I don’t know why, but I went back and listened to this clip. I thought there was something I might be missing. After all, these men are polished professionals, seminary professors, pastors–MDivs and all.

But what I heard still made me puke as much as the first hearing. Only this time I had to shut ‘er off half way in. It was almost as if they were orgasmic about the simplicity of the “Christian” message, but only for the integration import of it. (This might be a solid contender for the disgusting Piper piece recently commented one–and great comments, Mr. MacPherson.)

Let me recap for those who are too busy to listen to antinomian Lutherans posing as Presbyterians at 1 o’clock in the morning:

Because the means of grace are the same for ever tribal church, therefore every local church–nay, every local family– must have a kiss fest with other tribes. After all, the gospel has rebuked us for being separate from those who don’t share our hobbies and other likeness. God chose the Negro, so I need to sack up with him. If I don’t have a mulatto child, I’m following the American way and selfishly rebuilding the “middle wall of separation”. And by middle wall of separation, we mean of course anything from the Mosaic administration of the cov of Grace, to favorite sports teams, music, and racial choice of a mate.

Other honorable mentions:

-”It was still horrible that there were slaves in the Dutch Republic…” No qualification. Translation: God’s institutions are evil.

-Rosenbladt finally pipes up “Terrific, TERIFFIC!” when Horton mentions that whites and blacks can drink from the same communion cup.

- Horton, Riddlebarger, Rosenbladder, and the Negro Jones (when will these Southern Cali’s hire a Mexican preacher?) all decry the idea that churches grow quickly if they are homogeneous culturally. Riddlebarger calls it a “strange fire” which is another way of saying that it is worshiping God apart from or contrary to the way he has revealed.

Strange how Two-kingdom/Natural law guys would oppose homogeneous culture when they advocate a homogenous, natural law run, brown race occupying national order. Where is their view of diversity if it spills itself out on the altar of Unitarianism?

- Building churches in South Africa accordingly to consanguinity is men “inventing their own means and own methods, but it turned into apartheid.”

-Jones incites a verbal explosion of interracial group exuberance and laughter by once again appealing to the middle wall of separation text.

At this point I shut it down and someone else brave enough to muster that last third will have to report back.

“When Calvin speaks of equity and natural law…, are we to assume that he thinks fallen man’s interpretation of natural law is going to enable him to fulfill the biblical role of a civil magistrate? Hardly. For Calvin’s chief concern here, as we have seen, is to refute the Anabaptist error that says civil governments are not legitimate unless they are Jewish theocracies. This is foolish, writes Calvin. Laws can take different forms in different nations and cultures, provided they agree with the underlying moral precepts that are revealed in nature and in Scripture. Calvin does not teach that these two are antithetical. But what the natural law cannot do, obscured as it is through human sin, the moral law reveals to us.”

I certainly agree that, for instance, the Japanese government is legitimate without being theonomic, but if Japan were to turn Christian I would hope that the Christians would demand nothing less than enforcement of God’s law. Christians in the West have not done this for a very long time. I still remember Clarence Thomas, in his confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice, making a big deal about how he would base his decisions on natural law. Well, natural law (like the pang of a guilty conscience) does help buttress a society from the effects of its sin, but it doesn’t teach the magistrate his duties to God, and therefore is not a Christian ethic. It is a fool’s errand to establish government as we have in the West today, where pagans rule and Christians hope the law will be “moral” enough that the pagans can’t do too much damage. I constantly hear baptists repeat the foolishness that they want a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation.

It seems to me that the “conservative” antinomian seeks liberty as a natural right, whereas the liberal denies that there are any natural rights, because rights are given by the almighty state. The Christian should recognize that both rights and duties are revealed by God, not hidden somewhere in the heart. Take abortion as an example. The “conservative” antinomian advocate of natural law is opposed to it because the human heart craves “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and we don’t have to worry about a messy revelation from God because Tom Jefferson wrote it down for us. The liberal says no, a woman has a right to choose, and the right is both given and protected by the state. All the Christian has to do is point to the Sixth Commandment. God’s Word is revealed, and if we love Him we’ll follow His commandments.

But just as we should never deny the reality of conscience, we should never deny the reality of natural law. It’s a helpful schoolmaster, and nature really does teach us a great deal about the world, as Scripture says. Nature is a guide for us in many respects, such as in the area of miscegenation.

Though Calvin’s writing comes across as confused on the matter, this paper does help a lot.

By the way, it’s no coincidence that natural lawyers idolize the Declaration of Independence, a document that, while useful in its time, afterwards became the germ of Yankee bloodlust.

I am sure that is a typo. This photo is from 1945, not 1918. The hemlines of the women’s skirts should be a dead giveaway, as well as the “Andrews Sisters” bun hairdos!

This qoute made my day!

By the way, I’m greatly enjoying your blog.