Calling for a Return to the Doctrinal Ideals and Kingdom Ethics of the First Reformation
We've considered various Sola Scriptura camps that are found wanting in their claims as well as briefly touching on some of the groups that esteem Scripture down to those who functionally despise it.
We must weigh all of these versus a genuine Biblicist rendering of Sola Scriptura. For some this is an impossibility, for others Pandora's Box that can only lead to chaos.
To some extent the rise of Dispensationalism in the early 20th century can be understood as an expression of this same reaction-to-liberalism dynamic, even though the theological system it spawned (despite its claims) was actually proven to be an inaccurate and unfaithful interpretation of the Scripture itself. It's hyper-literalism proved to be selective and driven by certain commitments. Once these were undermined by more solid exegesis, the entire system collapsed like a great house of cards.
Author Brian Godawa appeared on my radar back in the early 2000's when Christian publications called attention to his participation in the 2001 film To End All Wars. For my part, I didn't really care for the film - all the more as I refuse to accept some of the assumptions at work in the Anglo-centric narrative.
Godawa was an open Theonomist and was pointed to as an example of positive Christian cultural engagement. He seemed to be something of a rising star in those circles but then I didn't really hear about him again for the next decade or so. Then in the mid-2010's he popped up on my radar again in connection with his fictional works on the Antediluvian world and the Nephilim. I listened to and read some of his material in connection to these themes and found it palatable, interesting, and sometimes refreshing.
Woods' appeals to New Testament limits on state power are also guilty of non sequitur. He confuses a Christian ethic and call to bear witness with enumerated powers. Likewise in his state of deception and delusion (32:00) he seems to find the Second Amendment in the Scripture - even when numerous passages in the New Testament repudiate the ethic of vengeance, self-defense, let alone the taking of life in self interest. His interpretations of Luke 22 and Christ's words regarding the two swords being enough are telling as he falls into the very same misguided interpretive traps as did the Pharisees who argued with him and the apostles in some of their worst moments of ignorance. The sword in Luke 22 has nothing to do with walking around with a gun strapped to you - or strategically placed under you car seat. And Christ made very clear in the garden that he was not calling them to take up swords and warned them against doing so. They were either an object lesson or a case of his exasperation due to their lack of understanding - which He knew would be clarified in short order. Woods completely misinterprets these passages as indeed he has demonstrated a repeated failure to grasp basic New Testament teachings and ethics.
https://philosophical-theology.com/2025/10/17/abandoning-the-faith-in-college-really/
DiGiacomo finds parental discourse surrounding the issue of apostasy to be confused but we could say the same adjective describes his discourse as well. The bottom line is this - what does the New Testament say? And this is the rub, Calvinism all too often commits itself to rationalist systemic frameworks that logically prioritize certain truths and as a consequence, verses (even if there are literally dozens of them) that suggest something to the contrary must be explained away and/or subordinated.
https://reformedpolitics.substack.com/p/a-christian-case-for-borders
Apparently PCA pastor David Hall was so moved by Speaker Mike Johnson's apologia for border defense that he chose to re-post it on his website.
Chad Lawrence is keen to warn his audience against forms of Pietism and thinks he's found it hiding in the works of New Calvinist author David Platt.
Platt's 'Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream' was released in 2010 and made a splash in Evangelical circles. Platt's work has some problems to be sure - he rightly wants to counter American consumerist norms but equates the rejection with a model of piety which is expressed by means of the highly flawed and corrupt 'missions'-ministry approach common in modern Evangelicalism and a kind of missional approach which tends toward an agenda of social transformation. And for the record, a mega-church is hardly the venue for Pietism to sink roots.
Should I dispense with bank accounts? I wouldn't mind doing so but it's increasingly becoming impossible. I tried at one point years ago - operating on a cash basis, paying all my bills with money orders and the like. It's very difficult and frankly pretty miserable. It's not really possible anymore in a lot of urban locations. I live in the boondocks, where there are miles of endless forest, no traffic lights, and more deer than cars.
To me the issue is not about specifically paying usury or even enabling those who sin by taking it from me. I don't expect otherwise from the world - though I do admit I struggle with loving these people who right and left beat me down and steal the money right out of my pocket - money I literally earned by my own sweat. And unlike them I labour assiduously to be honest and fair in my dealings - to my own hurt if need be. I would rather have a clear conscience then shrug my shoulders and be like them.
My real issue is with those Christians who have jumped the fence and stand on the Babylonian side - exploiting not just society at large but fellow Christians. I expect the lost to engage in dog-eat-dog ethics - Darwin's survival of the fittest. This is as old as Cain and Lamech. But I do have a problem with the Christians who have entrenched themselves in the system and are right at home in these various industries and sectors of society - making money hand over fist on the basis of what is essentially legal extortion and Babylonian alchemy. I have a problem with Christians who have baptised this law of the jungle, this atheistic ethic that is completely opposed to New Testament religion.
https://gospelreformation.net/dear-pastor-may-my-child-take-the-lords-supper/
Spinnenweber is to be commended as he covers all the bases and his treatment of the subject is fair. Unfortunately his conclusions are completely wrong.
https://www.plough.com/en/topics/faith/discipleship/why-i-went-cold-turkey-on-political-theology
This is the story of a man who switched from reading the Scriptures through the lens of politics over to a posture of worship and reflection.
If it was our duty to redeem culture or apply Christian teachings to society, the end result would not be in keeping with the vision of Right-wing Republicanism. A study of Europe and the rise of Christian Social Teaching (of which Abraham Kuyper is the Reformed representative) reveal that those wrestling with these questions are just as likely to come to very different conclusions than what has emerged within the American theological and political spectrum. For these Americans, 'Biblical' turns out to be something that arose within a specifically American context and mindset.
Over the past several years I've heard more than one statement or discussion regarding the question of the Church needing to function as an institution or fixture within society and not fall into the category of being a sect and it connotations of marginalisation, exclusivity, and even extremism. The acceleration and amplification of the culture wars and the perceived marginalisation of the Church has fueled this discussion.
I happened to be up in Western New York the other day and picked up Insight for Living, the radio programme of Chuck Swindoll on WDCX out of Buffalo. I tend to associate him with a generation that has now passed away. I looked him up and wasn't too surprised to find out that he's eighty-nine years old. The regional radio station FLN (the so-called Family Life Network) used to broadcast his show during their prime-times but then he was relegated to the 5am slot and I'm not even sure they run his show at all any more. They removed men like Swindoll and replaced them with sticky-sweet therapeutic types like Chip Ingram and hipsters like James MacDonald and Greg Laurie. Compared to the latter, Swindoll seems like a breath of fresh air, and so I left his show on and listened for a bit. But alas, it was not the case.
https://americanreformer.org/2023/10/providence-and-empire/
This unfortunate article was reposted at The Aquila Report and there seems to be more and more of this sort of thing as of late. The whole of theology (and even thought) is increasingly subordinated to the concerns and interests of Dominionist ideology and hence the growing concern with political and cultural thinking. Ironically, the more these 'civilisation' paths are pursued, the more readers are likely to turn to Rome as in many respects the narratives of the Magisterial Reformation and its legacy begin to collapse. And so in that regard one might say that such articles are doubly pernicious.
https://g3min.org/how-valuable-is-bodily-training/
In 1 Timothy 4, Paul speaks of bodily exercise. He says it
profits little, or profits a little. Either way it is not of great or supreme
profit.
But what is he talking about?
https://theologymatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/00Vol6-No1-TM.pdf
While there are certainly some advantages to understanding
the context of the Ancient Near East and while this knowledge can sometimes
elucidate certain episodes in Scripture, Bailey provides a sterling and
noteworthy example of how this should not be done.
The New Testament teaches that the Mosaic order has been disannulled – hence the harsh words in the epistles of Galatians and Hebrews, the errors of these groups being close cousin to what contemporary Theonomy advocates. Exodus 20 cannot be appealed to in the way DiGiacomo would use it. There is no Theocratic order in the New Testament apart from the Church, the earthly manifestation of Christ's Kingdom which is not located on Earth in terms of a political, cultural, or geographic order, but in Heaven itself. Exodus 20 is Scripture, but fulfilled Scripture and must be read through the Christocentric lens of the New Testament. To do otherwise is to invert the Scriptures and read them unfaithfully in a Judaized manner.
The Theonomist in question argues that Irons holds to an
esoteric position on the Sabbath that has no confessional status or Biblical
precedent. This begs the question as to whether or not confessional status has
any bearing or authority for those concerned with following the teaching of the
New Testament. And in terms of Biblical precedent, he's simply mistaken.
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2015/03/constantine-defended-and-revisited.html
Recently, I decide to re-read this book and the article I
wrote about it in 2015. The book I'm referring to is "Constantine
Revisited: Leithart, Yoder, and the Constantinian Debate" edited by
John Roth (Wipf and Stock 2013). This book was written in response to Peter
Leithart's "Defending Constantine"
(IVP Academic 2010).
As I wrote in 2015, the book made many good points against
the Leithart thesis, but most of the contributors missed the mark and some
don't even belong within its pages.