As you seem to know what your doing blogging wise, do you know what the best time of the week is to blog and have them read?...

Verses 15, 16 important too. Believers, when we say something emphatically re: good, evil, right, wrong, are often asked: "Who are you to judge?". Well, here's an answer from the aforementioned verses:

"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."

Thus, in a very real sense, Christians are the only ones qualified to judge (according to God's Word, of course.)

Belatedly - in that I too do not want to waste any time of mine or others on unprofitable squabbling and while I know little of Arnold, though I have never heard him called a postChristian, nor do I know if my previous comments are being referred to above, to whom it may concern and for what it's worth:
The Westminster Confession of Faith, the chief document of the Westminster Standards was the latest and most comprehensive of the reformed (calvinist) confessions. Please do not ignorantly or willfully accept any fundamentalist substitutes.
Further Turretin, who followed Calvin in Geneva in the seventeenth century answers the Roman question of where was your church before the Reformation?, in the fashion of Luther and Calvin. 'Where apostolic doctrine and teaching is found, there is the apostolic church, that is the true apostolic lineage and heritage'. His scholastic Institutes along with Calvin's humanistic Institutes can be taken as a reasonable representation of what Calvinist theologians teach.
Even further, Richard Muller's recent 4 vol. Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics deals with three topics: the prolegomena to theology, the doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of God. Not only does he show the continuity between medieval theology and reformed theology, he also shows the consensus, yet variety of orthodox reformed theology ca. 1520 -1725.
Again the two principium of theology are fundamental to genuine theology - we do not know God apart from the Scripture, but we must believe in God in order to profit from the Scripture.
Again, the two classic principia of Christian theology are God and Scripture. Not God and the Church. Not the Church and Scripture. Ecclesiology is not of the first order. To believe it to be so, is to have an inferior and second rate theology. Likewise the same can unfortunately be said of any church which holds that theology.
Thank you.

Me: I accept your apology but must be honest and say I doubt it’s sincerity.

Tom: I am also sorry to have used the phrase completely ignorant, when I should have said “as completely ingnorant as it is possible for an intelligent autodidact to be.”

Me: Good! We’re making progress here re: your loose talk.

Tom: Send me an email and I’ll give you an introductory bibliography on the ancient family, but even the most elementary book is written for someone with a basic knowledge of the texts.

Me: You have my email address. Send away and I’ll try real hard to understand what you are sending.

Tom: As for exposure, who can know what is on anyone else’s mind.

Me: Good point! Who can possibly know what a person intends when they throw their kid off a cliff or leave him under a bridge?! Maybe they were just saying “Happy Birthday!” I mean, who can know?

Tom: So far as I can determine, the object of exposure was not ordinarily infanticide but to eliminate an unwanted child without incurring blood-guilt.

Me: “Eliminate?” Does that mean kill, murder?

Tom: And no, we are postChristians and not pagans. We have all of their vices and none of their verses.

Me: We? Speak for yourself, Tom.

Tom: Years ago, Mathew Arnold, admittedly a postChristian, said that he who knows only the Bible knows not even that book, and I have to say that some of the more or less Fundamentalist and Calvinist interventions in this discussion have proved Arnold’s point.

Me: “Post-Christian”? Does that mean NOT a Christian? And did he really say “he who knows only the Bible knows not even that book?” Sounds like a line from one of Algernon Swinburne’s parodys of himself. Or the kind of gibberish spouted by those wandering heathen philosophers you admire.

Tom: John I have been listening to you make the same points over the decades, and you never listen, never study, and never learn.

Me: Hey!, what happened to that “authentic ecumenical discussion among men of good will” you wanted to have? And what do you mean I “never listen”? I replied, directly, to almost everything you wrote. And you ignored almost everything I wrote.

Tom: I wish you well, but I am not going to waste precious time giving you instruction in a subject you will never pay attention to because you believe you have all the answers in advance.

Me: Oh, ye of little faith. You denounce me for my ignorance while refusing to instruct me. Is this Christian behavior? And it’s God Who has all the answers (and the questions worth asking) which is why I have spent a lot of time diligently studying His Word and the word of St. Augustine who demolished your demon-worshipping pagan philosophers in the “City Of God.” I’m sorry you don’t want to come out and play and defend your position.. God’s Word tells us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” I am. You are not. But, no hard feelings. If I had your position I wouldn’t want to defend it against me either.

Send me an email and I'll give you an introductory bibliography on the ancient family, but even the most elementary book is written for someone with a basic knowledge of the texts. As for exposure, who can know what is on anyone else's mind. So far as I can determine, the object of exposure was not ordinarily infanticide but to eliminate an unwanted child without incurring blood-guilt. And no, we are postChristians and not pagans. We have all of their vices and none of their verses.

Years ago, Mathew Arnold, admittedly a postChristian, said that he who knows only the Bible knows not even that book, and I have to say that some of the more or less Fundamentalist and Calvinist interventions in this discussion have proved Arnold's point. John I have been listening to you make the same points over the decades, and you never listen, never study, and never learn. I wish you well, but I am not going to waste precious time giving you instruction in a subject you will never pay attention to because you believe you have all the answers in advance.

As regards that heavily trafficked and chaotic intersection between tradition and Scripture, the reformers offered, if you will, the nuanced middle way between the extremes of either the tradition of the elders/pharisees or the anabaptist/fundamentalist camp.
Further the reformers took great pains to show that the reformed church and its creeds were based in the historic tradition of the church and that it was the roman church that had departed the way (- as also the anabaptist in the denial of the covenant and paedobaptism. Rom.4:11 is decisive. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the righteousness by faith that was applied to Abraham's seed whether of the age of accountability or not. If Rome believed in baptismal regeneration, the anabaptist denied that baptism was a sign of grace and made it and the gospel into a works righteousness if you will and unchurched the covenant seed and children.) As Warfield correctly noted, the reformers followed Augustine on the gospel and the doctrines of grace, while Rome followed him on the doctrine of the church.
But just as the Word must precede the sacraments and not the other way around, so too the church stands on the gospel and not the other way around. The church stands along side of Peter and confesses with him that Jesus is the Son of God, not on Peter, whom not only Christ rebuked, but also Paul when Peter sat with the Judaizers, Gal.3:11 who are still with us today.
That is in part what the historic sense of the word “reformed” means - as over and against the roman church, deformed in doctrine, worship and government.

All of which leads to the various objections or remarks on the doctrine of Scripture, to which the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapt. 1 ably, eloquently and exhaustively replies. It opens by saying that,

The Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, revealed Himself, and declared that His will unto His Church, ie. in dreams, oracles yet afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, the same was commited wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.

In other words, Protestants believe that:
1.The Word was first unwritten. Moses was the first to write it down under inspiration and if he did make use of the inspired prophetic tradition, the crucial point is that this unwritten tradition NEVER at any times contradicts the written Word in the Old or New. Paul indeed considers it a moot point in 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2. Christ never charged the Jews with debasing or adding to the Scripture, hence the OT canon was that of the Jews and indeed the NT quotes from every canonical OT book.
3. The early church under the influence of the Holy Spirit in many different places and not under the exclusive and dictatorial purview of Rome, independently recognized the NT canon, i.e. that which was written under the inspiration of Christ by his apostles and eyewitnesses or at most, their amanuesis, which is again the fulfillment of the promise in Jn 14:26 and the like to the apostles.
(To say that many pagan philosphers, as much as they taught the truth, were inspired by the Logos of God is an anathema that I was unaware that Rome had surrendered to.)
4. Further, as the Word of God become flesh tells us, in the Word written no less, “The Word of God cannot be broken” (Jn.1:1,12, 2Tim.3:16, Jn.10:35). Hence the quotes from the NT epistles which were still being written and as in at least 1 Tim. 3:16 that originally referred to the OT, still can be applied to the NT canon after it was completed today. Rev. 22:18,19.
5. Where the Word is, there the Church is and where the Word is not, there the Church is not, though some have a name that they live, but art dead. Rev.3:1. Will not many say in that day, Lord, Lord . . and he shall say, Get away from me? Matt.7:22

As the Westminster again confesses in Chapt.1, the Scripture is the divine infallible and inspired, most necessary, supremely authoritative, sufficient, perspicuous, providentially preserved and spiritual Word of God, which again skirts the abyss on either hand; that of the self righteous (arminian) anabaptist and wooden fundamentalist worship of the letter that kills or the ancient and learned traditions and so called science and wisdom of the elders/pharisees that chokes, perverts, buries or ignores the word of him whom they profess to worship and believe.

Rather Jesus is the the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by him, and all that the Father giveth him shall come to him and he will in no wise cast them out. Jn. 14:6,6:37
But likewise he also said, He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Jn 8:47

Thank you very much.

And can it be true that what I wrote really, literally, reveals “a complete lack of understanding of the ancient world.” A “complete lack of understanding of the ancient world?”

Hey! C’mon! I never went to college and I can’t read or write in Latin. But, I know that my understanding here is not “complete.” For example, I know there was an ancient world and it existed a long time ago. So, there! Therefore, my ignorance of this time is not, sir, “complete.” In any event, I forgive you, Tom, you’re your rhetorical recklessness – another problem with some ancients. Now, to some of Tom’s reply, please:

Tom: Let me say simply that while I regard Fustel as a brilliant interpreter of ancient civilization, he is as much a philosopher as he is a philologist. To understand his intentions and to evaluate his work, the minimum requirement is the education a good English schoolboy would have had 100 years ago, which means a sounder reading knowledge of the classics than an American PhD in classics would have today. Some non-classicists who read Fustel find proof of what they are looking for, e.g., the pagan elevation of “the state” to a divine level.

Me: Whoa! Remember Tom, I never went to college and speak only English so send me a little stronger signal here, please. Is this a way of trying, at the outset here, to disqualify me because I ain’t got enuf lernin’? Is this your point? And are you saying the “brilliant interpreter of ancient civilization” Fustel did --- what? Did he just make up the story about the pagan elevation of “the state” to a divine level? And if he did that, or just plain didn’t get it re: the ancients, why do you call him “a brilliant interpreter” of that time in history?

Tom: But, if we confine ourselves to ancient Athens, there was no state, no police, virtually no taxes. Even homicide law only operated in kinfolks brought charges against the killer. Without a state, there can be no state cults, though the Athenians, certainly, had a collective religious sense that displayed itself in the celebration of festivals and in the construction of temples. On this question, about which I know far more than he did, Fustel is simply wrong. Great men are often wrong.

Me: Wow! No state in ancient Athens, huh? Never heard that. But, I’ll check it out. Can you give me at least one source that says this, please. Thank you.

Tom: Great men are often wrong.

Me: Are you a great man, Tom?

Tom: As for Rushdoony, although he was probably broadly read, he was simply no classical scholar of any kind, and his opinions are irrelevant to this discussion.

Me: He was “probably broadly read,” huh? How many books or articles by Rush have you read? No, seriously, how many?

Tom: Athenians were, to take one small example, not constrained by any law to kill deformed babies, and even the Spartans, who exerted more social pressure in this matter, raised up children with game legs and other problems. Families were free to make all these decisions, and there was no state to tell them yea or nay. We may not like this, but it is certainly no proof of state-coercion, but quite the contrary.

Me: So, you are saying it is false to say as I wrote that Aristotle and Plato incorporated into their ideal codes the command that a deformed baby son was to be put to death. This statement by me is not true?

Tom: In fact, Greeks and Romans did not typically kill unwanted babies but exposed them and–as the story of Oedipus shows–the abandoned baby could be taken up by someone else. Indeed, this seems to have been the general expectation, except in such cases as the infant was manifestly non-viable.

Me: I do not think I said this was done “typically.” And, again, dumb it down for me in plain English, please. Leaving aside whether “exposed” babies could be taken by someone else, the intention of those who “exposed” babies was to kill them, right? Or were those who did this simply “pro-choice”? And “exposing” these babies was not illegal, right?

Tom: Yes, ancient pagans were capable of immorality and brutality, but so are Christians.

Me: Were they just as capable as Christians? No difference here at all? Was there just as much, for example, human sacrifice among the Christians as among the ancient pagans? Mr. Lecky seems to think Christians stopped a lot of bad things done by ancient pagans. Is he also wrong?

Tom: No, you can retort that only false Christians have abortions or commit adultery, but that is simply a cop-out.

Me: I can, however, retort that our Lord says we know a tree by its fruit (Matthew 7:17ff). And He says that those who love Him will obey His commandments. So, behavior is an indication as to whether one is saved or not. But, Christians do sin. And if a person says he is a Christian, but continues to sin, continually sin, and has besetting sins, and shows only bad fruit, continually, there is good reason to believe that this person is not a Christian.
Tom: I could just as well say that only bad pagans did these things.

Me: All pagans, by Christian/Biblical standards, were bad. Our Lord says there is none good but God. Thus, good = Godly. Thus, no pagan was truly Godly. They were unbelievers who God, in His Word, says were/are wicked, children of the devil (John 8:44ff), bastards (Hebrews 12:8 in the KJV, meaning not members of God’s family).

Tom: The truth is that in our post-Christian society, we kill many more babies than the Greeks and Romans ever dreamed of.

Me: Not sure of the numbers but you are probably right here if you include murder of the unborn. And this is true because we are now pagan. Actually, we are in the barbarian stage. Pagans at least talked about the good, true and the beautiful even if they knew not the real definition of these things. Not much talk about these things now – an age whose epitaph might be “Whatever…”

Tom: To form a rational and coherent picture of ancient moral standards, there is no substitute for a broad reading of ancient literature.

Me: I think there is a substitute – indeed for a Christian there must be a substitute. And it is reading ancient literature through the grid of the Bible, God’s Word.

Tom: There we shall find that husbands and wives were expected to love and take care of each other and their children…

Me: Expected by whom to do this? And in ancient Rome did a Father not have life/death execution power over his family?

Tom: that while men wanted to cheat on their wives, the women made it for them if they were found out…

Me: Something missing here? Don’t understand this.

Tom: that people pursued their private interests without worrying too much about either their commonwealth or their neighbors, that, in fact, they were a great deal more moral and more sensible than either postchristian Americans, sects like the Anabaptists, or the clownish Evangelicals in megachurches or on TBN, who cannot open their mouths without uttering blasphemies.

Me: Agree strongly with the latter. But what do you mean by “a great deal more moral”? “Moral” by what standard?

Tom: I know that John Lofton is a severe Calvinist and not one of these, but like his mentor Rushdoony, he too is tinged with the Judaizing tendencies that have done so much to distort Christianity from the beginning.

Me: Simply “a Calvinist” will suffice here, thank you. But, “Too tinged” with “Judaizing tendencies”? Such as? Specify, please. Give some examples. And in the future, if we are to have that “authentic ecumenical discussion among men of good will,” when you make a charge, particularly a serious one, give at least one example of what you are alluding to. Thank you.

My brothers in the Society of St. Polycarp, who are among the sharpest Lutherans I know, take this very seriously. The Rule of the SSP states:

As the Church of the Augsburg Confession understands herself as a part of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, particularly as she exists in the West, members of the Society will take seriously the commitment to the proper ecumenicity this demands. Members will pursue dialogue with:

—Fellow Lutheran Christians to foster and promote Lutheran unity.

—Our separated brethren in the Roman Church, with which the Lutherans at the Diet of the Augsburg in 1530 clearly sought reconciliation.

—The Eastern Orthodox Church, following the example of the exchange between the Lutheran theologians of the University of Tübingen and Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople (1573-1581).

This reflects not simply the Lutheran commitment to the unity of all Christians, but ultimately the will of Our Lord Himself (Jn 17).

The whole SSP Rule (http://societyofsaintpolycarp.blogspot.com/2006/08/rule-of-society-of-st-polycarp.html) may be of interest to readers, because it represents the historic Lutheran position on a number of topics that are regularly brought up in these discussions.

To John Lofton: I am getting ready to go to Rome--geographically, of course--and don't have much time. Let me say simply that while I regard Fustel as a brilliant interpreter of ancient civilization, he is as much a philosopher as he is a philologist. To understand his intentions and to evaluate his work, the minimum requirement is the education a good English schoolboy would have had 100 years ago, which means a sounder reading knowledge of the classics than an American PhD in classics would have today. Some non-classicists who read Fustel find proof of what they are looking for, e.g., the pagan elevation of "the state" to a divine level. But, if we confine ourselves to ancient Athens, there was no state, no police, virtually no taxes. Even homicide law only operated in kinfolks brought charges against the killer. Without a state, there can be no state cults, though the Athenians, certainly, had a collective religious sense that displayed itself in the celebration of festivals and in the construction of temples. On this question, about which I know far more than he did, Fustel is simply wrong. Great men are often wrong. As for Rushdoony, although he was probably broadly read, he was simply no classical scholar of any kind, and his opinions are irrelevant to this discussion.

Athenians were, to take one small example, not constrained by any law to kill deformed babies, and even the Spartans, who exerted more social pressure in this matter, raised up children with game legs and other problems. Families were free to make all these decisions, and there was no state to tell them yea or nay. We may not like this, but it is certainly no proof of state-coercion, but quite they contrary. In fact, Greeks and Romans did not typically kill unwanted babies but exposed them and--as the story of Oedipus shows--the abandoned baby could be taken up by someone else. Indeed, this seems to have been the general expectation, except in such cases as the infant was manifestly non-viable. Yes, ancient pagans were capable of immorality and brutality, but so are Christians. No, you can retort that only false Christians have abortions or commit adultery, but that is simply a cop-out. I could just as well say that only bad pagans did these things. The truth is that in our postChristian society, we kill many more babies than the Greeks and Romans ever dreamed of.

To form a rational and coherent picture of ancient moral standards, there is no substitute for a broad reading of ancient literature. There we shall find that husbands and wives were expected to love and take care of each other and their children, that while men wanted to cheat on their wives, the women made it for them if they were found out, that people pursued their private interests without worrying too much about either their commonwealth or their neighbors, that, in fact, they were a great deal more moral and more sensible than either postchristian Americans, sects like the Anabaptists, or the clownish Evangelicals in megachurches or on TBN, who cannot open their mouths without uttering blasphemies. I know that John Lofton is a severe Calvinist and not one of these, but like his mentor Rushdoony, he too is tinged with the Judaizing tendencies that have done so much to distort Christianity from the beginning.