Road to Rome: Was the Reformation Justified? by Greg Bahnsen on YouTube

Dr. Greg Bahnsen warns against evangelical compromise with Roman Catholicism. He preached this message (uploaded in 6 parts) in Jackson, Mississippi, just across the Mississippi river from Monroe, Louisiana, where the Auburn Avenue / Federal Vision march back to Rome publicly took place less than seven years after Dr. Bahnsen's death. Perhaps Dr. Bahnsen knew where some of his friends were heading and sought to warn them in this message.

As you can hear on these audios, Dr. Bahnsen passionately defended the true Biblical gospel and found the Roman perversion of that precious gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ abhorrent. I am firmly convinced that Dr. Bahnsen would have repudiated this Federal Vision heresy (departure from Biblical orthodoxy) had he been alive to witness it.

I am glad he did not witness it, as many friends and even his own son have followed this path to apostasy. May these men repent and return to the pure Biblical gospel of life.


Road to Rome: Was the Reformation Justified? Part 1
http://youtu.be/avgAgyweSOM

Road to Rome: Was the Reformation Justified? Part 2
http://youtu.be/1d2zqr794HY

Road to Rome: Was the Reformation Justified? Part 3
http://youtu.be/zyQSRMz7u6k

Road to Rome: Was the Reformation Justified? Part 4
http://youtu.be/fwo19N2Xsns

Road to Rome: Was the Reformation Justified? Part 5
http://youtu.be/KlhhXw9kNO4

Road to Rome: Was the Reformation Justified? Part 6
http://youtu.be/g8jVZrW788o

Some Christian Views of War

A Christian View of War is a study guide written by Greg Bahnsen available in pdf form for free on the Covenant Media Foundation website (Note: I can only recommend Greg Bahnsen resources from that site; CMF is tainted with Federal Vision theology.) that any Christian can use with their Bible to assist them in studying a Biblical view of warfare and in considering and meditating on the important and timely topic of Christian Just War Theory.

This could be a profitable study to sharpen our thinking on this area. We could then use our minds sharpened by God's word and Spirit in spiritual warfare for Christ when discussing our nation's current or proposed military operations with the unsaved and especially with Christian brethren who have not thought through their war theory from a Biblical perspective.

An mp3 radio interview with Greg Bahnsen on just war:

http://www.sermonaudio.ca/bahnsen/Bahnsen_Iraq1990_WarJustifiedorNot.mp3

Other thought-provoking articles:

From Darash Press:
A Christian Perspective on Just War by William O. Einwechter

From American Vision:
Restoring Freedom in National Defense by Joel McDurmon
Discerning the Times...And the Wars (An Open Letter to a Friend) by Bojidar Marinov
Preventing the Warfare State: Biblical Laws for Kings by Joel McDurmon (Part 1) and
The Military and War in a Free Society by Joel McDurmon (Part II)

Finally:
Are They Coming to Draft Your Daughters? And Other Moral Issues which the Church Must Address by Doug Phillips (from visionforumministries.org)


Edited September 23, 2012, to add the following SermonAudio sermons:

Law of Nations I by Paul Jehle
Law of Nations II by Paul Jehle (If you only have time for one, listen to this one because Mr. Jehle briefly reviews the first lecture; you may need (as I did) to pause it to let your brain catch up with speaker speed! Jehle gives even better lectures on this same topic on Vision Forum's audio set, History of the World A.D., if you can get ahold of them.)
Just Warfare and the Sixth Commandment by Thomas Ray Floyd
Concepts of a Just War by John Weaver

And these Reformers on the Law of Nations:
On the Law of War and Peace by Hugo Grotius
The Rights of War and Peace, including The Law of Nature and Law of Nations (1901 ed.) [1625] by Hugo Grotius (available in several different formats, includ. for Kindle and iPad.)
Politica by Althusius

And these American documents regarding U.S. war policy:
The Constitution of the United States [1787] (specifically references the Reformational understanding of the "Law of Nations"
George Washington's Farewell Address [1796] (which the U.S. Senate supposedly re-reads annually)
Monroe Doctrine [1823; part of a speech by Monroe]

"Not All of Israel Is Israel" by Greg L. Bahnsen

[Note: Although, as was pointed out to me recently, Dr. Bahnsen misquotes Romans 9:6-7 in the title of his article (The phrase actually reads: "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel..."), I believe the two phrases (the Biblical one and Bahnsen's phrase) are grammatically equivalent. That is, the word "is" is like an equal sign (=) in the construction of a sentence, and it doesn't matter which side of the word "is" the phrases "Israel" and "of Israel" are on. (Much like "five does not equal four" is equivalent to the phrase "four does not equal five.") So, the intra-Christian debate between dispensationalists and covenantalists rages on...]

I am posting Bahnsen's article from NiceneCouncil.com because it is such a valuable critique of the church in general, and dispensationalism in particular as a "view that [Bahnsen] believe[s] has made the church impotent in this latter half of the twentieth century." God will not lift His hand of temporal judgment from our nation until the church, the elect called out ones be they Jew or Gentile, in that nation submit to God's commands and obey. No nation will receive the blessings (prosperings and fruitfulness) of God, unless His people in that nation obey His word. The eye of the LORD is upon those who fear Him--His redeemed people, and in Christ shall all nations be blessed (see, for example, Deut. 7:9-10; Deut. 11; Deut. 28; Deut. 33:27-29; Josh. 22:4-5; Ps. 1; Ps. 33:10-20; Ps. 67; Ps. 94:11-13; Ps. 119:1-3; Matt. 5; Matt. 28:18-20; John 14:15-24; Lk. 11:20-22; Lk. 11:27-28; Romans 4; Rom. 12:20-21; 2 Cor. 10:5-6; Gal. 3; Eph. 1:1-10; James 1:25; 1 Pet. 3:8-10; 1 Jn. 2:14; 1 Jn 5; Rev. 2)

Not All of Israel Is Israel
by Greg L. Bahnsen

Introduction


Where does the blame lie for the mess that our culture is in? Are the "bleeding-heart liberals" or the government schools to blame? Not according to the Apostle's Peter and Paul. Why? Because judgment begins with the church, "For the time has come for the judgment to begin from the house of God. And if it first begins from us, what will be the end of those disobeying the Gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17). God will not demand the obedience of the nations until we, the church, are brought into obedience - "...bring[ing] into captivity every thought into the obedience of Christ; and having readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled." (2 Cor. 10:5-6).

So what does all this have to do with the subject matter? It is the endeavor of this writer to demonstrate from Scripture that we, the church, have departed from the orthodox view of Biblical Christianity for a view of theology that has broken continuity with history as well as the Word of God. In this article we will examine that view which I believe has made the church impotent in this latter half of the twentieth century - the view known as dispensationalism - and its teaching concerning the church and Israel. It is this author's intention to show from Scripture that the church (ekklesia) is, has and always will be the true Israel of God. And by our misunderstanding of that truth, we have brought the curses of the covenant upon our nation and our children’s' children...

Read more:
http://nicenecouncil.com/media/display.pl?media_file=75

Theonomy: A Summary of Vital Teachings

by Greg Bahnsen, from "Preface to the Second Edition," Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Covenant Media Foundation, 2002, Third Edition, pp. xxv-xxviii, words in brackets added by GentleDove, parentheses in original)

1. Since the Fall it has always been unlawful to use the law of God in hopes of establishing one's own personal merit and justification, [either] in contrast or complement to salvation by way of promise and faith; commitment to obedience is but the lifestyle of faith, a token of gratitude for God's redeeming grace.

2. The word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life; this word naturally includes God's moral directives (law).

3. Our obligation to keep the law of God cannot be judged by any extrascriptural standard, such as whether its specific requirements (when properly interpreted) are congenial to past traditions or modern feelings and practices.

4. We should presume that Old Testament standing laws* continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation.

5. In regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality (thus reinforcing former duties). The New Covenant also supercedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and "separation" principles, redefining the people of God, and altering the significance of the promised land.

6. God's revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being non-arbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations).

7. Christian involvement in politics calls for recognition of God's transcendent, absolute, revealed law as a standard by which to judge all social codes.

8. Civil magistrates in all ages and places are obligated to conduct their offices as ministers of God, avenging divine wrath against criminals and giving an account on the Final Day of their service before the King of kings, their Creator and Judge.

9. The general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies just as legitimately to matters of socio-political ethics as it does to personal, family, or ecclesiastical ethics.

10. The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing "judicial" laws) are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals.

This summary highlights the fact that theonomic ethics, proceeding in terms of salvation by grace alone, (1) is committed to developing an overall Christian world-and-life view (2) according to the regulating principle of sola Scriptura (3) and to the hermeneutic of covenant theology (4) instead of dispensationalism (where Old Covenant commandments are deemed abrogated unless repeated in the New Testament). Changes in covenantal administration that are warranted by Scripture (cf. 4) are recognized with the coming of the new and better covenant in Christ (5). Relativism (situationism) is repudiated, and the divinely revealed ethic is not reduced to a parochial or tribal perspective in the evolutionary history of ethics; (6) God's word advances universal justice, not a double-standard of morality.

Rejecting legal positivism, theonomic ethics favors the idea of a "law above the (civil) law" as a protection against the tyranny of rulers and anarchy of reformers (7). Because Christ is Lord over all (cf. 2), it follows that even civil magistrates are His servants and owe obedience to His revealed standards for them (8). There is no justification (cf. 4) for exempting civil authorities from responsibility to the universal standards of justice (cf. 6) found in God's Old Testament revelation (9). Therefore, in the absence of biblically grounded argumentation that releases the civil magistrate from Old Testament social norms (cf. 4, 5), it follows from our previous premises that in the exercise of their offices rulers are morally responsible to obey the revealed standards of social justice in the Old Testament law (10). The New Testament explicitly confirms this inference by making magistrates avengers of wrath on evil-doers (Rom. 13:4), making it a lawful use of God's law to restrain the publicly unruly (1 Tim. 1:8-10), and saying that in this law, "every transgression and disobedience received its just recompense of reward" (Heb. 2:2)...

_____________________
* "Standing law" is used here for policy directives applicable over time to classes of individuals (e.g., do not kill; children, obey your parents; merchants, have equal measures; magistrates, execute rapists), in contrast to particular directions for an individual (e.g., the order for Samuel to annoint David at a particular time and place) or positive commands for distinct incidents (e.g., God's order for Israel to exterminate certain Canaanite tribes at a certain point in history).

God Does Not Have a Double Standard of Morality and Justice

"The stipulations of God's moral law, whether known through Mosaic (written) ordinances or by general (unwritten) revelation, carry a universal and "natural" obligation that is appropriate to the Creator-creature relationship, apart from any question of redemption. Their validity is by no means restricted to the Jews in a particular time period...At the beginning of the book of Deuteronomy, when Moses exhorted the Israelites to observe God's commandments, he clearly taught that the laws divinely revealed to Israel were meant by the Lawgiver as a model to be emulated by all the surrounding Gentile nations, Deut. 4:5-8. All the nations, not just the Israelites, should follow the manifestly righteous requirements of God's law. In this respect, the justice of God's law made Israel to be "a light to the nations" (Isa. 51:4).

Unlike many modern Christian writers on ethics, God did not have a double standard of morality, one for Israel and one for the Gentiles ( cf.* Lev. 24:22). Accordingly, God made it clear that the reason why the heathen tribes were ejected from the promised land was precisely because they had violated the provisions of His holy law (Lev. 18:24-27). This fact presupposes that the Gentiles were antecedently obligated to obey those provisions. Accordingly, the psalmist condemned "all the wicked of the earth" for departing from God's statutes (Ps. 119:118-119). Similarly, the book of Proverbs, intended as international wisdom literature, directs all nations to obey the laws of God: "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people" (Prov. 14:34, see also Isa. 24:5)."

--Greg Bahnsen, Five Views on Law and Gospel (Zondervan, 1993, pp.110-111)


* cf. is the abbreviation for the Latin "confer," meaning "compare" or "consult."

Transgender 6th-Graders?

This article, "Panel rules against Orono school in transgender bathroom access," reports that a boy who thinks he can existentially and autonomously pervert God's reality that he is a boy and become a girl instead, aided and abetted by his perverted parents, have filed a lawsuit against the school (and they had filed one previously against a government elementary school).

This is wrong on so many levels. But I'll just pick a few.

Notice how throughout the article, the boy is referred to with the use of feminine pronouns. Here's a sample:

"The school’s response stated that the district accommodated the child by training the staff, educating the students, giving the transgender student her own bathroom, giving her her own locker room and meeting with her parents almost daily."

You'd never know the reporter was writing about a boy. Bizarre.

The article also says that the boy used the girls bathroom and was harrassed, picked on, and called names by the other children. You think?

Notice how subversion to immorality and rebellion against God is referred to as "training" and "educating" in the paragraph quoted above.

There is no neutrality, is there?

And if you are a Christian parent with your children still in government school...why? If you are a Christian parent with your child in a "private" school that has "adjusted policies" to get accreditation or vouchers...why?

If you think this kind of evil sexual perversity is rare in the schools, you might be interested in site called 101 Reasons to Homeschool Your Kids. (Entries go back to 2003, try searching by state.)

Please don't expect the perverse and humanist worldly media and government "education" system to guard, protect, and raise your children for you. According to God's word, that is parents' responsibility.

The only salvation from the sin and moral degradation of our children and our parents and our civil government and our society, in this world and the next, is the law and gospel of Jesus Christ.

UPDATE 10/06/2010:

It might be helpful to read Greg L. Bahnsen's brief article entitled, "The Ethical Issue of Transsexuality."

Brief Theonomy Explanation

I enjoyed this brief explanation of theonomy occasioned by a disagreement on some discussion thread on American Vision, I think.

"...The humanist, however, will assert all types of accusations and hysteria against the theonomist expressing its outrage that theonomy teaches that treason against the family, and not the State, is punishable by death. The Christian humanist is likewise appalled because we assert that adultery, for example, is a crime as well as sin, no different than murder is a crime as well as a sin. He then imagines some ecclesiastical hierarchy and "Theocratic State" is really at bottom of the theonomists thinking. This is in only in his imagination.

Another example might be the dietary laws, while most theonomists recognize these have been changed, humanists will assert all types of outlandish arguments that we might outlaw pork and lobster, for example. Of course, they will assert such arguments in disparaging jest. Their alternative is the FDA regulating every single bite of food you can purchase anywhere, you open your refridgerator and you'll find governmentally regulated cheese, milk, meat, eggs and in the end a governmentally regulated 1.6 gallon federal flush. But, oh, the horrors of possibly finding pork or lobster verbotten! :lol: It's all really quite silly and simply the necessary tactics utilized when they know they have no valid argument against our thesis..."

Read the entire response here.

Unfortunately, the "Les" person here being responded to appears to be a Baptist.

May I say something to my Baptist brethren?

I would recommend that before any Reformed Baptist anywhere publicly, on a discussion thread or a sermon or a blog article or anything, argues against theonomy, that he make effort to UNDERSTAND what he is talking about.

Please, for the sake of your Reformed Baptist brethren and for the sake of the Lord of intellectual honesty and truthful witness-bearing (Jesus Christ), learn what theonomy is.

Your pastors are not good sources because they don't know what it is either. They haven't bothered to read the books by theonomists which explain the theonomic position.

Find out what theonomy is from theonomists--read their books and articles, listen to their speeches. That way, you can be sure that you are getting an accurate representation of theonomy. Hearsay is more likely to be a misrepresentation than a representation, especially with silly books such as Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (TARC).

(If you've read TARC, you might consider reading No Other Standard by Greg L. Bahnsen, in which he defends theonomy against the critics. One interesting thing he does as a preface before each chapter is quote the critic, and then then quote one or another of his other books, showing this has already been answered. He charitably assumes that the critics have bothered to do their homework and actually have read that which they are critiquing.)

We don't want Baptists to further exacerbate their existing reputation of going into theonomy debates ignorant.

Even if you disagree with theonomy (and preferably before you disagree with theonomy), at least know what it is.

Strawman arguments (including ad hominem, fear-mongering, and vague suspicion) are worthy only of dismissal, and the one who argues thusly gains a reputation for fallacial argumentation and, possibly, stupidity or laziness. The only argument a theonomist will be interested in is a Biblical argument.

At least read Theonomy in Christian Ethics by Greg L. Bahnsen first. Thoroughly and with an open Bible.

And if it really is just too much to bother with, then please don't assume that you "pretty much get" the "gist" of "where those people are coming from." This is fearful imagination talking, with nothing but hearsay and vague suspicions to go on. Don't speak false witness or gossip. Just stick with reading the Bible as if it were the Word of God and True. You can't go wrong that way.

Just because our paedo-baptist brothers are wrong in their belief that covenantal and reformed Biblical theology requires the baptism of infants (unbelievers), doesn't mean we have to parade our own ignorance.

Greg Bahnsen on YouTube

I placed the link to Greg Bahnsen on YouTube permanently in the side bar (under the Theology, Worldview, and Action section).

A Response from a Theonomic Paedo-Baptist

I’m in the middle of reading Greg L. Bahnsen’s No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics. What a dear Christian brother Dr. Bahnsen was! I look forward to seeing him in the resurrection.

And what a great and wonderful providence of God that I should read these words two days after hearing my pastor’s story.

An excerpt from No Other Standard:

“…to say that equal civil protection cannot and should not be afforded without qualification to any and all “religious” commitments is not at all to imply that the civil magistrate has the right to take unto himself ecclesiastical authority. Just as surely as the Old Testament forbade kings to arrogate priestly functions to themselves (e.g., the case of Uzziah in 2 Chron. 26), the New Testament separates “the keys” of the kingdom from the “sword” which the state bears (cf Matt. 16:19; Rom. 13:4; 2 Cor. 10:4). There is no Biblical warrant for thinking that the civil magistrate has either the competence or the divinely given authority to settle all religious matters of doctrine.

The law of God does not, contrary to popular misconception, allow the civil courts to judge heretics or resolve theological disputes between different schools of Christian thought. Thus theonomists readily and fervently insist upon the “pluralist” [GD: “pluralism” among Christian denominations] view of the state found in our best Reformed heritage and even the U.S. Constitution. Lutherans should not use civil power to persecute Presbyterians (and vice versa, etc.), and the federal government should not establish Presbyterianism (or Anglicanism, etc.) as the state church.

There is indeed a line to be drawn beyond which the civil magistrate is not to step in matters of faith and worship. But the theonomist would argue that this line is to be drawn by the exegesis of God’s written word—not by some authority higher than the Bible, nor by the equivocal slogan of “equal protection for all,” nor by some individual’s interpretation of the lowest common denominator in religion. Religious liberty is too precious a commodity to be grounded upon anything other than God’s authority, expressed in His infallible and unchanging, written word. It must be understood and applied in theonomic fashion.”

Bahnsen, No Other Standard, pdf version, Institute for Christian Economics, 1991, p. 188

An Open Letter to a Theonomist Paedo-Baptist

Dear Theonomist Paedo-Baptist:

I'm writing to you because I've read many of your books, ordered many CDs from you, and attended at least two conferences put on by you. I share a reformed viewpoint and a theonomic ethical viewpoint with you, and Theonomy in Christian Ethics by Greg Bahnsen is one of my favorite books after the Holy Bible.

I have looked for opportunities to support a variety of theonomic causes and organizations and speakers, and to speak a word about the authority of all of God's word and His righteous law as the standard for life and godliness first for Christians and then for all the world, as we believers, by God's grace, work out the Great Commission.

I belong to a reformed baptist church assembly.

Thinking highly of you and your ministry, I want to ask your opinion about something.

My pastor recently spoke against theonomy (and Christian reconstruction) to our congregation, and this talk is on our church's web site as well. In his teaching, he shared something that he said he knew for a fact actually happened (and I certainly believe him).

Apparently, a paedo-baptist theonomist brother told my pastor's baptist friend, that, although he loved him like a brother, if they (theonomists) ever gained power, he (the baptist brother) would have to be executed for heresy because he would not baptize his infant children. My pastor, thank God, did qualify his anecdote with the statement that it was only the "radical end of the theonomic movement spectrum" who believe this way, not all theonomists. Unfortunately, the damage is done.

Would you be willing to publicly take a stand against this kind of executing-brethren talk? I feel confident in stating that this kind of thinking and talk is most injurious to a theonomic revival ever taking place in American churches. Unfortunately, I do not know if this person was ever disciplined for his evil speech to his baptist brother, or what happened after this conversation took place.

What would you think if you heard that a reformed baptist theonomist told a paedo-baptist brother that if they ever gained power, the paedo-baptist brother would have to executed for heretically baptizing unbelievers because in the administration of the Old Covenant, Israelites were instructed to circumcise their (male) babies at 8 days of age?

Now, I don't think for a moment that God's law calls for executing baptist believers--no, not even of a dispensational stripe--or paedo-baptist believers, for that matter, of course. However, there are currently many who will never pick up any pro-theonomy book *ever,* and will shun theonomy as a grave error, and will teach others to do so, because there are people who claim to be theonomist who apparently actually believe that God's law calls for executing "heretical" baptist brothers (despite their oh-so-heartwarming regret at having to do so).

You may find this to be something worth addressing.

I do not run in paedo-baptist circles, and I have no idea how widespread this horrific misconception of God's law is among theonomic paedo-baptists. In your experience, do many theonomic paedo-baptists think this way?

Sincerely,
GentleDove

UPDATE: Please read A Response from a Theonomic Paedo-Baptist.