Gates Unguarded

Sharing Options

In my most recent interaction with John Piper’s views on guns, I said something in passing about the “heirs of the reconstructionists.” Having been asked what I meant, or more importantly what I did not mean, I thought I needed to clarify a bit more.

I was responding at that point to Gary North’s post hoc downstreamery. He was basically arguing that Christians who make an appeal to natural law based on an “assumption of human autonomy” are leaving the gates unguarded. When you do that, bad things happen — things like same sex mirage, like abortion on demand, or like a disarmed citizenry.

My response was that you can always leave the gates unguarded if you want to. This is as true of groups that formally deny human autonomy as groups that don’t. There will always be a way to “retreat to commitment.” There will always be someone who will present a rationale, consistent with the tenets of whatever group you happen to be in, that will allow you to buy a few more days of peace.

Now the reason for this clarification. I was not referring to the good folks at American Vision, who are not exemplars of the kind of drift I am talking about. I apologize for any confusion I caused.

So what was I talking about then? Let me give a few examples of our unguarded gates, the kind of thing I had in mind. Many of the “erstwhile recons” I had in mind have glided slowly from theocratic libertarianism (which I continue to advocate) into a compromise with plain old vanilla libertarianism, which is systemically godless. Ron Paul, and now Rand Paul, represent certain sane economic policy proposals connected to certain other assumptions about human autonomy that are deadly.

In short, I agree with Gary North about the poison of human autonomy. I differ with him about where such temptations are likely to arise. He believes they arise where Christians have made their peace with various forms of statism. I believe they arise everywhere. Consequently I believe that alliances with Ron Paul’s version of capitalism are just as dangerous as alliances with Mike Huckabee’s version of socialism.

Lest anybody think this is just an exercise in finger-pointing elsewhere, a second example of this kind of drift (thankfully arrested in time) occurred in the pages of Credenda a number of years ago. You can read more about that little adventure here.

A third example of an unguarded gate would be found in the debate over regeneration, of all things. If you have followed this blog for a few years, you know that I have urgently argued that evangelical and Reformed Christians must ardently defend the absolute necessity of the new birth. In order for the doctrine of the new birth to make any sense, we must have an old nature in Adam that needs to be transformed, and we must receive a new nature in Christ that is the result of the transformation.

Now Biblical Horizons is an organization containing many downstream reconstructionists (not to mention friends of mine). But in the Biblical Horizons theological framework, we don’t really have “natures” that can be transformed by regeneration. As a stand alone point, this might not be all that important, but in theology there is no such thing as a stand alone point. If I don’t have a nature that could be transformed by the new birth, then how could I have a nature that would be insulted by a sex change operation, or violated by a sexual approach from another man?

Please note that by pointing this out I am not talking about a position that anybody is advocating yet. I am simply talking about unguarded gates. And we live in a time when every unguarded gate is dangerous.

So I do believe that there are forms of natural law theory that give away the store. But thus far the natural law guys on the Supreme Court have done more to keep our fat out of the fire than the biblical law guys have.

There is probably more that needs to be said about all this.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
23 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
weisjohn
weisjohn
8 years ago

I haven’t spent a ton of time reading stuff from Biblical Horizons, however, I’m familiar with their writings. I’ve never been aware that there is a movement away from the existence of a nature. Is this stated somewhere?

Ben Carmack
Ben Carmack
8 years ago
Reply to  weisjohn
Lance Roberts
8 years ago
Reply to  Ben Carmack

Wow, I like a lot of Jordan’s stuff, but removing regeneration is an incredible step. So does that mean we weren’t dead in our sins, just sick?

Ben Carmack
Ben Carmack
8 years ago
Reply to  Lance Roberts

I’m sure Jordan affirms total depravity and that we are dead in our sins. Honestly, his view is more Lutheran than anything else. It elevates the sacraments over and against the “heart religion” that evangelicals are accustomed to. It’s a reaction against real or perceived weaknesses in evangelical and Reformed theology over the last couple centuries. I don’t think there’s a way to reconcile Jordan’s view of regeneration with what Reformed people have traditionally confessed. The honest thing to do would be to take an exception to the confessions at that point, and work it out from there. Calvin and… Read more »

Ben Carmack
Ben Carmack
8 years ago
Reply to  Lance Roberts

Looking at this again, it occurs to me that I should clarify my remarks here, whatever that may be worth. It wouldn’t be quite accurate to say that Jordan views the sacraments in a precisely Lutheran way; there is an important difference. If I understand Dr. Leithart and Mr. Jordan correctly from reading their works, they emphasize more of a “ecclesiastical regeneration” than a sacramental regeneration. The sacraments are social signs, but the important thing is being part of the group, the Church, that saves people. It certainly has a Lutheran feel to it, but is different in a subtle… Read more »

weisjohn
weisjohn
8 years ago
Reply to  Ben Carmack

Thanks Ben, I, like Lance, have read and enjoy a lot of Jordan’s writings. Through New Eyes literally changed my life, and I spend a lot of time with Leithart’s materials as well, cutting my teeth on A House for My Name in high school, and now re-reading it ten years later. Some of the points in that article resonated, but most did not. I don’t even understand his point in Point 3 at all: if the “new life” they have can be eventually judged as worthy of a second death, then what is “new life”? I feel like Point… Read more »

Matthew S
Matthew S
8 years ago
Reply to  weisjohn

Peter Leithart did an article today. I’m on the fence about all of this. He makes some good points, mainly that we don’t need a nature for their to be natural limitations, we just need God to whom all nature belongs to set limitations to which humanity must be obedient, not because humanity is obeying some human nature, but because humanity would be obeying the God who owns them. That is how Paul argues for sexual purity in 1 Corinthians, by saying that our bodies are not our own, Paul doesn’t appeal there to a human nature for a reason… Read more »

weisjohn
weisjohn
8 years ago
Reply to  Matthew S

Thank you, Matthew, for the notice! Just to clarify, at the bottom it states: “This essay was first posted at Leithart’s personal blog in 2012.”, so it’s not a new article, but I haven’t read it before either. I agree that some of his comments are helpful. I think his central concern is good: those who believe in a nature which has it’s own metaphysical existence outside God are going beyond Scripture’s terms. However, I think it is helpful to retain some of the aspects of this idea of nature. For example, how do we understand the imago Dei without… Read more »

Matthew S
Matthew S
8 years ago
Reply to  weisjohn

My understanding of the imago Dei is that it is the capacity to rule. In the ancient world the kings were said to be in the image of their god, and that was the basis of their authority to rule. Genesis would have likely been understood as saying that all human beings were created to be kings over creation, Adam being the first and so the head. Adam of course lost his dominion when he fell, and so did we, so the creation is against us rather than in submission to us. But the capacity for rule is still there… Read more »

weisjohn
weisjohn
8 years ago
Reply to  Matthew S

Thanks, Matthew. That’s an interesting perspective. I had not explored that perspective before.

> Adam of course lost his dominion when he fell, and so did we, so the creation is against us rather than in submission to us.

I guess the only question I would have with that schema is do those not redeemed in Christ still retain the imago Dei? If it is not retained, then why is murder wrong? Or is it more that there is a potential imago Dei?

Matthew S
Matthew S
8 years ago
Reply to  weisjohn

An example of this I can think of would be King Saul and David’s refusal to kill him because he was God’s anointed. Saul was made into a king over Israel, and then God repented of making him king. Saul was a fallen king, but still a king, and that counted for something. He was still objectively God’s anointed one. God had made a declaration over Saul as king, and for that reason David refused to kill him even though his dominion was now a tyrannical one. I would say it’s similar for humanity. We were given dominion, and we… Read more »

Ben
Ben
8 years ago

To my knowledge Ron and Rand Paul have never espoused political views which are contradictory to Scripture.

Michael Keith Blankenship
Michael Keith Blankenship
8 years ago

It seems like contemporary Presbyterians/Reformed are always trying to come up with something “new” in theology. Is it entrepreneurship? Perhaps it inheres in the semper reformanda idea?

Penn Manning
Penn Manning
8 years ago

Biblical Horizons’ teachings don’t lead to transgenderism. That’s ridiculous. Doug didn’t link to anything particular, so any charge can be thrown out. These are political statements by Doug and he knows it. As the presiding minister (is that the right term?) of the CREC, Doug is attempting to shape the CREC away from the many, many CREC pastors who like Biblical Horizons and Theopolis.

John
John
8 years ago

Doug, I understand that you think that the way Jim Jordan or Peter Leithart speak about “nature” doesn’t provide a sufficient safeguard against transgenderism. I suppose one could just as easily say that your view, in which there is a change of nature, could provide support for transgenderism. If natures can change, then perhaps males can become females. It might be fine — even fruitful — to go back and forth on this subject … in private or in a better setting. But if I were to write a blog entry saying that your view of regeneration provides support for… Read more »

Ken Griffith
Ken Griffith
8 years ago

So, by “downstream reconstructionists” you meant James Jordan. Ray Sutton seems to be pretty busy surrendering the filioque on behalf of the Anglicans. Anybody else you had in mind? Seems more to me like they got beached. “Downstream” implies going with the natural flow. I don’t think the five points of Christian Reconstruction lead to Jordan. He is following a different road.

Jeremy
Jeremy
8 years ago

Doug, I don’t know anyone associated with Biblical Horizons who denies either that every human has a human nature or that every human, being totally depraved, must have the eyes of his heart opened and his affections reoriented in order to trust in Christ. The only issue is whether the eternally elect persevere (a) because God changes the natures of the eternally elect such that the new “transubstantiated” substance of their natures is intrinsically indefectible or (b) because God’s Spirit preserves the faith and reoriented affections of the eternally elect to the end. In your view, a guarantor of preservation… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
8 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy

Jeremy,
If you don’t mind, what scriptural references are held to support (a) and which are held to support (b)? Thanks.

Jeremy
Jeremy
8 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Wilson

Doug, thanks for the interaction. By definition, the affirmation that the Spirit preserves some believers and not others is the affirmation that the Spirit, in at least one important sense, is not given in the same way to both. When Paul indiscriminately tells all the believers in Ephesus (and secondarily all believers throughout the Christian era) that they have been given “every Spiritual blessing in Christ,” he (a) wants all the believers he is addressing to believe that it is true of them because it is and (b) he is not assuming that every believer he is addressing will persevere.… Read more »

Matthew S
Matthew S
8 years ago
Gabe Wetmore
Gabe Wetmore
8 years ago

Doug, I think your argument goes too far. Here’s one of my main problems with your reasoning. You seem to think that if someone disagrees with you on “natures” or “natural law” that they are leaving the gates unguarded against the sexual revolution. The problem in this argument is “Biblical law” is somehow left out of the picture as an inadequate source to guard the gate. Now I’m not saying that someone can’t make some sort of philosophical argument against the revolution, but those arguments aren’t autonomous. At the end of the day God’s Word is the sure source of… Read more »