is to uphold the moral law of God.  The only way to know this moral law is from the revealed commands in Holy Scripture:

CHAPTER XXIII—Of the Civil Magistrate

  1.      God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers. (Rom. 13:1–4, 1 Pet. 2:13–14)

  2.      It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: (Prov. 8:15–16, Rom. 13:1–2, 4) in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; (Ps. 2:10–12, 1 Tim. 2:2, Ps. 82:3–4, 2 Sam. 23:3, 1 Pet. 2:13) so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion. (Luke 3:14, Rom. 13:4, Matt. 8:9–10, Acts 10:1–2, Rev. 17:14, 16)

The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

It's not clear to me how Gerety decides what morals the government should be enforcing since according to his libertarian axiom, the Bible cannot be the basis for civil or criminal laws.  The only axiom of libertarianism is do not hurt anyone.  But isn't the murder of the unborn hurting babies and even the mother who murders the child?  The government selectively decides to enforce laws against stealing and certain instances of murder.  But the murder of the unborn is apparently not a violation of man's relative laws that change from one century to the next, one decade to the next, and one year to the next.  Maybe next year the government will decide that the execution of Evangelical Christians is a public good?

As for the government not forcing women to have abortions at gun point, Gerety's logic is again faulty.   That's because the government is forcing babies to die.  The unborn child is cruelly and maliciously murdered by government approved sanctions.  But the Declaration of Independence says that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Of course, Thomas Jefferson deduced these rights from the Bible.  And Jefferson rightly said that the self-evident axiom for a just government is that all men are "created equal".  Following the logic of Jefferson's argument, it would be just for a people to reject the authority of the government in regards to the abortion issue because it denies the rights of unborn children to live:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it; and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence

And for those who who try to say that Jefferson was a forerunner of atheism, Jefferson clearly says that it is "nature's God" that entitles them to these rights.   (Romans 1:18-21).  Of course, natural revelation alone cannot lead to truth (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Matthew 4:4; Isaiah 8:20; Isaiah 55:11; Jeremiah 23:29).  The rocks cannot tell us what is right and wrong.  But it is very apparent that Jefferson deduces more from Scripture than from nature. 


Sean Gerety unwittingly places the rights of women above the unalienable rights of a child to live, have liberty, and to grow up to pursue happiness.  No one has any right to break God's law.  Governments and nations that break God's moral laws will suffer God's wrath at some point in the future.  His argument is therefore  no better than the arguments of liberals.



It is increasingly apparent that Evangelical Christians are more content to argue for their own comforts than to stand for what is right and true.  The reason the whole nation opposes an Evangelical Christian like Ted Cruz for the office of President of the United States is that everyone wants to decide for himself or herself what is right and wrong instead of believing that God alone has the authority to decide what is right and wrong (Deuteronomy 12:8).  Without the Scriptures right and wrong do not exist.  Instead what we have is arbitrary laws that men change from one minute to the next.  Donald Trump contradicts himself from one minute to the next and so do the reporters in the media.  But God's written Word never changes.  (Psalm 119:89).  God's moral law is as unchanging as God Himself because God is eternally immutable.  He is from everlasting to everlasting the same God who never changes His eternal plans or purposes (Psalm 90:1-6; James 1:17; Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19).


God can and does punish nations for their gross immorality.  There really is no reason for God to spare the United States of America.  He can wipe our nation out at any moment and there would be nothing we could do about it.  Having a strong military cannot protect a nation from God's wrath.  (Isaiah 31:1).

Psalm 59:5 (NKJV)
⁵ You therefore, O Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel, Awake to punish all the nations; Do not be merciful to any wicked transgressors. Selah
Amos 3:6 (NKJV)
⁶ If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people be afraid? If there is calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it?

Of course, some who profess to be Christians and Scripturalists are more than willing to sacrifice unborn children in exchange for the creature comforts they will gain from having a robust economy, limited government, and libertarian licentiousness.  I would say that these people are not Christians or Scripturalists at all.

Ezekiel 33:6–9 (NKJV)

⁶ But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’ ⁷ “So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. ⁸ When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. ⁹ Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.

As Christians we are to warn the nation of God's coming judgment.  We cannot stand by and say nothing when millions of unborn children are murdered.  (2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 32:35).  And further, it our responsibility as Christians to stand against ungodly laws that take the lives of children who have no voice.  Sean Gerety ought to be ashamed to place women's right to murder their child above the right of the child to live.  God does not take this sort of thing lightly in my opinion.

And finally, has Gerety forgotten the doctrine of total depravity?  (Romans 3:10-23).  Only God can raise the spiritually dead.  (Ephesians 2:1-5).  The fact is God is sovereign and He has not ordained that entire nations will repent and believe.   In a civil society the criminal laws are to be based on the general equity of the Ten Commandments so that evil can be restrained by the sword of the civil authorities.   (Romans 13:1-5).  It is wishful thinking and even Pelagianism to think that people will just decide to become Christians and stop killing their babies.  It is our responsibility as Christians to stand against evil and to pass laws that preserve a Judeo-Christian value system in our nation.

Post Script:  In an earlier blog post I critiqued Gerety's liberalism and secularist views.  (See:  Sean Gerety and Co-belligerency with Van Tilians, Libertarians, Secular Humanists and Atheists.  See also:  Scripturalism, Libertarianism, Relativism and Sean Gerety).

One Point: Van Tilian Political Correctness, Logic, and the Priesthood of Believers

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said,`You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?" (Genesis 3:1 NKJ)"The bottom line here is that the Van Tilians are the ones who agree with Satan.  They ask the same question that the serpent asked in the garden:  "Hath God really said?"--  Charlie J. Ray


For a heads up, I want to let my readers know that this article will be an editorial opinion and not necessarily exegetical or systematic theology.  That being said from the get go, I want to issue a complaint against the ivory towers of Van Tilianism, neo-legalism, and various other miscreant theological aberrations within the general umbrella of what is generally known as Calvinism.  

First of all, I want to admit up front that I am not omniscient nor have I ever claimed to be omniscient.  I operate within my own limitations as an individual person who thinks propositionally.  In fact, my thinking is often subject to mistakes and logical errors.  I have never been trained formally in logic or philosophy other than a few classes in college and seminary; so I do make mistakes.  I am often forgetful and lose a train of thought.

But since all men are subject to these noetic effects of sin, even theologians whose professional occupation is teaching and writing theology and biblical exegesis are in the same situation.  This is why I wonder why people like R. Scott Clark and Mike Horton think that their opinion trumps the priesthood of believers.  The last I checked the Protestant Reformation does not teach the Anabaptist principle of subjective leadings to an ever changing truth.  The Reformers also did not teach lone ranger views of the priesthood of believers.  They outright rejected solipsism or any view of the liberty of conscience that made the individual the center of authority in matters of biblical interpretation.  Solo scriptura is therefore out. 

But where does that leave us?  Sola scriptura rejects the church as an infallible magisterium or interpreter of Scripture; thus the papist view that the pope and the church have an equal authority with Scripture is out.  Moreover, the Protestant Reformers certainly believed in scholarship.  The Reformation did not begin as a grass roots movement.  It began with humanist scholars who began to read the biblical texts for themselves.  Using logic and consistently critical methods they saw that Rome's views on doctrinal issue were not biblical but had been derived instead from human traditions.  Furthermore, the Latin Vulgate was shown to be an unreliable translation from the original Greek and Hebrew majority texts available to the Reformers.

The Reformers were out to educate the public.  The first thing they did was to translate the Bible into the vernacular languages of the people.  That's because the Reformers believed that even a common man, a plow boy could read the Bible for himself and see that Rome's traditions were wrong.  That's because the Bible is a logical revelation and logical propositions can be logically arranged to fit into a logical system that fits together into a whole system of theology (John 10:35).  The Scriptures cannot be broken.  Out of that grew the conviction that the system of theology in the Bible should be summarized into an extended creedal statement.  The Westminster divines were so committed to this principle that Scripture is perspicuous, plain, and logical that a culmination of that effort was the Westminster Assembly and the the documents we know as the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechism).  But notice carefully that the Westminster Assembly of 1647 did not reject the priesthood of believers.  Their goal was to put the Bible in the hands of the common man.  The Bible alone is the Word of God in their view.  (2 Timothy 3:16).  Even a child or a redneck plowboy can understand the plain and perspicuous Scriptures and be saved (2 Timothy 3:15).  That is because Scripture is logical and the God who inspired Scripture is Logic (John 1:1).  Man is the image of God (John 1:9; Genesis 1:26-27).

What is amazing to me today, however, is that modern Reformed scholars in the Van Tilian camp are now directly challenging the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, that Scripture is so plain that even a child can read and understand the essential and plain passages of the text and be saved (2 Timothy 3:15; 2 Peter 1:19-21).  Instead, the Van Tilians claim that all Scripture is apparently contradictory.  This is nothing more than neo-orthodoxy, of course.  The Bible is not really the word of God because at no single point does the Christian know anything that God knows.  This, of course, begs the question:  why would God reveal anything at all if it is impossible to know anything God knows?  The Van Tilian out for this question is analogical knowledge.  We don't know anything God knows except analogically.  So God didn't really reveal logical and propositional truth.  He only revealed glimmerings of irrational truths that don't make sense in the human mind.  To try to understand God's Word is really just a form of Arminian rationalism, according to the Van Tilians.  So why have seminaries or train men to think if it is all just rationalism to try to understand God's Word logically?  Without logic there can be no communication whatsoever.  That's because the law of contradiction is absolutely necessary for communication and understanding.   Van Tilians know this because they are always contradicting the views of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  However, an analogy is not a logical proposition.  Dr. Clark rightly pointed out that unless an analogy or metaphor has a logical proposition behind it, then it is conveys nothing meaningful or understandable.

Van Til's views are therefore a direct repudiation of the inerrancy, infallibility, perspicuity, and reliability of Scripture.  In its place, Van Til places the authority of church synods that have a higher authority than Scripture.  After all, without the minister the lay man cannot read and understand the Bible.  For Van Til and his followers the priesthood of believers is subject to Van Til's final authority.  In short, disagree with the papal authority of Van Til and you are politically incorrect and black listed.  The name of Gordon H. Clark is anathema in the Reformed world today.  Dare to disagree with R. Scott Clark and you will be permanently banned from commenting on his blog or elsewhere. Dare to disagree with Westminster Seminary East or West or any other Reformed seminary promoting Van Tilian paradox and you are immediately unemployable as a minister in any of those churches.  In fact, I wonder why any orthodox Reformed minister would want to be ordained in a denomination where the theology of irrationalism prevails?

I am not rejecting confessional theology.  Obviously, Dr. Clark did not do that either.  He held that the Westminster Confession of Faith is the best summary of the propositional revelation in the bible that has ever been produced.  But I am saying that even a lowly lay person can study and read the Bible and use the Westminster Standards as a guide to understanding the system of theology that has been expositionally and exegetically drawn from the clear warrant of the Holy Scriptures.

In short, the Van Tilians have no authority over classical Calvinists.  The Bible is the final authority, not R. Scott Clark or Mike Horton.  They will ridicule and use the abusive ad hominem fallacy, of course.   They falsely accused Dr. Clark of hyper-Calvinism, rationalism and other things.  The bottom line, however, is that Scripture alone is the Word of God.  When a theological tradition bases its theology on an axiom other than Scripture, namely the Van Tilian axiom that "all Scripture is apparently paradoxical," the end result is skepticism, neo-orthodoxy, theonomy, the Federal Vision, the Auburn Avenue error, etc.  Most of this originated with Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Gerhardus Vos, and other Reformed theologians whose theology logically culminated in the Auburn Affirmation, which ironically led to the formation of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the first place.

Sean Gerety asked a question his book, Can the Presbyterian Church in America Be Saved?  He pointed out the conflict between logical contradictions and the Van Tilian view that all Scripture is apparently contradictory.  This leaves the Van Tilians free to read the equivocations of the Federal Visionists with charity.  Lane Keister of the Green Baggins blog could not bring himself to say that Doug Wilson is an enemy of the Gospel.  The same thing is true of R. Scott Clark and Mike Horton.  Their commitment to irrationalism is so great that even though they disagree with the neo-legalism of Richard Gaffin, Jr. and the Federal Visionists, their commitment to a false charity given to false teachers is greater than their commitment to the Bible.  Furthermore, since neither Horton nor R. S. Clark actually believes the Bible is unequivocally and univocally the very words of God, they leave themselves open to skepticism.   To Horton the Bible is an inspired myth that is factual and R. S. Clark says that to say Scripture is the very words of God and univocally God's logical and propositional revelation is to promote a quest for an illegitimate intellectual certainty (QIRI).  (See:  Religious Uncertainty: Recovering the Reformed Confession and A Critical Review of Pilgrims on the Way).  In short, truth is subsumed under the rubric of loyalty to a seminary or a denomination rather than loyalty to the system of theology revealed in Holy Scripture and summarized by the Westminster Standards. 

According to R. Scott Clark, the temptation of Adam and Eve was not about believing God's logical command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of the knowledge of good and evil.  It was about a quest to know things just as God knows them:

QIRC is an acronym: Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty. It has at least two aspects. The first is the ancient, sinful desire to know what God knows, the way he knows it. That is what the Evil One offered to us in the garden (Gen 3). He suggested to us that our kind, holy, and righteous Creator God was was afraid of us, that, if we would only trust him, the devil, we could know what God knows the way he knows it. As you may know, that sale went horribly wrong because it was horribly wrong from the beginning. It was a lie and when we signed that contract with our own blood.   (From: The QIRC-er Must Be Right, by R. Scott Clark.

The problem with R.S. Clark's premise is that it is flat wrong.  The problem is not a quest for illegitimate knowledge.  Did Adam know God's command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?  Or was the command somehow apparently contradictory?   Did God issue a command in the form of logic that would require the law of contradiction to be properly understood?  And did Adam know God's words just as God understood these words?

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said,`You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?" (Genesis 3:1 NKJ)

The problem is not that the serpent was tempting Eve with knowledge.  He tempted her to reject the plain teaching of God's Word.  The Word was not yet written but it was nevertheless the very words of God told her by Adam.  And it is even likely that God Himself instructed Eve since both Adam and Eve walked with God in the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8).  Of course, the promise that you can be like God is a continuing problem in the cults.  But that is certainly not what the Westminster Confession teaches, contra R. Scott Clark.  (See:  Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6).

Furthermore, is it an illegitimate quest for knowledge to believe that the Bible is univocally the same words God knows?  Of course, we only know what is revealed (Deuteronomy 29:29; Romans 16:25-26).  But is it illegitimate to know God's special revelation in Scripture?  According to R. Scott Clark, it is illegitimate to know anything God knows, therefore ruling out special revelation.  We can only analogically guess what God knows--even when God reveals His thoughts in the Bible.  By Van Tilian reasoning it is illegitimate to question anyone's interpretation of the text because to inquire into the meaning of the text is to seek to know what God knows just as God knows it.  So Scott Clark is the one agreeing with the devil, not the Scripturalist.  The Scripturalist agrees with the commands of God because those commands are univocally the same commands in the mind of God and in the mind of the man who hears or reads God's revelation in spoken words:

Chapter I

Of the Holy Scripture

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]

Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.1.

In light of these compromises regarding the authority, inspiration and authority of Scripture, I would like to ask Dr. R. Scott Clark how he can with a straight face oppose the Federal Vision if it is not a logical contradiction to the system of theology logically and univocally revealed in Scripture and summarized on a warrant from Scripture in the Reformed confessions we know as the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, and the Anglican Formularies?  After all, Scripture is inherently and apparently paradoxical, according to R.S. Clark.  These apparent contradictions are only resolved in God's mind and it is a violation of the creature/Creator distinction to say that Doug Wilson is a false teacher or that Richard Gaffin, Jr. or Norman Shepherd have contradicted the Gospel in any way whatsoever, right?

The bottom line here is that the Van Tilians are the ones who agree with Satan.  They ask the same question that the serpent asked in the garden:  "Hath God really said?"

Just asking.


Charlie

Sean Gerety: The Federal Vision Connection

Sean Gerety openly admits that he had not heard this lecture on the Justification Controversy and the Federal Vision until he was driving down to meet up with fellow libertarians.  [Actually there are five lectures under the section titled, The Justification Controversy.  I think Gerety is referring to the lecture, The Theology of Richard Gaffin and Norman Shepherd.]  Amazing that someone who purportedly knew John Robbins personally has never even heard this lecture before.  Gerety says,

While driving from Portales to Amarillo this past week for meetings, and with a little over two hours to kill, I had forgotten that I had put a John Robbins lecture on my Sansa Clip (the anti-iPod) dealing with the justification controversy.  This particular lecture, and one I hadn’t heard before, zeroes in on the aberrant and deadly theologies of Richard Gaffin and Norman Shepherd.   The Federal Vision Connection.

I have heard all of Dr. Clark's lectures and the audio book, What Presbyterians Believe, multiple times.  I have also been listening to Dr. John Robbins' lectures over and over for several years.  That's because, like Robbins, I want to understand difficult discussions and lectures.   I have found that what I might miss in one hearing I might learn something new or less focused upon in a second hearing.

I can tell you that in reading both Clark and Robbins neither would have endorsed Sean Gerety's compromise with libertarian political philosophy that advocates a divorce between the Bible and political philosophy.  All knowledge is to be deduced from Scripture and any political philosophy deduced from Scripture that results in the legislation of laws that are essentially in agreement with anarchy and antinomianism is not biblically deduced.  It is a contradiction.  Anyone reading Dr. Clark's book, What Is the Christian Life?  can immediately see that Clark would not approve of immorality.  Further, Clark's books on ethics nowhere endorse homosexual marriage, pornography or fornication.  Gerety has apparently gone off the deep end and does not know Robbins' or Clark's theology or presuppositionalism as well as he has pretended to know.  (See: Sean Gerety and Co-belligerency with Van Tilians, Libertarians, Secular Humanists and Atheists . See also:  Scripturalism, Libertarianism, Relativism and Sean Gerety).

That being said, I agree with what Gerety has said in regards to the Federal Vision controversy in the article linked above.  The fact of the matter is that the Presbyterian Church in America and most of the Reformed seminaries, including Reformed Theological Seminary (various campuses), Westminster Seminaries (PA and CA), Mid-America Reformed Seminary, and other so-called conservative Reformed denominations and seminaries/colleges, have bascially sold out the fundamentals for a neo-orthodoxy that has no propositional revelation left.

This morning I heard Dr. Don Sweeting, a professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida give a sermon surveying the Bible in 45 minutes.  Dr. Sweeting affirmed the Bible as meta-narrative and never once mentioned propositional or logical revelation, plenary verbal inspiration, or biblical inerrancy.  It was truly disappointing.  Further, Dr. Sweeting talked about the fall of Adam and the curse of sin as if they just happened out of the blue and had nothing to do with God's decrees.  The text read for the sermon was Ephesians 1:3-12.  That's a great passage but not once did Dr. Sweeting even mention the doctrine of predestination.  Any deist or Arminian could have preached the sermon I heard today at River Oaks Presbyterian Church, Lake Mary, Florida.

The problem is that biblical illiteracy is everywhere.  The post modernist de-emphasis on logic and rationality is part of the problem.  But Sean Gerety and Don Sweeting are just as bad because neither of them are consistent with the system of theology revealed in propositional form in the Holy Scriptures.  That is just my opinion.  But if Dr. Gordon H. Clark were around today, I think he would agree.

Sean Gerety and Co-belligerency with Van Tilians, Libertarians, Secular Humanists and Atheists

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. (Psalm 82:6-8 KJV)

(Note:  I don't always agree with Monty Collier.  However, the above video is apropos for the article below.  Charlie).

I recently learned that Sean Gerety of the God's Hammer blog is not really a Scripturalist after all.  In fact, he agrees with the Van Tilian theology of the Reformed Libertarian blog that we cannot legislate morality.  That is a direct contradiction of Scripturalism, which holds that political philosophy and ethics must be deduced from Scripture and Scripture alone.  I asked Gerety how he could deduce gay marriage or the porn industry from the Scriptures and got no response.  Instead he went on the tangent and asked me how I would propose enforcing the first commandment (Exodus 20:1-3) or how I would propose enforcing adultery laws, anti-gay laws, and anti-pornography laws?   (Exodus 20:14).  Would I really want the government in my bedroom?

While it is true that the Reformed Libertarian blog "claims" to adhere to Clark's Scripturalism (see Introduction), the blog editor prefers to remain anonymous.  The reasons are clearly that the blog is controversial and that the logic is not systematically in line with Scripturalism.  The Baptist premises seem to tend toward antinomianism in the realm of political philosophy and political ethics. Of course, these arguments are all identical to the arguments of the political and theological left.  Bill Clinton used to say that he was "personally" against abortion but that every woman has a right to choose whether to let her child live or die.  (Exodus 20:13).  Gerety claims the axiom of the secular humanist that it is always wrong to murder and that the government has an obligation to non-agression.  But as Albert Mohler pointed out in a video posted earlier (Libertarianism), this is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, not the philosophy deduced from the ethics of the Bible.  Furthermore, how could Gerety single out one commandment from the Decalogue and ignore the rest of the Decalogue?  (Exodus 20:1-17).  All Scripture is inspired of God and all Scripture is profitable for doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  The Westminster Confession of Faith is a system of doctrine, not a collection or aggregate of propositions that are disjointed and unconnected to one another.  Moreover, the WCF asserts that all doctrine, including political philosophy, is to be deduced from Holy Scripture:

Chapter 1.  Of the Holy Scriptures.

6.      The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. (2 Tim. 3:15–17, Gal. 1:8–9, 2 Thess. 2:2) Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: (John 6:45, 1 Cor 2:9–12) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (1 Cor. 11:13–14, 1 Cor. 14:26, 40)



Chapter 19.  Of the Law of God  

1.      God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it. (Gen. 1:26–27, Gen. 2:17, Rom. 2:14–15, Rom. 10:5, Rom. 5:12, 19, Gal. 3:10,12, Eccl. 7:29, Job 28:28)  

2.      This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: (James 1:25, James 2:8, 10–12, Rom. 13:8–9, Deut. 5:32, Deut. 10:4, Exod. 34:1) the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. (Matt. 22:37–40)  

3.      Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; (Heb. 9, Heb. 10:1, Gal. 4:1–3, Col. 2:17) and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. (1 Cor. 5:7, 2 Cor. 6:17, Jude 1:23) All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament. (Col. 2:14, 16, 17, Dan. 9:27, Eph. 2:15–16) 

4.      To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require. (Exod. 21, Exod. 22:1–29, Gen. 49:10, 1 Pet. 2:13–14, Matt. 5:17, 38–39, 1 Cor. 9:8–10)  

5.      The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; (Rom. 13:8, 9, Eph. 6:2, 1 John 2:3–4, 7–8) and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. (James 2:10, 11) Neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. (Matt. 5:17–19, James 2:8, Rom. 3:31)

Chapter 19, Of the Law of God. The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

The Decalogue, therefore, stands as a whole and the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35).  Men who wish to appear to be Evangelical will agree with the Scriptures but depart in only one or two minor points.  But these minor points betray their irrationality and their rejection of the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration and the absolute infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.  Nations are still under the obligation to keep the moral law revealed to Adam in the covenant of works.  Furthermore, the Decalogue is a republication in greater detail of the covenant of works, which Dr. Gordon H. Clark contended was given to Adam as well.  [A Biblical View of Man, (Jefferson, Trinity Foundation, 1992) pp. 59-62] Clark contends that the general principles of the covenant of works are summarized in the Ten Commandments.  The clear implication of both the Westminster Confession and the Scriptures is that nations are subject to the covenant of works as well as individuals:

A victorious army can dictate the terms of peace to its defeated enemy.  A father can lay down conditions in his will that bind his son.  God laid down conditions for Adam's obedience.  Being perfectly righteous at that time Adam certainly acquiesced without hesitation.  But even though a defeated nation may hem and haw, Clemeneau commands, "Signez!" and a covenant is made.  . . . As a general principle of divine justice this covenant is still in effect.  (Clark, pp. 59-60). Presumeably God gave all the Ten Commandments to Adam, either before the fall or immediately after.   (Clark, p. 61). Morality therefore is based on God's sovereignty.  His command alone makes an action right or wrong.  (Clark, p. 62).   The Biblical Doctrine of Man, Gordon H. Clark. First edition, 1984. (Jefferson, The Trinity Foundation:  1992).  Pp. 59-62.

Considering that immoral laws cannot be defended by any Christian, it boggles the mind that Sean Gerety would find more agreement with Al Sharpton and Ron Jeremy than with biblical Christianity.  Although I am not a reconstructionist, a theonomist, a postmillennialist or any other optimistic irrationalist, I do contend that all biblical Christians and followers of Scripturalist presuppositionism have a moral obligation to uphold God's moral law as the moral standard of the United States of America and every other nation on earth.  The general principles of the Scriptures and the general equity of the moral law are to be deduced from the Ten Commandments and not from the case law or judicial laws of the Old Testament nation of Israel.  I conclude that Reformed Libertarianism is an oxymoron and a direct contradiction to both Scripture and the system of propositional revelation summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. (Psalm 82:6-8 KJV)

Al Mohler: Should Christians Support Libertarian Political Philosophy?

It would appear that Sean Gerety is deriving his philosophy of libertarianism from Ayn Rand, not from Scripturalism as it was proposed by the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark.