Mediatorial Kingship: mediator

[Andrew P.C.]

Maybe the RP guys can answer this question. I understand the kingship of Christ, but in what sense is Christ mediator of the whole world? There seems to be two views on this: 1) that Christ is the mediatorial king of the church or 2) Christ is the mediatorial king of all things.

So, for the "all things" view, in what sense does Christ mediate for all things?

 

[TylerRay]

There seems to be two views on this: 1) that Christ is the mediatorial king of the church or 2) Christ is the mediatorial king of all things.

Just to provide some historical context, view 1 is usually associated with George Gillespie and with the Seceders, while view 2 is associated with the Covenanters (i. e., the Cameronians), especially William Symington.

It was this issue that prevented a union between the Associate Presbyterians and Reformed Presbyterians in the eighteenth century; however, both views have historically been represented in the Free Church.

One last fun fact: Samuel Rutherford is one of the most debated figures when it comes to this issue. Some maintain that he was the first to articulate the Covenanter view, while others maintain that his view was not significantly different from Gillespie's.

I know that doesn't answer your question, but I thought you might appreciate an historical perspective on the issue.

 

[markkoller]

"There are many things under the power of Christ besides which are the immediate objects of his purchase. Angels, devils, reprobate men, and things irrational and inanimate, are all put under the feet of the Mediator; yet not one of these can be said to have been redeemed by his blood. There are some benefits enjoyed by the wicked of the world, which, as they result from the mediatorial economy, may be said to be, indirectly at least, the fruits of Christ’s death. Such is the case with the divine forbearance, with temporal favors, and with the outward dispensation of gospel ordinances, of which the wicked partake, but which, bur for the scheme of salvation, they could never have enjoyed."

William Symington

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Seems to me that there is maybe a misunderstanding of the role of mediator (in my opinion). How are temporal blessings a part of Christ's mediation? I think of WLC 38-40. Specifically, WLC 40 states "that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us, and relied on by us, as the works of the whole person." The works of the mediator are done "for us". Also, confession is quite particular about the definition of mediator.

When I think of forebearance and temporal mercies, I'd typically go to Matthew 5:45. However, this passage (like many others) aren't particular to Christ as mediator. They rather seem particular to the demonstration of God's forbearance.

What am I missing?

 

[MW]

I don't think there is any debate on Christ as mediator being given all power (or authority) in heaven and earth for the purpose of fulfilling His mediatorial office and bringing many sons to glory. In this sense one might say that all temporal benefits in the providential order, including those enjoyed by the reprobate, are the result of the mediatorial dominion.

But there is a categorical difference. Christ is given power over all flesh that He might give eternal life to the elect. The deliberate intention of Christ's universal power is to save the elect and bring them to glory. The nations are under His dominion as an act of nature, not of grace. Hence Rutherford, Gillespie, et al, denied that nations are under His mediatorial dominion in the proper sense. Only the church is His kingdom in the proper sense.

So far as temporal blessings are concerned, in the case of the elect they also are the fruit and purchase of Christ's work; hence they pray for all things in Jesus' name, even as all things are theirs and they are Christ's and Christ is God's. But temporal blessings to the reprobate are not the fruit and purchase of Christ's work. They are the effect of the administration of grace giving men time and opportunity to repent. Preachers command all men everywhere to repent, and in doing so they press the moral claims of Christ as mediator over all things.

Nations are moral agents and therefore come under the moral obligation to repent. The kingdom and nation that will not serve Him shall perish. This means there is a moral obligation on nations to submit to the mediatorial dominion of Christ; and it is on this fact that establishments are morally required. They are not essential to the being of the State, which continues to exercise lawful authority whether it submits to Christ or not; but establishments serve for the moral and spiritual well-being of the State.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

But there is a categorical difference. Christ is given power over all flesh that He might give eternal life to the elect. The deliberate intention of Christ's universal power is to save the elect and bring them to glory. The nations are under His dominion as an act of nature, not of grace. Hence Rutherford, Gillespie, et al, denied that nations are under His mediatorial dominion in the proper sense. Only the church is His kingdom in the proper sense.

Rev. Winzer, thank you for the feedback. Could you maybe elaborate on this particular quote?


Also, I guess I'm confused as to what distinguishes the RP guys from others. As you say, there is a proper sense of Christ's kingdom, to which I think of the confession saying the church is the kingdom of Christ. However, what is the issue? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue.

Angels, devils, reprobate men, and things irrational and inanimate, are all put under the feet of the Mediator; yet not one of these can be said to have been redeemed by his blood.

The Symington quotation doesn't help, in my opinion. It doesn't answer "in what sense" is Christ mediator of all things. He previously states, "There are many things under the power of Christ besides which are the immediate objects of his purchase." However, the very purpose of Christ as mediator is to mediate for his elect. I quoted this portion of the quote because he states that "Angels, devils, reprobate men, and things irrational and inanimate, are all put under the feet of the Mediator". Well, technically, all of these were already under Him because He is God. If all things are put under his feet so that "He might give eternal life to the elect", then I'd agree. However, what's the purpose of using "mediatorial" with His kingship in the context of all things.

Here is why I'm having trouble: the mediation done by Christ is for the elect and no one else. The confession says, "Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes, in Scripture, attributed to the person denominated by the other nature." The catechism says this in regards to the two natures:

Q. 38. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?
A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience and intercession; and to satisfy God’s justice, procure his favor, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation.

Acts 2:24-25; Rom. 1:4; Rom. 4:25; Heb. 9:14; Acts 20:28; Heb. 9:14; Heb. 7:25-28; Rom. 3:24-26; Eph. 1:6; Matt. 3:17; Titus 2:13-14; Gal. 4:6; Luke 1:68-69, 71, 74; Heb. 5:8-9; Heb. 9:11-15.

Q. 39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?
A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.

Heb. 2:16; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:14; Heb. 7:24-25; Heb. 4:15; Gal. 4:5; Heb. 4:16.

Q. 40. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person?
A. It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us, and relied on by us, as the works of the whole person.

Matt. 1:21, 23; Matt. 3:17; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 2:6.

It seems that there is only one sense in which "mediatorial" can be used, and that for the church alone.

Am I wrong?

Thanks for bearing with me, I am trying to think through this. I personally don't care for the term "mediatorial" when it deals with "all things". I think it muddies the water.

 

[MW]

Could you maybe elaborate on this particular quote?

I'm not sure in what direction you wish me to elaborate. We could look at redemption, in which there is a clear distinction between the lamb's work for the elect and the nations out of which they have been redeemed: "for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Revelation 5:9.

Or we could look at the church as the fulness of Him that filleth all in all, that is, that fulfils all His saving purpose. "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church." Ephesians 1:22.

The universal dominion of Christ as taught in Scripture is always qualified with the special purpose of subduing His people to Himself, ruling and defending them, and restraining and conquering all His and their enemies.

Also, I guess I'm confused as to what distinguishes the RP guys from others. As you say, there is a proper sense of Christ's kingdom, to which I think of the confession saying the church is the kingdom of Christ. However, what is the issue? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue.

See Matthew Hutchison's Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, 206-208, where he gives the difference between the Secession and the Reformed Presbytery. The issue basically comes down to the being and well-being distinction. "Both held that the civil authorities in Christian states are bound to have respect to the Word of God and the interest of the Kingdom of Christ in all their laws and administration, and that God had laid down in His Word certain qualifications that magistrates ruling over a Christian people should possess: but they differed as to the place to be assigned to these qualifications. Seceders maintained that a 'due measure of those qualifications was essential not to the being and validity of the magistratical office, but to its well-being and usefulness:' while the Presbytery maintained that these qualifications were essential to the being of a lawful Christian magistracy."

 

[Romans922]

The deliberate intention of Christ's universal power is to save the elect and bring them to glory. The nations are under His dominion as an act of nature, not of grace. Hence Rutherford, Gillespie, et al, denied that nations are under His mediatorial dominion in the proper sense. Only the church is His kingdom in the proper sense.

So far as temporal blessings are concerned, in the case of the elect they also are the fruit and purchase of Christ's work; hence they pray for all things in Jesus' name, even as all things are theirs and they are Christ's and Christ is God's. But temporal blessings to the reprobate are not the fruit and purchase of Christ's work. They are the effect of the administration of grace giving men time and opportunity to repent. Preachers command all men everywhere to repent, and in doing so they press the moral claims of Christ as mediator over all things.

Nations are moral agents and therefore come under the moral obligation to repent. The kingdom and nation that will not serve Him shall perish. This means there is a moral obligation on nations to submit to the mediatorial dominion of Christ; and it is on this fact that establishments are morally required. They are not essential to the being of the State, which continues to exercise lawful authority whether it submits to Christ or not; but establishments serve for the moral and spiritual well-being of the State.

I'm trying to process this Matthew as well. Are you agreeing here with what the Seceders believe or what the Covenantors believe?

"There are many things under the power of Christ besides which are the immediate objects of his purchase. Angels, devils, reprobate men, and things irrational and inanimate, are all put under the feet of the Mediator; yet not one of these can be said to have been redeemed by his blood. There are some benefits enjoyed by the wicked of the world, which, as they result from the mediatorial economy, may be said to be, indirectly at least, the fruits of Christ’s death. Such is the case with the divine forbearance, with temporal favors, and with the outward dispensation of gospel ordinances, of which the wicked partake, but which, bur for the scheme of salvation, they could never have enjoyed."

William Symington

Mark, would you agree with Matthew on what he has stated in this thread and as he has stated seemingly as his own view?

 

[MW]

I'm trying to process this Matthew as well. Are you agreeing here with what the Seceders believe or what the Covenantors believe?

Seceders; and Seceders maintained the testimony of the covenanters. The Reformed Presbytery's Testimony was not the only view on the "covenanters." It is best to simply call the two parties of this debate the Secession and the Reformed Presbytery in order to avoid confusion.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

The universal dominion of Christ as taught in Scripture is always qualified with the special purpose of subduing His people to Himself, ruling and defending them, and restraining and conquering all His and their enemies.

"All His and their enemies"

I think this is the point. I agree with what you are saying. I think I'm trying to understand the Reformed Presbytery portion of "mediatorial".

How are the Reformed Presbytery using "mediatorial" as "mediator" over all things? If the confession is strict in its usage, would this then be a confessional issue? Would the Reformed Presbytery be "unconfessional", so to speak? Or is this issue purely about the legitimacy of governing authorities? If so, I find that the word "mediatorial" is really being used for no purpose.

On one side, I think of Psalm 2 and kissing the Son. I don't see how the magistrate is obligated to obey by reason of Christ being mediator. I do see that the rulers must kiss the Son because he is ruler over all creation as the God-Man. I also see the catechism teaching the office of King over His church.

"Q. 45. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?
A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory and their good: and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel."

Can Christ be King over the nations without being mediator? If not, why not? Maybe this will answer my question. My understanding is the Christ is King and Mediator of His church only. You mention Revelation in which he calls out men from every tribe, tongue, and nation. This would go with His kingly office, in which the church alone is where Christ has His mediatorial reign.

I think I'm just trying to understand the scope? I don't know. Any help will do.

See Matthew Hutchison's Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, 206-208, where he gives the difference between the Secession and the Reformed Presbytery. The issue basically comes down to the being and well-being distinction. "Both held that the civil authorities in Christian states are bound to have respect to the Word of God and the interest of the Kingdom of Christ in all their laws and administration, and that God had laid down in His Word certain qualifications that magistrates ruling over a Christian people should possess: but they differed as to the place to be assigned to these qualifications. Seceders maintained that a 'due measure of those qualifications was essential not to the being and validity of the magistratical office, but to its well-being and usefulness:' while the Presbytery maintained that these qualifications were essential to the being of a lawful Christian magistracy."

Although I'm not sure this is the direction i'm going, this is quite helpful.

 

[MW]

How are the Reformed Presbytery using "mediatorial" as "mediator" over all things? If the confession is strict in its usage, would this then be a confessional issue? Would the Reformed Presbytery be "unconfessional", so to speak? Or is this issue purely about the legitimacy of governing authorities? If so, I find that the word "mediatorial" is really being used for no purpose.

I think it comes down to the question whether civil magistracy has been placed by God under the Mediator. The Secession and Disruption churches would only affirm the moral obligation of the civil magistrate to submit to the Mediator whereas Reformed Presbyterians would affirm that the civil magistracy itself has "been placed by the Father in subjection to Christ as Mediator." (Hutchison, p. 419.)

It could only be a question of consistency with the Confession since the Confession itself does not address the issue. It states "infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them." (23.4).

 

[py3ak]

I'm sure Herman Hoeksema's views have their own origin and internal logic, but I wonder where he would fit in this kind of discussion. I'm thinking of his sermons on the 5th Commandment (LD 39) in The Triple Knowledge.

 

[MW]

I'm sure Herman Hoeksema's views have their own origin and internal logic, but I wonder where he would fit in this kind of discussion. I'm thinking of his sermons on the 5th Commandment (LD 39) in The Triple Knowledge.

As I understand it the Protestant Reformed Churches maintain the position of the Christian Reformed Church on article 36 of the Belgic Confession which was declared in 1910. This position basically maintains that the church is "an independent territory alongside and altogether independent of the State."

http://www.prca.org/about/official-...e-forms-of-unity/belgic-confession/article-36

In brief, this position leaves no place for the mediatorial sovereignty of Christ over all things.

The Christian Reformed Church later altered its position and revised the article.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Here is a position declared by Pastor Phil Pockras (RPCNA) that I posted on my blog....

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/Christ-the-king-of-all/

It starts off like this...

STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE

God the Son, as the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is King over all things. This exalted position He holds in common with the other Persons of the Trinity. Jehovah God is King in His essential Deity. This no orthodox believer denies, at least in theory. As well, the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man Mediator, reigns as Mediatorial King over all things, for the benefit of His Church to the glory of the Father.

“1. Jesus Christ, as mediator, governs all creatures and all their actions for his own glory. Submission is due to Him from all men and angels. All men, in every possible relation and condition, are under obligation to promote His gracious purposes according to His Law. The holy angels minister, under His direction, to the heirs of salvation. Eph. 1:20-22; Heb.2:8; Phil. 2:9-11; Ps. 2; Heb. 1:4.

“2. Jesus Christ, as Head over all things for the sake of the Church, rules in perfect wisdom and justice over all parts of His creation including wicked men and devils. He makes them, and all their counsels and efforts, serve God’s glory in the plan of redemption. Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:22-23; John 17:1-5; Luke 9:26” The Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Chapter 8: “Of Christ the Mediator” (1980).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Here is Dr. Blackwood's booklet 'The King and His Kingdom' on my blog on the topic.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-king-and-his-kingdom-part-1/

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-king-and-his-kingdom-parts-2-4/

This booklet discusses the purpose, extent, and nature of Christ's Kingdom.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Here is Dr. Blackwood giving a session at an Alliance of Confessing Evangelical's conference on the topic.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I would add that this doctrine has been developed through the past centuries. Dr. William Symington probably should be credited with discussing the Purpose, Extent, and Nature of the Mediatorial Kingdom as it had developed.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I think two good passages to dwell upon are these.

1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
1Ti 2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

God commands everyone everywhere to repent from Idolatry based upon the Resurrection and Judgment of Messiah. That means everyone in all offices and stations of life are called to repent and seek the Lord.

(Act 17:22) Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
(Act 17:23) For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
(Act 17:24) God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
(Act 17:25) Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
(Act 17:26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
(Act 17:27) That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
(Act 17:28) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
(Act 17:29) Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
(Act 17:30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
(Act 17:31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
(Act 17:32) And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

 

[au5t1n]

Here is a position declared by Pastor Phil Pockras (RPCNA) that I posted on my blog....

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com

Here is a position declared by Pastor Phil Pockras (RPCNA) that I posted on my blog....

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/Christ-the-king-of-all/

It starts off like this...

/2012/09/06/Christ-the-king-of-all/

It starts off like this...

Mr. Snyder,
My understanding is that the classical view propounded by George Gillespie acknowledges no less than this by affirming that the exalted Christ rules over all things to the good of His Church for which He is Mediator and in a special manner her King. The distinctive nature of the RP view lies not in this point but rather in the question of whether the acknowledgement of Christ as King is of the essence of valid civil government (or especially Christian civil government), or whether this is a moral superadded obligation when a nation encounters the Scriptural religion, but not of the essence of civil government as the Lord has appointed it. Are modern proponents of what is called the "mediatorial kingship" view simply advancing Gillespie's view and perhaps merely lacking caution in their wording, or do they continue to maintain the historic RP view as described?

Thank you,

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Was asked a question concerning WCF 23.4. Here is the Testimony of the RPCNA as it comments on that section. The question was based upon the phrase "due obedience".

http://reformedpresbyterian.org/downloads/constitution2013.pdf

p. A 69-A 77


23. 4. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honour their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.

1 Tim. 2:1-2; 1 Pet. 2:17; Rom. 13:6-7; Rom. 13:5; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13-14, 16; Rom. 13:1; 1 Kings 2:35; Acts 25: 9-11; 2 Pet. 2:1, 10-11; Jude 1:8-11; 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 13:15-17.

Testimony

21. No civil government which deprives men of civil or religious liberty, fails to protect human life, or proposes to force men to do violence to the spirit and precepts of the Christian religion or interferes unjustly with private ownership of property, can in such matters rightfully expect the submission of its citizens or the blessings of God promised for obedience to Him.

Acts 4:17, 19, 33; Deut. 27:19; Isa. 10: 1-2; Ex. 20:15; Isa. 1:23-26; Dan. 6:13; Heb. 11:23.

22. Both the Christian and the Church have a responsibility for witnessing against national sins and for promoting justice.

Amos 2:6-8; Amos 5:14-15.

23. The failure of a civil government, through negligence, ignorance, or rebellion, to recognize the authority of Jesus Christ does not cancel its just authority. A civil government, though guilty of many sins, still has authority in so far as it furthers some of the scriptural ends of civil government.

Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1; Rom. 2:14; Acts 23:5; Ex. 22:28.

24. Due submission of all persons, cheerfully rendered, to civil officers and to civil government in general, is pleasing to God. No person, however, is required by God to obey civil authority when such authority demands that the citizen or subject do that which is clearly contrary to the law of God as revealed in the Scriptures. In such cases the duty of the Christian is to obey God rather than men. The christian has a special obligation to render due submission to civil authority in order to express his loyalty to Jesus Christ, to prove his concern for the welfare of all men, and to bring honor to the name of Christ.

1 Pet. 2:13-14; Rom. 13:5; Acts 5:29; Titus 3:1.

25. The only submission which a Christian may promise to any civil government is due submission in the Lord. Any promise of submission or oath of allegiance beyond this is sinful. If and when the civil government of a nation requires, as a condition of civil service or of holding office, an oath which implies that civil allegiance transcends the swearer’s convictions of conscience and obedience to God, it is the Christian’s duty to refuse such an oath. It is within the corporate power of the Church, acting through its courts, to declare that facts or circumstances which may exist in a specific situation render the taking of a civil oath sinful.

Gen. 25:33; Matt. 22:21; Eph. 6:12; Matt. 4:10; Deut. 10:20.

26. It is the duty of the Christian to ascertain whether any prescribed oath of allegiance to the civil authority involves acceptance of unchristian principles stated or implied in its constitution of government. If the oath of allegiance to civil authority explicitly or by clear implication requires support of antiChristian, atheistic, or secular principles, then the Christian must refuse on these grounds to take the oath of allegiance.

Acts 5:29; Acts 4:18-20.

27. In the matter of taking oaths required by civil authority, the Christian should seek the guidance and support of the Church.

28. It is the duty of the Christian Church to testify to the authority of Christ over the nations, against all anti-Christian, atheistic, and secular principles of civil government, and against all sinful oaths of allegiance to civil governments. When the Church by orderly processes in her own courts determines that the oath of allegiance to a civil government compromises the Christian’s loyalty to Christ or involves the Christian in the support of sinful principles of civil government, the Church must require her members to refuse such sinful oaths.

Acts 4:24-29; Eph. 5:11; Rev. 3:15-16; Acts 15:28-29; Rev. 2:13-14.

29. When participating in political elections, the Christian should support and vote only for such men as are publicly committed to scriptural principles of civil government. Should the Christian seek civil office by political election, he must openly inform those whose support he seeks of his adherence to Christian principles of civil government.

1 Chron. 16:31; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 2 Chron. 19:6-7; Dan. 2:48; Eph. 4:25.

30. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and the decisions of civil courts cannot determine for the Christian what is morally right and what is sinful. However, since civil government is an institution of God, it is within the legitimate province of the civil courts of a nation to determine what the nation’s laws and required oaths of allegiance mean or do not mean. A decision of a civil court cannot legitimize sinful conduct, but it can placebefore a Christian a factual situation upon which a moral judgment can be made. It cannot be proper for the Christian to assume that an oath of allegiance implies sinful requirements, when the civil courts have explicitly contradicted such implication. Every oath must be understood in the sense intended by the authority requiring the oath. It is for the Christian and the Church to decide whether this sense involves sinful requirements.

Matt. 22:21b; Rom. 13:5; Eccl. 8:4; 1 Thess. 5:21.

31. We reject any inference that civil government has jurisdiction over conscience.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Mr. Snyder,
My understanding is that the classical view propounded by George Gillespie acknowledges no less than this by affirming that the exalted Christ rules over all things to the good of His Church for which He is Mediator and in a special manner her King. The distinctive nature of the RP view lies not in this point but rather in the question of whether the acknowledgement of Christ as King is of the essence of valid civil government (or especially Christian civil government), or whether this is a moral superadded obligation when a nation encounters the Scriptural religion, but not of the essence of civil government as the Lord has appointed it. Are modern proponents of what is called the "mediatorial kingship" view simply advancing Gillespie's view and perhaps merely lacking caution in their wording, or do they continue to maintain the historic RP view as described?

Thank you,

I believe the doctrine was being formulated as time proceeded. In fact you may find quotes equating our position as being Popish in nature. Of course that is hogwash as the Covenanters would totally avoid the idea of a single man, who is not the LORD, being over all things. Earlier the term Mediator was limited to being only applicable to the Redeemed. I believe that Gillespie defined things in that vein as per his scope and definition of Mediatorial being limited to only those who are redeemed. That is why we discuss the Purpose, Extent, and Nature of the Kingdom. I do believe the doctrine began to take on a better understanding as the whole counsel of God was considered.

 

[au5t1n]

I believe the doctrine was being formulated as time proceeded. In fact you may find quotes equating our position as being Popish in nature. Of course that is hogwash as the Covenanters would totally avoid the idea of a single man, who is not the LORD, being over all things. Earlier the term Mediator was limited to being only applicable to the Redeemed. I believe that Gillespie defined things in that vein as per his scope and definition of Mediatorial being limited to only those who are redeemed. That is why we discuss the Purpose, Extent, and Nature of the Kingdom. I do believe the doctrine began to take on a better understanding as the whole counsel of God was considered.

Thank you for answer.ing I hope you are correct about the development as it would mean that the modern proponents have essentially landed back where we all started, and are now only arguing with our common opponent of voluntaryism rather than fellow establishmentarians. But I am not sure the nuances of the historic debate are fully understood by all parties.

 

[MW]

Was asked a question concerning WCF 23.4. Here is the Testimony of the RPCNA as it comments on that section. The question was based upon the phrase "due obedience".

When was this part of the Testimony written?

The old testimony qualified the statement of the Confession. It states, "And moreover, they declare that they understand said articles, as principally relating to the condition of a people emerging out of the darkness and superstition of Paganism or Popery, &c., before that religion has obtained the sanction of civil authority; when, although the major part or bulk of a people should embrace the true religion, yet that does not dissolve or loose the relation subsisting between them and their civil rulers, prior to their conversion, agreeable to, and founded upon the just and reasonable laws of the realm."

 

[MW]

In contrast to the qualification made by the Reformed Presbytery one may consult the view of John Brown of Wamphray, in his Apologetical Relation (Presbyterians Armoury, p. 195), which sets forth the original covenanter position, and which accords with the Seceder testimony:

"when the covenanters say that they are not bound to contribute their power, in their places and capacities, to promote or defend his Majesty's power and authority, when he is in a stated opposition to the work of God, and when the advancing of him to his full power and authority would certainly tend to the ruin and destruction of the cause and people of God, yet they do not say that they are never bound to defend him but when he is actually promoting and advancing the work of God, according to his full power and place, — nor do they say that when he opposeth the work of God they are at liberty to destroy his person, or to spoil and rob him of all his just power and authority; and, therefore, both that clause in the covenant and their proceedings may be abundantly justified without laying down any ground for the taking away of the late king's life, and without clashing with, or contradicting the confessions of protestant churches, or of their own; for still they acknowledge that difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the people from subjection."

See also David Dickson, Truth's Victory Over Error, on this section of the Confession: "do not the Papists, Anabaptists, and others err, who maintain, that subjects ought not to suffer a king that's an infidel, or obey that king in his just commands, that differs from them in religion? Yes."

 

[Andrew P.C.]

As a side note, it is interesting that the RPCNA testimony rejects almost the whole 3rd paragraph of chapter 23. The testimony states it like this: "We reject the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon."

The portion after the colon is this: "yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."

So, the RPCNA doesn't believe that the magistrate is to uphold both tables? or what? Does this have to do with the scope of Christ's Kingdom? Are their minutes or articles on this particular paragraph as to why they reject it?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

As a side note, it is interesting that the RPCNA testimony rejects almost the whole 3rd paragraph of chapter 23. The testimony states it like this: "We reject the portion of paragraph 3 after the colon."

The portion after the colon is this: "yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."

So, the RPCNA doesn't believe that the magistrate is to uphold both tables? or what? Does this have to do with the scope of Christ's Kingdom? Are their minutes or articles on this particular paragraph as to why they reject it?

Good catch Andrew, I am not sure about your questions but I will try to find out. I believe they try to give answer to why it is rejected in this small section on page A-74. Before that section they explain the division of authorities. Maybe they believe it is too closely related and have problems with how it might be executed. I am not sure. What is strange to me is that they include Ezra 7:26 in their proof texts which seems to state the validity of the confession. But I am not all that knowledged on this topic at this time. Ezr 7:26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

As I note above, How that suppression and punishment would look or be done might give reason as to why they reject it. I will try to find out. This is a newer version of the Testimony. It was published in 2013. But it is also stated the same way in the 2004-2010 version that I have.

It states....

20. Though responsible for maintaining conditions favorable to the spread of the Gospel, civil government should never attempt to convert men to Christ by the use of force or by persecution. It should guarantee to all its subjects every human right given by God to men. It should, however, restrain and punish its subjects for those sinful actions which fall under its jurisdiction. 1 Tim. 2:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:13-14; Rom. 13: 4; Ezra 7:26; Neh. 13:17-21

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

When was this part of the Testimony written?

The old testimony qualified the statement of the Confession. It states, "And moreover, they declare that they understand said articles, as principally relating to the condition of a people emerging out of the darkness and superstition of Paganism or Popery, &c., before that religion has obtained the sanction of civil authority; when, although the major part or bulk of a people should embrace the true religion, yet that does not dissolve or loose the relation subsisting between them and their civil rulers, prior to their conversion, agreeable to, and founded upon the just and reasonable laws of the realm."

What section is that taken from Rev. Winzer? I have the recent last two publications and I do not see that. Thank You.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I have questions about the Lecture I am posting below but I found it helpful. David McKay speaks on a topic 'From Popery to Principle'. There is also a section in the book 'The Faith once Delivered' that David Mckay writes on the topic. I read it years ago.

Book
http://www.heritagebooks.org/produc...n-honor-of-dr-wayne-r-spear-selvaggio-ed.html

Lecture
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/...anters-and-the-kingship-of-Christ-410953.html

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Randy,

Interesting.

I am curious as to what this means:
"It should, however, restrain and punish its subjects for those sinful actions which fall under its jurisdiction." If they reject the civil magistrates right to suppress blasphemy and heresy, then what is its jurisdiction?

 

[MW]

What section is that taken from Rev. Winzer? I have the recent last two publications and I do not see that. Thank You.

Randy, the old testimony is here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13200/13200.txt

It is in Part III, which testifies against the Secession as a party "who have made the most specious appearances for the Reformation," and are said to have a "loose and immoral doctrine about civil society and government." The quotation is found in section XVIII, of oaths and vows, the fourth paragraph.