Ask Dr. Adams, he has a couple of questions in his hand, if you come forward and read and seek to answer them. Well, the first one says this. What's funny about that? I haven't even said anything and you're laughing. Hope you're not crying before I'm through. Since men are not animals, and other than our similarities due to our environment, do you think animals have living souls? Our former pastor held to the belief that animals have souls like ours. This confused me. Please help. Please help if you can. I would like to think of some people that way that I know. But I don't believe that animals have souls like ours. God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a living soul. This was something very directly breathed into man and it was the kind of life, a kind of life, that is different from the kind of life that an animal has. Now, I can't get into the whole business of dichotomy and trichotomy here today, but Ecclesiastes, for example, is clear that where it makes a distinction, it says that the spirit of the man goes up and the spirit of the animal goes down. And that distinction is important to keep in mind. Certainly, animals have breath. have what we might call life in that sense of having a breath that keeps that physical body of theirs functioning. Now, that sort of life which is represented by that breath leaving is one kind of life, but the kind of life that is a man's life that is represented by the breath leaving him is an entirely different kind of life. It's a kind of life that relates itself intelligently to God and to other men, and one that is responsible before God, and so on. So, that's about what I want to do with that. I don't want to go through the whole thing about trichotomy and dichotomy at this point. Do you want me to do more of these at a time? Alright. Are mental problems, which are attributed to chemical imbalances, for which lithium, halidol, et cetera, are effectively described a proper solution for a Christian. Thank you. Is there any such thing as mental illness or any drugs useful in treating extreme symptoms? All right. Now, I am not anti-drug. You see somebody here this morning who's on drugs. I have a heart problem called atrial fibrillation. You've heard a lot about lately in the newspapers. And I take a drug every day. A betapace, which is the name of that drug, which keeps my heart in rhythm. And I have no problem in using that because in no way does it distort the functions that were intended by God when he created a human being. It makes me function the way I was intended to function. Insulin does the same thing. Insulin is a kind of drug that makes people function the way they were intended to function, because in a world of sin, drugs sometimes, drugs, bodies sometimes, do not function as they ought to, and so we have to do things to make them function as they ought. I see a lot of you with glasses, your eyes are not functioning the way in a perfect world they would function, so you use glasses to make your body function the way it should. It might be wise to take them off while looking at me. But nevertheless, very good. Nevertheless, just incidentally, I read a Cornell study that said that ties so cut off the blood to the eyes that you cannot see as you should. So everybody wears a tie. I figure he doesn't want to see me. So I make a distinction between a drug that helps the body to function the way it should, like insulin, or like the drug that I take, which is a beta blocker that makes the heart run regularly rather than irregularly and rapidly, and so I fall down there in a faint. So that's one, I think, that is just like glasses, that kind of a drug. On the other hand, there are drugs that are designed to keep the body from functioning the way it functions. And the antidepressants and that kind of thing do that. A person deserves to be depressed in many situations in life. When he is doing those things that he ought not to be doing, or not doing those things he ought to be doing, violating God's commands one way or the other, he not only has every right to be depressed, but he ought to be depressed. And this is a part of the way that God has designed the body, so that the body lets you know that there's a problem, and then you go fix the problem. You don't want instead to destroy that which alerts you to the fact that there is a problem. You're driving down the road and your car and the light begins to blink red, red, red and it says hot, hot, hot. You're a fool to take out a hammer and smash the light. What you want to do is to pull the car over, lift up the hood on the problem before the motor melts. So I distinguish between two kinds of drugs. The kind of drugs that inhibit bodily function as it was intended to function, and those which help the body to function as it was designed to do so, but is not for the moment doing it because of some difficulty as a result of, say, an imperfection or something of that sort. Now, is there any such thing as mental illness? Well, it depends upon what you mean by mental illness. If I hit you over the head with a crowbar, you're going to have mental illness. If, however, you believe that there's a third category, other than organic problems and spiritual problems, then you and I don't get along together on that issue. We're going to have to talk. Because I believe that a third category has been introduced by a third group of people who have created for themselves a cast that the Bible knows nothing about to deal with a category that the Bible knows nothing about. I believe in dealing in an organic way with an organic problem. That may take medicine, it may take operations, it may take all kinds of things that physicians do. We've worked from the beginning back to back with physicians and believe we should. On the other hand, there is such a thing as this phrase, mental illness, which slides very slippery back and forth between the organic and the non-organic, So as to create a separate category in the middle of the organic and the non-organic, which means that you're not responsible for what happens in that category. You see, a person's not responsible for many of his illnesses. If you catch measles, what do I do? Do I come and say, ah, he got measles. Stop being measled. But no, that isn't what I say to him. I bring him ice cream. You know, that's a Jew, if somebody has measles, he couldn't help getting measles unless he went out and exposed himself purposely to it. So normally people get measles, don't even know where they got it from a lot of times, or how. And that is something that he's not responsible for, and we treat him with sympathy and all kinds of ice cream. But for somebody who's done something sinful, which lies in that second category, then the minute you put the name illness on it, You see, that label does something. Labels or words are signs, but they're also signposts. If you label something an illness, then the signpost points to the doctor. If you label it a sin, it points to Jesus Christ for the solution. So the label is very important. And to call drunkenness an illness, I believe, is very unbiblical. It's called a sin in the Bible, and the answer to drunkenness is not found in medicine. The answer to drunkenness is found in Jesus Christ. To call homosexuality an illness or a genetic thing or something else is wrong because it points in the wrong direction. It is a choice that people make, a sinful choice. The Bible says it's worth death, called an abomination. Part of what happens to men when they go away from God, they drift into this kind of thing, according to Romans 10, and it's called a thing worthy of death. And so I believe that it is a sin, and we need to label it a sin. And our counselors should have no difficulty, Christian counselors, in saying we can deal with that sin, because in 1 Corinthians 6, verses 9 and on, where it lists a whole bunch of people who had sins such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and so on, as characteristic of their lifestyle, it says, such were, some of you, past tense, And it showed how Jesus Christ can change those people. Now the important thing is to label that which is truly sin, sin. And label that which is not, whatever it truly is as well. But when you label things that are truly sin by something else, you take away all the hope for that person. Hope lies in Jesus Christ. Christ came to deal with sin, and he does deal with sin, and he does change sinners, and he does enable people to put things behind them once and for all. So that's the difference. Now let's see what else we've got here. I've got a nice long one here. Oh, this is a cheat. Somebody's got four on one page. You allow them to get four on one page? I don't know what the rules were here. Maybe so. I've got five more minutes on my part. How does the psychological world define mental illness? I did a little of that. How do we answer Christians who are convinced that there is such a thing as mental illness? I did something on that. I have about 25 or 30 books in which I've done that. So just buy them all. That'll take care of it. Oh, this isn't even a question. This is just a nice statement. Thank you, thank you, thank you. where you work in the area of Biblical counseling. God bless. Happy face. That's nice. Thank you. Thank you for thanking me. Is it within our knowledge to be able to say, quote, there has never, is never, and will never, those are underlined, be a circumstance in which Prozac or lithium will ever, underlined again, be acceptable? Yeah. That's fine. That's easy enough. We can say that. Those are all substitutes for solving problems God's way, rather than, and for ignoring those problems and trying to solve them some other way. Would the world's, quote, medical model have defined Nebuchadnezzar as schizophrenic, etc.? And how are we to think of this circumstance when God bereft him of his senses? He wasn't so bereft of his senses that when he finally made the decision To humble himself before God, he could be relieved of the problem, and he did humble himself before God. It's a mistaken idea that he was so bereft of his senses that he was totally out of it. Interesting. If you read the account, you'll see that there was a time when he humbled himself before God and he came out of it. That teaches the opposite, I think, from what maybe the questioner or somebody questioning the questioner got the questioner to ask. It's a little confusing. Is it the position of the Westminster Larger Catechism that images of Christ are forbidden? Does this constitute any of the persons of God? If so, are there stained glass windows in the seminary's building? This should be replaced. It does, huh? Okay, and then what about two pieces of wood represent Christ's death? Is this a violation of this principle? Do we not tend to apply religious significance to this object? There is a difference of opinion among Reformed theologians with respect to the incarnate Christ and physical representation. I think all agree that there should be nothing involved in worship There is a group that maintains that to use pictures of Christ pedagogically is not a violation of the second commandment because, after all, he did and does have a true human body. They go on to argue that if we don't use such pictures, We're going to promote in the minds of children and people in the congregation an ancient heresy called docetism, which taught that Jesus only appeared to be a man and wasn't truly a man. I believe, as I believe the seminary holds to as well, with the larger Catechism 109, that it is a sin to make any visible representation of the Godhead or any of the three persons. In the first place, how in the world can one ever distinguish in one's mind a pedagogical device from worship? I'm guilty Every time I think on God or use His name, if I don't worship Him, if I don't love Him with heart, mind, soul, and strength, I break the third commandment with about every breath, as do you. And I praise God for Christ Jesus. that that penalty then does not apply to me. So I think it's absurd to think that we could ever use pictures pedagogically and not worship. We should worship in our study. But second, our churches are full of people. I remember a dear sweet lady in my first church in Mississippi. Every time she prayed, she had the most awful looking picture of Jesus in her head. And she had been raised with that. She'd been raised by the nuns. And she prayed. And it was a long time before she realized what she was doing. And then what she was doing was idolatry. But furthermore, the regular principle speaks to this. The Bible does not give us warrant to make a picture of Christ. The Bible gives us no physical description of his humanity. It asserts that he had a true body. But the Bible does give us the way to represent His humanity so that we all are delivered from docetism. And that is the Lord's Supper. There is the physical representation of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. And that's how I think we should do that. As to the window, you'll notice it is covered. in the hallway. These in here, none of these have any representation of Godhead, but there's one in the hall. Somebody offered maybe to pay for that to be taken out? Would you be willing to accept that? I was getting ready to say that. Okay, good. It's right now covered because we live from hand to mouth. So, if you want to help us get rid of that window in the hallway, really it's John the Baptist anyway, I have that on good authority. And the cross, I believe, falls in the same way. It is a, bring it into the place where we worship, it is a humanly invented religious symbol, and I believe forbidden then by the second commandment, and that has been the unanimous opinion of the Reformed Church in the Presbyterian side. for, I guess, the entirety of his existence. Wouldn't you say, Dr. White, that God is a spirit and they that worship must worship in a spirit? A blank wall is the best way for us to convey that to a congregation, not any images, even a cross. And again, the Lord's Supper sets the cross before us in the way that God wants the cross set before us. Oh boy. Does the regulative principle prohibit choirs in worship? Is this a part of the shadows? This would be one of those areas where I believe you'll find people seriously committed to the principles having a difference of opinion. I personally believe that choirs were Levitical and were tied to the Levitical worship of the temple and that the congregation is the New Testament choir. Choirs came into the church after the Apostolic Age through the Roman Catholic Church, having choirs of monks or priests. The people did not sing. One of the significant things about John Huss is that he restored not only biblical preaching, well actually Drum of Prague had done that before him, biblical preaching, but also congregational singing. And it is significant that as Hus was burned at the stake, he died singing a hymn to the Lord God. And I think then that choirs, but I would, I worship in a church that has choirs. I have served a church that has choirs. I would not draw the line in the sand. And we encourage our students not to draw the line in the sand at that point. It's not the place or the battle, as long as people are honestly seeking to do these things on the basis of scripture. And I think that's important. We must be patient and humble with regard to this. Are giving of tithes and offerings a part of regulative worship? And if so, why is it not in the Westminster Confession of Faith? And closely connected, the New Testament obviously requires Christian baptism and provides many examples of baptism. What text provides a positive sanction for the inclusion of baptism in the corporate worship service? The New Testament examples appear to be outside a Christian worship service. The ties and offerings, again, this has been a place where there has been some difference of opinion among people committed to the principle. So, there are those who believe that it is a proper theological inference from 1 Corinthians 16, from the worship of God being sacrificed and things such as that, that it is an appropriate expression of gratitude and thanksgiving to God. ought to be included then as a part of the divinely sanctioned liturgy. And if you believe that you have theological inference for doing so, then do it. If you do it out of a pragmatic reason, that if we had offering boxes in the back, we wouldn't get enough money to run the church, then stop immediately. If you do not believe, you have biblical sanction for including the collection of tithes and offerings in the service. I believe that by, you remember Bannerman's third principle was theological deduction. And by the way, this has been touched on earlier, but it's important to understand that theological deduction has exactly the same weight as an explicit revelation. In fact, one of the most important doctrines in the Christian faith is a doctrine we come to primarily by inference. And what is that? The doctrine of the Trinity. You know, it would be nice if we had a succinct, short of catechism question and answer in the scriptures, but we don't. But what's in that answer is biblical in every aspect of the answer. And so, things such as offerings in the service The benediction in the service and baptism in the service are things that at least I get to by theological deduction. Baptism, well, in the first place, there's a good reason why it was not exercised in public worship because there were no public congregations established in the places when we read of baptism in the Book of Acts. On the day of Pentecost, it does not seem they were yet organized. Of course, Ethiopia and Munich was going back to a place where there was no church. He was going to be it, and it was good to send him back baptized. And the same in Philippi where we have a number of examples of baptism. And I think that we find a parallel there in Acts with what we would allow a missionary to do and what we Presbyterians like to talk about as destitute parts. And that is we clothe him with the powers of an evangelist because there's nobody around him, near him to be a session or a Presbyterian. He baptizes, he can do the Lord's Supper, he can receive members, he can ordain elders, much as the apostolic evangelist did. So we understand in the transition period of the New Testament Church why we don't see baptism exercised in established congregations. I put it there by the theological deduction of the keys and of vows. Baptism is absolutely related to the Lord's Supper, where we know which Christ has placed within the context of corporate worship of the church. It is the means of being admitted by the elders to the Lord's table, and because of its close connection, because of the one sacrament being in the service, by extension then the other is as well. And furthermore, the fact that we do understand that religious vows of worship are involved in the exercise of baptism, as well as the preaching of the word required with the exercise of baptism by those various inferences. We place baptism. Karl will appreciate the fact that Owen has some very good discussions on how he can form these theological deductions from scripture. And then, what place should the concept of adiaphora, things indifferent, have in our worship? And how do we determine what things constitute adiaphora? Well, I don't usually make the mistake of stopping short. I've never been accused of that before. I guess it was justice because last year I was abused for going overtime, so I gave you back the ten minutes that I stole last year. But there is no such thing as adiaphora in worship with respect to that which we offer to God. We offer to God those elements, those acts of worship that he has revealed to us in his word in the three ways that Vannerman describes, explicit command, approved example, or theological deduction. The two exceptions that I mentioned then with respect to that rule given to us, first given to us, the first circumstance given to us in the Westminster Confession 1.6, is there are certain circumstances involved in worship. that the elders of the church may govern according to their wisdom and the general orders of society consistent with biblical principles. But circumstances of worship are not things that we offer to God as acts of worship. They're the things that enable us to offer the acts of worship to God. A sound system. a raised pulpit, pews, chairs, a building to keep us out of the elements. These types of mechanical things that enable us to worship God are what the Puritans meant by circumstance. John Owen gives a very fine definition, and Jeremiah Burroughs picks it up in Gospel worship, and that is that when you use a thing according to its nature, to help you in worship, it's a circumstance. If you use it contrary to its nature in worship, you've made it more than a circumstance. And we can illustrate that from our Advent candles. If we had a power outage and the elders and the fire marshal would let them, determine that they would have an evening service and use candles to lighten the room, to illumine the room, that would be using a candle consistent with its nature. That would be a circumstance of worship, because the candle is simply being used according to its nature to do what candles were made to do, and that is to give light. But the moment you have a candle light service, only pass it on, or Advent candles, then you've turned the candle from its natural purpose Two, you've inscribed to it certain liturgical symbolism, at which point Owen and Burroughs point out it's no longer a circumstance in worship. And so the things that are, quote, Adiaphora would be times that we meet, how long our service is, how we organize the building those types of things and they've been left to the liberty of the conscience of the elders in a degree that is consistent with people and they must prove that it's necessary for the edification of God's people. Vannerman quotes Gillespie but now we have Gillespie available as well and Gillespie gives three principles for how we also would determine if something is a true circumstance and I would commend that to you. The other thing which God in his word leaves us some liberty with regard to, is what the Puritans call forms of worship. And a form of worship is the content of our prayers, our sermons, and if you believe that you can sing hymns as well as psalms, the content of our hymns. How many verses of the Psalms and hymns? How many Psalms and hymns? How are we going to order them? How are we going to order the worship service itself? We believe the Bible teaches that God has left the minister free to frame his own prayers, to write his own sermons, to select what hymns and psalms he's going to use, as long as the content of the prayers is biblically accurate, the content of the hymns is biblically accurate, and the entirety of the sermon focuses on the truth of God's Word. Now, we say that one can use common prayer. And I think that we should use more common prayer than we do. You know, there's really no difference. When I lead in prayer, you're responsible to make my words your words of prayer. Why can't we all make Calvin's words our words of prayer, our great prayers from different books of prayer? There's nothing unbiblical about that at all. And we may do so. What the Puritans resisted was the mandatory requirement of common prayer and common prayer exclusively. Now both those things are wrong. But we are left to a freedom of common prayer and free prayer. And that's why we have from the Westminster Assembly a directory of worship. not a book of common prayer. And so it is suggestive in terms of the types of prayers and what things are dealt with in those prayers, where you place the psalms and hymns and sermons, sacraments, and things like that. But outside of circumstance and form, there's nothing that is left to the unbridled liberty of the minds of men. We must offer to God that which is regulated. And then, are creeds consistent with the regulative principle? Yes, they are, because creeds are but the summary of what we believe the Bible teaches. Dabney reminds us that a creed is no different from a translation of Scripture or from a sermon. And I'll pull a Jay Adams. I can't pull out 25 books. I'm a bear of a wee brain. But I'm a little younger, too. You'll get there. But there's a book in the bookstore published by a soldier of Gloria, Armored Christian Soldiers. I have a chapter in that book, a biblical defense of the making and using of creeds. And I deal with that objection with respect to the use of creeds and the regular principle. completes our time, doesn't it? I'm afraid so. You took your 15? Well, I did, but I was handed when I sat down all these. You have to come back tomorrow. I can give answers to these in about three minutes. Go ahead. Yes, no, maybe yes, no. I won't answer all of them, I'll just look at a couple of them. Regarding Christian counseling, what is a chemical imbalance? There is no such thing. That's a term that's been used popularly to confuse people. Write to the National Association of Aesthetic Counselors on that pamphlet I gave out, this thing, and ask for a tape by Bob Smith, the physician on that subject, and you'll get some very good information. Can Christians offset depression? Is it a problem? If so, what is the root and remedy? People get depressed when they follow their feelings rather than their responsibilities, so in order to keep from getting depressed, follow your God-given responsibilities rather than your feelings, and if you're in it, then start doing what you ought to have done as you've repented. and keep doing that and you'll get out and stay out. Can you explain why so many more Baptists seem to embrace Nank than Presbyterian Reformed Churches? No, I won't try to make the explanation here that I really believe. I'll give you a milder one. A lot of Presbyterians think they know it all. Baptists on the whole are more willing to learn Baptist preachers than Presbyterians, I've found. Who does a woman go to for help with severe postpartum depression? A pastor who knows how to deal with her biblically. Many of my friends in the redemptive historical preaching community tell me that any application of the Bible to people's lives is moralizing. How can I counsel a lay that? Don't listen to them. In 2 Timothy 4 it tells us to exhort, to urge, to persuade, to do all kinds of things that redemptive historical preachers, end quotes, don't do. There should be no such thing as redemptive historical preaching any more than there should be systematic historical preaching. It's not a form of preaching. It's a form of studying for preaching. And people who have made that a form of preaching have destroyed preaching whenever they've tried it. I'm a little opposed to that. Are you? Why not? Does the discipleship program of Sonship teach the principles of 2 Timothy 3.16? No. What it teaches is a kind of reformed, in quotes, quietism. I wrote a book on it. Get and read it. Is a man diagnosed with schizophrenia being lied to. Yes or no? The person who's telling him that. On the one hand, He may be being lied to unintentionally, but it's not true that schizophrenia is a disease. It is but a description of certain actions, bizarre behavior, which may have many differing causes that lead to the same behavior. If George Knight had a red nose down here, which he does not, I'd clear that up right at the beginning. If he had a red nose, I would have no right to go to him and say, you've been boozing. He may have fallen asleep under a sun lamp. He may be growing a pimple on it. Maybe his wife punched him in it. I mean, there are any number of causes for the same result. And the same is true with bizarre behavior. You can have a tumor. You can have significant sleep loss in some people, two and a half days of sleep loss can lead to every effect of LSD, and on and on and on. There are all kinds of causes of the same behavior. The word schizophrenia is, as Menninger said, quote, to me, it's just a nice Greek term, end quote. And he was right, because it's simply a description of behavior, not of ideology, not of causes. I did want to try to defend myself a bit on the statements. And let me say too, I have never heard a man talk so fast. This is just not fair. He was right. I was just overwhelmed. But I wanted to say the statement that he referred to, and I certainly understand not getting all of that straight but it was in regard to saying that someone who despised God's law was blaspheming actually let me see if I can find that but actually I was talking about those who mock the judgments the penalties that God gave to Israel and I was not talking about people who who talk in a reasonable way about the application of the law. I was talking about people who talk about Israel's laws and make fun of them. And I said, if you make fun of those judgments, then you're actually attacking God's wisdom. And that was the context. Rather not, those who disagree with the thesis or who, as David tried to do, give a reasonable response to the thesis or affirm the change in the law or anything else. I did want to clarify that, because I would not want to be heard that way. And there were a couple of other ways I wouldn't want to be heard, but it's probably my fault that I was heard that way. I'm not sure I can remember them all. It seemed to me, and this is why this is such a good thing, because it gives David an opportunity to respond to what I heard, because I'm not sure that I heard it correctly. My ears just don't work that fast. up here. But it sounded as though that one of the things that he brought out was the fact that human justice is imperfect and of course human justice is imperfect. I don't know that anyone has ever affirmed that human justice can be perfect simply because we don't know the heart and nor do we know everything. But it sounded almost as if since human justice is imperfect it is therefore futile to attempt. or at least irrelevant. Now I'm almost certain he doesn't believe that and that's why I'm thankful that he's going to be able to respond because I don't think that's what he meant but that's the way it sounded to me. No one would affirm, no theonomist that I know of, and I certainly don't know them all by any means, nor would I want to speak for them all, but I don't know of anyone who would say that human justice, that our hope for righteousness is in the state or in the state's punishment of criminals righteously. Our hope, as David, I thought very well set forth, is in Christ alone and in his work. and in the blessing upon his work, the state is truly secondary. I want to say that it's almost, not quite, but almost irrelevant to what we're doing. Practically speaking, I spend very, very little time going through these issues, and I did want to say something last night that I neglected. And it may sound a little lame now, but it's the truth. This is not an area of expertise on my part. I really have spent very little time studying the whole matter of theonomy. I thought that it was a very helpful thing, and it's been helpful to me in my thinking. And I was glad to present the paper in request. It is not an area that I've made a matter of great study and so I'm quickly out over my head and out of my depth in this and will confess it to you freely. But part of the reason is because I don't think it's one of the front issues. I don't think that our future hangs on whether or not we can get a president who's a theonomist. I think it is important just because life is important and the world is important and all areas of life ought to glorify God. That is important. The fact that Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world, doesn't mean that he doesn't care about this world. Obviously, his kingdom is not rooted and founded, nor does it gain its authority from this world. And that's the way I would understand John 18, 36, that it did not arise from this world and it comes from heaven. And the point of the kingdom is in fact, in some measure, as the kingdom grows to conform earth to heaven, and that's why we pray, that the Lord would bring his, that he would hallow his name and that his kingdom would come and his will be done here on earth as it is in heaven. And that is a rather broad prayer just as many things in the scriptures apply across the board of world and life. When Jesus said render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, of course he didn't. He was talking specifically about taxation, remember, in that context. and uh... and paul affirms that it is the right of the magistrate to tax but you see my point was last night not merely that cesar would be upset but that jesus was affirming what the scriptures indicate is the proper role of the magistrate and denying what a tyrannical uh... anti-christian government how an anti-christian government views itself now you see In Romans 13, I think we have the same thing, if I can go into that just a bit. And it might be well if you have your Bibles to look at it. Here, Paul says, let every soul be subject to governing authorities. Now, it is not, though he does quickly move ahead to magistrates, you see that this is rather a general statement. all covenant authorities are included here the heads of the various areas of life for there is no authority except from God and the authorities that exist are appointed by God the authorities and family in the church as well as in the state therefore whoever resists the authority that is the authority of God resists the ordinance of God and those who resist it will bring judgment on themselves We are not to be revolutionary in our resistance of authority. That is to say, we have to recognize the legitimacy of the authority that God establishes over us, even if it be an imperfect authority, which, by the way, all authority is, even Christian authority. But I have to acknowledge it, and if I have an ungodly magistrate over me, as you and I have grown up, for the most part in this country, living under ungodly magistrates, What is to be our response? Well, it's not to go shoot them and it's not to go gather up a mob, rush the White House and drag them through the streets. We are not revolutionaries. We're not to respond like the godless French Revolution would teach us. But what we do, of course, is pray, repent of our sins, recognize that when you have an ungodly magistrate, you are seeing a judgment from God and you ought to humble yourself unto that. If, in fact, there's persecution, Rutherford says, if you have the opportunity to flee, flee. If you can't flee, then you submit to the government. Or you appeal to a lesser magistrate who does have the right to stand and protect those under his authority. Now that is, those are all, it seems to me, biblical things. But then Paul goes on to describe rulers in particular, and again, I'm not sure even verse 3 is specified that it only applies to the magistrate, though certainly it clearly does. For rulers, that is those in authority in family, church, and state, are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be afraid of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same. Now it clearly goes, Paul is I think clearly speaking of a civil magistrate though when he gets obviously to verse 4 and that colors then how you would read verse 3. For he is a minister to you for good, but if you do evil be afraid. For he does not bear the sword in vain. That is the role of the magistrate. He is the one who bears the sword, and if he's doing what God has ordained him to do, he is not bearing that sword in vain. He is God's minister and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Now this is a principle. It seems to me that this is not an endorsement of Nero or the Roman Empire, but rather an indictment. It is not a call to revolution. But again, the fact that the Roman Empire was not comforted by Romans 13 is instructive, I think. They didn't view Christians as friendly to them because of this. Here, Paul is setting out what rulers ought to be. Nero was anything but this. Now, what's Paul's conclusion? Well, not to rebel or to try to overthrow him. I think if it was a case of having such a man in this country, we could go through our constitutional processes and try to remove him lawfully, but we certainly aren't to resort to lawless revolution. But this is a statement to remind God's people of what ministers, what all ministers ought to be, and in particular, the magistrates. So I don't think he's endorsing the de facto government, even though he is recognizing its authority, the fact that God has established it, that providentially this has happened, and saying basically this is, you have to understand that you have to respond in a proper way. Well, God's providential overruling of evil doesn't imply endorsement of evil. God uses evil to accomplish his purposes, but this doesn't mean that he condones it. Now, the ordering of civil government was another point that David made, and again, I would just protest that no one, as far as I know, has ever said that the Bible is sufficient for every detail of ordering a government. Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are guys who've said that. If they have, I just think they're wrong. I don't know what else to say. The specific form of government and its details are certainly not given us in the Bible. In fact, I think we have a number of various legitimate forms of government. But there is a standard of justice. And that's in part my problem with some of what David has said. It seems like he's saying there is no standard. Now, if there isn't, I don't know how you could say a ruler was good or evil. If he was evil, how would you know? If, in fact, it is the role of the ruler's job to punish good works, to uphold righteousness, to discourage unrighteousness, it seems that there must be some standard by which he can be judged. And that's where I think, if I understand theonomy, that's where the point at issue is to be raised, that we do believe there is a standard, that we can look at a ruler and say he's not a righteous man, he's not ruling righteously. These laws are not righteous. And so there's our problem. Now, I'm sorry, I'm not very good at doing this, so I'm trying to jump around, but let me now go to the Calvin's statement, which is found in his institutes, I believe, is that, I'm sure that's where you got it, Calvin's statement. Now, this is an interesting statement, and I wonder if, in fact, we are understanding the context of the statement. There's no denying what Calvin says. but I wonder if in fact he would have accused his good friend Martin Bucer of being seditious and foolish because Martin Bucer did hold to the justice of the penal sanctions and Calvin knew that certainly Bucer was not a stranger to him it seems to me or at least it seems possible to me that Calvin was referring to some of the Anabaptists who did want to reestablish Israel and if and Calvin says that's a folly well I think as far as I know every every theonomist would agree it is a folly and anybody who wants to reestablish or to make a new Israel and by that they mean a political entity then they're nuts you know theologically speaking something. So I think that that might well be a denunciation of the Anabaptist and not Bootser because Bootser held the very things that I think I said last night I think Bootser would have agreed with. So we've got some problems here when we start giving quotes and I will be the first one to say too that did I misuse have I abused men well I maybe I have and I I'm not as I'm not sure that I'm well enough read to be able to say that I haven't. But, just as I don't think David does anything intentionally, I did not either, but that doesn't excuse it if it was abuse. But I wonder about that quote because of the relationship Calvin had with other men who did not clearly hold exactly, though if you take his words at face value, I agree with them. Just because a government is not framed according to all of Israel's laws, does that mean it's illegitimate? I would say no. That doesn't mean that at all. If anybody teaches that, I would agree with Calvin. So I would just plead that perhaps we're not seeing that as a direct indictment of the principle of theonomy that I would want to say is the foundation of the whole. And again, I wouldn't want to defend many of the applications or the way it's been stated many times. Now the fact again that there are variations of penalties is not surprising because in fact the Bible in the Mosaic Law tells us that's the way it's to operate. The Lex Talionis for example. That not every action deserves this kind of penalty. So it's not a one to one correspondence. You do have to look at the circumstances, the heinousness, the situation as a whole so that ethics are unavoidably situational. Ethics are always situational. They're not determined by situation. And you see, I'm not saying situation ethics, I'm saying that all ethics, you can't apply it without considering the situation, which is what I think David was saying. But you see, that is set forth in the Mosaic Code. That's why we understand, and one of the reasons we understand that, the distinctions between. It's not just the taking of life, it's how you did it and What were the consequences, and when did it happen, and how? All of those things play a part into whether or not you're a murderer. It's not simply having sexual relations with another woman. It's saying, other than your first wife, it's saying, well, who is she? Why were you there? And what were the circumstances? And is your first wife dead? Because if she's not, you are going to be. Let me also say that I really greatly appreciated David's help in our understanding and I think it is very important that you understand the insufficiency of scripture in the way that he said and I really did appreciate that. I think this is the kind of thing, this kind of critique is the thing that needs to go on because I do believe the theonomic thesis needs a great deal of refining. I'm not sure that I certainly wouldn't claim to understand these things well. And I'm not sure it has been refined. I think rather what we've seen is a hardening on both sides. And this is why this kind of thing, it seems to me, has to go on. So when he said there is a failure to grasp the sufficiency of the work of Christ in fulfilling the law, I want to say that I really greatly appreciate that and I'm very sympathetic to that and I think that is a sound criticism not to say that theonomists don't agree with the sufficiency of Christ's work so much as understanding how it was, did he fulfill the law? You see, that's a good point. And that kind of thing needs to be much, there needs to be much more thought given to it. I'm reading N.T. Wright, for example, and N.T. Wright's work is very helpful, I think, and very important to help us clarify our grasp of what is going on and how is Christ Israel, in a sense. Those, that's very important work. Now, does theonomy threaten religious liberty? I really don't think so. If If we mean that in the historic sense that Christendom has always viewed religious liberty, then it doesn't at all. Because we're not talking about that a man would have to agree with me in order to live. I love, though, the analogy of missionaries and magistrates racing. That was really fun. But of course that's, and I know that David wasn't serious about that, but that's really not the point either, is it? obviously missionaries do their work and one of your issue here is once we have a Christian converted populace and we're the time is okay I'm sorry is it up I'm not according to my watch now this is Louisiana time though you know and remember all right but he gets half the time because he can say twice as much I'll finish this point and what was the point I was making? The foot race well yeah well no obviously in the Christian liberty actually is Christians the liberty of Christians to exercise their consciences is following the Bible I don't know of any Christian culture any Christian country that allowed Satanists to sacrifice human beings which is what is going on today. Now I'm not accusing David of saying he would be for that. I know he's not. But my point is that Christian liberty or religious liberty must be confined to Christians of different things. And then, of course, we can't control how people think or what they believe in their hearts. But if they start exercising what they call a religion that contradicts the clear moral law of God, it is irresponsible then for the magistrate to allow it to go on if they're flaunting the laws of marriage, if they're flaunting, if, that's why I think the issue of sodomite marriages is an important issue here. But why is that even an issue? That would be the question you raise. I think we've just departed from all understanding of ethics as a standard and a norm. So, anyway, what I was going to say, if I can, this is the, I had two points that I had to complete. First one was completed, so this is the second. The second one is, when we have a Christian populace and we have our, we're not talking again now about being under a dictatorship or totalitarianism or an empire, well, I guess we are living under an empire now, I think. But if we had a true Christian republic or a republic where we had this, what would we do? Now, it seemed like to me that David was saying, really, you just pretty much would get the consensus of the whole and you live that way and that would be fine. Well, it seems to me there that we're departing from the standard of justice in the Bible, that rule of righteous, however you want to put it. And I'm maybe not using the proper words. But there has to be some rule by which we can judge whether or not a particular government, any government, is righteous or unrighteous. And that's what I would want to contend for. And I'm happy for David now to respond. It is a shame that there has to be time limits because I know to sit through me racing through all of that and then to be obliged to respond to it in just a few seconds is a terrible obligation. Of course, my time hasn't started yet as far as I'm concerned. And what is my time, by the way? You said 15 minutes. All right, so hold on to your seats here. In the first instance, I just want to pose this as a question. I understand that Dr. Bonson, in the first volume, had Deuteronomy 13 and 17 cited as part of the grounds for death penalty for false religionists. And then in the second volume, he took it out. But I can't find any account, and maybe I haven't read the literature sufficiently. But that seems to be a major problem for the thesis with respect to religious liberty, and I'd love to understand how that's accounted for. So just to pose that as a question. Now, first of all, Steve made the point last night about the possibilities of all men knowing Israel's law previous to the giving of Israel's law. But he just said it must have been, or it must have been. I just say to me that's an argument from silence, and I can't really respond to it without some evidence, but I'd be glad to consider further. Second, we notice that related to that is even if you could show that, what would it prove? That is, that we find something of Israel's laws in the nations and we find something, then we find it here over here that God had given Israel. What would that prove, in particular? Would it prove that God had revealed Israelitish law previously in some special revelatory form, or would it be the reflection of the light of nature? And furthermore, it doesn't follow that God had the same purpose for it. So, for example, circumcision apparently was known before Israel, but are we saying by that that therefore God was in covenant via circumcision with these other nations? I don't think that would follow. So, the point on equivocation, if I could just try and give an instance of it, and it's a very difficult thing, I'm sure I'm guilty of it all the time, I don't mean to, but it's just helpful to notice here how this works. Righteousness exalts a nation, we discussed that, and it was said that righteousness must be a standard of righteousness, the standard of righteousness must be Israel's law. But that entirely begs the question. Let me note as a footnote here, I hope no seminarian will leave this place and use the phrase begs the question as if it were equivalent to raises the question. Talk about the degeneracy of Western culture. that's used in the press and so on, even famous theologian teachers use it and so on, but that is not the meaning of that phrase. It is not equivalent to raises the question. It means it presumes the answer to the question before the matter has been proved. And it's an absolute destruction of a very useful category today. But the point is that this is precisely a case of begging the question. What's at dispute is whether the only righteousness is the righteousness of the Israelitish law. And so to say the righteous exalts a nation, and that the Israelitish law is the only standard of righteousness, and therefore every nation, if they're to be exalted or proper or not falling into sin or something, has to follow that law, is just circular. That's what's at dispute, is whether the righteousness that guides the nations, exalts the nations, is only the righteousness of the Israelitish law. How might the non-Israelitish king know what is righteousness? Well, it might be the Israelite law, but it might also be the law of nations, or the light of nature, or general revelation, as has generally been alleged, as I think in our country, but just a small footnote here very quickly, there was a talk about the nations and Christ's address to the nations, it does seem to me it's a mistake to urge that that is civic organization, rather that term seems to me to be equivalent to peoples and that we're getting more from the text than it can offer to us. Romans 13, God's wrath with respect to evil, another case of what seemed to me going on in the Proverbs passage, God's wrath with respect to evil, well, what is the standard of his wrath? Well, it's the Israelitish law. But there might be other standards. And in fact, God's wrath with Assyria, the rod of his anger, was not Assyria adopting the Israelitish law. But it was righteous in God's eyes that a wicked nation should be used to punish a wicked nation. So it's far more complicated than those texts cited, it seems to me, would help us. Here's one of the things that struck me, Steve. You made a very powerful point about if we don't have God's law, how will we know what is too harsh and too lenient? But then it seemed to me you took that right away from us again when you were willing to say perhaps only the first degree murder is the punishment demanded. You were ready to say it's a matter of prudential judgment, weighing of circumstances and so on. Well, that vitiates the major premise then without the detailed specifications of punishments, the magistrate has no capacity to judge what is too large or too lenient. And furthermore, with respect to that point, I mean, what about fathers and bosses and other such authorities? They don't have detailed specifications. Are they incapacitated to determine what is too harsh or too lenient? It doesn't seem to me that there's such a requirement there. My goodness, I scrawl. I can't even tell one on earth I've written there. So we'll have to pass on that very fine point that I was about to make there, although I've only used five minutes, so maybe I can discern it here well. Here is one of the critical points. Let me see if I can make this. This seems to me absolutely essential, especially to assessing the historical evidence. On the one hand, the theonomic assertion seems to me, perhaps not in you or perhaps not in anybody, but this is what it seemed to me, and I'm glad to be corrected, that the Israelitish law qua Israel must be the law of the nations if they're to be right or proper or pleasing to God. That is, because you find it in Israel, that's sufficient. analysis, to say it must be a law of the nations. Now that's not the theonomic proposition, I'm happy for that, but let me notice this. The alternative here is to say, Israelitish law, it's not the law of the nations because it's found there. but for another reason. Not because it was revealed and given to Israel, but because now we discern that that particular law is fit and suitable and reflective of the temporal justice of this world needful for our own nation. In other words, there's another premise involved there. And that premise makes all the difference, it seems to me, in the thesis. Because if you go to that point, then you have just what it seems to me the tradition has insisted on, the light of nature, Christian prudence and so on, weighing the particular needs of the nation. You don't have the details of the Israelitish law. In other words, put it this way, and this applies a little bit, I'm afraid, my brother, to your citation of that long list of historical figures. I heard of a man who argued that Jonathan Edwards was a dispensationalist and Augustine was a dispensationalist. You ask him why, and he says, well, they used the word dispensation. The fact that you find a man saying, look, here in Leviticus is a law, and we ought to have that law in our country. That isn't proof of, it seems to me, the theonomic thesis, because it may well be that he's done it because the additional premise, what I have found here strikes me as consistent with the unending moral law. It's a nice expression of it, and our nation needs it at this time and place. And if that's all theonomy is claiming, then I say, what's the big deal about? That's all anyone's ever said, and it's something that is really amiss here. That point seems to me to be critical, so that when we come to the question of Calvin, who's Calvin addressing? For my own part, I know someone else mentions that in part of the literature, and I say in one sense it's absolutely irrelevant because the argument is perfectly lucid. the premises, whoever he has in view, the argument is tight, and it seems to me conclusive against any comer, whoever it happens to be, Anabaptist, but it wouldn't be against his friend, it seems to me, because his friend wasn't saying, Israelitish law, qua Israel, modern state. He's saying, Israelitish law, here's a perfectly good example of what the light of nature reveals and the law of nations ought to be, and therefore, in our state. And generally, the Puritans argued that way. And therefore, it doesn't seem to me that they're legitimately counted, unless I utterly misunderstand the thesis as theonomous. Now, the point is this. Jonathan Edwards noticed this. The context of discovery is far different than the context of learning. I might, in my depravity, be a long time before I would reflect carefully enough to discern certain wholesome principles that ought to guide the light of nations. And once I see them pointed out in divine revelation, I say, oh yes, of course, that's true. But the reason is not because it's Israelitish, but because it fits this other category that properly governs, it seems to me at least, the formation of a well-formed state. Now, let me reply to the Romans 13 question. It just strikes me as implausible, Steve. I'd have to say that this is actually meant to be an offense to Nero or an attack on Nero. Paul's talking about how they're to live as living sacrifices. And it seems to me that what he's saying is this, why should I obey the civil magistrate? I've been set free in Christ. And he's saying you have to obey the civil magistrate. He's not talking about the theory of government. He's talking about on the ground. These are practical instructions for these people. And he's saying you've got to obey Nero because he's God's servant. In my judgment at least. So that's to be one place where... And that raises the question how on earth can Nero be God's servant? And the Old Testament helps us understand perfectly well. Assyria was God's servant. He was the rod of his anger. that God acts with respect, the king's heart is in the palm of his hand, he directs it where it will go and so on, so it seems to me that he's giving them a ground for their obedience to this wicked emperor, not talking about in general what he ought to have been and in fact it stands in judgment against him. You made the point that it seemed like I might have been saying that law is futile, civil law is futile. Let me say I absolutely don't mean to say that and I appreciate the correction. It's very, very important and in fact the borderline between barbarism and civilization is tied to the willingness to enforce this worldly law and so on. It's absolutely extraordinary how tenuous is that connection between civilization and or the tenuous, the connection between barbarism and the abandonment of law. But the point is, earlier on in your argument it seemed to be saying that this is righteousness, this is righteousness and without this revelation from God we won't have righteousness. And what I'm saying is, no, no, no, we don't have righteousness in that sense. God isn't revealing that kind of righteousness in that law to us. He's revealing something that's temporal, tentative, and serves a limited purpose, a good, but absolutely essential purpose. That's why I say, you know, that folk who are involved in politics, you and I agree, the kingdom isn't going to come in on Air Force One. and so on and so some people say you criticize politics is not the pan of human existence and then you say but nevertheless it's absolutely essential to the good of the church and it's a noble calling and one of the things I love about Calvin is he sustains that point and the Christian people should be involved in politics but the point is it's limited and that's the only reason why you can survive in politics in the end that's the only reason why you can survive in law enforcement my sister's a prosecutor for the state's attorney in Baltimore County and so on. She just had a death penalty case recently. And the end is that before that she was in child abuse. And there were dozens of cases where she was morally certain the crime had been committed. She knew she couldn't prove it in the court of law. How's a believer sustained in that context? It's because she knows every one of those abusers is going to face an almighty judge. And that's what sustains her in this world. And so at the same time, she's hopeful for mercy for those wicked abusers that God might change their hearts. Then thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. The point that you made just lately here. That seems to me, again, to be slightly misunderstood. Thy will be done. What would it mean by the will? Is it the will of decrees? Well, the will of decrees comes to pass, come what may. God's will is certain. Is it will of precept? Am I praying that his will of precept would be done in the earth? That seemed to me more the way you were leading, but it's as it is in heaven. That is from the heart, genuinely. That's what we're praying for. And that prayer is a prayer for the success of the Church. That is that God's will would be embraced. You know, we used moral majority. One of the great dangers of the moral majority was we gave people the impression that somehow God would be pleased with us if we had upstanding laws in this country, that we would have the favor of God and so on. But we'd just be in the place where we could say, hey, all of my righteousness is as filthy rags. And in fact, we were very dangerous in that moral majority business to giving the impression that we might actually be commended to God through such works as that, to virtually vitiate the gospel. The standard is, it seems to me, the law written on the heart, the conscience judging, both approving and disapproving, and the way that God has ordered the world so that, generally speaking, honesty is the best policy and a stitch in time saves nine and so on. that what that rank unbeliever, who hates God and his law, nevertheless finds himself in this circumstance, the testimony of his own heart, he sees certain goods in the world. His conscience tells him he ought to do that sort of thing. And he finds, lo and behold, out of his pure self-interest, he prospers generally if he does them. And so he tends to act that way. And furthermore, then that's externalized and so on. We see that good, and the state actually enforces it by the law. Finally, I'll say this, that if theonomy is not a threat to religious freedom, And I'd be grateful for that and I'd be glad to hear that. But I want to hear where Dr. Bonson or others differ from the analysis that Calvin gave and to understand how the things that Calvin's analysis sustained could be sustained on other grounds. In particular, Dabney's argument, you can find it in his essay on civic ethics and his practical philosophy or in his systematic theology, Dabney's argument in favor of religious freedom. And I might say here, it included Mormons. It didn't include Mormons with all their practices, but it included Mormons. And that's the critical point. Not every practice can be accepted. But the principle, here's the point, it would be wicked, in my judgment, I think the Bible's judgment, for the magistrate to enforce the true religion on people. It would be wicked for him to do so. And that's what Dabney argues, that he has no business. He'd be transgressing his bounds. And he shows through about a 10, 12 step argument, the principles that lead to that conclusion. We don't have time to do it today. I think I've done my 15 minutes almost exactly.