This text will be replaced
I just read a piece by Gary North titled, "WAS CALVIN A THEONOMIST?". Since I call myself a theonomist, (though not as defined by most Reformed leadership these days), I found this title intriguing as I have always wanted Calvin's help on this. After all, I have been repeatedly 'corrected' by well meaning non-theonomists (antinomians), for a number of years now, and they like to try and correct me by quoting Calvin. Considering the prolific volume of Calvin's works, I've never had the energy or the sense that I had enough time, to research Calvin in any depth to make my own conclusions about Calvin and the theonomist position, (pronomians).
So a special thanks to the Castlemans, both 'He' and 'She' Castleman, my lovely daughter and her tenacious husband, for coming across this article and sharing it with me. It is kind of like a breath of fresh air or drink of cool water in this desert of lawlessness that the "church" has forced us all to endure for far too long now.
Anyway, upon reading this article, although it does not necessarily talk about "conspiracy", it sure made me think about it and the ridiculous idea that any history at all could be possible without it. So, some of what I will comment on here is a direct result of Calvin's theonomic expression, which you could read for yourself. I went back into time and posted it myself right here. The rest of this writing is my own analysis of men conspirators in conjunction with the greatest conspirator; God Himself.
This term conspiracy has gotten a very absurd and bad rap, as it is just a word, and a good one too. It's sole use is simply to define what people are doing when they agree to perform together, and usually means performing something illegal, wrongful, or subversive, and is therefore secretive. After all, how will they perform what they want if they are stopped by those who know what they're up to? What they are doing, is "conspiring". What is so 'kooky' about that? People have done this ever since the fall. God's word makes it clear that conspiracies exist "in" history, but does it make it clear that conspiracies "make" history? I am not going to attempt to take this word apart in detail here, but if you're interested, there is a very good article for that here, by Richard Wall.
So usually, conspiracy denotes something evil, but I think this word is appropriately used when people agree to perform something good as well. In that sense, the Church has historically been a group of people who have been conspiring for centuries to perform the will of God as defined in the word of God. The big difference, and the 'key' difference, between good conspirators and evil conspirators, is that the evil conspiracists, in order to achieve their goals, must keep their plans secret, at least until they have accomplished the majority of what they've set out to do. John 3:19 I say "the majority", because, if their goal was to obtain unlawful power, and they had achieved most of their goal without anyone knowing, by the time their goals were almost completed they probably would have enough of that power by then to be strong enough to resist any attempts to stop them. They are then no longer quite so concerned about any light shining in their dark hiding places, or under their rock.
So as a side note, this should point out the urgency of exposing evil conspiracies as soon as possible. Like a cancer, if they are not stopped quickly, the larger they get and the more difficult and destructive they become. Let this also be of relevance to those of you who seek to love your neighbor. Exposing evil conspiracies is no different than a good radiologist exposing a patient's disease in time to save that patient's life. The unprofessional doctor would note all the symptoms of his patient's disease, and yet take no steps to expose the cause. Likewise, the unloving neighbor will watch the demoralization and destruction of his society and culture, which is full of neighbors, and will not care enough to expose what is at the root of it all. The unloving "Christian" neighbor simply shrugs his shoulders and says, "We KNOW what the root is. It's sin! My neighbors need Jesus!" That's like the bad doctor shrugging his shoulders while watching his dying patient, and then says, "I KNOW what's wrong with you. You're sick! You need a doctor!" Both somehow think they've made some sort of "helpful" diagnosis and have solved the patient's problem. They are self-deceived, because in reality, they have done nothing at all to love their neighbor, or, help their patient. They have delusionally relieved themselves of any responsibility to anyone else in their respective situations.
All right, what in the world does any of this have to do with Calvin and theonomy? Well the main point of that article was to prove that Calvin was indeed, at least in terms of Social Ethics, a theonomist. My attempt here is to say that I've noticed Calvin's arguments also make a very good case for history as conspiracy. Although Calvin makes a case for 3 views of history, I am sticking to what I can understand, and I think we can condense that down to only 2 views. History is either random events, happenstance in occurrence with no rhyme, reason, or order, at least as our finite minds could comprehend, or, it is the unfolding of very carefully conceived plans designed to have eternal consequences, or at least, consequences which extend to the end of time. (However, you Christians know that consequences in time extend beyond the grave, and are therefore, eternal.) Thus, you either believe history to be random, or conspiratorial. Some may try to hold both positions simultaneously, but I hope to show here that these positions effectively cancel each other out and makes that idea untenable. Calvin makes a distinction for a third view; that of Deism, but I have, perhaps erroneously, combined Deism with the conspiratorial view. Deists might not agree that this is their position, so that is where Calvin may have put them in a category all their own.
My first observation, even without the help of Calvin, is to note the contradiction of history being random, with the providence of God. If you are a Christian, and especially if you are a Reformed Christian, it should be obvious to you that a "random" universe and its history, is in direct opposition to God's providence, and thus, His sovereignty.
To say that history is random, should, to the Christian, be a statement based on "superstition", and thus, idolatrousness. "What has caused this? Nothing. Just dumb luck." A random history is either an unlucky history or a lucky history. Nothing is more unregenerate than that. Even if you were a Deist, and wanted to claim that God in His providence simply wound up the universe like a mechanical top and let it go to the whims and mercy of "nature", you could not call the resulting history from that, as being "random", or "luck". Every move of that top is determined by the laws of that nature and thus the infallible mind of that nature's God. Even then we see no room for randomness or luckiness.
I will always remember a loving rebuke from one of my other lovely daughters, Susan, when a few months ago as she was getting ready to drive somewhere, I said, "Don't get in any accidents!" She smiled real big and quickly responded, "There ARE no accidents!" Wow! From the mouth of babes. I said, "Oh yeah! Of course! Thank you! Drive carefully please."
So, if there are no accidents, then what are there? There are conspiracies damn it! Excuse my O.Fr. (Old French). What else could they be? Every effect has a cause from either the mind of man, or from the mind of God. This also points out the fact that there are conspiracies within conspiracies that are within conspiracies ad infinitum. All of the conspiracies of men are within the workings of a larger and more purposeful conspiracy of God; Genesis 50:20. They are also within the conspiratorial workings of other men who are at a better vantage point then are they. These positions that people exist in that give them differing vantage points could better be described as "compartmentalism". God's position and vantage point is the ultimate position for observing how things really are, and so God is the only "person" in existence who has the without-a-question-true, view of history, and therefore, is the only one who is NOT compartmentalized. Everyone else; compartmentalized.
A fair analogy of compartmentalism would be the way an average business would operate. The field man, or "worker" on the job somewhere, has his training and plan, (conspiracy), about how to do his job. He has a limited understanding about how he fits in to the plans and goals, (conspiracies), of his immediate supervisor(s). His understanding is limited by his direct relationship to his supervisor, but not so much so about his supervisor's relationship to upper management or the owner or CEO above that. All are involved in the same conspiracy, but all have a different understanding of it, and all have a limited understanding of it to one degree or another due to their compartmentalization. This is proven over and over again when CEOs conspire to get cheaper labor, and convince the hired labor to train their replacements! How ironic is that? The compartmentalized laborer thinks that if he "does a good job" by training who he is instructed to train the best to his ability, he will be rewarded for his effort. But his lack of understanding has only caused him to participate in a conspiracy to eliminate his own job! And of course, the upper-level compartments kept this little piece of the puzzle "SECRET" from their victim so that he would not confound their conspiracy in any way. So, this worker could probably paraphrase Joseph in Genesis 50:20 and say, "You conspired evil against me, but I was conspiring for good in order to bring about a different result than this, damn it!" Sorry, there goes my O. Fr. again, but I'm sure that guy must be p.o.'d.
This kind of history resulting from conspiracy is not only probable or theoretical, but it is the proven very nature of history. It is the only viable Christian position for anything that has ever happened in the history of the world, is going on now, or will continue to go on until the end of the age.
All men conspire to change the course of history to one degree or another, and are involved in many conspiracies throughout their lives, some knowingly, and some unknowingly. And why wouldn't we? Even unregenerate men bear the image of God. They too will bear His image with respect to shaping history, but they do it without any consideration of what God has in mind for His own conspiracy. And what about the Church, or regenerate men? Are we not supposed to conform to God's image, and everything He is conspiring to accomplish? Aren't we in some sense, coconspirators with God?
And, to make things even more conspiratorial, what about other entities and principalities that influence and conspire the earth's history? There are more "compartments" that contain a position of view and play a part in this grand conspiracy other than just man and God. Yes, the angels, Psalm 91:11, Matthew 4:11, and demons, 1 Peter 5:8, Revelation 12:7, are also compartmentalized participators in shaping history. Depending on the translation, angels are referred to from 294 to 305 times in the Bible. Not sure how many times Satan and demons are referred to, but we know it's a lot. But the important thing to note here is, that these beings are always involved in one conspiracy or another. In Job's case, Satan conspired with God in a wager. Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness during a Satanic conspiracy to thwart the plans of God in something no less than God's own conspiracy of redemption! If Satan would try that with the very Son of God, what else on earth do you think he's been up to over the millennia? 1 John 5:19. He's got a lot of help too.
We see all these Biblical celestial battles of conspiracy taking place all around us all through history, so why would we be surprised to find out that human beings have been participating in the same battles? And, with the help of the angelic coconspirators with God, for those that love God and are called according to His purpose, and likewise, evil men receive their 'help' from demons conspiring with Satan. This is a no-brainer if you ask me. Conspiracy "theory" is no longer an accepted term in my glossary of terms that are unrelated to anything that smells like an oxymoron. No matter what angle you look at it, conspiracy is the force of history…it IS history.
The problem with political or governmental conspiracies, or any conspiracy with an evil agenda, is that they cannot be proven unless somebody involved breaks rank and offers themselves as a witness to the conspiracy. Otherwise, any "proof" will be strictly circumstantial. Often times, especially in our day, this circumstantial evidence can be overwhelming and irrefutable. For instance, Constitutional law allows for circumstantial evidence to be proof, if in fact, it is known that the only way something could possibly have taken place, (effect), is if there could have been only one possible cause. If there is more than one possible cause that could make this effect during those circumstances, then the circumstantial evidence would have doubt cast upon it. A law dictionary I just looked at specifically says, "Effects are known by their causes, but only when the effects can arise sole from the causes to which they are attributed. When several causes may have produced one and the same effect, it is, therefore, unreasonable to attribute it to any particular one of such causes."
This is how the domonization of "Conspiracy Theories" has taken root. First, a misconception of the nature of history itself, and second, a total disregard for the validity of circumstantial evidence. The first should be obvious to at least an honest Christian, and the second only needs a basic understanding of acceptable circumstantial evidence.
If I've convinced you in any way whatsoever, look out! Because now, you're going to see a "demon under every bush" so to speak. Don't worry though, because you will then be immune to propaganda most of the time. After all, isn't that what our Lord wants from us? To seek the truth and to reject lies? Well, that's what we should be doing any way. We are salt and light. We have the truth and we expose the darkness. It's getting much darker these days my friend. What does that tell you about those who are called to illuminate the darkness?
