Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational
Sunday, April 30, 2023
Monday, April 24, 2023
Sunday, April 23, 2023
Van Tillian Presuppositional Theonomic Ethics
Jay Rogers February 1, 1994
Cornelius Van Til was a 20th century protégé of the Dutch Reformed theologian and president of the Netherlands, Abraham Kuyper. Van Til created a school of Christian apologetics and an ethical system based on Kuyperian presuppositionalism. Although Van Til had some disagreements with Kuyper, the two systems are similar.
According to Van Til, presuppositionalism is the idea that all philosophical reasoning is ultimately circular. Every argument begins with an unprovable premise. Given a true premise, one can arrive at a valid conclusion that is equally true. The problem is that one can never be absolutely certain that the premises of an argument are true. Van Til said that scriptural presuppositions are true because the Bible is God’s Word. To Van Til, any other rationalist system was untrustworthy because it must be based on the presuppositions of human beings corrupted by the Fall of Adam.
A “true” premise implies the sufficiency of human reason. One may attempt to prove a premise through argumentation. Yet these arguments will be supported by equally unprovable premises. A true premise implies that one has either consciously or unconsciously arrived at a foregone conclusion. Circular reasoning is inescapable. Furthermore, this is always the reasoning of an imperfect mind. Therefore, only premises that come from a perfect mind, such as those originating from the inscripturated Word of God, are trustworthy and reliable.
Van Til’s system of apologetics states that the Christian ought not to use rational argument to attempt to prove the truth of God’s Word to non-believers. The Christian ought to start all argumentation with scripture as a presupposition. Van Til did not deny that there are rational arguments that prove the validity of the Word of God. On the contrary, nothing exists except proof. Yet human beings have a problem with comprehending the Word of God as truth. The problem is not philosophical in nature, but rather moral. The problem is that our understanding is clouded by original sin and therefore we have a problem with comprehending the truth.
This way of thinking cuts across the grain of modern rational thought which proposes that one must prove something in order to believe it to be true. However, Van Tillian logic has had many forerunners in the medieval and ancient world.
St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury wrote, “For I seek not to understand in order that I may believe; but I believe in order that I may understand, for I believe for this reason: that unless I believe, I cannot understand.”
This is the opposite of the famous maxim, “I think therefore I am.” Rationalists such as Descartes have always wanted to “understand it” or “prove it” in order to believe it. However, Anselm’s statement is undeniably true. All truth is based on certain unprovable presuppositions. We must first have faith in order to know anything.
Van Tillian Ethics: The Myth of Neutrality
It is necessary to first understand Van Tillian apologetics in order to grasp the ethical system based on presuppositionalism. The foundational idea in Van Tillian ethics is a dialectic that pits the moral commandments of God against all ideas held by non-believers. According to Van Til, no belief or action is without moral consequences. There are no morally neutral ideas. Ideas always have consequences. Since ideas are intrinsically moral in nature, they will either glorify God or they will glorify human beings in their fallen, sinful state. Ideas that do not glorify God are a product of human autonomy or self law. Moral commandments that come from God himself may be termed as “theonomy” or God’s law.
Van Til taught that because of original sin “every one of fallen man’s functions operates wrongly” (Christian Apologetics 43). The unconverted will always be biased against God’s truth because they presuppose human autonomy. Van Til argued against the various Christian schools of thought that try to protect self-sufficiency. Descartes, Locke and Hume declared the autonomy of human reason. Van Til stated that a Christian apologetic must make its beginning from the presupposition that “the Lord Christ speaks to man with an absolute authority” (My Credo).
The fallacy of philosophical systems, such as rationalism or existentialism, is bound up in the feigned existence of human autonomy. If human beings are autonomous, then they have no Creator to which they are accountable. If human beings are products of chance, then there is no possibility of knowing anything to be true. Charles Darwin recognized this problem when he wrote in a letter: “The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (Darwin).
Van Til did not refute the possibility of rational argument only the possibility of rational argument that does not presuppose the existence of God. He argued that all human thought would be impossible if God does not exist, because then we would know nothing to be true. So in a sense even the atheist is a theocrat because he unknowingly borrows theological capital in order to disprove God’s existence. First, the atheist must presuppose God to exist in order to argue anything at all to be true even God’s nonexistence.
This is similar to Anselm’s famous ontological argument: “And, indeed, we believe that thou [God] art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Or is there no such nature, since the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God? (Psalms xiv. 1). But, at any rate, this very fool, when he hears of this being of which I speak a being than which nothing greater can be conceived understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding…. Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived…. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater” (Anselm).
Theonomic Ethics: Two Schools of Thought
The system of government resulting from theonomy is called a theocracy: literally, “God’s government.” When theonomists speak of a theocracy, it is not a state run by a national church; nor an ecclessiocracy, such as the Holy Roman Empire; nor the totalitarian military dictatorships in Muslim fundamentalist states. In a true theocracy, the state does not control the church, nor the church the state, but both spheres of society are under the government of God. Spheres of society are separate and distinct, but under the ethical law of God. This is a Kuyperian idea. There is a decentralization of power with representation in a Christian republican form of government.
There are two schools of theonomic ethics derived from three of Van Til’s students. Even as Van Til was a protégé of Kuyper and took his ideas to new heights, three of Van Til’s students saw the implications of presuppositionalism in the area of Christian ethics. Rousas John Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen coined the term “theonomy” to describe the antithesis of autonomy. This school of thought is also called Christian Reconstructionism because theonomy provides the blueprint by which Christians should seek to reconstruct society. Christian Reconstruction includes several prolific Christian authors including Gary North, Gary DeMar, David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry.
Another of Van Til’s students, Dr. Francis Schaeffer has had an even wider influence. Schaefferism is not “theonomic” in the strictest sense, but resembles some of the ideas of Rushdoony and Bahnsen. Schaeffer’s philosophy is sometimes called “soft theonomy.” Schaeffer’s protégés have included Christian ministers, authors, well-known politicians and social activists including Jack Kemp and C. Everett Koop. He has also greatly affected the thinking of the so-called “Christian Right” especially Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Chuck Colson, Cal Thomas and Randall Terry.
The main difference between the two schools of thought is that the Christian Reconstructionists see an immediate application of the laws of Moses and the penal sanctions of the Old Testament as applicable to modern society. For this reason, the Christian Reconstructionist movement is controversial. The latter group influenced by Francis Schaeffer tends to be more oriented toward a campaign for Christian social ethics to have an equal place in public debate. These thinkers take principles from the Bible and apply them to social and political ethics, but do not necessarily advocate imposing the sanctions of biblical law on offenders.
Of the two schools, Reconstructionism is known mainly among Presbyterian and Reformed scholars. The latter group has a larger following and makes up a huge portion of conservative Protestant and Roman Catholic social activism in the United States. A quick search for “theonomy” on the Internet yields tens of thousands of web sites. Some of these are articles written by theonomists, but many more are critiques written by social liberals who are threatened by the idea of biblical law becoming the basis for political and social ethics. They are especially fearful that the so-called “soft theonomists” might be Reconstructionists in disguise. They fear that a theocracy may be looming around the corner. Ironically, the most ardent Reconstructionists admit that this is a world that even their grandchildren may not live to see, but believe that in God’s predestinated plan, this type of society is inevitable.
Personal Reaction and Opinion
In my vocation as a teacher, I have had the opportunity to meet and work with literally hundreds of people who may think of themselves as being either hard-core or soft-core theonomists. My opinion is that a nation run under the premise of biblical law or by principles derived from biblical law would be the freest nation imaginable.
When I traveled to Russia and Ukraine, I had the opportunity to see a nation that was governed for over 70 years by atheistic presuppositions. Nations that are built on the foundation of a Christian ethic are freer and more tolerant of other religions and philosophies than nations built on the ethics proposed by atheism, secularism, or non-Christian faiths.
If theonomy is compared to governments of past history, I find the closest similarities with the Puritans and the Scottish Covenanters of the 1600s. Kuyper’s tenure as president of the Netherlands is also an example. However, Kuyper did not have a dramatic, long-lasting effect on that nation.
At first glance, some theonomic republics of the past seem oppressive and out of skew with today’s egalitarian societies in the West. However, one must remember that the Puritan experiment with constitutional government later became the model for the United States Constitution. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties was the model for the Bill of Rights. Jonathan Mayhew’s sermon, Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-resistance to the Higher Powers became the inspiration for the Declaration of Independence. In fact, “John Adams considered Mayhew’s sermon the spark that ignited the Revolution” (Jonathan Mayhew’s Inflammatory Sermon).
In short, no human government is perfect since human beings are fallible, but experiments with Christian republics built on theonomic presuppositions led eventually to the freest society in history.
I discovered in my conversations and debates with theonomists that most of the initial objections people have are unfounded. I found that many well-known and respected Christians hold a theonomic view of ethics, but do not like to label themselves as “theonomists.” I suspect that this is due to the distortions presented by detractors who paint a caricature. Many Christian social and political activists hold a viewpoint that approximates theonomy. Many are becoming more in tune with God’s law as they study the Bible as it applies to civil government.
It should be emphasized that theonomists do not believe that the civil law is based solely on the laws of Moses. None of the major theonomists believe the Mosaic law alone should be applied as the standard for civil government. Theonomists believe that biblical law in its entirety is the standard. The history of Israel and the New Testament are read together with the Law of Moses. In many cases, these scriptures enlighten or alter the application of a strict reading of the Mosaic law. For instance, some theonomists would apply capital punishment to the cases mentioned in the Old Testament. But most agree that these would be the “worst case scenario” offenders. All agree that the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament have specifically altered certain aspects of Old Testament law.
To use a Van Tillian argument, one cannot claim that the penal sanctions of the Old Testament were harsh or barbaric without impugning God himself to be harsh and barbaric. If God’s Word is truth, then God’s law is the best possible form of justice. The question lies not in God’s character, but in which laws may have been altered by New Testament teachings.
Theonomy is applying biblical law to give society maximum freedom and peace. Theonomists believe that biblical law is the ethical standard for governing families, churches, businesses, schools and not just the policies of civil government.
Most of our civil laws today come directly from biblical law. Many civil laws that are not direct applications of biblical law are derived in principle from a biblical ethic. To use another Van Tillian argument, any law that approximates God’s law is theonomic, whether or not it was self-consciously derived from the Bible. In other words, all truth is God’s truth no matter where it is found.
In many cases, biblical law is already the norm. Rape is illegal in all western societies (Deut. 22:25). Incest is illegal (Lev. 18:6). Until recently, public nudity, pornography (Ex. 32:25), homosexuality (Lev. 20:13), bestiality (Ex. 22:19) and adultery (Deut. 22:22) were illegal. The civil punishments applied did not always mirror those in biblical law. However, sexual morality was fostered in western nations through civil laws based on biblical commandments.
Opponents of theonomy, including even many Christians, have charged that the law of God is joyless, loveless and lifeless. The Bible patently contradicts this. The law of God expresses His character, nature and holiness. To love God and desire His mercy is to delight yourself in the law (Ps. 119:77).
“Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye harken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee” (Deut. 7:12,13 KJV).
Now let’s apply this to today. How should we rule our lives? What laws should we have? God has spoken already. He has given a whole body of laws in history to a people that He loved and liberated and adopted as His own. He gave them laws, not to put them into bondage, but to keep them in freedom. It makes sense that we should go to those laws to see how it applies to our culture today.
There will be some difficulties in understanding how to do this. There are some differences between us today and ancient Israel. But in principle we should expect that given the wisdom of God, we should find those laws which will lead to maximum freedom, peace and prosperity. National prosperity comes from obeying our Father in heaven in what He tells us to do. If we do what He says, in time He will bless us.
Works Cited
Anselm, Proslogion, chapter II.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-proslogium.html
Darwin, Charles, 1881. Letter to W. Graham. In F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters1_08.html
“Jonathan Mayhew’s Inflammatory Sermon,” Christian History Institute.
http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2002/01/daily-01-30-2002.shtml
Van Til, Cornelius, Christian Apologetics, Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1976.
Van Til, Cornelius, “My Credo.” http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/My_Credo_van_til.html
Why I fully embrace being A Reformed Christian Fundamentalist
Does that sound like an oxymoron to you? That should not be so. I am Reformed and 110 Grade Calvinist. I am so because Calvinism/Reformed Theology is The Gospel as presented in The Bible. The Canons of Dordrecht and its proceeding articles on Unconditional Election, Total Depravity, Limited or Definite Atonement, Irresistible Grace or Effectual Calling and Preservation of the Saints are all taught straight from the Bible.
Saturday, April 22, 2023
Why I use the Authorized Version/King James Bible
I decided to make a post explaining why I use the Authorized Version/King James Bible as my main Bible translation. Lest you think I hate other versions I do not. I used the NKJV for quite some time as my sanctuary Bible. I also have used the MEV and ESV for my sanctuary Bible. Yet, I have kept coming back to the KJV for my main study bible. There is a reason for this.
The language is the most beautiful and majestic form of the Textus Receptus or Traditional Text. As well, it is the translation that our Reformed Faith has used historically and confessed was an accurate English Translation of the Received Text Base. As a Confessional Bibliology proponent I hold that God's Words are persevered and kept pure in all ages. This means that I hold that our Bible that Protestants have used for ages was an accurate English translation. Not that the translation itself was inspired, but, that the text base we always had in the languages translated to the English in the KJV was preserved as His accurate words.
The AV/KJV was and still is an accurate English Translation of the Original Greek and Hebrew as found in the Traditional/Confessional Text. Unlike Modern Textual Criticism; Reformation Textual Criticism does not doubt that God Preserved His Words in the historical confessional Greek and Hebrew Text it was not corrupted. The Received Text used as the base for translations before the entrance of Modern textual criticism was Preserved by God to make sure His Word down to the very jots and titles was preserved for All Ages and Kept Pure. There is no reason to hate on the KJV as not being an accurate translation of God's preserved Received Text.
Quite the opposite of what hyper anti KJV influencers in Christian thought teach. The Received Text matches what we find in the Majority of all finds of manuscripts and papyri. Meaning God really did preserve His Word down to the jot and title in the Confessional Text Base. In fact, TR and Majority Text Bibles are the most accurate translations. Due to the text base used and its accurate translation means that the Authorized Version/King James Version is also one of the most accurate English Bibles available still. I would say anything in the TR Tradition; found in the KJV Family and MEV are the most accurate English Bibles. In addition; The Gideon's have a wonderful TR ESV that accurately translates confessional renderings missing from the other rendition of the English Standard Translation.
Modern English Versions and Gideon's English Standard Translations are harder to find. So, if you wish to use modern English renderings of the Received/Confessional text and cannot find them I would recommend to stick with the New King James Version. I am not as some extremists do saying ESV or NASB or even NIV is Satan's Bibles. ESV is the one that my church uses as a pew bible. I do not accuse them of not preaching God's Word because of using a Modern Critical Text version. Despite my issues with the translation methodology.
Friday, April 21, 2023
Wednesday, April 19, 2023
Monday, April 17, 2023
Public Blasphemy is to be punished according to God's Moral Law
This is going to get me in trouble with some, but I am going to defend it anyway. Public Blasphemy Laws should exist as Public Blasphemy breaks the commandment to not have any other gods before the True God Yahweh/Jehova. You should not get away with committing this as it is a crime punishable under God's Law Word.
This is God's world, and His law is the one we are under. The State is to be The Sword of enforcement of God's Law Word. Blasphemy breaks that law and is thus punishable by the Civil Magistrates. We can argue amongst ourselves what the punishment should be, but, it should be punished either way.
God's Law Word is not optional for The Nations in God's World they are His commanded standards for The Nations until Christ Returns. Where He is silent they should not get involved, but, are required by God's Law to get involved in enforcing His Law Word on His people. As Christ is the true King and is reigning from Heaven as I type these very words.
The idea of separation between State and God is illegitimate and should never have been accepted. Separation of Church and State is not the same as separation of God and State. There is no right to run the Goverments separated from God's Law Word. Blasphemy against the Most High God should be recriminalized no matter which party is the one in government at the time.
Sunday, April 16, 2023
Saturday, April 15, 2023
Friday, April 14, 2023
A loving rebuttle to my Brothers and Sisters on Covid
I want to lovingly reply to my Brothers and Sisters that still believe the Official Covid narrative. I love you , however, you are incorrect to buy into the Propaganda pushed by the Mainstream media on Covid. The truth is they were lying and or wrong from the beginning. It was not just a late stage issue.
The absolute uselessness of Masks was reported on early on and was correct. I am not going to even get into the fact that Vaccines in general are known to have had a torrid history on people's health overall. However, people associated with the creation of the Covid Vaccines were denouncing their use from the very beginning as well.In regards to the lockdowns mental health experts warned against them from the start as well. As they touched the Church; the State was outside of its Biblical Sphere by trying to tell the Churches whether to open and how to worship period.
As regards to numbers; on the grounds medical people reported tons of people that had other issues, but, got coded as Covid in Hospital or even after death. Meaning any official numbers are not to be trusted. It was all lies and misinformation from the very start.
I am not even going to get into Origins or isolating issues in this rebuttal. As I am only responding to stuff that can be seen on the very outer layer of the Covid Onion. Or the links between MK Ultra techniques and the deep brainwashing during the last 3 years.
I plead with my Brothers and Sisters to do their own independent research and not just rely on what is being pushed at you by the Media. I love you and wish for you to not be taken in by a Ruthless Elite that literally support depopulating this planet ; Hates God and Loves Death.
Tuesday, April 11, 2023
Being a Gracious and Humble postmillennial is not hard
Sometimes people seem to think that the postmill or amill differences of opinion within the Reformed community are to sucusm all of their identity. I have seen this happen first hand where someone being amill or postmill is a dividing line between the serious Scriptural Christian and a weak one.
We should not allow ourselves to become more comfortable being whichever millennium stance we have than being a Christian. I do not need someone to agree with my millennium views nor my theonomic ethics (Goverment is to apply Biblical Law to all matters not Secularism.)
In fact most people in my Beloved Local Church Family are amills and not postmillennials. I never bring it up with them and if any have not read this blog nor listen to my podcast they would probably never know I hold such views. This is because I am not striving to live a Postmill life, but, a Godly Christian one.
It affects how I will vote or not. It effects what I see coming before the end of all things and also how I believe Nations are to be governed (ideally a Christian Nation enforcing Biblical Law). However, it does not affect how I treat others or my love for my fellow members of Christ's Body. It should not affect other people's either it is just not worth it.
Non heterosexual identities are unlike sex truly a social construction
This is a follow up to my article on the mistake of playing into the "gender expression game." This time I am likely to ruffle people's feathers some more. The idea that anyone IS homosexual or bisexuality is just as much of a social construction as transgender ideology is.
Just like applying femine and masculine to the person of male sex or female sex is a recent construction so to is the roots in one's psychology of same sex attraction not being acknowledged. The idea that you ARE your sexual attractions and thus it is part of your identity is also more recent.
This is why the KJV and other older translations just say abusers of themselves with man kind, sodomites for male same sex abominations. The act is as old as time. The Word homosexual as an identity is not. Following what I said before, it was the 40s and 50s with sickos like Kinsey that really brought in even the word homosexual for same sex activity. Before that, it was simply male sodomy and lesbianism did not even have a word for itself.
The whole lie that 10% of the population have same sex thoughts comes right from this time frame. Which was given to us by Kinesy whom interviewed pedos and others in prison for sexual offenses. He even did experiments raping children, but, I will not go into more details. The point is that by falling for the previous trap you also are falling into a trap set by abominations in all aspects of sexuality.
The truth that Christians acknowledge is that no one IS homosxeual they commit homosexual acts and have homosexual desires. Yet, there is a serious lack of understanding the psychological forces behind why these ideas even enter into these people. Yes, it can be due to being reprobates, but, what about all the people that did not want them yet get the thoughts?
Psychological understanding of the human mind and how it handles trauma explains much of this. Whether it is bullying trauma. Trauma from sexual abuse or from anything that effects the person can cause these sorts of thoughts. Acknowledging this does not say they are not abominations in thought as well as deed. However, there is reasons for them.
I find a serious discounting of psychological ideas as being somehow nessecarily anti God or Anti Soul and this is not true. Even if mainstream psychology is filled with bologna that does not mean human psychology is not important. The truth is when we considered homosexual thoughts a mental distress or disease we were right. For many it is mental health issues that cause their mind to sexualize their own sex.
The irony is the psychological path to healing shows that the very shunning of people for their differences in their individual personality at a young age is a driving factor for this mental disease. All sexual and sex based diseases like homosexual behavior, thoughts and the Trans stuff are largely based on ill treatment by others causing mental dis-ease and thus sexualization as often a coping mechanism for their treatment.
Ryan Anderson in his wonderful book, "When Harry Became Sally." Touches on this very topic. Insisting that all boys or girls are the same not individuals was something that detrans people and ex gays/lesbians often point to as the beginning of their detached feelings from their sex norms that do matter. Such as," maybe I am not a boy/girl" or, "maybe I am gay." He argues very well that Christians and traditionalists need to get rid of their definitions being so strict they cause people to doubt their sex roles.
By acting as they are, they could just continue the vicious cycle that psychology shows can cause the very thoughts and actions that God tells us are abominations to Him. Whether you consider the Bible to teach a Holy Patriarchy or complementarianism neither require that we all are a undefined blob. That is not treating people as the member of Christ's Body whom are saved out of such lifestyles that is separating the Body based on social constructions made by reprobates.
Monday, April 10, 2023
Christians playing into Gender Ideology against said Ideology
I have seen a lot of Christian brothers falling into a cleverly laid out trap lately. Denouncing things as effeminate and effiemimancy as if it is a replace word for anything one does not like or agree with. Or as if sin is associated with being feminine.
This is a sad site as the notion of feminine and masculine being addressed towards people and not grammar is a newer phenomenon that is largely tied to the likes of those behind transgender ideology.
It was not until the 1950s that you get the idea of humans having a gender. We have a sex and the very notion of a "gender expression" and its gendered terms like effeminate man or masculinezed woman is tide to these same forces.
From a stand point of Creation we are created male and female. Being masculine is tied to providing the male portion of being fruitful and multiplying. I shall not go onto details here. We all know what I mean. This does not have any tie to what society calls masculine or feminine "gender expression."
As once again Gender as a function of biology is not what exists in God's creation. It is sex and sex roles that God created in Genesis. This does not mean that sex roles are not real they are. However, they are not masculine roles or feminine roles. They are male and female roles.
Throwing out effeminate as a short form for whatever it is you really do not like is like a bully on a schoolyard calling people they disagree with or do not like names. It is also a serious slur against males in God's Creation that do not fit into your neat little box of what you think a male should be as they go about their role as that male.
Not all men have a super deep voice, not all men are tall, not all men have the strength of an ox despite being stronger than most women, not all men have the same hobbies, not all men have the same Christian Journey as you and disagreeing is not cause for claiming you can emasculate someone.
This is very dangerous for this type of bullying is part of the psychological path to the very abominations we do not want men to engage in like homosexual activity and or feeling they are not men because they are different than other men. The mindset prior to homosexual enactment or cross dressing/true hatred of your maleness is often depression and not feeling like a real man.
By acting like schoolyard bullies some Christians are part of the problem and not the solution. As someone saved out of the sort of lifestyle directly pointed to by the term effeminate in Corinthians it is largely an outcome of being treated as less than male as I was. I know the sort of things that cause men to truly attempt to abandon their sex role.
Instead of using effeminate just say what you are against or just say coward if that is what you mean to say. Even that though depending the situation is not at all helpful to the Body of Christ. Sometimes, what you call cowardice is simply a differentiation of opnion. As long as it is within Christian Orthodoxy, differentiation will occur. It does not make one a coward.