“Misleading” would be an apt term to describe his post. Darryl ignores that my discussion with him on Belgic 36 concerned the article, *as revised*, in its current formulation. In other words, the issue of “removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship” was not in view. Rather, one key issue is the role of the Bible as normative for the magistrate and setting the parameters for the Christian’s submission to the magistrate. So Darryl’s citing Kuyper’s objection to the original Belgic language is an unsurprising distraction and non-sequiter.
Darryl also omits reference to our further discussion on the topic, but readers here could profit from it, paying particular attention to comments #323, 329, 334, 339, 411, and 421:
So Mark, let’s get this straight. You think the Bible should be the norm for the magistrate. You also think that removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship” is not the responsibility of the magistrate. So then you’re saying the Bible tolerates false worship and idolatry, since the Bible is the norm for the magistrate.
Sorry, but the holes in your logic are showing.
You think the Bible should be the norm for the magistrate.
The revised Belgic says so. I don’t believe you think it is.
You also think that removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship” is not the responsibility of the magistrate.
The revised Belgic says so.
So then you’re saying the Bible tolerates false worship and idolatry, since the Bible is the norm for the magistrate. Sorry, but the holes in your logic are showing.
Of course, this doesn’t follow, but you helpfully demonstrate once again that your argument is with the language and logic of the Belgic. You’ve previously acknowledged your R2k conflict with the Belgic, so unless you’d like to share and discuss some clarification or revision in your position, it makes little sense to engage in meaningless disputation.
For some reason the server hosting the Old Life blog is not working properly. Is it just me? I can’t seem to access it, though I’ve been there before.
Must be too much traffic
Can’t reach it either.
Font corrected: D.H in italics
You think the Bible should be the norm for the magistrate.
The revised Belgic says so. I don’t believe you think it is.
You also think that removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship” is not the responsibility of the magistrate.
The revised Belgic says so.
So then you’re saying the Bible tolerates false worship and idolatry, since the Bible is the norm for the magistrate. Sorry, but the holes in your logic are showing.
Of course, this doesn’t follow, but you helpfully demonstrate once again that your argument is with the language and logic of the Belgic. You’ve previously acknowledged your R2k conflict with the Belgic, so unless you’d like to share and discuss some clarification or revision in your position, it makes little sense to engage in meaningless disputation.
Mark, if this is meaningless disputation, then why do you respond?
You disagree with Kuyper. We have established that.
You also disagree with the Bible. The Bible does not tolerate idolatry or blasphemy. When God’s people did or do, it gets them in trouble. See the Old Testament and see Paul’s epistles. But somehow you think a book that forbids idolatry will guide a magistrate into tolerating Mormons and Roman Catholics.
And in case you think the Belgic does what you think it does, have you ever heard of the Religious Wars of the seventeenth century. I don’t think those Christian magistrates had any interest in tolerating idolatry.
So you can try to pin me down on my previous statements but you’re running out of room because you have painted yourself into a illogical corner.
Mark, if this is meaningless disputation, then why do you respond?
I have a soft spot for hard cases.
You disagree with Kuyper. We have established that.
No, I subscribe to the revised Belgic, which fits with what Kuyper argued for.
So you can try to pin me down on my previous statements but you’re running out of room because you have painted yourself into a illogical corner.
I don’t need to “pin” you on your previous statement acknowledging your conflict with Belgic 36. You are free to do whatever you want with your own statement, i.e., retract, revise, or as I suspect you will do, remain in the corner you’re in.
But I’m satisfied with the confessional corner I’m in.
Mark, Kuyper believed Belgic should be revised. You don’t. And if you don’t, then why have you repeatedly tried to undermine my arguments by pointing out that I don’t agree with the original Article 36?
Darryl, as an historian you know it is important to get the factual sequence straight. Kuyper was speaking of the need for revision of the original Belgic wrt the language of the magistrates’ use of the sword to destroy idolatry.
Thereafter, in history, the Belgic was revised to remove the language Kuyper complained about.
Thereafter, in more curent history, I took office and subscribed to that revised Belgic, which places me in agreement with Kuyper’s argument.
Your disagreement is with both the orginal and the *revised* Belgic.
“Misleading” would be an apt term to describe his post. Darryl ignores that my discussion with him on Belgic 36 concerned the article, *as revised*, in its current formulation. In other words, the issue of “removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship” was not in view. Rather, one key issue is the role of the Bible as normative for the magistrate and setting the parameters for the Christian’s submission to the magistrate. So Darryl’s citing Kuyper’s objection to the original Belgic language is an unsurprising distraction and non-sequiter.
Darryl also omits reference to our further discussion on the topic, but readers here could profit from it, paying particular attention to comments #323, 329, 334, 339, 411, and 421:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/why-theonomy-is-biblically-theologically-wrong/
So Mark, let’s get this straight. You think the Bible should be the norm for the magistrate. You also think that removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship” is not the responsibility of the magistrate. So then you’re saying the Bible tolerates false worship and idolatry, since the Bible is the norm for the magistrate.
Sorry, but the holes in your logic are showing.
You think the Bible should be the norm for the magistrate.
The revised Belgic says so. I don’t believe you think it is.
You also think that removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship” is not the responsibility of the magistrate.
The revised Belgic says so.
So then you’re saying the Bible tolerates false worship and idolatry, since the Bible is the norm for the magistrate. Sorry, but the holes in your logic are showing.
Of course, this doesn’t follow, but you helpfully demonstrate once again that your argument is with the language and logic of the Belgic. You’ve previously acknowledged your R2k conflict with the Belgic, so unless you’d like to share and discuss some clarification or revision in your position, it makes little sense to engage in meaningless disputation.
For some reason the server hosting the Old Life blog is not working properly. Is it just me? I can’t seem to access it, though I’ve been there before.
Must be too much traffic
Can’t reach it either.
Font corrected: D.H in italics
You think the Bible should be the norm for the magistrate.
The revised Belgic says so. I don’t believe you think it is.
You also think that removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship” is not the responsibility of the magistrate.
The revised Belgic says so.
So then you’re saying the Bible tolerates false worship and idolatry, since the Bible is the norm for the magistrate. Sorry, but the holes in your logic are showing.
Of course, this doesn’t follow, but you helpfully demonstrate once again that your argument is with the language and logic of the Belgic. You’ve previously acknowledged your R2k conflict with the Belgic, so unless you’d like to share and discuss some clarification or revision in your position, it makes little sense to engage in meaningless disputation.
Mark, if this is meaningless disputation, then why do you respond?
You disagree with Kuyper. We have established that.
You also disagree with the Bible. The Bible does not tolerate idolatry or blasphemy. When God’s people did or do, it gets them in trouble. See the Old Testament and see Paul’s epistles. But somehow you think a book that forbids idolatry will guide a magistrate into tolerating Mormons and Roman Catholics.
And in case you think the Belgic does what you think it does, have you ever heard of the Religious Wars of the seventeenth century. I don’t think those Christian magistrates had any interest in tolerating idolatry.
So you can try to pin me down on my previous statements but you’re running out of room because you have painted yourself into a illogical corner.
Mark, if this is meaningless disputation, then why do you respond?
I have a soft spot for hard cases.
You disagree with Kuyper. We have established that.
No, I subscribe to the revised Belgic, which fits with what Kuyper argued for.
So you can try to pin me down on my previous statements but you’re running out of room because you have painted yourself into a illogical corner.
I don’t need to “pin” you on your previous statement acknowledging your conflict with Belgic 36. You are free to do whatever you want with your own statement, i.e., retract, revise, or as I suspect you will do, remain in the corner you’re in.
But I’m satisfied with the confessional corner I’m in.
Mark, Kuyper believed Belgic should be revised. You don’t. And if you don’t, then why have you repeatedly tried to undermine my arguments by pointing out that I don’t agree with the original Article 36?
Darryl, as an historian you know it is important to get the factual sequence straight. Kuyper was speaking of the need for revision of the original Belgic wrt the language of the magistrates’ use of the sword to destroy idolatry.
Thereafter, in history, the Belgic was revised to remove the language Kuyper complained about.
Thereafter, in more curent history, I took office and subscribed to that revised Belgic, which places me in agreement with Kuyper’s argument.
Your disagreement is with both the orginal and the *revised* Belgic.