Wrap-up on Camp

Steve Camp has leveled the following charges:

***QUOTE***

I too went to the "T" blog and read through pages of “around the barn” comments and meandering which you graciously tried to answer.

Triablogue, on this issue, is not well written, nor is it profitable precisely because of the Theonomist convictions that are foundational to their skewed and long winded confusing responses and to the cheap-shoddiness absent of a developing their arguments biblically. Thus producing the volumes of verbiage unnecessarily that further "knot up the ball of yarn" and draw others into the web of their endless circular thinking.

But as you know, theonomists are a very very small, yet vocally loud, minority on this issue. Their “rants” are not worth the time that good, well-thought, biblical interchange usually affords. Again, I am speaking in specific to this issue.

Case in point, Steve Hayes, in defending Jus, compared an “8 page response” of his with a “200 page book” that Mac wrote and you edited as if they are equal deserving equivalent merit. Jus, like Steve has done, should get his own blog; but the problem is no one would be listening; which is the theonomists worst nightmare.

Contrary to Mr. Hayes’s adolescent and slanderous accusations, I have tried numerous times to contact him, Dobson, Perkins, etc. about these things, but to no avail, before I wrote at length about this issue. I have also copied them on my articles.

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12723103&postID=112395455471464852

***END-QUOTE***

This would be a good occasion to recap the state of debate.

If the responses of JD and me have been “meandering,” that’s because we have been responding to the critics of ECB. When you respond, your response is pegged to whatever the critic has said. You follow him wherever he goes. If he meanders, you meander right after him. Apparently Camp has difficulty grasping that point.

However, JD and I are quite capable of reducing and rearranging our material into a lean and mean version. It will lack the all the supporting arguments of the original, but that’s the price of economy over detail.

What does it mean to develop a Scriptural argument for ECB? To begin with, Camp identifies himself as a Reformed Baptist. And he has a link to the 1689 LBCF.

This means that developing a Scriptural argument for ECB does not involving starting from scratch. Mr. Camp identifies himself as a member of a particular theological tradition. He identifies himself as a member of a particular confessional tradition. Hence, it is perfectly proper for JD and me to begin the argument at that level, taking his own stated presuppositions as the point of departure.

If, in fact, Mr. Camp is not in conformity with the Reformed Baptist tradition, then we invite him to state his deviations so that we can move the argument back a step.

Camp never says what form he thinks that a Scriptural argument for ECB should take. Aside from a lot of repetitious and tendentious prooftexting, he himself has never “developed” a Scriptural case for his own position.

As a minimum, developing a Scriptural argument for ECB would be a 3-step or 3-stage process involving (i) a preliminary statement on theological method; (ii) a refutation of objections to ECB, and (iii) positive arguments for ECB.

I.THEOLOGICAL METHOD

In the essay on “Cobelligerence,” posted back in July 22, we gave a statement of theological method in support of ECB was given.

To date, Mr. Camp has not responded.

II.OBJECTIONS TO ECB

1.Jn 18:36.

Camp has appealed to Jn 18:36.

We have pointed out that his appeal is fallacious on two grounds:

i) It misconstrues the meaning of kosmos in Johannine usage.

ii) It misconstrues the meaning of the Greek preposition (ek).

To date, Mr. Camp has not responded.

2.Rom 13:1-7

Mr. Camp has appealed to Rom 13:1-7.

We have pointed out that his appeal is fallacious on several grounds:

i) It disregards the pre-Constantinian setting of the passage.

ii) It disregards the stated duty of the magistrate as a minister of justice (v4).

iii) It disregards the recontextual application of Rom 13:1-7 to modern democracy and popular sovereignty wherein “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Adapting Rom 13:1-7 to our own situation, this passage is actually an argument for rather than against ECB. Applied to our own system of gov’t, a Christian has a civic duty, as a good citizen, to participate the political process.

To date, Mr. Camp has not responded.

3.2 Cor 614-7:1

Mr. Camp has appealed to 2 Cor 6:14-7:1.

Quoting from the standard exegetical literature (Barnett; Garland, Harris, Webb), we have pointed out that his appeal is fallacious on several grounds:

i) He misidentifies the unbelievers. He simply rips this out of context and applies it willy-nilly to his bogeymen.

ii) He misconstrues what was meant, in context, to be “unequally yoked.”

iii) He makes no attempt to integrate his interpretation of this passage with 1 Cor 5:9-11.

To date, Mr. Camp has not responded.

This is a man who attacks the C-bees for contributing to the dumbing-down of the Gospel. Yet he himself is too lazy and irresponsible to ground his Scriptural appeals in solid exegesis.

4.1 Pet 2:13-17

Mr. Camp has appealed to 1 Pet 2:13-17.

Quoting from the standard Evangelical commentary on 1 Peter—by Tom Schreiner, a Reformed Baptist NT scholar--we have pointed out that his appeal is fallacious on several grounds:

i) Camp acts as though 1 Peter is alluding to the Neronian persecution when, on the most likely dating scheme, it was penned prior to the Neronian persecution.

ii) There is no exegetical basis for reading “political agitators” into the text.

iii) As with Rom 13:1-7, Camp is failing to make allowance for the pre-Constantinian setting of 1 Peter.

iv) As with Rom 13:1-7, when adapted to the modern-day America, submission to the “Emperor” would cash out as doing our civic duty as citizens of a democratic republic.

Camp actually did offer a partial reply. He quoted a footnote from a popular study Bible. But his reply was inadequate in a couple of respects:

i) A man who attacks the C-bees for dumbing-down the gospel needs to set a higher standard for himself than getting all his exegesis from footnotes in a popular study Bible.

ii) DJ pointed out that even the study Bible did not, in fact, justify Camp’s opportunistic interpolations and extrapolations.

To date, Mr. Camp has not responded.

5.”Theonomy”

Camp resorts to tarring supporters of ECB as “theonomists.” This charge is unprincipled on a couple of grounds:

i) In making our case for ECB, we have appealed to just some of the following precedents: Calvin, Chalmers, Cunningham, Frame, A. Hodge, Kline, Kuyper, John Leland, Machen, Russ Moore, John Murray, Owen, Turretin, Sam Waldron, the French Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Synod of Dort, the Westminster Confession, the LBCF, blasphemy laws (Massachusetts), &c.

It is grossly and demonstrably anachronistic to equate all this with Xrecon, a la Bahnsen, North, Rushdoony.

As we have pointed out, the LBCF identifies the moral law with the Decalogue, as binding on believer and unbeliever alike, and addresses the duties of a Christian magistrate.

To date, Mr. Camp has not responded.

For him to continue to recycle this charge when detailed contrary evidence has been presented from Reformed historical theology betrays a Clintonian contempt for the truth.

This is mainstream historic Reformed theology, including the Reformed Baptist tradition.

ii) Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the charge were true. So what?

Bahnsen, unlike Camp, didn’t challenge his theological opponents to make a case for their position, and then, when they rose to the challenge, to engage in labeling as a conversation-stopper. When Bahnsen was answered on his own grounds, he had the integrity to answer his critics head-on.

In this respect, Bahnsen conducted himself as a man of honor. Camp would do will to emulate that moral and intellectual standard.

6.Church discipline

Camp says that the C-bees should be putting their own house in order. This criticism is fallacious on several grounds:

i) Guys like Dobson and Colson are Christian laymen, not church officers. They are not responsible for church discipline.

ii) Mohler, for one, has written on the need for church discipline.

iii) At the same time, guys like Land and Mohler are not directly responsible for church discipline in the SBC. According to Baptist polity, church discipline is left to the autonomy of the local church—its pastor(s), board of elders, and congregants.

iv) What does Camp think that the SBC should do? Excommunicate all the divorcees?

v) We agree with Mr. Camp that there is dire need for church discipline. An excellent place to begin would be Camp’s home church, and an excellent candidate would be Mr. Camp. Although Scripture enjoins our respectful deference to religious leaders (e.g. Acts 23:4-5; 1 Tim 5:19; Heb 12:17), he, a mere layman, has engaged in a running defamation campaign against the Rev. Dr. Albert Mohler and the Rev. Dr. Land.

To date, Camp has not responded.

7.“The Church”

Camp objects to turning “the church” into a political action committee, and so on. This criticism is fundamentally fallacious on several grounds:

i) We have repeatedly pointed out that Camp equivocates over the identity of the church in relation to Christians. He has never offered any principled way to relate and distinguish the two, yet this is a key feature of his tirade. Camp continues to play the same semantic shell-game.

ii) Camp is the one with a defective ecclesiology by failing to honor the universal priesthood of believers in whatever their individual calling in life, whether clerical or laical.

Once again, this represents a throwback to Roman Catholic ecclesiology.

iii) We agree with Camp that Justice Sunday was poor PR. However, that is not a theological criticism.

When it comes to theology, Camp’s outrage at the use of church furniture and church facilities represents yet another throwback to Roman Catholic notions of sacred space. This is flat contrary to the Puritan tradition, of which the Reformed Baptist tradition is a direct tributary.

To date, Camp has not responded.

8.“The Gospel”

Camp accuses the C-bees of demoting the gospel.

This accusation is fallacious on several grounds:

i) Contrary to 1 Cor 5:9-11, it entails secondary or tertiary separatism.

ii) Contrary to 1 Tim 1:9-10, it treats the gospel as a substitute for the civil use of the law.

iii) Contrary to the doctrine of hell, it treats the gospel as the answer to every man’s iniquity.

iv) It sets up a false antithesis between evangelism and legislation, as if different Christians should all do the same thing with their time.

v) Preaching the gospel assumes the freedom to preach the gospel, which assumes the legal freedom to preach the gospel.

To date, Camp has not responded.

9.Boycotts

Camp attacks the C-bees for sponsoring boycotts. Yet:

i) Camp has chosen to boycott the gospel music industry.

ii) Camp constantly appeals to 2 Cor 6:14-7:1. Why does he apply this passage to politics, but not to economics?

To date, Camp has not responded.

10. “Hypocrisy!”

In light of the Frist reversal on human embryonic stem-cell research, Camp accused the C-bees of hypocrisy.

Actually, Camp is the hypocrite. For Camp says that Christians are insubordinate when they exercise their Constitutional right to oppose the ungodly policies of elected representatives.

To date, Camp has not responded.

11.Divine sovereignty

Camp says that ECB violates the sovereignty of God.

We have pointed out that this objection amounts to political open theism. Are the C-bees in fact thwarting the will of God? Is God frustrated by their efforts?

Camp’s position is contra-Confessional inasmuch as it runs flat contrary to the LBCF on the role of second-causes in the providence of God.

To date, Camp has not responded.

12.Compromise

Camp has objected to ECB on the grounds that politics is the art of compromise, and there is no place for compromise in Christian ethics.

We have pointed out that this is unscriptural. It fails to distinguish between a moral compromise and a pragmatic compromise. It fails to distinguish between personal responsibility and social responsibility for those over whom we have little or no control.

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was a compromise. The OT provision for divorce was a compromise (Mt 19:8). Paul’s circumcision of Timothy was a compromise (Acts 16:3). The Scriptural position on slavery is a compromise (1 Cor 7:21-22). The duty of the strong brethren towards the weak brethren is a compromise (Rom 14:13-23; 1 Cor 8:9-13).

To date, Camp has not responded.

To our knowledge, these are all the major arguments which Camp has given for his own position and against ECB.

Since we have rebutted all of his arguments, point-by-point, and since he has never responded, he is running on empty.

III.ARGUMENTS FOR ECB

1.The cultural mandate

This is one of the major themes of Scripture (Gen 1:28; 9:1-3,7; Ps 8:5-8; 1 Cor 15:27; Eph 1:22; Heb 5-9). It is both protological and eschatological.

The creation mandates remain in force for the duration of the church age.

To date, Camp has not responded.

2.1 Cor 5:9-11.

According to Paul, Christians are not to shun unbelievers, but rather to shun professing believers living in immorality.

To date, Camp has not responded.

3. 1 Tim 1:9-10

This is a summary of the Decalogue. Paul says that it is especially germane to unbelievers—the lawless in distinction to the lawful.

To date, Camp has not responded.

4. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17

As argued above, when we adjust for our own system of gov’t, political activism would be both a right and a responsibility of Christians in America.

5.St. Paul

St. Paul exploited his Roman citizenship when it served to further his agenda.

To date, Camp has not responded.

6.OT statesmen

Joseph, Nehemiah, Daniel and his friends were godly Jews who were promoted to the highest ranks of gov’t, serving with and under outright pagans in pagan regimes. They were able to discharge their duties without moral compromise. They were free to refuse, and suffer the consequences. The heathen citizenry greatly benefited from their just and prudent policies.

To date, Camp has not responded.

7.OT prophets

The OT prophets were heavily involved in OT statecraft, directly confronting the political establishment when unjust judges and magistrates defrauded the poor and needy.

To date, Camp has not responded.

8.OT priests

In Scripture, a priest could hold political office (1 Sam 4:18), function as Prime Minister (2 Chron 19:11), or even stage a coup d’etat (2 Kgs 11).

To date, Camp has not responded.

Regarding (6)-(8), It will not do to draw a Dispensational line between Christians and OT saints, for the NT itself commends the OT saints for our emulation (e.g. Rom 4; Heb 11).

9.Neighbor-love

Our Lord summarizes the Decalogue in terms of neighbor-love and the love of God (Lk 10:27). Godly laws administered by godly men are an expression of neighbor-love. They protect the weak against the strong, the innocent against the guilty. They are merciful to the lawful by exacting justice against the lawless.

Our Lord goes on to illustrate his point with the parable of the Good Samaritan. (10:29-37). Notice that the Good Samaritan didn’t preach the gospel to the victim. He simply tended to his mundane needs.

To date, Camp has not responded.

10.Common grace

Common grace is a presupposition of ECB. The reprobate are not as bad as they could be. And in a fallen world where the elect and the unregenerate share a common field, it is both necessary and unavoidable that believers and unbelievers cooperate to some degree for the common good.

To date, Camp has not responded.

IV. LOOSE ENDS

Before concluding, let us clear away a few red-herrings.

1.Triablogue is an exercise in group-blogging. As such, Triablogue does not necessarily reflect a uniform editorial or theological viewpoint.

2.Why should JD get his own blog? Is Camp telling us that group-blogging is morally impermissible? Many other Christians are involved in group-blogging.

3.As usual, Camp isn’t paying any real attention to what was written. Phil Johnson denies having edited Mac’s book. Jus and I believe him.

The issue was not over relative merit, but word-count.

4.To judge by the site meter, readership has been at record levels at Triablogue since we weighed in on this controversy. So people are listening.

5.Notice Mr. Camp’s spiritual snobbery. You have to be the right sort of person to deserve a fair hearing. Minorities don’t count. And readers who are following the debate at Triablogue are dismissed as unimportant. Such are the spiritual perils of being a Christian celebrity.

6. Did I (Steve Hays) slander Camp? Even if I did, JD is not to blame for what I said.

7.Up until now, what Camp has publicly said is that his efforts at contacting the other side were limited to dialing up the receptionist or volunteer phone operator at ECB organizations.

So if I slandered Camp, I’m guilty because I took him at his word. And it strikes me as self-incriminating for an accuser to charge you with slander because you took him at his word.

8. And who does he think he’s kidding, anyway? For example, couldn’t Camp place a call to MacArthur, asking MacArthur to place a call to Mohler or Land, to set up a face-to-face meeting between the opposing sides?

Has Camp ever tried that? Are we to believe that Mohler or Land would refuse to take a call from MacArthur? If they did, then Camp would have cause to condemn.

Instead, all he seems to have done is to make these token, half-hearted gestures.