Empowered Witness: A Panel Discussion on Politics, Culture, and the Spiritual Mission of the Church
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 02. 2024
- This panel discussion will feature Alan Strange's insightful book, Empowered Witness: Rediscovering the Spirituality of the Church in Our Highly Politicized Age. The session will examine Strange's exploration of the spirituality of the church doctrine, a pivotal biblical concept developed in the nineteenth century, and its relevance in today's politically charged environment. Emphasizing the necessity for the church to prioritize its spiritual mission over earthly political and social agendas, Strange's work is a clarion call to refocus on the Great Commission.
Several historians and theologians will provide their perspectives on the book, followed by an opportunity for Dr. Strange to respond and engage with their insights. This panel promises to offer a profound analysis of the historical and contemporary roles of the church, appealing to both thoughtful laypeople and church leaders.
This session is part of Crossroads of Conviction: A Symposium on the Intersection of Theology and Public Discourse. For more information, visit reformedforum.org/events/cros...
We see today's establishment clearly. Thank you Timon!
1:13:24 "No, I like Constantine, Constantine's good. I mean the reformers thought so as well, he's never cited negatively." Based
Thanks for having Timon on! Great stuff. Sadly many in this debate have been unwilling to platform and engage with those on his side.
If the apostles couldn't comprehend a Christian roman emperor then why did Paul the apostles want to preach the gospel to the emperor so bad?
So that he himself would believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved?
I don’t think Paul was concerned with having a Christian emperor one way or another. The question in my mind is if the emperor converts, now what? What is clear is we aren’t told that politicians/kings, etc should abandon their position once coming to faith. In fact we are told the opposite. Combine that with Rom 13 and God giving the magistrate the power of the sword to carry out justice(which has to have a standard of sorts to carry out), then something like a Christian emperor/king/president is not out of the realm of possibility. I don’t even have an issue with the doctrine of the spirituality of the church. In fact I lean that way. But it just seems like common sense to me that a political figure who converts is going to want his faith to come to bear on his rulership. The debate then becomes what should that entail/look like? I don’t think there is a one size fits all answer to that.
@@Vosian292and what would’ve happened if the Roman emperor had converted? Would he have continued to rule in the exact same way?
@Jay_the_giant If the Roman emperor had converted, I imagine that he along the lines of Paul in Philippians 3:10 would “want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death."
@@Vosian292 would he glorify God in how he ruled?
Enjoyed Timon Clines confessional perspective as well as his confidence in God's providential workings through this church age and even in the age of the Jews.
It was pretty concerning that Hart and Strage seemed to distance themselves from the confessions at this particular point. Yes the Jewish monarchy was not prefect but it seems strange for someone who espouses covenant theology to view what God was doing in it as an abject failure. It was pretty amusing to watch them melt down while Timon was calm and collected.
Not only the confessions, but basically stating it's clearly obvious that God's monarchy was basically a terrible idea in his opinion.
Why is D.G. Hart so emotional?
Because he’s gay
This blessed my soul. Definitely need more of this
I agree with Timon the most. I think someone should have stepped in, and told Daryl to allow Timon to speak, abd not continue jumping from one point to the next. Oddly enough, Hart seems to be acting in a similar fashion to the evangelicals he often criticizes demanding chapter and verse, instead of allowing Timon to speak to the argument, and make his point. Most doctrinal issues our forebears discussed very rarely have an incredibly simple answer without nuance, and distinctions being made.
Great podcast brothers. Camden, you need to moderate these discussions brother👍🏼
This was an excellent discussion. Thank you Camden for allowing it to continue even when things got spicey at the end.
I was not familiar with Timon Cline, but thoroughly enjoyed his calm and capable interaction with Dr. Hart and Strange.
I was very surprised by the comments and arguments from Hart and Strange. E.g., Establishmentarianism has never worked, Establishmentarianism was not envisioned by the Lord or Apostles, Establishmentarianism is not taught in the Bible . . . etc. Very very surprised by such statements. I actually thought that much of what Hart was saying at the end was sort of embarrassing. It did not seem to me as though he really has a grasp of the history or the Biblical arguments for establishmentarianism as perhaps, he thinks he does. I thought Timon dealt very graciously with Hart and clearly was way ahead of him. And he wasn't tap dancing. Timon answered every question right on point. Hart was the dancer.
1. Establishmentarianism is taught in the Bible and therefore part of the great commission to the nations (Psalm 2, Rom. 13). The Presbyterian Divines (minus perhaps the Independents) believed this, and they defended it from Scripture. It is also taught in the reformed creeds. Timon is right, Hart can reject the Reformation’s Biblical defense of establishmentarianism, but that is not an argument against the principle itself. “Theological Development” is not that helpful of a term. “Reformation” is much better. Any good theological development is nothing more than Biblical Reformation. Why is it assumed (by Hart?) that John Witherspoon represents good development? Many of us (as did many back then), view de-establishment as unbiblical (rooted in Locke rather than Rutherford).
2. Establishmentarianism is also rooted in the moral law. A moral wrong can never be a civil right. The Ten Commandments apply to everyone in every role in life (Family life, Church life, and Civil life). Hart and Strange failed to make a distinction between the “Biblical principle” of establishmentarianism and the failed or successful “practice” of it. Just because it has been implemented imperfectly does not mean that it is not a principle to be followed. Hart says, the political history of Israel was a wreck . . . therefore establishmentarianism is not something the Lord would have nations implement! What? Why don’t we also say that the Lord does not teach the principle of the Christian family, because the families of the O.T. were a wreck? Sin does not invalidate the establishment principle any more than man’s duties in the family and the Church. We have to determine what the Bible says is our duty (argue the principle), not what works or fails.
It was surprising to hear Strange and Hart argue that since established Christian religion cannot be perfectly manifested by man, it must not be required of man. Political responsibility is not root in man's ability. BTW, the fact that God says that many kings "did what was right" and others "did what was evil" argues for establishmentarianism. If nations (and not merely individuals) are judged, then establishmentarianism is a biblical principle.
Timons is also correct about the fact that there is no neutrality. Every nation has an established religion. It is unavoidable. Every State will defend or persecute religions according to the god the State worships. Remember covid lockdowns?
I hope my comments aren’t perceived as hostile to any of the guests on the show. I really enjoyed it. Thank you.
Not at all, I thought Hart's behavior during this debate was awful.
Love this! Thank you so much.
Shots fired haha, this was great, i love lively discussions where people actually hold to their convictions when pressed.
Timon vs the Boomers
Exactly. They have had their turn.
Dr. Strange makes an excellent point at 1:16:00. Where could we go from here at this point in time, in particular? It seems like a futile pursuit without some radical awakening event that breaks through. Is there a default establishment? And can we trace it and reveal it for what it is? That would be a good discussion. A religious belief system is surely rising and it is having an impact on the rule of law. That could be a good unifying expose.
The R2K’s got their panties in a bunch and Timon just keeps wrecking their arguments 😂
I think it would have been helpful if the conversation had been more rigorously focused on the following questions:
1. Does a material category distinction exist between the spiritual and the temporal?
2. If there exists a material category distinction between the spiritual and the temporal, what is the nature and extent of the distinction?
3. If a material category distinction exists between the spiritual and the temporal, what are the necessary, practical, and civil ramifications based on the nature and extent of said distinction?
no king but Christ
Over realized eschatology
@@jtlearn1underrealised soteriology
To borrow from the legal realm, Timon seems to be making a facial argument while Daryl is making an as applied argument, that is treated as a facial one regarding establishmentarianism
Very sloppy thinking and a rather emotive delivery on the part of Dr. Hart. Thank God that he is raising up wiser men to lead us out of the novelties and errors of the last few generations. We need winners.
Timon makes an extremely reasonable and convincing case.
The Apostles absolutely could conceive of the "Kingdom which swallows up all other kingdoms." i.e. The Kingdom ratified, refined, and realized. The Apostles tell us to pray for magistrates and authorities, not consumeristic-ally for generic peace, but for Christ's righteousness to find its way to the coastlands/ends of the earth.
Also, let us not fail to recognize that Christ, in building his church, gave the church the Roman empire through Theodosius (an empire their hands did not build). Jesus then annexed unto his kingdom Briton, Francia, Saxony (eventually), and more, thus creating a Christian West just in time to providentially hold off the conquest of Islam. Jesus then, in his redemptive mercy, sent several protestant arrows across the Atlantic to spread his kingdom further towards the ends of the earth. Establishment has never been the issue, it's been the hearts of men. Yet even then, Christ will raise one every now and then that "does what is pleasing in the Lord's sight." Christian Princes don't supplant Christ, they image him.
This is usually where someone will say, "Christ doesn't need us to build his Church," which 1) is soft gnosticism, and 2) counters Christ's explicit command for physical beings to "Go, therefore..." What Christ needs is irrelevant to us, what Christ commands is everything. Also, Christ uses means, even princes and magistrates, which he ironically did to give us our blessed confession. WCF is a product of the Long Parliament (Government) calling an assembly to purify the established Church of England. That's the quiet part...most of our confessions are a product of establishment. Calvin dedicated his institutes to King Francis I of France. Have you read his charge to the king for his duty as a Christian monarch? We can talk about John Witherspoon. We can also talk about the established state churches when the First Amendment was ratified. And then we can stop trying to park our modern, sanitized political theory in the writings of the saints of old as if they concerned themselves with our distorted category/definition of "secular."
Does grace restore nature everywhere except civil office? Pray for your leaders, but not too hard, lest the kings of Tarshish accidentally bring him tribute, and the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts.
Calvin’s French Confession on the magistrate is also incredibly clear.
@@JohnCalvarez If we do not think that there is establishment right now, be it ever so "irreligious" ---if you accept this description from those that don't know their left from their right; then you have taken the post-Enlightenment cheese.
We didn't disestablish anything. We slowly abdicated the command to "do Justice." Not "common" justice, as if there is such a thing, but the revealed Law. Justice is special revelation from God, given to man at the beginning, distorted by subsequent generations since, save for the ekklesia. He told us what he requires of us. Yet now we look like Saul hiding behind the luggage.
Love him, but wish DG Hart would stop slipping into hysterics long enough for Cline to finish a sentence.
Pretty much every argument against the establishment principle is based on pragmatism. These questions of how the magistrate keeps from stepping into enforcement of the first table in a way that they don't encroach on things en sacra (not merely circa sacra) have been answered by men of the 2nd Reformation period. Public infractions are threats to civil society and private infractions or those within the church clearly fall under the government of the church and not the state. And the Covenanters had it right: the Gospel going forth in power, creating a "critical mass" of Christians committed to reforming church and state according to the Word of God. Following that, social covenanting must precede these changes to civil government and its taking up the enforcement of both tables as Scripture indicates godly magistrates must do. (And all Reformed national confessions agree.) People seem to have the impression that people who are pro-Establishmentarian think we should just flip a switch and institute it immediately, but that isn't the case. Social covenanting is really a pre-requisite for it. Plus Hart errs in that he seems to be saying that the EO and RCC exerted establishment in the same kind of way as the Reformed confessions, which is absolutely not the case. Those were theocracies (elevating the Pope / Patriarch over the state), which Reformed Establishmentarianism is NOT, but is based on this simple principle: "The state has a duty to profess, promote and protect the true religion."
search for: reformed libertarians Against Civil Establishment of Religion
“The New Testament nowhere suggests that the church of Christ will ever achieve earthly power and dominion such as that of Old Testament Israel. Instead, like its Master, the pilgrim church can expect a cross of persecution and suffering. The New Testament does not recommend virtues that lead believers to conquer the world but rather patiently to endure its enmity.” -Herman Bavinck in Reformed Dogmatics abridged version. p. 737.
Do you know the context of what Bavinck and Kuyper were doing in the public sphere when that quote was being written?!
The quote was written in 2001 by Meredith Kline. Bavinck’s context was that he had been dead for 80 years when that quote was written and therefore was doing nothing in the public sphere.
D. G. Hart is embarrassed by public Christianity, and thereby he is an embarrassment to public Christianity.
Here from you sharing the post. Just started.
Whatever he is is sub Christian.
search for: reformed libertarians Against Civil Establishment of Religion
combination of church and state. what could possibly go wrong?
As far as our current context, a political theory should see things for what they are.
As per natural revelation, being creatures made in God’s image, the law is written on our hearts, but even that we fight against, especially the most hardened and depraved among us (including, and in particular, those in high places, regardless of public posturings/justifications).
I’m most interested in how we may convey and promote the 2nd use of the law in today’s “negative world”? Discerning the moral order of objective reality against the “do what that wilt” nature of the subjective experience.
By coming to grips with the knowledge that there are powerful entities, not outside God’s providence, but hostile to all things commonly good, we can truly comprehend that human flourishing is purposely being thwarted and that the secular domain is not neutral, but is spiritually hostile to even a natural law theory that aligns with God’s creative and redemptive purposes. On this, we are more aligned than we are at odds.
Regardless, God is in control. Our best response is to live as people who understand that God is in control. Our Lord is risen, on the throne and will return. He is with us right now.
Before you can diagnose a response or a position or even a remedy/solution, you should know what you are dealing with, no matter how large and ruthless the levitation truly is. So cries for nationalism, natural law theories and theocracies are debate fodder in lieu of what’s really going on. Darwinists, eugenicists and neopagans are setting the course (and attempting to do so in coordination on a global scale) and have been for quite some time, even under the guise of nominal Christianity. There’s nothing wrong with coming to a firm understanding that the system is rigged or at least controlled. Unless a theonomist like Rushdoony is afraid you’ll become a “gravedigger”? I’m just not sure why anyone would want to propose a solution (e.g., Christian reconstructionism) that flies in the face of a greater reality. That may work locally, but only for so long...
Contrasting that perspective. Though i disagree with him, he won the debate in calmness.
Why Hart is against Jesus and his crown rights?
Notice these Reformed gentlemen, in responding to Timon, say the Scriptures are not clear enough and not sufficient enough...Seems odd, doesn't it? Does not the Scripture provide all we need for every good work? We need Revival, lol. I am afraid the horrors that may come may produce the kind of men of the 17th century.
1:22:56 - DGH and his nature/grace dualism approach.
I quit supporting Reformed Forum when they kept platforming Daryl Hart. He wants to see us lose down here. He is prideful and arrogant and doesn’t represent Christ faithfully. He reminds me of the modern schismatic TR who condemns everyone whose theology isn’t precisely the same as theirs, while failing to clean house in their own home. Deplorable.
One obvious takeaway from this discussion is that all of these men are confused.
Timon aligns himself with the likes of Doug Wilson and Stephen Wolfe and calls them his friends in other interviews. He is representative of the retrieval of Thomas that we unfortunately see in the reformed churches today. I’m a little confused as to why he would be given a platform on Reformed Forum in the first place.
I think so he can express his views
It’s called “reformed forum” for a reason. Timons expressed views are not reformed. He is functionally Roman Catholic.
@@Vosian292
Yeah, the protestant Reformers were all secretly papist.....
@@Vosian292
Have you read the Mosaic polity by Junius?
I already like him, you don't need to sell him to me