Archive for the ‘Zrim’ Category

E2k or L2k?

May 24, 2012

Vocal E2k advocate, Zrim, posted a bizarre recent piece in which he attempted to criticize Pastor Scott’s stand for the gospel and against the false gospel of Dayna Muldoon. Of course, he didn’t take a manly approach and accuse Pastor Scott of sin and suggest that Pastor Scott seek repentance, instead he was “just asking” about whether Pastor Scott’s motives and methods.

Zrim’s real problem with what Pastor Scott did seems to be that Zrim thinks that Christians have some kind of moral obligation not to disrupt the worship of idolators. Zrim writes:

I couldn’t help but have a few questions. There are plenty of religious outfits and organizations that tout themselves as channels of Christian and religious orthodoxy even here in Little Geneva that are also far removed from Reformed orthodoxy, from your usual Roman Catholic churches to your Mormon and Jewish Temples, to name just several. Would anyone think of showing up in the middle of their public services and disrupting them in such a bold way? Is there anything unbecoming about what Rodriguez did? Does it matter? Is it possible that Rodriquez is just as given to wanting to be the center of attention as Muldoon might be? Is there a difference between vigorously opposing that which opposes the gospel and singling out certain kinds of opposers as deserving especially forward and blunt criticism? Is this really only about preserving the true gospel and protecting people from being sucked into the cultish maneuvers of wily profiteer and religious wing nut? Is there a biblical justification for this kind of confrontation?

First of all, Zrim should enlighten himself about the particular circumstances surrounding the clip. It was not about ego, but about protecting the flock against the suggestion from Muldoon that Pastor Scott approved of what was going on.

Second, he was invited to speak. He spoke. If I were invited to speak at a Jewish service, Roman Catholic service, or Mormon service, I hope I would be as bold as he was. When we get opportunities to debate these folks, we take that opportunity.

Third, there is Biblical justification. Not only do we have the example of Jehu, but look at Paul the apostle not only at Areopagus but many times in the Jewish synagogues.

Acts 14:1
And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
Acts 17:10
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:17
Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Acts 18:19
And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
Acts 18:26
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

What we really see in E2k is liberalism. The E2kers of Zrim’s stripe would be as scandalized by Paul as they are by Pastor Scott. Of course, they wouldn’t be so manly as to actually state that Paul is wrong to go into the synagogues and reason with them there, but they would question his motives. It’s not very post-modern of Paul to assume that it’s ok for him to go into those synagogues and disrupt them in such a bold way. Look at Paul’s epistle to the Galatians! Talk about “singling out certain kinds of opposers as deserving especially forward and blunt criticism!”

And forget about Jehu. Is there anything “unbecoming” about his elimination of Baal-worship from the land?

I can see why E2k appeals to post-modern liberals, who think all religions are the same and that there is some kind of “right” to hold religious services, no matter how evil and blasphemous they are. But why would it appeal to any person who has a 66 book canon of Scripture and actually believes what it says? Maybe we should call it “Liberal 2k” instead of “Escondido 2k,” since surely there are folks in the faculty at Escondido who would be unwilling to go where Zrim is going here.

-TurretinFan

Advertisements

It’s not Personal … therefore not Moral (from Zrim)

March 23, 2012

Zrim proposed the following interesting argument:

The only thing I can imagine is that you think to behave politically is to behave personally. But when I vote for or against something, or even abstain from any political involvement, I’m not behaving personally morally but politically (or apolitically as the case may be). This is the part where you conflate morality and politics, but do you really think that when I vote against a candidate I am behaving personally or morally against him in the same way I act against a man when I steal his money? On that reasoning there is no way to tell someone who I vote against it was nothing personal but a principled disagreement–everything is personal, which might explain you taking 2k push back so personally.

These sentiments seem to fit well with Frame’s point 10 (“The Christian has no biblical mandate to seek changes in the social, cultural, or political order.”) but what other way can one make sense of them. It really looks like Zrim is saying that politics is not behavior that is governed by morality. This would provide the explanation for point 10, but how can it possibly be justified? Surely there are matters of indifference in politics, as in any area of life, but politics tends to run into a lot more moral issues than something like plumbing (to pick an E2k favorite). Plumbing can run into moral issues: if someone asks you to tap into their neighbor’s water pipe, for example, a godly plumber would decline. Yet, Politics runs into moral issues constantly. And it is because of the moral ramifications that one cannot affirm that Christians lack the law, which mandates that they, when it is in their power, seek to change the social, cultural, or even political order.

-TurretinFan

Who Sets the Agenda?

April 9, 2011

“Zrim” has responded to my earlier post with a new post of his own. One comment of his stood out to me:

Contrary to [TurretinFan’s] assertion, the fact that something has become highly politicized is precisely why more caution is called for, not for the amplitude to be turned up. This actually sounds like the sort of reasoning that compelled Protestant liberalism to suggest that the world sets the church’s agenda: the bigger the worldly deal the more the church should get involved.

There are two problems with this comment. First, the question is not simply whether the world generally makes a big deal about something. The attention that the world gives to something shows what is on the minds of the people. Sometimes that is a relatively significant issue (like abortion), sometimes it is a relatively insignificant issue (like who happens to be topping this week’s Top 40 chart, or which sports team is winning). The world may actually think more about the latter topics than the former, but the church will spend more time on the former than the latter, because of the greater moral concerns.

Second, even if your reaction is “more caution is called for,” you are still involved in a situation in which “the world sets the church’s agenda: the bigger the worldly deal the [less] the church should get involved.” The fact that you swap “less” for “more” doesn’t change the fact that the world is setting the agenda.

The church is in the world but not of the world. Churches in rural Alabama may have a very different “world” to contend with than those in Amsterdam. Nevertheless, they do need both to react and to transform the world in which they find themselves, by preaching the gospel of repentance and faith.

“Zrim” also asks: “since every aspect of life has moral dimension then wouldn’t the church also have to take on everything in terms of its moral primacy?” The fact that everything has a moral dimension does not mean that everything deserves the same amount of attention. Some sins are in themselves and by reason of several aggravations more heinous in the sight of God than others. The slaughter of the unborn falls into that “more heinous” category, and consequently when it is prevalent calls for more vocal opposition.

– TurretinFan

Reading Material for Mr. David Armstrong

December 19, 2008

It may be that, for some reason or other, Mr. Armstrong still pops by my blog. If so, I think he’ll get get a kick out of this post (link). Mr. Armstrong’s policy of labeling those who say that Rome teaches another gospel “anti-Catholics,” leads to a conflation between what the author of the linked article calls “good anti-catholicism” and “bad anti-catholicism.” I don’t agree with the article, but I think it should provide those who are quick to apply the “anti-Catholic” label with some food for thought.

-TurretinFan


%d bloggers like this: