Review: Hidden in Plain Sight

Martin Selbrede’s book “Hidden in Plain Sight” isn’t a profound work of literature nor is it likely to be added to the Western Canon; nevertheless, it’s very enjoyable, and as Christian fiction goes, is relatively high quality.

To compare him to pop-writers: he’s no Steven King.  Then again, in this reviewer’s opinion, he’s well above a Dean Koontz.  To translate into pop-Evangelical language:  He’s no Frank Peretti, but he’s much better than a Ted Dekker.  That’s quite a compliment, I think, given this seems to be Mr. Selbrede’s first attempt at fiction.

The real value of his book, however, isn’t in the writing style or even in its ability to entertain.

Selbrede comes very close to managing the impossible for Christian authors, who are usually besotted with modernism, and expounds on theological principles in a fictional setting without coming across as a sermonizer.   Admittedly, he comes very close in chapter 28, but he pulls out of it, and the story recovers.

He is able to accomplish this, I think, because he sticks to one theological principle and wraps the entire narrative around it.

Assuming the reader of this review knows nothing at all about Christianity, I’ll provide a quick summary of what I believe Mr. Selbrede is getting at in his novel:

———————————————————————————————————-

Christians believe God is so very big that there is nothing at all outside of Him.  God is not floating around in some larger universe.  He’s not surrounded by space.  All space, and all things either exist within Him or are Him.  This principle forms the very foundation of Reformed theology and is often referred to as the “Creator / Creature Distinction”.

Since nothing can exist unless God has created it, then as Christians, we’re obligated to believe that everything that exists is what it is, because God wants it to be that way.  The second God decides that something in Creation should no longer exist, it would wink out:  *poof* – just like that.  Gone.

So, everything that exists is being “held” in existence by the fiat will of God Almighty!

This is very important, because it means that all the laws we experience in Creation are regularities of God’s sustaining Creative act.  Christians believe God is immutable (unchanging) and thus, the ways in which He deals with His creation are unchanging (except, of course, for miracles, which are, by definition, when God does something in a way that is different from His normal operating procedures).1

So when we study the laws of physics (and every other law we observe in nature, i.e. the laws of logic, linguistic regularities, laws of biology, etc.) we are really studying how God deals with Creation.2

———————————————————————————————————-

The novel opens in a science lab where the young heroine (an attractive and brilliant red-head named Jenna – not sure how many of those there are in the world…) has just invented something amazing.

It takes most of the book to figure out what her invention is, exactly, but most importantly, it promises to provide a constant source of “free energy”, or so the bad guys think.  Jenna is launched into a world of adventure and intrigue when the American government finds out about her invention, and bugs her lab, her home, her car, and is spying on everyone she knows.

Jenna meets the enigmatic Dr. Eckhardt who, you’ll have to excuse me, I imagined to be the spitting image of Dr. Rushdoony.  Eckhardt acts almost like a divine figure throughout the story, using his vast fortune and intelligence to aid Jenna at key points.

I wont give away the ending or reveal too much of the plot, as the story hinges on surprise and mystery.  If you like science fiction, especially that written from a Christian (and a uniquely Reformed) perspective, you’ll thoroughly enjoy this book.

A word of advice though:  there is a lot of abstract science thrown around, seemingly at random.  Don’t worry about trying to understand it.  I’m not sure how much of it is real or plausible anyway.  The theological principles, though, are real, and what the reader needs to understand (in order to follow the plot) becomes very clear.  There are always non-scientists in stories like this, and eventually, one of the characters has to explain to them what’s going on.

I certainly don’t believe, for instance, that Martin Selbrede has discovered a way to reconcile difficult concepts in physics (like Heisenburg’s Uncertainty Principle and the Theory of Relativity), however, given the theological principle I’ve described, it might be possible for an enterprising young Christian physicist, like the one in his story, to accomplish extraordinary things in the near future.

And on that note, this is a very optimistic and exciting novel.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

1.   For example, God normally deals with a river by ordaining that it act according to certain law-like patterns.  It flows through its channels, it stays grounded to the Earth (gravity), and each molecule of the river-water adheres to its fellows according to regular and law-like patterns (these patterns are what chemists study).

But one time in History, God decided not to work this way with a river.  When the Levites had to carry the Ark of the Covenant over the river Jordan, God miraculously caused the river to halt, until they were through.  So, certain normal laws were suspended, while God managed His creation in a different way, temporarily.  When the priests were across, God began operating as usual again, and the river Jordan continued its normal coarse.

2.   I’d like to point out two sources for further study on this issue:

See R.J. Rushdoony’s essay “The Myth of Nature” in the book “The Mythology of Science”.

Also, check out C. Paul Feronni’s excellent essay “The Reconstructionist View of Science” in “Creation According to the Scriptures”.  His essay is, in my opinion, the non-fiction explanation of the theological principle that Martin Selbrede is getting at.

Review: The Death of Meaning

Rushdoony shows how secular philosophy (especially after Descartes) held to human autonomy as a foundational presupposition resulting in the death of all meaning in the world.

This is an especially valuable work to the up-and-coming presuppositionalist like myself.  Too often Christian literature tends to skip over the case Rushdoony makes.  Granted, from the start of my studies into presuppositional apologetics, I understood that unbelieving thought leads necessarily to the death of all meaning, the process, however, is not always clearly demonstrated.

As Paul says, “All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are found in Christ.  If you deny Christ (The Christian God) you are giving up any chance you have of claiming legitimate knowledge of anything…and furthermore, if the non-Christian system proposed was consistent with itself, the promoter of the system wouldn’t be able to reason, use science, logic, math, or have any intelligent thought at all.  (It’s a good thing they don’t live consistently with their own philosophical profession!)

This conclusion is arrived at naturally (and freely admitted by) many of the Existentialist philosophers.  Rushdoony walks the reader step by step through the process providing helpful commentary along the way.

If you make man the center and interpreter of thought, you will necessarily be forced into the conclusions of the existentialist.  They live in a dark world, devoid of hope or freedom…a world that is quickly descending into chaos and destruction.  As a matter of fact, destruction is one of the highest goods in such a world.

This book really helped clarify the subtleties of the existentialist position in my mind, as well as allowing me to appreciate and developed their arguments for my own use as a Christian apologist.

As a Presuppositional apologist, I can use the arguments of the Existentialist to demonstrate to the unbeliever that his or her thought necessarily leads to the death of all meaning, and ultimately physical death as well…(which is exactly what God told Adam in the Garden.)

I highly recommend this book to any Christian that is interested in the history of recent philosophical thought.

I couldn’t give it a full 5 stars because of the way the book is structured.  It seems like they pulled together a few relevant essays and presented them in book format. I’ve very grateful for it, but as a result, the book doesn’t flow quite as well as it could have otherwise.

Review: Creation According to the Scriptures

“A Presuppositional Defense of Literal, Six-Day Creation”

This is a book of articles written by prominent Christians and edited by P. Andrew Sandlin.

Last year, I had the good fortune of attending a debate between young Earth creationist Dr. Danny Faulkner, and old earther, Dr. Hugh Ross.

After demolishing Danny Faulkner in debate, Dr. Ross made himself available for questions, and was bombarded by a crowd of angry creationists, including Gary Bates, author of the excellent book “Alien Intrusion.”  http://www.alienintrusion.com/main.html

To Dr. Ross’ credit, he patiently listened to the same old arguments from this mass of well meaning but upset Christians, and responded in kind.

They were all approaching him about the nature of the facts. They disagreed with his cosmological model, on the basis of factual errors. I had recently begun studying presuppositonal apologetics, and so, my mind was focusing in on a different area.

Could it be, that the model Dr. Ross was proposing, while having possible factual substance, rather, erred on a theological basis? My mind was racing for some angle to attack his model, (a model which I had previously only been scantily aware of.)

I did confront Hugh Ross that evening, but only with objections that I had thought up on the fly. Needless to say, they weren’t very well thought out, and he was ready for them.

I left the exchange with a firm resolve to find, (if any existed) an in-depth presuppositional critique of any world view or model that did not posit a literal 6 day, recent creation.

I had hoped that with this book; my search was over. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Please don’t misunderstand me though. This was an excellent book, and I am glad that I purchased it! It has some very valuable insights, and for the Christian who has never been confronted with (what I consider heresy) “non-literal” readings of Genesis, it serves as a great introduction to the issues. It will teach you how to approach the issue, so that you avoid the pitfalls like those of the well-meaning Christians at the debate I attended.

This book is really meant to defend literal 6-day Creationism (here after called just Creationism) against all comers. Therefore, some of the articles, (like the excellent one by Van Til) focus on pointing out the underlying philosophical issues between the Creationist and the challenger.

I really loved chapter 10, “Creation and Science” by John King, which explicitly highlights the different philosophies by comparing and contrasting the creation account of Genesis with that of Enuma Elish (the Babylonian creation story.) In doing so, King demonstrates that all non-Christian accounts of creation are really anthropomorphic in essence; embracing a chaotic metaphysic centering on the individual. Thus, he is able to draw a distinction between mythology (including supposed “modern science”), and Christian Creationism.

Rushdoony, in my opinion, comes the closet to helping me out in my search for a strong presuppositional critique of Hugh Ross, (and subsequent heretical creation accounts.) Although, Van Til’s essay (chapter 5) goes into the nature of the philosophical distinctions involved, Rushdoony articulates the problem (in chapter 1.)

He focuses strictly on the attempts to undermine a literal 6-day creation account, by stating four ways in which these attempts will have a “deadly” effect.

1. These attempts create a different view of the Bible. (This is explained further in other chapters.)

2. (This is the biggie in my opinion.) “A denial of six-day creation requires a different view of God. Rushdoony says the following:

“Processes theology rapidly takes over and the Biblical God wanes as a humanistic and “evolutionary” God replaces Him.” (page 1.)

3. The people attempting to subvert six-day creation, essentially become “symbolic theology champions.” Self appointed elite interpreters of scripture in the world of the church.

4. The common people (through a literal and simplistic reading) find themselves at odds with these self appointed symbolic champions, and therefore a rift is occurring between the seminary, and the church.

What I was really hoping for, was an entire book, expounding on number 1, and especially number 2 in Rushdoony’s list.

I knew from the day I fist heard Dr. Hugh Ross speak, that he was proclaiming a different God than the one I worshiped. I desperately want a book, article, person, ANYTHING, that will highlight the presuppositions involved in a God like Ross’, and contrast them with the Christian God.

Van Til, Rushdoony, and a few others, define the issue in this book. It is not answered or expounded upon however, and because of that, I have to give the book a 3 out of a possible 5 star rating.

(There was a surprising chapter, which deserves its own blog, so I’ll reserve comments about it until then. The chapter in question is chapter 12, by C. Paul Ferroni called: “The Reconstructionist View of Science.” Stay tuned!)

Dr. Horton Insults Reconstructionists

In a recent broadcast of the White Horse Inn, Dr. Michael Horton insults Christian Theonomist and Reconstructionists by comparing our position to that of radical Anabaptists and liberal theologians like John Milbank, an English theologian advocating Christian socialism.

The broadcast is called “The City of God” and can be heard by clicking here: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=1/18/2009

I took the liberty of transcribing the relevent portion of the show. The entire broadcast is around 45 minutes long. My transcription begins at 32:22 in:

Dr. M. Horton: I gave a paper awhile back at a conference where John Milbank was present. John Milbank is a leading British theologian who’s had an enormous effect, especially on younger evangelical theologians; and argues very strongly for a recovery of Christendom. We had this exchange over what it means to live in a secular culture. The title of my paper was kind of provocative, designed to provoke a debate with Milbank “In Praise of the Secular.”

You still doing that? (Laughing)

Dr. M. Horton: Yeah, still doing that (laughing.) He responded to it all by calling me a heretic. It’s interesting when you’re called a heretic for siding with Augustine. He has more recently argued, I just heard him recently at a conference announce, that only Christians have the right to rule, and the Bible teaches Christian socialism and so we need a Christian socialist world order and Christians will run it. There was something called Christian Reconstructionism or Theonomy on the right that held views that are very similar to John Milbank’s views (very similar). Folks, this is actually closer to radical Anabaptism, not the pacifist kind of Anabaptism, but the radical Anabaptism of Thomas Munzer, John of Leyden, and others at the time of the Reformation.

This is why Europe is secularized to this day. They don’t want to ever see anything like that again!

Dr. M. Horton: Exactly. This is a quote from the Schleitheim Confession of 1527 of the Anabaptist. This could take you, either into (because its both Christ against culture; a radical Christ vs. Culture approach). It could take you directly into either of what we call today Christian Reconstructionism or Theonomy, (liberation theology either of the left or the right) OR into what is more commonly known as Anabaptism of today. The Mennonites, or even more, the Amish, separating from the world. But both from this same kind of theological conviction expressed in the Schleitheim Confession 1527:

“We are agreed on separation. A separation shall be made from the evil and from the wickedness of which the Devil planted in the world. (Notice also the Devil planted in the world, not because of human rebellion.) In this manner, simply that we shall have no fellowship with the wicked and not run with them in the multitude of their abominations (assuming we don’t commit abominations, while the community there in Munster was communist, polygamist, and they were sharing…(and naked) AND naked! They shared not only each other’s money, but each other’s wives! This is the way it is, the confession says.) Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith and have not united themselves with God, so that they wish to do all His will, are a great abomination to God and it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things.”

Dr. M. Horton: And so, there you have the theological justification for a very different view of Christ’s relationship to culture. Not a distinction between the Kingdoms of Christ and the kingdoms of this world, but a real hostile opposition to the two kingdoms. When the Reformation came along, it was opposed both to what Calvin called the “contrived empire of Christendom” and to the radical “Christ vs. Culture” position of Anabaptism.

————————————————–

Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon of American Vision have responded with two 15 minute vlogs.

See them by clicking here: http://www.americanvision.org/media/main/

They are under “Gary’s Radio Show” and are named: “Thoughts on Theonomy” and “Tertullian and Theonomy.”

Listening to Dr. Horton drone on about how ignorantly defenseless Christians should be in society makes a response by Mr. DeMar and Mr. Mcdurmon, very satisfying.

Gary North’s Suggested Reading List

Listening through a lecture by Dr. Gary North on the Federal Reserve system, he dropped a valuable bit of advice on how to go about learning what in the world Austrian economic theorists are talking about when they gripe about the Fed.

First, he says we should take up Rothbard’s book “What Has the Government Done to our Money?”

This book presents a very sound argument for getting back to a gold currency standard – a hallmark of libertarian economic theory.

Then, he says to purchase Rothbard’s magnum opus:  “Man, Economy, and State”.  In it, he suggests we flip first to the infamous chapter on monetary theory, which, I’ve heard from numerous Austrian scholars, is the best, most articulate essay on the topic.  Read that, to get a grasp of the issue.

After that, Dr. North suggests we take up Rothbard’s short book “The Case Against the Fed”.

If we sludge through all this, according to Dr. North, we should be well on our way to understanding Austrian Economic theory.

Review: “The Mythology of Science” by Rushdoony

The “Mythology of Science” is another home run by R.J. Rushdoony.  For any of you familiar with my review of “Creation According to the Scriptures” you will remember how dissatisfied I was with it.

This book redeems, supplements, and amplifies “CATTS”.  Rushdoony covers in depth much of the ground left uncovered there.   Looking back, I would suggest anyone interested in reading these two books, read “The Mythology of Science” first, and then “CATTS.”

Here is the link to my review of Creation According to the Scriptures.

Rushdoony begins by demonstrating that evolution is a cultural myth.   Unbelieving thought necessarily leads to the death of all meaning (see my book review of “The Death of Meaning”) and a form of pragmatic anarchy results.

In this new cultural myth, men seek to destroy God, and in His place, enthrone themselves.  They seek to make themselves completely sovereign over reality.  Thus, as Rushdoony says, it is not predestination that offends fallen man, but rather, predestination BY GOD.

The horrifying result of such thinking is highlighted over and over again throughout the book, but is specifically addressed in chapter 3, “Orwell’s 1984:  Horror or Hope?”   Man seeks to control every aspect of nature, and this is the type of society that begins to emerge in “1984.”  Though, as Rushdoony notes, the society of Orwell’s “1984” will seem like Heaven in comparison with what man really has in store.

Over and over again, man’s attempts to control other men is discussed.  Whether by means of drugs, shock therapy, micro chips, or some other devilish scheme, man seeks to govern others.  Man himself becomes the ultimate experiment.

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of this book is the way Rushdoony clarifies the false religion surrounding “progress” and progressive change through history.  He shows why any Christian who attempts to hold to this idea of “change” in an ultimate way, essentially ends up destroying the God of Christianity.

Thus, any attempts by Christians to reconcile Christianity with modern notions of evolution end up in theological absurdity.  (Chapter 6 “The Necessity for Creationism” really focuses on this point.)

Chapter 11 discusses Kuhn’s idea of paradigms and compares them (in a way) with Van Til’s notion of worldviews.  It is concluded that Kuhn is right in saying that everyone views the facts through the lens of their paradigm, however, Kuhn was not willing to admit to (or subject himself to) the ultimate and objective reality necessary for such paradigms to exist within.  This leads to a “schizophrenia” of sorts among modern scientists.  They must acknowledge the objective world of the Christian God in order to do their science, but they are not willing to give up the subjectivity necessary for their own god-hood.

Rushdoony includes a few book reviews in the Appendix section which may be a little outdated but are valuable all the same since they demonstrate a presuppositional attitude towards attempts to reconcile evolution and Christian thought.

All in all, I’m giving this book 5 out of 5 stars!  It is simply priceless and will enable me to critique many other aspects of God’s creation in light of the truths presented therein.

 

The Fall of the House of Westminster

This book has caused quite a stir in the Reformed community.  John Frame reviews the writings of popular Reformed scholars and levels uncharacteristically harsh criticisms against them.  These “Escondido Theologians” have responded to Dr. Fame with vitriol.  Naturally, this infighting trickled down to the common level, prompting the author of the popular Green Baggins blog to post this message:

To all my readers, since 2K theology and related subjects seems to bring out the most viciously childish side of the commenters (WAY worse than any Federal Vision posts!), I propose to cease my review of Frame’s book. To tell you all the truth, I am embarrassed by it all. What should have been a substantive in-house debate and discussion turned into a mere screaming match. I suspect that those with substantive points to make were driven off by the mudslinging going on. And no, I will not allow comments on this post, because that will only result in more finger-pointing. It will be a very long time indeed before I allow any more 2K discussion on this blog. ~ Click here to see the original post.

I have a romantic view of the situation.  Sure, that leaves me open to charges of naivete, but I think it also gives me a level of clarity others are missing.  To see the scuffle rightly, then, we must start with a little history:

The “Age of Enlightenment” (so called) was a bad time for Christians.  Arrogant men challenged the sacred ideals of Christendom.  They broke free from the chains of theology and went a whoring after Satan.  The Church wasn’t ready for this sort of thing.  Vicious ideologies emerged and demons fomented political rebellions.  Regicide became the norm in Europe and the old Christian order was overthrown by a new order of propositional nationalism and Republicanism after the style of the French Jacobins.

The philosophers were the priests in this new world-order.  Kant, Hegel, Rousseau and others.  The church retreated into pietism and irrelevance, leaving the world to be governed by these monsters.

But, then something happened that changed the landscape of the battle.  A movement among Dutch Calvinists (Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck and others) began appealing to Scriptures as if God had relevant things to say about philosophical matters.  They sought to make Jesus Christ Lord over every aspect of life.  Kuyper, especially, began countering Kant’s idealism by framing systematic theology in “worldview” language.

This movement caught on and spread to America where it strongly influenced the thinking of men like J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til.  Responding to theological liberalism at Princeton Seminary, Machen left and founded his own seminary, a shining beacon of conservatism in an age of liberal dominance: Westminster Theological Seminary.

I’ve yet to visit but I imagine it’s on a hill-top with a perpetual sunbeam flowing over the campus while a choir of angels sing a majestic note.  Machen eventually convinced Van Til to teach at the seminary.  They, and many other godly theologians, began articulating the fullest expressions of Kuyper’s worldview ideals.  Van Til, especially, was able to show that God was sovereign over every area of life.  There is no neutrality, said Van Til, not even in philosophy or politics.

Some of the most passionate disciples of these men realized that every area of academia needed to be “reconstructed” along consistently Biblical lines.  Every subject, from sociology and anthropology, to economics and philosophy, all had to be brought under the dominion of Christ.  These “reconstructionists” eventually realized the need to apply God’s word and authority to the civil government as well.  Even the state was to yield to God.

A few generations later, the greatest defender of this Christian Reconstruction (and the greatest of Van Til’s students) emerged.  Dr. Greg Bahnsen, whose clear and powerful defense of theonomy was a lightening rod through the heart of Westminster Theological seminary.

But the position was so controversial and demanded so much sacrifice that few of the second or third generation theologians at Westminster had the guts to endorse it.  Without realizing it, these men had rejected Kuyperianism and imbibed the spirit of the age instead.  They’re now more akin to the French Jacobins than they are to the pre-Enlightenment Christians.  They have all the biases and prejudices of their day, including knee-jerk emotional outrage at the idea of capital punishment.  They’re especially biased against the idea of the church seriously demanding authority in society.  They flatly rejected Bahnsen’s view even though they couldn’t provide good arguments against it.  But few rejected it more passionately than the man Dr. Meredith Kline, who suggested Bahnsen might not even be a covenant child of God.

Bahnen’s consistent application of Van Tillian theology forced Westminster to either give up a consistent Van Tillian approach to life, or face the entire might of our politically correct society. Who would pay money and send their children to a seminary that taught witchcraft ought to be punished by death?  Who would send their children to a seminary that allowed professors to teach that the government has a duty to obey God’s law?

The faculty, including John Frame, caved in the face of pop-culture and decided to hammer Bahnsen instead of staying consistent with their Van Tillian theology.  Seventeen (!) years after Bahnsen’s “Theonomy in Christian Ethics”  was published, the entire faculty of Westminster Seminary banded together and published a response “Theonomy: A Reformed Critique”.

But as Bahnsen pointed out in his rebuttal to the book, most of their “critique” couldn’t be counted as a critique at all.  Furthermore, most of the arguments in the book agreed with the theonomic thesis!  And worse still, when the authors finally get around to arguing against theonomy, they use arguments that were already refuted by Bahnsen years before (in some cases).  Westminster, it seemed, was unable to defeat consistent Van Tillianism.

Well, Dr. Bahnsen passed away but his memory lives on.  Westminster knew it had been defeated by Bahnsen and the merry band of Reconstructionists.  It just didn’t want to admit it.

Smarting from Bahnsen’s rebukes, Westminster’s faculty, over the years (and to the present day) has either pushed the debate into a dark memory hole never to be discussed, or they’ve ceased to discuss it at all while still searching for ways to offer a new ethical position to counter the theonomy movement.  Much of the faculty takes the second approach and as a result, have drifted into an incoherent position that Dr. Frame calls “The Escondido Theology” since the particulars of it are characteristic of a group of scholars in Westminster Seminary’s Escondido California branch.

These men staged a gradual “coup” over the Westminster faculty and, following their mentor, Meredith Kline, they began imposing a view of theology on Westminster that is viciously contrary to the Kuyper / Machen / Van Til tradition.  Of course, they still feel the need to pepper their language with Van Tillian jargon and give lip service to the old-guard Westminster folk, but in practice, they no longer have any regard for the old seminary on the hill-top.  It’s too clear that if Kuyper and Van Til are taken seriously, they lead directly to theonomy.  They’ve posited a radical “two-Kingdom” view of theology; the church, if it’s fooled by these theologians, would cut itself off from having anything relevant to say about ethics to the secular world and would apply God’s laws only to the confines of the spiritual “Kingdom”. The secular “Kingdom” is to be governed by some other, perhaps “rationalist” scheme of ethics.

Dr. Frame’s book is an attempt to refute the Escondido “Two-Kingdom” theology, without being a consistent (theonomic) Van Tillian.  Dr. Frame doesn’t want to accept theonomy, but he’s a good-hearted-enough theologian that he doesn’t want to depart from Van Til’s tradition either.  And while we theonomists have serious objections to Dr. Frame’s understanding of the law of God, we sympathize with his anger at the Escondido ilk who are pursuing an incoherent theological system at the expense of the old Van Tillian orthodoxy.

So having briefly outlined the situation, I can now offer a few words in review of Dr. Frame’s book.

A few criticisms:

As wonderful as it is to see a theologian of Dr. Frame’s caliber tackle these theological gangsters, I feel he’s aimed the book more at them than towards a lay audience.  I wish he would have devoted more time to explaining the overall narrative of the Two-Kingdom position for our benefit.  Instead, he presents a list of bullet points, offers some general criticism, then dives into book reviews of the two-kingdom advocate’s material.

I found some of his background information in chapter 1 very helpful – he discusses the history of their theological coup – but he never puts it in a broader historical context.  I suspect that’s because he realizes (as they all do) that the entire Two-Kingdom controversy is nothing more than a reaction to Dr. Greg Bahnsen.

On the plus side:

I suspect Frame has problems presenting a coherent “narrative” of the overall two-Kingdom theology because it’s such a confused position to begin with.  However, he comes closest in chapter four, where he reviews David Van Drunen’s book, “A Biblical Case for Natural Law”.

Van Drunen distinguishes between two “Kingdoms” in the world.  A spiritual kingdom and a civil kingdom.

Scripture is to govern the spiritual kingdom.

Natural law is to govern the civil kingdom. (see page 131 of Frame).

Any pagan can look at the world and see there’s a law to things that must be respected, says Van Drunen.  They’re obligated to obey that law (which was put in place when God made covenant with Noah, apparently).   The believer, on the other hand, is obligated to obey Scripture and govern churchly affairs in light of special revelation.  The unbeliever is *not* obligated to obey Scripture, then, since that would be an attempt to rule the Civil Kingdom according to the law of the Spiritual Kingdom.

Frame has many criticisms of this position (his entire book is a long refutation of this idea in all of its forms), so all I will say here is that, apologetically-speaking, if we are going to base our objective standard of morality in the nature of God, then we cannot be inconsistent by claiming that God’s nature is one way for Christians and another way for non-Christians.

No. God doesn’t change.  Both the unbeliever and the believer owe allegiance to the same God and are obligated to obey the same moral standard.  There is only one moral standard because there is only one God.

While Dr. Frame is not quite alone in his criticisms, it seems that, for the time-being, these two-kingdom thugs rule the landscape.  They’re very popular at the moment.  And unfortunately, the theonomy movement has virtually no serious scholars or academics speaking out or writing for it today.

Still, there is a large popular movement for theonomists and we can use Dr. Frame’s book to inform us and provide us excellent arguments against the two-kingdom position.  And, generally speaking, Dr. Frame’s triperspectival application of Van Til’s theology to ethics is excellent – even Dr. Bahnsen used Frame’s material as a textbook in his ethics classes.

Things are brighter than they seem for the Reconstructionist movement, and that’s one of the best things I’ve gotten from Dr. Frame’s book.

Review: “Freud” by R.J. Rushdoony

This isn’t a long book but in true Rushdoony fashion, it’s crammed with useful source material and priceless commentary.  If you’re looking for an in-depth analysis of Freud’s thought though, you’ll be disappointed.  Rushdoony doesn’t discuss the minutiae of his theory for the simple reason that most of his system is no longer relevant.  The pagan psychologists have moved on.

Freud did, however, influence the direction in they chose to travel.

Rushdoony shows how Freud dedicated his life’s work to eradicating Old Testament law.  He tried naturalizing the concept of guilt.  No guilt?  No need for redemption then.

There was no longer any need for guilt or feeling convicted of sins for Frued, and thus, no need for the redeeming work of Christ. Every sort of perversion became acceptable and at worst, was considered a mental illness.

The emotional appeal of Rushdoony’s review comes in the last chapter when he speculates about the possible victory of the “city of man.” Since the beginning of humanity, the city of man has sought power over other all mankind. Sovereignty of the State is their supreme goal. This idea was consistently played out by Freud as Rushdoony shows in chapter 8 “Freud and the State.”

The natural result of this line of thought is a general belief that men are nothing more than animals.  And of course, the wiser animals should have free reign over the lower animals, to experiment on them and control them as they desire. This leads Rushdoony to highlight a discussion of modern practices like the controlling of cats with electronic chips.

Rushdoony discusses certain drugs used to alter the mind of man and put him in whatever state the humanistic “Dr.” desires. These drugs could possibly be circulated through water supplies and used to control entire cities.

Freud’s thought presents us with a consistent look at the real nature of humanism, and it’s an ugly sight to behold.

Rushdoony eloquently concludes:

“The enlightenment hope that Freud shared, he himself laid bare as empty of meaning and futile of hope. In his own fashion, he prepared the way for what Charles Hodge called “The last issue” of history, the conflict “between Atheism and its countless forms and Calvinism. The other systems will be crushed as the half-rotten ice between two great bergs.” Freud, like Nietzsche, forced man to the edge of the abyss. Modern man has been warned, and it is from within his own ranks that this warning has come. He is thus in every respect without excuse.”

Rushdoony on War and Women (Deut. 21:10)

(I’ve taken the liberty to transcribe the following chapter from Rushdoony’s commentary on Deuteronomy chapter 21:10-14 so that it can be studied by those of my friends who do not currently have access to the book.)

10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

This is both a law of marriage and of war.  Its purpose is to bring moral order to the brutality of warfare.  In this century, the treatment of women during war, and in the aftermath, is a grim story of barbarism.  This law is designed to prevent the misuse of captive or enemy women.

It must be noted that the captive girl who is desired cannot be raped, nor can she be made a concubine, i.e., a wife without a dowry.  She is deliberately called a wife and must be treated as such.  It is her standing under law.

No Canaanite woman could be married (Deut. 7:2).  The law deals with non-Canaanites.  The captive woman either trimmed her hair, or shaved her head, according to some, to indicate her changed status.  Paring her nails was ritual of purification as was cutting the hair.

She could not be treated as a concubine nor as a slave.  If, either during the month prior to marriage or at some point after, the man decided not to marry, or decided to divorce her, he had to treat her honorably.  Ancient Hebrew law forbade divorcing her when she was ill.  She was not to be sent away empty-handed.  The protection given to the cpative girl was thus a deterrent to rash decisions, before and after she was taken captive.  The law prevented her use merely for sexual purposes.  She was to be seen as a wife from start to finish.  The relationship had to be a legal one.  As Hoppe noted, on divorce, “she does not revert to her former status but is given the freedom due any Israelite woman.” [Leslie J. Hoppe, OFM, Deuteronomy (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1985), 66]

This law makes it clear that the ‘purity’ of Hebrew blood was not a factor.  Moreover, whereas in modern Jewish practice, the woman,  the mother, determines whether or not the child is Jewish.  In Hebrew practice the child’s status was determined by the father.  Here as welswhere there is often a gap between biblical law and modern Jewish practice.

If the husband rejected the captive woman, he had to send her “whither she will” (v.14).  The determination rested with her.  If there were children, loss of them would be a deterrent to the husband.  Her freedom is insisted on by this law, and this was a check on arbitrariness by the man.

The Bible recognizes only one kind of lawful sexuality, within marriage.  As Erdman noted, “The regulation was designed to allow no other form of union other than that of lawful marriage.” [Charles R. Erdman, The Book of Deuteronomy (Westwood, NJ: Flemming H. Revell, 1953), 62]

With marriage, the captive girl ceased to be a captive and became a wife in the covenant community.  As Morecraft noted,

“This law limits a person in authority, i.e. the head of the house, in his authority over his wife.  Because men are sinners, God gives laws to govern and to limit and to guide him in his use of authority, lest he abuse it as a tyrant.  Here we are taught that a husband is not to treat his wife as a slave, or a “thing” to be used and discarded at will, disregarding her personality character, personhood, and welfare.  His headship is to be a loving headship. [Joseph C Morecraft III, A Christian Manual of Law:  An application of Deteronomy (Atlanta, GA: Atlanta Christian Training Center, n.d.), 64]

The children went with the innocent party in a divorce.  The captive girl made wife “had all the rights” of every covenant woman and the same standing in the law. [Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch, vol. 5, Deuteronomy, trans. Isaac Levy, 2nd ed. rev., pg. 409] The usual practice among other peoples of antiquity and more recently has been to regard all captive women either as slaves or as nonersons with no standing before the law.

John Gill’s studies of Hebrew texts indicated that the captive woman could be a widow or a virgin.  The month’s delay thus was also to give time for her instruction in and conversion to the faith. [John Gill, Gill’s Commentary, Vol 1, 766] The month’s delay would also give time to determine whether or not the woman was already pregnant.

Calvin saw this law as “a toleration” on God’s part as well as a regulation. [John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, 742]

A very important aspect of this law is in the concluding words to the husband requiring that the captive woman made a wife had to be treated as any Hebrew woman.  The law states that the reason for this is “because thou hast humbled her” (v.14).  This is a term normally reserved for cases of rape and seduction.  The capture of a woman, and then marriage to her, meant that she had to be treated well precisely because she was a captive women originally.

In Exodus 22:16-17, the seduced girl had to be given a dowry even if the father of the girl rejected the seducer as her husband.  The term “humbled her” is used in Deuteronomy 22:24 for a case of adultery.  In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 it applies also to cases of seduction, and no divorce is allowed.  At the very least, in all cases where the term is used, the law militates against the man.  Marriage normally is not t o begin with a “humbling” of the woman, and the man is penalized in all such cases.  G. Ernest Wright observed, “there is no exact parallel to the law; its thoughtful forbearance and consideration contrast with the cruelty one otherwise associates with war.” [G. Ernest Wright, “Deuteronomy,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 2. 461]

Shaving or trimming the hair, and paring the nails, was at times a sign of mourning.  It was, however, also a ritual signifying conversion from one religion to another. [Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 1, 670]  Many rabbinic commentators assumed that the month’s delay provided time for instruction.  A captive woman would logically be receptive to it because it would enhance her status.  Moreover, religious affiliations among pagans were not personal decisions; they were aspects of membership in a particular family, clan, and city-state.  Given this fact, conversion could both be easy and superficial, although in the marriage of Ruth, a non-captive girl, it was a profound and intense faith.

Rules of warfare have never had much success, least of all in times such as ours and the Renaissance, times of little or no faith.  A people’s words mean little without God’s authority behind them.

There is another aspect to this law that must be noted.  It stipulates marriage, not promiscuity, where enemy women are concerned.  The Bible, very plain spoken, tells us of the rapes of Hebrew women by foreign armies.  At the same time, while unsparing of Hebrew sins, it does not record like offenses by Hebrew soldiers.  Laws with respect to the treatement of women were too often capital offenses.  For this reason, even the very militant modernist commentators discuss this law with respect.

Modern readers are troubled by the possibility of polygamy.  Leviticus 18:18 properly translated can mean, “Neither shalt thou take one wife to another…” Polygamy is forbidden by God’s law but still regulated.  Its actual incidence was low; only the very wealthy could afford it.  The law limits sexuality to marriage and, while regarding polygamy as wrong, still sees marriage as a condition to be vastly preferred to promiscuity.  Leviticus 18:18 has no penalty for polygamy; perhaps polygamy is its own punishment.

Welcome

“Jot ‘N Tittles” is an offshoot of my main apologetics blog “Van Tillian Fire”.  The subject of ethics is a complex one.  Religious ethics, even more so.  And considering how controversial theonomy is, I felt the need to devote an entire blog to the subject.

I’ll be defending the theonomic thesis as presented by the likes of Dr. Greg Bahnsen, R.J. Rushdoony, and Gary North.  Additionally, I’ll be putting any material here that’s relevant to Christian ethics, meta-ethics, and legal speculation, as well as any relevant discussion of eschatology.

I am a Presbyterian who considers the “Westminster Confession of Faith” to be his primary confessional document.  I am also an undergraduate student working towards a degree in philosophy.  I’ve been practicing the presuppositional method and participating in the community for about eight years now (before that, I was an avid “evidentialist”).

While I’m not an expert, and I have much to learn, I hope to foster a higher standard of intellectual rigor here than is present in many lay-apologist websites.

Therefore – intellectual honesty will be our cardinal virtue, with the author/s trying, if at all possible, to minimize any emotional effrontery, arrogance, or the unfortunate displays of machismo so common in online apologetic discussions.

~ Enjoy ~