Mediatorial Kingship: mediator

Status
Not open for further replies.
As someone who trained at RPTS for ten years (part-time), worked at RPTS for five years (full time), was a member in the RPCNA for two years (and under care of Presbytery and completing all but two exams before getting the call to the church I now serve) and who is continuing to strive to be a student of the original Westminster Standards while now in the ministry (presently having "evolved" into a full subscriptionist, hopefully not naively), I've been wrestling with these aspects of this post for a while (I think the great debates on related issues end up being more with applications by various camps in related debates, uh, discussions ;)). I thought I'd share a few things to contribute for consideration which I've found along my "journey" seeking wisdom in many counselors.

First, per a pondering about Hoeksema above, not that it directly answers it (at least in full). I typed this up a while ago to share with and assure my PRCA brethren with whom I was especially close and in discussions with on this topic that there is a place given to the mediatorial reign of Christ in their own dogmatics (once I came to agree with Gillespie years later I emailed them to let them know we had even more in common now on the topic).
Herman Hoeksema, “The Kingly Office” in “The Offices of the Mediator”, in Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1, 563-564:

“The kingship of Christ as mediator may not be confused with his eternal royal power as the Son of God. These two are not the same. Royal power he possesses of himself, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, from eternity. It is called the regnum essentiale or the regnum naturale, the essential or the natural kingship of the Son of God. The kingship that he possess as mediator is the authority and power with which the person of the Son according to his human nature is invested by the Father for the purpose of completing his kingdom, preserving and protecting his church, and leading his people on to eternal glory. This is called the economical kingship (regnum oeconomicum) or mediatorial kingship (regnum donativum), which in turn can be distinguished as the kingship of power (regnum potentiae) and the kingship of grace (regnum gratiae).

"By Christ’s kingship of power is meant his royal power and authority over all creatures, including devils and ungodly men. He is king over all things, even over all the powers of evil; all principalities and powers are made subject unto him. He has received a name above all names and all power in heaven and on earth. He uses his mighty power for the preservation of the elect and unto the coming of the day of his return and the establishment of his eternal kingdom in glory (Ps. 2:6-12; Matt. 28:18; Phil. 2:9-11).

"The second aspect of his kingship is called the kingdom or rule of grace (regnum gratiae) because by it is mean his royal power over his people, whom he rules by his grace, by his Spirit and word (Eph. 1:22). This royal power, this regnum gratiae, has its basis or ground in Christ’s purchasing of his people by his own blood, their redemption from sin and death. It is spiritual in character, a dominion of love, so that his people are made willing by his grace to keep his commandments. It embraces all the redeemed, the entire church; it has for its purpose the manifestation of the glory of God in the church, and it endures forever.”​

Second, something that really began to adjust my thinking and connect some dots that always seemed straying within my covenanter-influenced leanings and some Scriptures I had in mind that left me unsettled.
J.V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights, 299-214:

Fesko offers an intriguing analysis of the historical context of the Westminster Assembly’s on-the-floor discussion of the relation between church and state while working on chapter 23. His summary breakdown of George Gillespie’s influence to preserve Christ’s rule as Creator over civic affairs as distinct from His rule as Mediator over church affairs, and Gillespie’s influence on the Assembly to change “Christ” to “God” in three places in chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, is elucidating (and for me convincing) especially with 1 Cor. 15:24-25, Col. 1:12-18, WSC 102, and WLC 191 in view. I encourage a careful reading of that section of his book. (Note: I do not agree with nor do I find logically necessary certain overlapping topical applications in the book or in greater contexts such as the idea that government should not enforce the first table of the Law -- I agree with the Confession's establishmentarianism; nor the popular "common grace" way of understanding and relating to the non-Christian world (The Standards provide more careful language for this such as "common operations of the Spirit", "general providence" (remembering the Scriptures teach we are all still the image of God, though shattered, per Gen. 9:6; James 3:9), and especially Christ's mediatorial reign as is being discussed in this post: He restrains and subdues His and our enemies so the world is not worse than it is and should be so as to preserve His elect).

Also, the Confession’s “contemporary” commentator David Dickson explains: “ … God the creator and governor of the world is the efficient of the power of the civil magistrate … But God-Christ, our blessed Mediator and Lord of his church, is the efficient of the church particularly and of its government.” (Truth’s Victory Over Error: A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, Banner of Truth, 242). His closeness to the Confession is compelling to me while considering its careful and official ecclesiastical consensus. He also has a lot of other things to say about the relation of Church and State throughout that is well worth the reading.

The important clarification would seem to be with Christ's formal government over the two spheres of sovereignty, civil and ecclesiastical (I’m avoiding two-kingdom discussions here) in terms of isolating Christ’s incarnate mediatorial rule to that of the Church and that of His eternal deity to that of the Civil Magistrate (Andrew Melville's challenge to King James also comes to mind). Otherwise, Hoeksema's distinction (rather new to me here at least in terms of revisiting and digesting it) of Christ’s mediatorial reign as God-man still having something to do in terms of “power” over the world seems reasonable and helpful to me (and not contradictory to Gillespie's influence in its specific context of the Confession), but it would seem to be a distinction that is broader in scope as “general providence” than immediate or direct ruling nation-states as Christ so governs the Visible Church (Presbyterianism and specific officers are required ecclesiastical rule by Christ over His Church, but He allows various forms of civil rule over nations, whether or not many in modern Presbyterianism on certain sides of the pond want to recognize it). Hoeksema’s qualifications above of "power" and "grace" make sense to me and sound similar to what A.A. Hodge wrote, which I share next below.

Third, something that we just studied at church this week in our Wednesday Night Prayer and Bible Study that was the impetus of my sharing here today with this post I had noticed yesterday before the study (quite timely for me!).
A.A. Hodge, “Christ and His Kingdom”, in The Work of Christ, Issue 225 (Fall 2013), Free Grace Broadcaster (originally from “Christ the King” in Evangelical Theology, The Banner of Truth Trust.)

“As the second Person of the Trinity, equal in power and glory to the eternal Father, the Word of God possesses an absolute, inherent sovereign dominion as King over the whole universe. This authority is intrinsic, un-derived, inalienable ...

“But in His office as Mediator, and in His entire Person after the incarnation as God-man, He was constituted a King by the authority of the entire Godhead as represented in the Father. His mediatorial sovereignty is...given to Him by the Father as the reward of His obedience and suffering ... This authority, thus bestowed upon Him by the Father, is special, having particular reference to the salvation of His own people, and, to that end, to the administration of all the provisions of the covenant of grace, of which He is the gracious executive ... A MAN sits upon the mediatorial throne of the universe ...

“Theologians have accordingly made a distinction, designed to classify the different aspects and methods of this vast administration of royal power, between Christ’s [mediatorial, GVL] kingdoms of power, of grace, and of glory.

I. Christ’S KINGDOM OF POWER: This is the providential reign of the God-man over the whole universe in the interests of His mediatorial work as Redeemer of His own people. The universe in all its provinces, material and spiritual, constitutes one system. The certain attainment of any end, the absolute control of any single department, necessarily involves the control and the coordinate administration of all the parts ...

“ ... the God-man, as mediatorial King, has, during the present...world-age, brought the whole mechanism of the material universe [under His command] as means to secure the establishment of His mediatorial kingdom. He guides the marshaled hosts of heaven to that supreme result [The Revelation seems to be all about this, GVL.]. The great currents of all the world-forces are directed to that end ...

“He controls all events for the good of His people. Especially, He directs events to the end of effecting their complete discipline and education, and consequent preparation for the enjoyment of His glory. The end is the complete redemption of His people. But in order to secure this, all the members of the human family in their successive generations and in their various family and national groups must be dealt with as subjects of the same government.

“II. Christ’S KINGDOM OF GRACE. This spiritual kingdom, which is the special care of Christ, for the sake of which His government of the universe is undertaken, respects, first, His own spiritual people individually, and, second, His professed people collectively organized in the visible Church.

“He has in His inspired Word and through His ever-indwelling Spirit provided for the government of this Church through all ages. He has therein ordained the conditions of membership, the laws, and offices...

“Christ declared that His kingdom is ‘not of this world’—that is not one kingdom associated with the other kingdoms, with like organizations, laws, methods of administration, and ends. But it is a spiritual kingdom, embracing and interpenetrating all others ...

III. Christ’S KINGDOM OF GLORY. During the present age Christ is set forth principally as a conquering Captain, reigning at the head of His militant host, the Captain of our salvation (Heb 2:10), the conqueror of His and our enemies, and the subduer of the world (Rev 19:11-16). But hereafter the Scriptures reveal a final consummation, when Christ’s kingdom shall be complete in all its members, and shall be developed to its perfect state—when all the redeemed shall be gathered, the crisis of judgment past, the glorified bodies of the saints reunited to their perfected spirits: then ‘shall the Son of man sit in the throne of his glory,’ and ‘there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: and they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads’ (Rev 22:3-4).”​

Fourth (and maybe most importantly), I highly recommend reading the chapter by David McKay, "From Popery to Principle: Covenanters and the Kingship of Christ", in The Faith Once Delivered: Essays in Honor of Dr. Wayne R. Spear (originally a lecture at RPTS I attended and didn't realize its significance at the time especially considering its print and event context until later reading it after having marinated on all this for a while; incidentally, the chapter was actually suggested by an RPCNA minister when I shared I was having Gillespie leanings after reading Fesko).

Hope this all might prove helpful for further study. It's a bit of a heady topic and while I'm not exactly just getting my feet whet on the subject I am still trying to get them grounded (Thinking through the distinctions of "power" and "grace" both under the mediatorial reign by Hoeksema especially in view of the recent study with Hodge has been helpful, which I was influenced by this post to revisit, so thanks!). May our studies further cause us all to bow lower and say more loudly that Jesus Christ is Lord as we pray and live, "Thy Kingdom Come"!
 
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?
Me too brother. I have some questions that I am going to seek answers for. I am fortunate that Dr. Prutow and my Pastor are good resources. I will see them Sunday and start asking questions. Maybe we can get some good solid answers. Maybe one of the RPCNA Pastors will chime in.
 
On another note here is a new work on the topic by R. Andrew Myers.

This is an excellent compilation on the subject of Christ's dominion over the nations and the duty of nations to Christ. The quotations may be said to support the Reformed Presbyterian position insofar as that position was held and continues to be held by all confessional presbyterians. But in the context of this discussion, where the difference between Reformed Presyterians and others is under investigation, I must disagree with the idea that these quotations support the RP distinctive, or that the RP distinctive is the original covenanter position. In many of the quotations there is no statement of the RP distinctive. Some of the quotations make it plain that Christ's kingship over the nations includes the providential order and the overruling of evil instruments for the good of His church. Even the teaching that magistrates sin by not submitting to Christ is a clear statement of the legitimacy of civil magistracy by nature. How can they sin as governors if they are not governors by nature? If nothing else the compilation might clarify that this is an important doctrine on which all confessional presbyterians may unite even though there are difference of opinion on specific points of application.
 
[What follows is a quotation from George Gillespie's Male Audis (p. 30), where he is discussing a quotation from Thomas Case and showing an important distinction which separates the orthodox from the Erastian position.]

One instance more of his misalleging and perverting of testimonies. In the close, he citeth a passage of Mr Case's sermon, Aug. 22, 1645. "He (Christ) is king of nations and king of saints. As king of nations he hath a temporal kingdom and government over the world," &c., "and the rule and regiment of this kingdom he hath committed to monarchies," &c. "Here is Erastianism (saith Mr Coleman, p. 38), a step higher than ever I or Erastus himself went. And I desire to know of Mr Gillespie, if he will own this as good divinity?" Yes, Sir, I own it for very good divinity; for my reverend brother, Mr Case, saith not that Christ, as Mediator, is king of nations, and hath a temporal kingdom in the world, and hath committed rule and regiment to monarchies or other lawful magistrates (which is the point that you and Mr Hussey contend for, being a great hetorodoxy in divinity), but he saith of the Son of God, that he is king of nations, and hath committed rule to monarchies, which I own with all my heart. The distinction of the twofold kingdom of Christ, — an universal kingdom, whereby he reigneth over all things as God, and a special economical kingdom, whereby he is king to the church only, and ruleth and governeth it, — is that which, being rightly understood, overturneth, overturneth, overturneth the Erastian principles. Let Mr Coleman but own this distinction, and that which Mr Case addeth concerning the kingdom, which Christ, as king of saints (and so as Mediator), doth exercise both invisibly, in the conscience, and visibly, in the church: First, By conquering a people and visible subjects; secondly, By giving them laws distinct from all the laws and statutes of all the kingdoms and republics in the world, Isa. xxxiii. 22; thirdly, By constituting special officers in the church not only to promulgate these laws, Matt. xviii. 19, but to govern his people according to them, Acts xx. 28; Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 28; xiv. 32; fourthly, In that he hath commanded all his people to obey these ecclesiastical officers, Heb. xiii. 7, 17; fifthly, And hath appointed censures proper to this government, Matt. xviii. 17; 1 Cor. v. 13: I say, let Mr Coleman but own this doctrine of Mr Case, which was printed by order of the honourable House of Commons as well as his was, then we are agreed.
 
Me too brother. I have some questions that I am going to seek answers for. I am fortunate that Dr. Prutow and my Pastor are good resources. I will see them Sunday and start asking questions. Maybe we can get some good solid answers. Maybe one of the RPCNA Pastors will chime in.

Did you happen to speak to these gentlemen last Lord's Day?
 
Yes, We emailed last week but I had more questions.... I also forgot to ask if I could quote them. So I need to do that before I post. Thanks for your patience Andrew. Some of the answer I received did have to do with separation of powers. That was what I assumed in a prior post. I have not forgotten the discussion. I also asked about the views of Gillespie and others who do not consider the Mediatorial Kingship to be over what some would note as Natural. When I was asked about that question personally I noted the situation between Balaam and Balak concerning Israel. But I am not sure about that defense. I think the best place to start is with Matthew 28, Acts 17, Philippians 2, 1 Timothy 2.
 
Here is a short answer I received from Ralph Joseph. I will continue seeking for clarification Andrew.

The essence of the rejection as I understand it is a rejection of Erastianism in which the state exercises authority over the church. This was the point for which the Scottish Covenanters gave their blood in many cases. With regard to the other issues, I am going to take the liberty to forward your note to Pastor Jim Carson who is retired now but was the chairman, I think, of the most recent revision of the Testimony. Does Roy Blackwood have any recollection of the debate? I doubt there is any papers on the subject but will look when I get to the archives next week. In the meantime, look are the www.archives.org under Covenanter Witness and see if there is any discussion there. Ralph

Dr. Prutow noted this.

Hi Randy,


The query seems to me to have a two part answer derived from simply reading further in Chapter 23 of the Testimony. Paragraph 19, offers further explanation relating to the "rejection" noted in Paragraph 18. It reads:


Both the government of the nation and the government of the visible church are established by God. Though distinct and independent of each other, they both owe supreme allegiance to Jesus Christ. The governments of church and state differ in sphere of authority in that due submission to the government of the visible church is the obligation of members thereof, while due submission to civil government is the obligation of all men. The governments of church and state also have different functions and prerogatives in the advancement of the Kingdom of God. The means of enforcement of the civil government are physical, while those of church government are not. Neither government has the right to invade or assume the authority of the other. They should cooperate to the honor and glory of God, while maintaining their separate jurisdictions.


First, as stated, we hold that civil government owes "supreme allegiance to Jesus Christ." Therefore, the RPCNA does hold that the civil magistrate should uphold the Law of God. This seems to me to be the simple answer to the first part of the query.


Second, this position does reflect our view of the kingdom, which is one. We do not have a two kingdom view. "Both the government of the nation and the government of the visible church are established by God." Jesus Christ rules over all. All authority is given to him in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). He rules as King over both civil governments (Rom. 13:1) and the church (Eph. 1:22). At the same time, "The governments of church and state differ in sphere of authority . . . The governments of church and state also have different functions and prerogatives in the advancement of the [one] Kingdom of God . . . Neither government has the right to invade or assume the authority of the other." They maintain "separate jurisdictions."


This position is enshrined in the fifth ordination vow for our church officers, "Do you believe it to be the teaching of Scripture—that church and state are distinct and separate institutions; that both are under the mediatorial rule of the Lord Jesus Christ . . . "


Hope this helps. James may want to ad more.


Denny
 
Here is a short answer I received from Ralph Joseph. I will continue seeking for clarification Andrew.



Dr. Prutow noted this.


Interesting. I think the claim that the confession is "erastian" seems far reaching, and ignores the work of the assembly. I've heard this claim before, and it doesn't hold water. So, I'm interested to see why the RP thought this.

As a side, I'm curious how they deal with such passages as 2 Chronicles 19 and 29-30.

Maybe Rev. Winzer can answer this, but it seems that having the MK of Christ over all things might be better strengthened by section three of chapter 23, not diminished. I tend to agree with the seceders on this point (after reading more on the Reformed Presbytery). The RP has a Cameronian position that I just can't accept.
 
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.



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."

This might relate to the discussion. In the 5th edition of the Confessional Presbyterian you wrote an analysis of the quotations on the judicial law and Westminster. It seem like the entire section entitled "The Spheres of nature and grace" deal with this topic. In one area, you write "an infidel may exercise civil power because that power does not require submission to Christ as Mediator in order to be legitimate." (Pg. 76)

Is this what the difference is between the RP and seceders? If so, does this make the RP (at least in part) connected to Erastianism?
 
Maybe Rev. Winzer can answer this, but it seems that having the MK of Christ over all things might be better strengthened by section three of chapter 23, not diminished.

Even here the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland stated its intention in adopting the confession, and ensured that its own spiritual independence would not be invaded or inhibited though granting to the magistrate a power to call synods. Chapter 30, section 1, of the Confession must be the starting point for understanding the headship of Christ over His church as something quite distinct from the civil magistrate. Anything that is granted to the civil magistrate as a duty is thereby confined "circa sacra" (concerning sacred things) and is prohibited from intruding "in sacris" (in sacred things.)

For WCF 23.3, see the excellent treatment in William Cunningham's Discussions of Church Principles, chapter 8, The Westminster Confession on the Relation between Church and State, pp. 211ff.
 
Is this what the difference is between the RP and seceders? If so, does this make the RP (at least in part) connected to Erastianism?

It is probably not so clear-cut because the debate took place within the context of a covenanted kingdom. The RP at times clarified that it was speaking of a situation in which the nation had professed Christianity. But at other times it seems to have systematised the teaching so as to make civil magistracy itself dependent on the mediatorial work of Christ. Consider the "Statement of Principles by the Reformed Presbyterian Union Committee respecting the Relation of Nations and their Rulers to Religion and the Church. – Approved by Synod, May, 1865." (Note, this was after their division of 1863 over the elective franchise.) "But this Divine ordinance having, in common with the other primitive institutions of human life, been depraved by the apostacy of man from God, and greatly perverted from the ends for which it was ordained, can be brought into perfect harmony with its original design only in connection with the Mediatorial economy. It has accordingly been placed by the Father in subjection to Christ as Mediator, to whom all power in heaven and in earth has been given." (Hutchison, History, p. 419.)
 
It is probably not so clear-cut because the debate took place within the context of a covenanted kingdom. The RP at times clarified that it was speaking of a situation in which the nation had professed Christianity. But at other times it seems to have systematised the teaching so as to make civil magistracy itself dependent on the mediatorial work of Christ. Consider the "Statement of Principles by the Reformed Presbyterian Union Committee respecting the Relation of Nations and their Rulers to Religion and the Church. – Approved by Synod, May, 1865." (Note, this was after their division of 1863 over the elective franchise.) "But this Divine ordinance having, in common with the other primitive institutions of human life, been depraved by the apostacy of man from God, and greatly perverted from the ends for which it was ordained, can be brought into perfect harmony with its original design only in connection with the Mediatorial economy. It has accordingly been placed by the Father in subjection to Christ as Mediator, to whom all power in heaven and in earth has been given." (Hutchison, History, p. 419.)


What I find interesting is some of the arguments that Gillespie was arguing against. For example,

In the second sence (which onely concerneth me) taking under and for Christ, to be in Christs stead as his Deputies or Vicegerents: so his Assumption, is lame and imperfect, because it doth not hold forth my opinion clearly. That which I did and still do hold is this. That the Civill Magistrate, whether Christian or Pagan, is Gods Vicegerent, who by vertue of that vicegerent-ship is to manage his office and Authority under God, and for God, that is in Gods stead, and as God upon earth. But he is not the Vicegerent of Christ as Mediator, neither is he by vertue of any such Vicegerentship to manage his office and Authority under Christ, and for Christ, that is, in Christs stead, and as Christ Mediator upon earth. This was and is my plain opinion (nor mine alone, but of others more learned) and Mr. Coleman hath not said so much as [...] to confute it. So much for the Assumption. But in the same sence I utterly deny his Proposition as being a great untruth in Divinity, for the sence of it can be no other then this, Whosoever do not manage their office and authority in Christs stead, or as Deputies and Vicegerents of Christ as he is Mediator, they manage it in the Devils stead, as the devils deputies and Vicegerents. Now I assume. Pagan Magistrates do not manage their office as the Deputies and Vicegerents of Jesus Christ, as he is Mediator: Ergo as the devils deputies. Which way was the Authority derived to them from Christ as Mediator. Mr. Colemanpag. 19. saith in answer to this particular (formerly objected) that Christ is rightfull King of the whole earth, and all Nations ought to receive Christ, though as yet they do not. But this helpeth him not. That which he had to shew, was that the Pagan Magistrate, even while continuing Pagan, and not Christian, doth manage his office as Christs Deputy and Vicegerent. If not, then I conclude by his principles, a Pagan Magistrate is the devils deputy and vicegerent, which is contrary to Pauls doctrine, who will have us to be subject for conscience sake, even to Heathen Magistrates as the Ministers of God for good. Rom. 13. first 7 verses. By the same Argument Mr. Coleman must grant that Generals, Admirals, Majors, Sheriffes, Constables, Captains, Masters, yea every man that hath an office, is either Christs Vicegerent, or the devils vicegerent: then which what can be more absurd? I might beside all these shew some other flawes in his Divinity, as namely, pa. 9. and 13. He doth not agree to this Proposition, that the admitting of the scandalous and prophane to the Lords Table, makes Ministers to partake of their sins. And he supposeth that Ministers may do their duty, though they admit the scandalous. But of this elsewhere.

(Gillespie, Nihil Respondes)

Gillespie particularly notes "neither is he by vertue of any such Vicegerentship to manage his office and Authority under Christ". This seems to be the basic premise of the RP position, right?

There have also been other people that I have spoken to, that say Rutherford disagreed with Gillespie. In one particular discussion, one pointed out the language in Rutherford's catechism:

"Q. Who called Christ to be king?
A. His Father put the crown upon his head; He entered not to the throne by violence, blood, or tyranny (Ps. 2:6; Dan. 2:44; Lk. 1:32).

Q. But is not Christ a king for ever?

A. As God He needed not receive a kingdom, but as mediator his Father gifted Him with a kingdom to Him and all his heirs.

Q. What comfort have you in this?

A. Christ has loved us, who thought He could not keep heaven or his own kingdom, but would needs leave his Father’s house to come down and seek us poor slaves.

Q. How many kingdoms has Christ as mediator?

A. Three, a kingdom of power, of grace, of glory.

Q. What is Christ’s kingdom of power?

A. The hand of Christ’s power coming in and bearing up the whole frame of nature tottering and like[ly] to fall to nothing through Adam’s sin (Gal. 1:17; Heb. 1:2).

Q. What are the works of Christ in the kingdom of grace?

A. As the only head and king of the kirk, He gives law to his kirk (Isa. 6:9; 22:22; Heb. 3:6), gathers his subjects, and rules over their conscience by the sceptre of his sword (Ps. 45:3; Rev. 1:16; 6:2-4), He rewards his subjects (Eph. 4:8; Lk. 23:43; Rev. 3:21), and makes all his enemies his footstool (Ps. 110:5; 2:9; 72:9; Mt. 25:34; P. 69:28; Isa. 32:1).

Q. What properties are in Christ as king?

A. First, power and authority to do what He pleases, having feet like fine brass burning like fire, showing that where He sets down his feet He will go forward in despite of his enemies, and his power is seen in that the stiffest knees in heaven and earth shall bow to Him (Rom. 14:11; Zech. 9:10; Ps. 72:8; Dan. 7:14; Mt. 28:18).

Q. What is the second property?

A. He has wisdom, and is the stone with seven eyes full of knoweldge (Zech. 3:9), the counselor (Isa. 9:6), his head and hair like white wool, as white as snow, and his eyes like flaming fire, to show the He is an aged and most wise senator.

Q. What is the third property of this king?

A. Most glorious (Rev. 10:1; Ps. 45:8), for He that rides on the clouds has a rainbow on his head, his face as the sun, and his one foot stands on the sea and his other on the earth, at which time He stands upon his own ground.

Q. What is the fourth property?

A. He is most just in his government (Ps. 45:6,7; 72:2), for justice goes about Him as a belt or girdle (Isa. 11:5; 42:1-3).

Q. What are the properties of the kingdom?

A. It is spiritual over the conscience, the government spiritual, void of worldly pomp, the sceptre spiritual, the rewards given to his friends spiritual, and it is eternal (Lk. 1:33; Dan. 3:44).

Q. But will not Christ render the kingdom to this Father (1 Cor. 15)?

A. He does but make an accoumpt [account] of his conquesse [conquest] to his Father, and rules no more by the Word and sacraments as He does now.

Q. When began Jesus to reign?

A. Even when the blessed seed was promised to Adam, but when He ascended to heaven He was as it were crowned and put in full possession of glory in the eyes of all (Mt. 28:18; Act 2:36; Phil. 2:9; Dan. 7:13,14).

Q. What is his kingdom of glory?

A. It is the full perfection of grace, where He shall be all in all to his saints.

Q. Came He to this kingdom by merit?

A. No, because He is born king, but He came to it by conquessing [conquest] it to Him and his.

Q. How makes He us kings?

A. When he gives us faith whereby we overcome the world (1 Jn. 5:4), and Satan and death, and by his Spirit He crucifies sin in us (Gal. 6:14; 2:20)."

- Samuel Rutherford's Catechism, pgs. 36-39

I'm just trying to understand the consensus, especially in light of Baillie and Gillespie's work on the 111 Propositions as respresenting the Scottish church.

Thoughts?
 
Sorry Andrew, what is the meaning of as Gillespie is using it?

Well, I'll quote Rev. Winzer on earlier posts (he has a better way with words than I):

1.The word commonly used in this context is vicegerent. Of late vice-regent has been gaining momentum in literature, but it is an obvious mistake. Man was not made vice-regent, serving in the place of God, but one who was to exercise delegated power. (Found here: http://puritanboard.com/threads/what-does-it-really-mean.88169/#post-1090543)

2. "Gero" is to bear or carry whereas "rego" is to rule. As one author noted, vice-regent can imply a layer of rule between God and man whereas vicegerent acts more directly on behalf of the sovereign. My guess is that vice-regent came into theological literature in the latter part of the twentieth century as a misuse of vicegerent. (Found here:http://puritanboard.com/threads/extent-of-mediatorial-kingdom.89091/#post-1099701)
 
On a side note, I have this thought that the MK as portrayed by the RP, is somehow connected to hypothetical universalism. I could be wrong, but it would be interesting to see a response to this idea.
 
There have also been other people that I have spoken to, that say Rutherford disagreed with Gillespie. In one particular discussion, one pointed out the language in Rutherford's catechism:

Rutherford's anti-Erastian thought is crystallised in The Divine Right of Church Government. The particular area of Christ's mediation is treated on pp. 607ff., along the same lines as taught by George Gillespie, and answering the same person, Thomas Coleman.

While on the subject of Rutherford, he also answers your later query about the implications for redemption. See p. 610, where Rutherford employs an ad absurdum argument to the effect that the adversaries must teach universal redemption.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top