Matt Marino @RefClassicalist

@BerithPress @BangerOfTruth Soli Deo Gloria did one right here (1997)… I’ve quoted from it many times.

That’s understandable — B needs to change for sure. A can even be divided under two heads: 1. What? 2. How? Those who have spoken of a “pan-Protestant” idea need to flesh that out more under 1. I have heard next to nothing under 2. I remain a localist on the “how” question. I have doubts about anyone getting control of DC from our perspective, within the present system. Unfortunately, some collapse of / amicable divorce of the present system will have to occur first. Not many want to think about that under the delusions of Trumpian populism. But this will remain an enormous missing piece of the CN framework if it is not faced.

Rutherford on the ways that the magistrate and people can be either above or duty-bound to the other: Again, any position (whether Royalist or R2K) that speaks of duty being only to God is self-defeating, since, unless they are bound to each other *distinctly* their duty is a blank check or an empty canvas. “[For] the king and people are each of them above and below others in divers respects: the people, because they create the man king, they are so above the king, and have a virtual power to compel him to do his duty; and the king, as king, hath an authoritative power above the people, because royalty is formally in him, and originally and virtually only in the people, therefore may he compel them to their duty, as we shall hear anon; and therefore there is no need of an earthly ruler higher than both, to compel both.” Lex, Rex, Q14 [56]

Rutherford on the magistrate made (politically) representative of the people's right (naturally) to promote and protect true religion. “As the king is obliged to God for the maintenance of true religion, so are the people and princes no less in their place obliged to maintain true religion … but because [following what was already proved in QQ1-13] the estates never gave the king power to corrupt religion, and press a false and idolatrous worship upon them, therefore when the king defendeth not true religion, but presseth upon a people a false and idolatrous religion, in that they are not under the king, but are presumed to have no king … so far, and are presumed to have the power in themselves, as if they had not appointed a king at all … If therefore he defend not true religion for the salvation of the souls of all in his public and royal way, it is presumed as undeniable that the people of God, who by the law of nature are to care for their own souls, are to defend in their way true religion, which so nearly concerneth them and their eternal happiness.” Lex, Rex, Q14 [55, 56]

@praximtheology @dgh5391 Tough to tell … still at beginning stages.

The Royalist position of the king under covenant parallels VanDrunen’s position of the modern magistrate under the same — courtesy of Rutherford. “There is no politic or civil covenant betwixt the king and his subjects, because there is no such equality (say royalists) betwixt the king and his people, as that the king can be brought under any civil or legal obligation in man’s court, to either necessitate the king civilly to keep an oath to his people, or to tie him to any punishment, if he fail, yet (say they) he is under natural obligation in God's court to keep his oath, but he is accountable only to God if he violate his oath." Lex, Rex, Q14 [54] This is functionally the same position as VanDrunen takes about the modern state, and tyrant, under the terms of the Noahic covenant. The image of God in Genesis 9:5-6 is reduced to the royal representative dimension, and thus the modern magistrate may answer to God in the end, but is under no answerable duty to fellow citizens (cf. Divine Covenants and Moral Order, 39-47, 52-58, 67; Politics after Christendom, 107). Ironically, the R2K position, joining itself to the hip of modern liberalism, undermines true liberty and equality: those two fruit of Christian ethics perverted by modern liberalism.

Junius, placing true and false religion under the microscope of what is immutable in the judicial law, from Deuteronomy 13:6, 8 and Exodus 22:18. “First, neither a teaching nor a teacher that calls a person away from the true God and his worship may be heard. Second, they must not be heard who by nefarious craft would renounce God, attribute divine things or benefits (which certainly are nothing but divine) to another, and desire communications and revelations from demons. These conclusions are as necessary as the principles themselves, but the principles are firm in and of themselves and, indeed, the conclusions are demonstrated from their own principles, which we spoke about previously.” The Mosaic Polity, 79

Josiah’s reformation was a response to moral law. He drove out the priests of ancient pluralism, and “defiled” their high places. Do the reading here too.

Christian do bad ting with dat ting. We now do non-Christian ting wit dat thing. We do better. We very smart. Anyway, enjoy the rape gangs spreading to the Muslim call to prayer on every corner.

Expectation level — 0

Berith Press @BerithPress

a day ago

Can we expect to see a Presbyterian study committee to address the ideologies and policies that led to this?

8 28 319 4K 7

Where are the NAPARC study committees on CP? That is, Christian Progressivism. Always remember that in an age of political ignorance among seminarians, officers (including those who create study reports) don’t have to take exceptions to all of the ways the Standards oppose modern liberalism. They don’t need to take exceptions because no one knows enough to inquire to begin with. The older LIBERAL generation senses that things are changing—young men moving to the right—and may be maneuvering to hold on to their modern inheritance.

Sean McGowan @irishpresby

a day ago

The #PCA CN report says: “ An officer who advocates for the magistrate’s duty to suppress heresies is in tension with the Standards.” 2731, lines 30-31 How does this square with WLC 108, which is also part of the PCA standards? WLC 108 says it is the duty of all (including

21 33 295 17K 32

Logic 101 lesson for today: Spot the Fallacy . From a FB post on a recent podcast from the R2K perspective … _____________ "It's important to note that just because the civil magistrate is in some way under the natural law, that does not mean that it's supposed to enforce [[every single thing]] in the natural law. Take the Tenth Commandment, for example, Thou shalt not covet. The Tenth Commandment is part of the decalogue. It's part of the natural law. But everyone knows that the civil magistrate can't enforce the Tenth commandment. I mean, can you imagine? If you think government's big and intrusive now, just wait." — David VanDrunen 🤦 Let’s add to the straw man fallacy (who holds this?), the whole to part fallacy (All moral law relevant for government is within the set of natural law, therefore every imperative of such law is to be civilly legislated), and the non-sequitur. A concise summary of this criticism would demand: If the magistrate must know the substance of the true religion to x degree (so, add the question-begging fallacy: e.g., to *what* degree?), Therefore, he must know when you are coveting so as to enforce “civil coveting,” etc. This is bad. Really bad.

Once again, I remind you that as long as you are not independent of the Regime, the Left side of your organization or your social spheres is not required to be winsome (wholesome). Only you, holding the Edenic fort down against the barbarians, are required to be winsome (wholesome). This article explains the what, the why, and the how. reformedclassicalist.com/home/winsomene…

There are very few trials or even mild struggle sessions in contemporary Reformed circles for violating the 9th Commandment.

Zachary Garris @ZacharyGarris

3 days ago

The 9th Commandment requires “the preserving and promoting of…the good name of our neighbor… a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name” (WLC 144). Sadly, some Christians disregard this for brothers they consider to be “enemies.”

10 38 470 14K 8

“Seeking” and “control” and “requires” are potentially ambiguous terms. Getting beyond much of the pietism of 20th century Reformed thinking is actually a pretty low bar to clear. For example, if we grant that any of those authorities in Romans 13 or 1 Peter 2:13-14 may be Christian—in other words, that it is even permissible for Christians to exercise power, then we are at least not Anabaptist. The next level is deciding to use such power lawfully and effectively: e.g., to actually stop the violent from murdering, stealing, etc., and that such laws or the enforcement of them, in order to be just, must conform to God’s law. How do these terms—“seeking” and “controlling” and “requiring”—function against this?

Civil octopuses and ecclesial octopuses say what they need to wrap themselves around the affections of women and weak men. They expend only enough venom to cast off the unwinsome by trials over tone. By the time you know it’s got all its tentacles around all the fish, it’s too late. There is a season to chase it away and then a season when escape is impossible. But there is a second season, a moment in between those two, when the discerning make history by making a break—whether to chase the octopus away or to lead an escape from the octopus will vary, but a decisive strike either way.

Berith Press @BerithPress

4 days ago

"The nature of the octopus is deceitful, and it is an image of flatterers and hypocrites. For just as the octopus assumes the color of the rocks to which it approaches (for it changes color when it fears, and resembles what it fears), so flatterers turn themselves into every

1 5 27 2K 4

What if I told you it’s been one man / one woman marriage month—every month—from the beginning? [Jesus] answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6

The word of the LORD. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22

Rutherford on the freedom of the conscience of a people to be governed for their own protection. “Where God hath not bound the conscience, men may not bind themselves, or the consciences of the posterity. But God hath not bound any nation irrevocably and unalterably to a royal line, or to one kind of government; therefore, no nation can bind their conscience, and the conscience of the posterity, either to one royal line, or irrevocably and unalterably to monarchy.” Lex, Rex, Q10 [44]

Only the “unwholesome” ever put crowds like this to permanent flight.