<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Kelso&#8217;s Gedankenexperiment: Two Visions of the Conservative Foundation</title>
	<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347</link>
	<description>How can you have the last word if you haven't heard the first?</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 18:39:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: TJH</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-26523</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 22:07:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-26523</guid>
					<description>Joshua L (#3) -- yours is an important question. I will not even try to do it justice in a combox (not that I could anyhow). It must be an ongoing discussion.

Is culture religion externalized? In many ways, you can see that Chinese culture is Taoism externalized, for example. Yet it is also true that when China comes to Christ &lt;em&gt;en masse&lt;/em&gt;, I would not expect them to start building Gothic cathedrals. There will be a specific Oriental expression of the beauty of God. Any given instance of the image of God cannot exhaust his beauty, so it will be necessary to have an Oriental, an Aryan, and a Negro expression of that image, each only in part, to compositely reflect the glory of God in its fullness.

Likewise, we cannot neglect the common grace, providence and judgments of God, which are somehow coupled to covenant yet not in a simplistic way. The German "barbarians" were already identified as surprisingly chaste by the Romans, in a time when both were still pagans. And it does seem like tribes in which chastity has been thrown out the window do not create civilizations.

We can see how the Reformation stamped the German and Scottish peoples deeply with the Bible; yet we can also see characteristics that bloomed that were already vestigially present in those tribes before conversion.

The mistake would be to look for an explanation in mere genetics or such. Yet even that plays a role -- which is no problem provided history is seen as an outworking of the decree of the triune God.

History began with the creative word of God, and it works itself out in relation to word/ oath/ covenant, and it will end with the resolution of all things in terms of the word of God -- yet in between and throughout is a great richness that the Wordist misses.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joshua L (#3) &#8212; yours is an important question. I will not even try to do it justice in a combox (not that I could anyhow). It must be an ongoing discussion.</p>
<p>Is culture religion externalized? In many ways, you can see that Chinese culture is Taoism externalized, for example. Yet it is also true that when China comes to Christ <em>en masse</em>, I would not expect them to start building Gothic cathedrals. There will be a specific Oriental expression of the beauty of God. Any given instance of the image of God cannot exhaust his beauty, so it will be necessary to have an Oriental, an Aryan, and a Negro expression of that image, each only in part, to compositely reflect the glory of God in its fullness.</p>
<p>Likewise, we cannot neglect the common grace, providence and judgments of God, which are somehow coupled to covenant yet not in a simplistic way. The German &#8220;barbarians&#8221; were already identified as surprisingly chaste by the Romans, in a time when both were still pagans. And it does seem like tribes in which chastity has been thrown out the window do not create civilizations.</p>
<p>We can see how the Reformation stamped the German and Scottish peoples deeply with the Bible; yet we can also see characteristics that bloomed that were already vestigially present in those tribes before conversion.</p>
<p>The mistake would be to look for an explanation in mere genetics or such. Yet even that plays a role &#8212; which is no problem provided history is seen as an outworking of the decree of the triune God.</p>
<p>History began with the creative word of God, and it works itself out in relation to word/ oath/ covenant, and it will end with the resolution of all things in terms of the word of God &#8212; yet in between and throughout is a great richness that the Wordist misses.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: TJH</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-26379</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 01:20:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-26379</guid>
					<description>Alex (#4) -- first, the post is not by Mr Butler, it is by the "other guy."

Some of the points you make need a bit of clarification: surely loving "Old Glory" does not necessarily have anything to do with godliness. I'm inclined to think that today at least, the so-called patriotic attitude has more to do with having adopted a bloody, warlike disposition toward anyone the establishment declares to be an enemy.

I suppose however instead that you mean by that example to "up the ante" to say, yes but what if the "Turks" are godly Christians that revere the symbols because of their pointing function to the godly origins of this country known as America, and our descendants died out, say, by catching a dread plague that can be tied directly to their sinking utterly into debauchery. Should we not then rejoice in the judgement of God, his hard Providence though meeted out on our kinfolk?

First, distinguish. That would change the experiment by adding terms that were not specified. I did not say that the kinfolk in (1) had a different Constitution and monarchy because they had apostasized, nor that in (2) the Turks had embraced Christianity. So you have to take the illustration at "first blush," that is, before further investigation as to the spiritual state of the respective inhabitants.

So, second, this line of thought pushes the question perhaps to this one: in the experiment, should one necessarily have withheld judgment between the two scenarios pending investigation as to which group had a larger number of regenerate Christians?

When in doubt about these matters, start by reflecting on the situation in regards to your own family. Imagine you have children, and all of them turn out to be apostates. In heaven, we can be sure that you will be fully at peace with the disposing of these things by a just God, seeing for the first time the real depth and "genuineness" of evil, so that, as shocking as it sounds, you will rejoice in the punishment of your own children. But I submit that it would be the sign of a bad heart to adopt that eschatological attitude here. Instead, you long for the prosperity of your children, including first their salvation, and never giving up hope. It would be a denial of natural affection, ratified by the Scriptures I gave above (and others), if, when your child apostasized, you said, "no big deal; there are plenty of other people being converted that can fill heaven in his place."

Kinship is family extended in concentric degrees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alex (#4) &#8212; first, the post is not by Mr Butler, it is by the &#8220;other guy.&#8221;</p>
<p>Some of the points you make need a bit of clarification: surely loving &#8220;Old Glory&#8221; does not necessarily have anything to do with godliness. I&#8217;m inclined to think that today at least, the so-called patriotic attitude has more to do with having adopted a bloody, warlike disposition toward anyone the establishment declares to be an enemy.</p>
<p>I suppose however instead that you mean by that example to &#8220;up the ante&#8221; to say, yes but what if the &#8220;Turks&#8221; are godly Christians that revere the symbols because of their pointing function to the godly origins of this country known as America, and our descendants died out, say, by catching a dread plague that can be tied directly to their sinking utterly into debauchery. Should we not then rejoice in the judgement of God, his hard Providence though meeted out on our kinfolk?</p>
<p>First, distinguish. That would change the experiment by adding terms that were not specified. I did not say that the kinfolk in (1) had a different Constitution and monarchy because they had apostasized, nor that in (2) the Turks had embraced Christianity. So you have to take the illustration at &#8220;first blush,&#8221; that is, before further investigation as to the spiritual state of the respective inhabitants.</p>
<p>So, second, this line of thought pushes the question perhaps to this one: in the experiment, should one necessarily have withheld judgment between the two scenarios pending investigation as to which group had a larger number of regenerate Christians?</p>
<p>When in doubt about these matters, start by reflecting on the situation in regards to your own family. Imagine you have children, and all of them turn out to be apostates. In heaven, we can be sure that you will be fully at peace with the disposing of these things by a just God, seeing for the first time the real depth and &#8220;genuineness&#8221; of evil, so that, as shocking as it sounds, you will rejoice in the punishment of your own children. But I submit that it would be the sign of a bad heart to adopt that eschatological attitude here. Instead, you long for the prosperity of your children, including first their salvation, and never giving up hope. It would be a denial of natural affection, ratified by the Scriptures I gave above (and others), if, when your child apostasized, you said, &#8220;no big deal; there are plenty of other people being converted that can fill heaven in his place.&#8221;</p>
<p>Kinship is family extended in concentric degrees.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: TJH</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-26376</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 01:07:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-26376</guid>
					<description>Paulo -- assuming you mean the question seriously (and forgive me if I am belaboring a point meant as a joke), I would make some distinctions. If the T-A is first or second generation, I would ask him to repeat the experiment in regards to Turkey. Indeed, everyone in the world can, &lt;i&gt;mutatis mutandis&lt;/i&gt;, repeat the experiment: it is not just about Americans. If he is third generation or later, I would first ask him what motivated this ethnic purity, such that he can still think of himself as Turkish? That alone would probably be enough to make the point. After that, I would observe that if the future of America occupied only by Turks is something that would make him happy, then he has a vision of displacement of the original host people that he needs to repent of.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paulo &#8212; assuming you mean the question seriously (and forgive me if I am belaboring a point meant as a joke), I would make some distinctions. If the T-A is first or second generation, I would ask him to repeat the experiment in regards to Turkey. Indeed, everyone in the world can, <i>mutatis mutandis</i>, repeat the experiment: it is not just about Americans. If he is third generation or later, I would first ask him what motivated this ethnic purity, such that he can still think of himself as Turkish? That alone would probably be enough to make the point. After that, I would observe that if the future of America occupied only by Turks is something that would make him happy, then he has a vision of displacement of the original host people that he needs to repent of.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: paulo</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-26135</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 21:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-26135</guid>
					<description>What if I'm a Turkish-American?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What if I&#8217;m a Turkish-American?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Alex</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-26127</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 17:23:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-26127</guid>
					<description>Hello everyone,

 I find this article disappointing for two reasons. the examples given about what would make you feel better as an individual mean nothing. The second disappointment comes from the article not saying anything relevant to the Christian world view.
The example given is targeted specifically to the individual meaning it can apply to white,black,brown or any other color in the world. As a Christian I just don't see how I could be happy or great full that my "Kin" still thrive under the conditions described in the first scenario.  The argument that I have the choice of my kin being completely divorced from the foundations of my once Christian country or that a different peoples adopted and continue to maintain that foundation and proudly I might add by flying Old Glory would be a greater comfort to me than my pagan kin.  The false implications here are what bother me the most.  How did my people die out?  What caused these new people to adopt my beliefs and traditions.  I know Mr Buttler wants to throw this scenario at us and then say that it doesn't matter.  He switches tactics immediately by attempting to get us to agree that we the individual is the end all concerning this terrible turn of events “False dilemma,” comes back a Wordist. “You can have both.” Yes but that’s not the point. Which one is the one that makes you catch your breath? which is truly close to the heart? That is the question. He then goes on speaking about tribalism and even peppers his new recipe with a little bit of gospel. Which is it Mr Buttler are we to take your example to heart or dismiss it because it could turn out alright for the advancement and maintenance of Christian freedom and liberty.  Does God care more about preserving a distinct peoples from all nations rather than those people maintaining fidelity with him. Is our highest calling to our own people or to the Advancement of God's Gospel. I am not saying that both can not be done but I am saying that one is the lesser you can figure out which one.  I am not for the melting pot yet I am for all who are here to be converted to Christianity.  I believe that this is our calling as Christians.  We have been instructed in how to care for the alien among us.  We are instructed in how to care for our neighbors which by the way is not the alien but rather our fellow Christian.  I have two black Christian neighbors to which I am great full for.  Better them than pagan kin I could not trust my kids to be safe around pagan kin.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello everyone,</p>
<p> I find this article disappointing for two reasons. the examples given about what would make you feel better as an individual mean nothing. The second disappointment comes from the article not saying anything relevant to the Christian world view.<br />
The example given is targeted specifically to the individual meaning it can apply to white,black,brown or any other color in the world. As a Christian I just don&#8217;t see how I could be happy or great full that my &#8220;Kin&#8221; still thrive under the conditions described in the first scenario.  The argument that I have the choice of my kin being completely divorced from the foundations of my once Christian country or that a different peoples adopted and continue to maintain that foundation and proudly I might add by flying Old Glory would be a greater comfort to me than my pagan kin.  The false implications here are what bother me the most.  How did my people die out?  What caused these new people to adopt my beliefs and traditions.  I know Mr Buttler wants to throw this scenario at us and then say that it doesn&#8217;t matter.  He switches tactics immediately by attempting to get us to agree that we the individual is the end all concerning this terrible turn of events “False dilemma,” comes back a Wordist. “You can have both.” Yes but that’s not the point. Which one is the one that makes you catch your breath? which is truly close to the heart? That is the question. He then goes on speaking about tribalism and even peppers his new recipe with a little bit of gospel. Which is it Mr Buttler are we to take your example to heart or dismiss it because it could turn out alright for the advancement and maintenance of Christian freedom and liberty.  Does God care more about preserving a distinct peoples from all nations rather than those people maintaining fidelity with him. Is our highest calling to our own people or to the Advancement of God&#8217;s Gospel. I am not saying that both can not be done but I am saying that one is the lesser you can figure out which one.  I am not for the melting pot yet I am for all who are here to be converted to Christianity.  I believe that this is our calling as Christians.  We have been instructed in how to care for the alien among us.  We are instructed in how to care for our neighbors which by the way is not the alien but rather our fellow Christian.  I have two black Christian neighbors to which I am great full for.  Better them than pagan kin I could not trust my kids to be safe around pagan kin.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Joshua L.</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-26061</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 19:56:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-26061</guid>
					<description>So how does this comport with the idea that culture is religion externalized? Wouldn't that seem to indicate that there is a creedal or "word-based" foundation to all social orders? Or is Whittaker addressing a different point here? Thanks--your blog is always thought-provoking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So how does this comport with the idea that culture is religion externalized? Wouldn&#8217;t that seem to indicate that there is a creedal or &#8220;word-based&#8221; foundation to all social orders? Or is Whittaker addressing a different point here? Thanks&#8211;your blog is always thought-provoking.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Mo</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-25880</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-25880</guid>
					<description>We might just as well go for the other option known more popularly as the American Dream 2008 presidential candidate.  After all his campaign tactic is probably more meaningful than the WWF rant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za1eUNewekY&#38;feature=related</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We might just as well go for the other option known more popularly as the American Dream 2008 presidential candidate.  After all his campaign tactic is probably more meaningful than the WWF rant <a href='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za1eUNewekY&amp;feature=related' rel='nofollow'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za1eUNewekY&amp;feature=related</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Mo</title>
		<link>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-25879</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:20:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://butler-harris.org/archives/347#comment-25879</guid>
					<description>Fascinating post.  Although not altogether apropos I came across some Calvinist turned Roman Catholic utilizing TAG and God’s sovereignty to argue for his position as well as engage in argumentation against Protestantism which I found interesting, last I checked Roman Catholicism doesn’t prescribe to God’s complete sovereignty and providence in which case TAG doesn’t quite work for the Papist nevertheless it is being used by them and their younger apologists on youtube and other places.  I then came across some clips of Dr. Caner from Liberty that infamous “Intellectual Bit bull” as he calls himself (and of course he’s a conservative hmmm) being tazered on the “stage” which is the Liberty pulpit.  Some commenter said, “I wonder how many decisions they had for Christ that night gee wiz?”  The confusions concerning conservatism and orthodoxy certainly manifest themselves in all manner of forms, everything from TAG for the Papist and his accusation that Protestantism amounts to ecclesiological anarchy and the anarchists tazering themselves at the pulpit - wowzers!  Are we in for it or are we in for it?  "The conservative’s boy” John McCain’s latest WWF bit on “What you gunna do when The McCainamaniacs run wild on you?” certainly adds clarity to the aforementioned question.  We are in for it, either the McCainamaniacs or Hilrod or we are smellen what Baraka’s cookin  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYa77v0bN4c</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fascinating post.  Although not altogether apropos I came across some Calvinist turned Roman Catholic utilizing TAG and God’s sovereignty to argue for his position as well as engage in argumentation against Protestantism which I found interesting, last I checked Roman Catholicism doesn’t prescribe to God’s complete sovereignty and providence in which case TAG doesn’t quite work for the Papist nevertheless it is being used by them and their younger apologists on youtube and other places.  I then came across some clips of Dr. Caner from Liberty that infamous “Intellectual Bit bull” as he calls himself (and of course he’s a conservative hmmm) being tazered on the “stage” which is the Liberty pulpit.  Some commenter said, “I wonder how many decisions they had for Christ that night gee wiz?”  The confusions concerning conservatism and orthodoxy certainly manifest themselves in all manner of forms, everything from TAG for the Papist and his accusation that Protestantism amounts to ecclesiological anarchy and the anarchists tazering themselves at the pulpit - wowzers!  Are we in for it or are we in for it?  &#8220;The conservative’s boy” John McCain’s latest WWF bit on “What you gunna do when The McCainamaniacs run wild on you?” certainly adds clarity to the aforementioned question.  We are in for it, either the McCainamaniacs or Hilrod or we are smellen what Baraka’s cookin  <a href='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYa77v0bN4c' rel='nofollow'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYa77v0bN4c</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
