Archive for October, 2008

In which I make a brief appeal to Natural Law…

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on October 27, 2008 by Ron Smith

Clark appeals to Natural Law to defend traditional marriage, lest we think the passing of Prop 8 would be a move toward theocracy (God forbid). But he appeals more to traditional wisdom than to natural law. He mostly asserts that his position is in line with natural law and demonstrates (quite aptly, I might add) that this has traditionally been recognized to be the case. Here is an example of such an argument:

” I argue that the state should regulate marriage on the basis of natural, creational law and that those who advocate pushing back the boundaries of marriage to include homosexual marriage are advocating the recognition of the violation of natural, creational law recognized in the West by pagans and Christians for two thousand years.”

When I asked him to distinguish this argument from the fallacy of Traditional Wisdom, his response was

“People know it [Natural Law] because its [sic] revelation. Not everything that people people [sic] think they know is true. Hence the fallacy you cite.”

Is it me, or did he essentially say, “It is only a fallacy if it is false?” I don’t know how else to understand that statement. 

This is the closest thing to an actual natural law argument I could find:

“The contributions of the same sex would produce no offspring. Only heterosexual relations can produce offspring. Biologically considered, it [sic] homosexuality is a dead end.”

This may be considered a valid appeal to Natural Law, but I think it proves more than most advocates of traditional marriage would accept. One problem with this argument is that this would also forbid infertile couples from marrying. On this argument, why ought the infertile heterosexual couple be allowed to marry and adopt orphans, while the homosexual couple is forbidden to do so?

Here, he even appeals to a utilitarian ethic:

“If nature or creational boundaries are no longer normative for marriage and family then what norms are there? All social relations devolve to mere convention (will), become arbitrary, and constantly re-defined.”

His use of the word “devolve” is hardly unbiased. What of those who would use the word “evolve”? How does this argument counter those who indeed want to constantly redefine marriage? Why ought not marriage be redefined with every passing generation? Why ought one’s disfavor of the idea of redefining marriage supersede another’s favor of the idea of redefining marriage?

I know, the post title indicated I would make a brief appeal to natural law, and all I have done so far is express my “Barthian-theonomic skepticism” concerning natural law theory. Ok, this is the only time I will do this. Ready?

When God created man in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, He did not leave man with the rule of Natural Law alone. God walked with sinless Adam and spoke with Him and gave him His Law (Gen 2:17; WCF XIX.I). Therefore, the necessity of special revelation for the life of man in the creation is a creational norm.

Frame makes this basic argument (and much, much more!) here.

And finally, lest my disdain for Clark’s argumentation in any way be misunderstood as disdain for his (apparently intuitive) position,

1 Comment »

FV, TR, Presumption, Assurance, and Despair

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on October 19, 2008 by Ron Smith

I do not intend to make an argument here. There is plenty of that elsewhere on this blog and in numerous other sources. I just want to point out something that occurred to me this morning that I find interesting and maybe helpful concerning FV and TR perspectives. If I lost you on that last sentence, reading on might help define for you some distinctions between FV and TR emphases.

The TR brethren typically frame God’s promises in the context of eternal, decretal election, while the FV brethren typically frame God’s promises in the context of historical, outward, objective covenant. The TR believe that the FV “covenant promises” lead to presumption, while the FV believe that the TR “election promises” lead to despair.

The TR brethren typically frame scriptural warnings in the context of reprobation, while the FV brethren typically frame scriptural warnings in the context of historical, outward, objective covenant. The TR believe that the FV “covenant warnings” lead to despair, while the FV believe that the TR “hypothetical warnings” (only a reality for the reprobate, hypothetical for the elect) lead to presumption.

So for the FV, promises and warnings are typically framed in the same context (covenant), while for the TR, promises and warnings are typically framed in opposing contexts (election/reprobation).

Note what the PCA Study Committee on FV/NPP/AAT considers the FV position promotes:

“The Committee views the FV position as ultimately leading to presumption or despair, not assurance. At the heart of their belief is the view that water baptism serves as the means for uniting each participant to Jesus; those baptized receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation except final perseverance. Our concern is that some of those who are baptized will simply presume on God’s grace, “continuing in the covenant” without “apostatizing” but also without justifying faith (cf. Matthew 22:1-14); others will be driven to despair, working for a salvation out of “covenant faithfulness” instead of resting and receiving Jesus alone for their salvation.” ~ “The Report” pg 34

Their concern is a legitimate one. We can agree on this. Where we disagree is that I don’t see this concern as something unique to the FV.

Election vs. Covenant Promises
For the TR, affirming the promises that accompany baptism (Acts 2:38-39) *to all baptized Christians, head for head*,  will lead the Christian to presume that he is “in” on the basis of his baptism and that this status is sufficient for salvation.

For the FV, affirming the promises that accompany baptism *only for the elect* will lead the Christian to wonder in despair if that includes him individually. A contemporary Christian folk band of a reformed baptist persuasion by the name of Caedmon’s Call expresses this sentiment in a song entitled “Prove me wrong”. The song’s opening verse goes like this:

Sometimes I fear maybe I’m not chosen
You’ve hardened my heart like Pharaoh
That would explain why life is so hard for me

And I am sad Esau hated
Crying against what’s fated
Saying father, please, is there any left for me

Hypothetical vs. Actual Warnings
For the TR, expressing the scriptural warnings that accompany baptism (Acts 2:40) *to all baptized Christians, head for head* in a “this could happen to you” fashion denies all sorts of Calvinistic points of doctrine and leads the Christian to despair, constantly wondering whether or not he will be able to do the work of covenant faithfulness sufficient for eternal salvation.

For the FV, expressing scriptural warnings in a hypothetical, “you’re elect, this can’t happen to you” fashion is akin to teaching a child he cannot be physically hurt or killed. The child, presuming himself to be impervious to harm, will attempt more and more dangerous feats until he inevitably proves his teacher wrong. Likewise, the Christian, presuming himself to be impervious to spiritual harm, will attempt more and more feats dangerous to his soul until he finally falls away in his sin.

Presumption, Assurance, and Despair
I think both persuasions can agree that there is a continuum of faith and fear with presumption on one end (faith without fear), despair on the other end (fear without faith), and assurance somewhere in between (faith and fear). Saving faith trembles (WCF XIV.II). I also think we can all admit that there are challenges to both systems that can lend toward one extreme or the other or both. Are there no presumptuous or disparaged among the TRs? Are all the congregants in FV churches fully assured of their salvation? No and no.

The main challenge I see is the number and diversity of souls being ministered to. To put it in the simplest terms I can think of, innately, some folks are too happy and some folks are too sad. The former spend too much time beholding God’s goodness and not enough time beholding His severity (Romans 11:22), and the latter have the opposite problem. There are those who tend to doubt their salvation and need to be encouraged with covenant promises, and there are those who tend to think church membership is salvific in itself and need to be threatened with scriptural warnings. And because there is a heteronomos at work in our members, those who need badly to give heed to the warnings typically latch on to the promises and vice versa.

One of the criticisms I constantly see coming from the most outspoken FV critics as well as those brothers who don’t know any better is that the FV has made the gospel confusing. I think we FVers can agree with the TR sentiment that the gospel is simple and should be presented clearly and plainly. We don’t deny this. But can the TRs brothers agree with the FV sentiment that people are complex?

The Aim of Covenant Promises and Scriptural Warnings
All that to get to this. The aim of covenant promises is to produce faith. The aim of scriptural warnings is to produce fear. These respective ends are what God intended them for. The interesting thing that occured to me this morning is that the TR brethren’s complaint against the typical FV application of promises and warnings is essentially that of over achievement. The FV application of promises, in the mind of the TR, leads to too much faith and not enough fear (presumption), while the FV application of scriptural warnings leads to too much fear and not enough faith (despair). Conversely, the FV complaint against the TR application of promises and scriptural warnings is that it (albeit unintentionally) tends to produce in the hearer the exact oppostite of what God intended.

So if both the TR and FV brethren’s concerns on this matter are granted, which I am willing to do for more than the sake of argument, who is misusing God’s Word? Who is using God’s promises and warnings in the way they were intended to be used (even if in an imbalanced way, giving more heed to one or the other), and who is using them in a way contrary to God’s design?

13 Comments »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started