If I’m reading this correctly, Batzig seems to think Sowell isn’t a Christian because Sowell went to great pains to present his arguments secularly so the non-religious wouldn’t immediately shrug them off when they saw Bible verses.

I had an annoying roommate in college who was like this. He demanded that every discussion of anything be grounded first in Biblical scripture and quotations and then on intellectual and logical grounds. Unfortunately, we never really got to the second part because we would be stuck arguing verses which he tended to claim automatically disproved any other point of view. Also, any non-believer who ever got involved in these discussions promptly left when the arguments quickly became over scriptural interpretation and not even the issue under discussion.

We’re allowed to use external evidence to back up our convictions, even obligated as believers. While simply quoting scripture may be enough to tide over some believers (and I doubt the rigor of their belief), the rest of us want to think things through and use logic and ration to piece together the truth alongside the word. And the great thing is that if the Bible really is true (which I believe it is,) our conclusions based on logic, reason, and evidence will be concurrent with what scripture really means.

You wrote:
(1) Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them:

(2) How much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and

(3) thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

When in fact it says: Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.

It seems that your construction is a bit misleading to the relative importance that they put on justification by faith and it’s place in the 3rd use of the law. I’m not saying that they do not anchor it in justification by faith, but your construction seems to make it more clear, more glaring, then the Westminster itself-which puts “rule of life” right in there before the bit about seeing how much we need Christ to obey. Can you provide some clarity at that point?

Secondly, You said regarding the fear of God: It will suffice to say that godly fear is not a fear of God’s terror and wrath that causes a man or woman to seek to obey Him out of fear of going to Hell. Otherwise, the benefits of justification are made void.
I’m wondering how you square this comment with all of Jesus words where he threatens people with hell. (in a pursuit of holiness even) For example, and there are several but here’s one: “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
It clearly seems that to say there is no fear of condemnation in our pursuit of holiness doesn’t jive with Jesus’ own methodology, Fear of hell is to move Christ’s disciples to do the painful work of cutting off right hands and gouging out right eyes.

I’m really looking for some insight and perspective here. Is there away of reconciling what you are saying with Jesus’ methodology?
Thanks
Jason

Praying for safe travels!
In Christ,
Hannah

If in historical narratives/genealogies we have explicit statements of generational descent then we have to conclude that it is A) either true (based on the authority of Scripture) or it is B) untrue. Because our the trustworthiness of Scripture (the “variable of variables” in this case) we cannot conclude that part of the genealogy is true and part is untrue. Hence there is no “Continuum fallacy” as there might be with that sort of reasoning where the “inerrancy/authority” variable is not present.

I also think that some people play the “slippery slope” argument too quickly and inappropriately. When the authority and inerrancy of Scripture is brought into the mix, our reasoning is effected in a way it is otherwise not effected in those things that are not distinctly biblical. For example Paul, in 1 Cor. 15, makes a number of logical arguments about Christ’s resurrection and our preaching, believing and future personal resurrection (1 Cor. 15:14-18). This could certainly be argued against by some as being a logical fallacy if the authority of Scripture were not behind these truths. I was doing something similar with the “then neither did…” argument.

Good post.