Roy Moore and Old Testament Law

In a previous post I expressed some scepticism and ambivalence with regard to the recent spate of harassment claims. The men are indeed bestial and ungodly in their behaviour and yet many of these women, especially in the arts or corporate settings are not wholly innocent.

In other cases the behaviour can only be described as predatory. While an aspiring entertainer or businesswoman can always walk away and maintain virtue (even at great cost) there are those in other situations that are under real authority in the form of the state and thus under actual threat. These situations are often different in their nature and the women subjected to abuse are truly victims. I'm speaking of officials who hold badges and offices, who wear uniforms and carry guns. These men who use their authority to abuse the weak are of a different and very pernicious stripe.

BK Kuiper and Sacralist Historiography

I've touched on this issue before but I recently encountered it again and have been meaning for several years to write a small piece about it.

BK Kuiper's The Church in History remains popular among homeschoolers and is particularly regarded in Reformed circles. They would say he writes from a distinctly Reformed perspective and provides a matching metanarrative. His critics would argue he writes with a distinct and at times misleading bias.

Inbox: Can We Speak of Christian Anarchism? Was Petr Chelcicky a Christian Anarchist?

Can Christians embrace a form of Anarchism? Jacques Ellul thought so, and he's by no means alone. There's a spectrum to Anarchism. Historically it would be placed on the Left emphasizing the freedom of the individual and a principle of voluntarism as the basis for society. But there's also a manifestation that is usually placed on the Right due to its commitment to laissez faire capitalism. This type of Anarchism, or Anarcho-Capitalism is usually labeled Libertarianism and it is experiencing a massive upsurge in Christian circles. In fact it has created a schism within conservative politics.

The Battle over Quiet Time

For many Christians 'Quiet Time' is an important part of their spirituality. They take some time out of every day to read their Bible and spend some time in prayer and possibly reading some other Christian focused book whether it be devotional, commentary or theology.

The Dominionist Machine Meddling in Uganda

Speaking of Uganda.....

In the last piece regarding Africa and many others I've mentioned how American Evangelicals often play the role of dupes and financiers for a lot of political interests.

An Unholy Alliance

The American Empire: An Unholy Alliance between Church and State by Lee Shelton

This is a brief but helpful piece touching on several points pertinent to this project. The author grasps the essential problem of Constantinianism. I make a few introductory comments and then include the full text below. You can also follow the link.

Replacement Theology- Part 3/3

or

A Replacement Concept to be rejected




Many who attack the notion of Replacement theology, that is the idea that the Church has inherited the mantle of Israel do so from a Dispensational premise. And I hope I've briefly shown why their concerns are misguided due to a misreading of the Bible.

But there is another type of Replacement Theology that ought to cause concern. It is directly related to the issues I've been talking about. By employing a hermeneutic of hyper-unity some bring the worship practices into the New Covenant and are guilty of Judaizing. But there are others who also bring the polity of the Old Covenant into the New Covenant era.

Saul's Politics

For those unfamiliar, a quick discussion on law, what the Evangelicals do with it, and the most important part...why?


As brilliant as the founders were in constructing a government with balanced powers, there are certain issues regarding the law in relation to this balance that remain unresolved.

There is a 3-fold tension between:

Legislative power

Judicial Review

and the

Popular Sentiment

An Interaction with a Theonomist critiquing a system he mistakenly identifies as socialism

This is yet another interaction with the Theonomic system. Peculiarly American, this system is on a crusade to defend its political vision. In doing so, it often engages in revisionist history as we've dealt with elsewhere, and in many cases employs so-called Worldview teaching to invalidate and mischaracterize its enemies.

This article from the New Geneva Leadership Blog is a prime example of how Theonomy interacts with systems it doesn't like. I'm not arguing for socialism or capitalism. Instead I want to demonstrate Theonomy's hermeneutic and means of arguing.

I wish to point out that time and time again, Theonomists attack their enemies by accusing them of illogical argument, assertions rather than developed arguments, and poor scholarship. Keep this in mind as you read this interaction.

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a non sequitir is a conclusion which does not follow. An argument is made, a conclusion asserted but it does not logically follow from the argument.

All houses in town are yellow. Fred lives in town. The town is in China.

It may or may not be true, but the conclusion hasn't been proven. It's a non sequitir.

Certain camps within Christian circles continue to publish amazing quantities of articles and books and the reason I keep sharing these posts is I want to expose their nature.


For some who have read my other interactions, there will be some redundancy with the material in the other articles.

The original link can be found here.

#4 Sacralism

Time does not permit me to write a scholarly work on these topics and I realized long ago no one would be willing to publish such a book. I have other projects and my goal is not getting another book published which no one will read. The hope I cherish is that people will stumble onto this site, read and ponder these issues. This won't be a website for the lazy…I'm not going to do the homework for you. I'm not going to footnote and reference everything. I want issues exposed and discussed. My role for now, I hope and pray is that of a catalyst.
Verduin in "The Reformers and Their Stepchildren" repeatedly uses the term Sacralism. I had grasped this concept long before I read him so that when I encountered his work it was akin to a thunderclap. Sacralism is basically making something holy. Obviously there is a Biblical Sacralism, when God commands something to be Holy to serve His purposes in Redemptive History or typology. Think of the Sabbath, or the Temple. These things aren't Holy in and of themselves, intrinsically woven into the fabric of the created universe, moral reflections of God's character. These things are Holy or were Holy because God commanded them to be so. Thus, they can also at a later time be taken out of Holy Status and made common. The Seventh Day is no longer Holy. Reformed Sabbatarians who try to argue the Decalogue is the eternal law of God also show inconsistency by switching the day, showing it wasn't intrinsic, it was a sacralized day. I would argue the New Testament teaches it was fulfilled in Christ, but if they want to argue its abiding validity they have a Redemptive Historical problem. That's another issue. I merely wanted to make a point. The Temple was Holy. Today we understand the Temple of Solomon or the 2nd/Herodian Temple were Holy, but with the advent of the New Covenant and the end of the old order in the year 70…the temple were it still to exist would no longer be, and rebuilt (as some dream) would certainly not be! Hence when people refer to the Holy Land, they do err. That land ceased to be Holy two thousand years ago, it also being a picture of Christ. All these promises were affirmed and confirmed in Him as per 2 Corinthians 1.
Sacralism in the sense Verduin uses it and in the context of the Constantinian discussion is referring to culture and civilization. God is in covenant with His people. They are in covenant with Him alone. We are the Holy Nation. We are His kingdom of priests and no other nation can claim that. The diatheke/covenant was given by God, a covenant of grace to which we can contribute nothing. Even when men swear the oath adding an element of conditionality it is still established and defined by God. No nation whether it be Edom, Egypt, Byzantium, Austria, Britain or America has the right to 'enter in' as a nation to the Holy Status. Israel was Holy, a theocracy in the true sense… not the way we use it today meaning a clergy run state. No, it was an actual theocracy, its charter from heaven, its battles Holy, its kings chosen, it indictments brought by Divine agents, viz. the prophets, thus ideological ruled by God through his agents.
The Holy Roman Empire, Britannia, nor America can ever 'claim' this status. What about the common Theonomic argument that the Mosaic Law was for the nations? How so? When the nations are indicted whether it be in Isaiah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets…what's the charge? Sin to be sure, but under what category? Natural Law. That's all they had. They were not holy nations so they are not accountable for Sabbath-breaking or taking the Lord's name in vain. They are judged for idolatry, the chief and greatest of sins, and for things like injustice, murder, theft, and so forth. They had no part in the Law of God. They could convert, but that would mean ceasing to be an Edomite or whatever. It meant becoming a Jew. Today it means becoming a Christian. To call a nation Christian is theologically erroneous. Sometimes it is meant in the sense that the bulk of the population is Christian, but that still doesn't allow for its government and status to be reckoned Holy. More often than not it means more than that, tending toward a Holy/exclusive status.
Next to heretical Christologies, Sacralism is the greatest heresy in the church. More to come….