I realize Canon Press and the Moscow guys are pushing Wolfe’s book hard, but it seems to me this must represent some kind of shift.

I’m not any further into Wolfe’s book but I did see his twitter thread from yesterday.

This is a good, wide ranging interview with Michael Horton and Peter Leithart. While Horton makes it known that he disagrees with Leithart's approach to Christians in the public square, he asks good questions here. There was one "gotcha" question from Old Testament law, but it turned into one of the best parts of the discussion as Leithart explained how to interpret and apply Old Covenant law in the New Covenant era.



Nothing original here, but four quick take-aways from the mid-terms this week:

1. I didn’t necessarily find every detail of Wolfe’s discussion of prelapsarian life convincing, but such speculations (if guided by Scripture) are entirely appropriate and useful. I agree with Wolfe that civil government is a creation ordinance that would have existed in an unfallen world as a way of organizing and structuring social life (e.g, if there was a symphony in an unfallen world, I believe it would have a conductor). Adam was a king, or at least a king in training at the time of his creation, and thus the seeds of political rule had already been planted. Of course this means that certain forms of hierarchy and social inequality would have existed in an unfallen world (as they will in the world to come). There is no reason to think egalitarianism is the natural state of man. Indeed, egalitarianism is fundamentally unnatural. God’s plan for mankind included a diversity of gifts, callings, and stations totally apart from the entrance of sin into the world. In Genesis 1-2, this is plainly seen in the pre-fall headship of the man over his wife. They are equals in bearing the divine image but unequals in nature and role. It would also have been seen in the rise of civil government (e.g., kings and rulers) in an unfallen world.