# What makes someone "Radical 2k"?



## jwright82

My question is what is the dividing line between someone who is simply 2 kingdom from "radical 2 kingdom"?


----------



## Username3000

Surf and/or early skateboarding culture.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 4


----------



## jwright82

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Surf and/or early skateboarding culture.


Is that a California joke?


----------



## alexandermsmith

R2K would be people like D.G. Hart who advocate a total separation between the church and society in terms of the application of the Law of God. R2K argue that Christians shouldn't care about promoting morality and Christian values in the public square. But they don't merely take the view that the world, being the world, will always be corrupt and antithetical to the church but they often celebrate aspects of worldly culture, indulge in them and think there's a lot that can be learned from such culture. This is combined with a very condescending attitude towards those who would argue that Christians should separate themselves from the world (R2K believes the church and society in general are separate spheres but that the world has a lot of good stuff to offer) or those Christians who try to influence society. R2K are usually very antinomian.

Simple two kingdom theology- as I understand it- would be best exemplified by the Southern Presbyterian church, I think. The church, as an institution, is not to involve itself in civil matters but Christians should still be active members of the community.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jwright82

alexandermsmith said:


> R2K would be people like D.G. Hart who advocate a total separation between the church and society in terms of the application of the Law of God. R2K argue that Christians shouldn't care about promoting morality and Christian values in the public square. But they don't merely take the view that the world, being the world, will always be corrupt and antithetical to the church but they often celebrate aspects of worldly culture, indulge in them and think there's a lot that can be learned from such culture. This is combined with a very condescending attitude towards those who would argue that Christians should separate themselves from the world (R2K believes the church and society in general are separate spheres but that the world has a lot of good stuff to offer) or those Christians who try to influence society. R2K are usually very antinomian.
> 
> Simple two kingdom theology- as I understand it- would be best exemplified by the Southern Presbyterian church, I think. The church, as an institution, is not to involve itself in civil matters but Christians should still be active members of the community.


Okay, that's good. But not sure that D. G. Hart would be "radical", however it's defined. But I agree with the rest of it. But simple 2 kingdom people, myself and I believe Hart, would emphasize natural law as dictating human behaviour. What you describe is radical. But I don't think it applies to simple 2 kingdom people. I also think radical goes beyond that as well, like accepting gay marriage as ok to support (Lee and Mysty Irons, I believe?) as civil unions.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Well where I first came across the R2K label was with the Bayly brothers who would use it to refer to Hart and people like him. I'm not promoting the Bayly brothers (I'm not disavowing them either) but that is the context I came across it (usually through Hart responding to them as I used to be quite the avid reader of his blog years ago). I think Hart would dispute the term has any real meaning other than as a slur concocted by people like the Baylys. Hart would definitely say he was following traditional two kingdom. But I would dispute that.


----------



## Susan777

alexandermsmith said:


> R2K would be people like D.G. Hart who advocate a total separation between the church and society in terms of the application of the Law of God. R2K argue that Christians shouldn't care about promoting morality and Christian values in the public square. But they don't merely take the view that the world, being the world, will always be corrupt and antithetical to the church but they often celebrate aspects of worldly culture, indulge in them and think there's a lot that can be learned from such culture. This is combined with a very condescending attitude towards those who would argue that Christians should separate themselves from the world (R2K believes the church and society in general are separate spheres but that the world has a lot of good stuff to offer) or those Christians who try to influence society. R2K are usually very antinomian.
> 
> Simple two kingdom theology- as I understand it- would be best exemplified by the Southern Presbyterian church, I think. The church, as an institution, is not to involve itself in civil matters but Christians should still be active members of the community.


I think that is a fair characterization. It’s my understanding (admittedly limited) that classical 2k theology bears little resemblance to what’s been formulated at Westminster West. For ex. Michael Horton felt he could support same-sex civil unions based on the love-your-neighbor principle, wanting what’s best for them. Whoa! To me, that’s radical.
I do read DGH’s blog but a lot of it goes over my head. It’s like there’s some sort of insider knowledge being discussed  that just leaves me baffled. I _would _like to know who those interesting looking people are who adorn his blog. I only recognize Machen.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Henry Hall

alexandermsmith said:


> traditional two kingdom


That's regular 2K. People like the Puritans. Andrew Melville with his famous speech to the King. Calvin said some 2K-ish things.
But Calvin and some others who talked about 2 kingdoms also thought that the state *ought* to recognize and submit to King Jesus.

r2k-ers like Hart, VanDrunen, Scott Clark, and Escondido Theology advocates in general, deny that. That's what gives you the "r."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

Ouch, lol. And he’s so on top of current events. My pastor, Lane Tipton, would be regular for sure.


alexandermsmith said:


> R2K would be people like D.G. Hart who advocate a total separation between the church and society in terms of the application of the Law of God. R2K argue that Christians shouldn't care about promoting morality and Christian values in the public square. But they don't merely take the view that the world, being the world, will always be corrupt and antithetical to the church but they often celebrate aspects of worldly culture, indulge in them and think there's a lot that can be learned from such culture. This is combined with a very condescending attitude towards those who would argue that Christians should separate themselves from the world (R2K believes the church and society in general are separate spheres but that the world has a lot of good stuff to offer) or those Christians who try to influence society. R2K are usually very antinomian.
> 
> Simple two kingdom theology- as I understand it- would be best exemplified by the Southern Presbyterian church, I think. The church, as an institution, is not to involve itself in civil matters but Christians should still be active members of the community.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

Susan777 said:


> I think that is a fair characterization. It’s my understanding (admittedly limited) that classical 2k theology bears little resemblance to what’s been formulated at Westminster West. For ex. Michael Horton felt he could support same-sex civil unions based on the love-your-neighbor principle, wanting what’s best for them. Whoa! To me, that’s radical.
> I do read DGH’s blog but a lot of it goes over my head. It’s like there’s some sort of insider knowledge being discussed  that just leaves me baffled. I _would _like to know who those interesting looking people are who adorn his blog. I only recognize Machen.



White Horse Inn would be another good example, yeah. That whole sorry spectacle of Misty Irons and sodomite marriage another one. Of course her husband was very in with the Escondido people if I'm correct?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One thing that makes a person R2K is their radical dichotomous view of Law and grace. They make things so dichotomous that Law and Grace lose their biblical fullness. Another thing they do is remove the full responsibility and accountability to both tables of the Law for the civil kingdom based upon how they define Natural Law.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Username3000

jwright82 said:


> Is that a California joke?


I don’t know. I’m from the Great White North.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

I would say Hart is more of a theological purest in the vein of Machen. Probably a bit more libertarian politically like Machen. I have a difficult time reconciling some of that while totally supporting other aspects of it. Obviously, it all starts with the church. I think we can fully engage both realms as per regular two kingdom theology. I think both realms spill over into each other for better or worse sometimes.


----------



## User20004000

Regarding Hart... A mother of all reductios by Steve over at Triablogue. 

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/01/two-kingdom-fascism.html?m=1

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## VictorBravo

RWD said:


> Regarding Hart... A mother of all reductios by Steve over at Triablogue.
> 
> http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/01/two-kingdom-fascism.html?m=1



After looking at that, I wish we had a sackcloth and ashes icon....

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## User20004000

“Nero did not violate God’s law if he executed Christians who obeyed God rather than man. If Paul continued to preach after the emperor said he may not, then Nero was doing what God ordained government to do.” _D.G. Hart_ ​Am I imagining things or did Hart just say that Nero cannot break God's law by obeying himself?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum

There are 565 comments on that thread. The quote from DGH is about 1/4 of the way into them. That means that

1. There's the original post for context.
2. There's a history of posting for context.
3. There's a whole series of exchanges within the comments, many of which are soundbite, many which are talking over one another, many which are continuation of previous conversation (so, snatches of exchanges that extend cross-post and cross-comment-thread)​https://oldlife.org/2017/01/04/is-donald-trump-mainstreaming-apostasy/

The critique offered by Triablogue is only applicable to itself. It isn't obliged, and it makes no systematic effort at any "interpretation" of DGH's thought. It exercises it's right to criticize one, isolated, _comment-section_ remark (not even a blog-post, where an author might choose to preempt certain critiques). That's fine, if the whole free-for-all is reckoned just a standard internet snipe-fest.

(BTW, I read a lot of Triablogue, and it is a quite useful site, so when I say it may critique as it wills, I'm affirming their right to express any opinions however desired.)​
If you read more of the comments, along with the blog post that inspired them (all 3yrs ago), and put it in the context of the whole blog with many posts, the reductionist and provocative tenor of the post becomes more understandable. DGH takes critique from friend and foe, and offers his own subtle qualifications.

DGH is a college prof, an "intellectual." He is used to stimulating discussion in a classroom setting, he's seldom satisfied with pat answers, and his blog reflects that style. He also writes papers and books, and those are more likely to have a different style of engagement altogether.



RWD said:


> “Nero did not violate God’s law if he executed Christians who obeyed God rather than man. If Paul continued to preach after the emperor said he may not, then Nero was doing what God ordained government to do.” _D.G. Hart_​Am I imagining things or did Hart just say that Nero cannot break God's law by obeying himself?


I think DGH would say that, judged purely on the question of whether punishing sedition (which is what Christians were usually accused of) is within the scope of a ruler's authority, clearly this is "YES." Which is a question that may be considered apart from whether the Christian was _*in fact*_ guilty of sedition as God's looks at it from heaven.

In other words, was Nero culpable on either the human level or the ultimate for his repression? And if so, was that culpability mitigated at all by his ignorance, by his duty to laws in place, or by other limitations? Sweeping these questions aside by peremptory decision for the defendants (Christians) seems to DGH to completely ignore the "ministerial" role fulfilled by the Roman ruler, and NT statements about that rule from the mouth or pen of both Lord and Apostles.

You don't have to agree with DGH's final, nuanced position. But he raises legitimate questions. And the biggest noise against his position come from the party that insists that their position is "self-evidently true," and so anyone who faults it is of course in sin and rebellion. Natch.

Is "the" Christian position on human government ascertainable from a simple read of the NT (or also incorporating OT witness)? I think not. I don't even think there is ONE biblical position; and if there is a single best form for it worldwide and in every time, it isn't discernible purely by theoretical derivation from Scripture. It has to be tried historically and evaluated. That is to say: it is a matter of sanctified, biblical wisdom; and not divine prescription.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## User20004000

I’ll let Steve comment for himself and I’ll refrain from comments about DGH. 

Here’s a bit of my exchange with DGH on that marathon thread. 

Darryl,

Regarding Nero / Greg, I thought my response was a bit more nuanced. As a general rule, I believe subordinates (e.g. soldiers) may submit without hesitation. That’s the ideal. Notwithstanding, I believe there are times when citizens should revolt, soldiers are to commit mutiny. From fiction, was Lt. Steve Maryk right to save in a typhoon minesweeper USS Caine and all on her from the seemingly paranoid Queeg? Was Lance Corporal Dawson and PFC Downy guilty of murdering William Santiago with a “code red” or should they have submitted to Kendrick and ultimately to Colonel Jessup? Was Hawkeye Pierce right to have removed Colonel Lacy’s appendix in order to prevent him from needlessly sacrificing 20% of his soldiers on Hill 403? Although all fiction, these examples highlight complex ethical questions. 

And again, I find it simplistic not to distinguish subordinates from those in authority. In the case of Nero, even if he gets a pass as executioner, which I don’t believe he does, he is certainly guilty of ordering unjust executions. He may not claim he was merely obeying himself.

Ron, I agree. It’s complicated. And sometimes it’s especially complicated for authorities who don’t know if Jesus is the Messiah, a rival monarch, or just one more ascetic preacher.​
Darryl,

I am curious given things you’ve said. If you were locked up unjustly, would you get an attorney or would you suffer for righteousness sake, counting it all a joy? Let’s say you actually were breaking the law for faithfully teaching Romans 1:21ff. Would you object to individuals from your church “forming political action committees” so that you might be released, or the law you broke might be revoked?

Ron, as a citizen, I’d do what Paul did. If not a citizen, I follow Peter. In either case, I take my lumps. What Jesus Did.​
Darryl, 

Thank you for that. So, as a citizen you’d want to be treated as such, just like Paul. Great. Me too. I’m just not sure that tells me whether after being struck for popping off you’d ever approve of “forming political action committees” either to (i) help ensure a speedy and just trial or else (ii) challenge the law on constitutional grounds. Surely you agree that a willingness to take one’s lumps does not in all cases require that one forgo trying to escape punishment. Or do you think a willingness to undergo persecution always precludes seeking release from prison through any means that resembles what you’d call a political action committee? 

If you were in a region from which you did not hail as a citizen, like Peter, can you imagine finding yourself in a situation wherein you might consider getting help from back home? Or do you think God’s word forbids non-citizens from trying to extricate themselves from hostile governments while overseas? 

Darryl, you’re frustrated with what can be a very frustrating church – a church that may very well have an unhealthy obsession with “my rights” rather than a devotion that would follow the downward trek of the Savior. To what I think is your point, we should all be willing to to be crucified upside-down. Even count it a privilege. So, I get in some sense splattering over the finer points of this discussion because of deficient thinking within the church. I just don’t think it helps your cause. You’re not being as effective as you might. For what it’s worth, this sort of paintball modus operandi didn’t help Doug Wilson whose main gripe, as I saw it, was with evangelicals who rejected the Reformed tenet that there is any ordinary way of salvation outside the visible church. In Doug’s effort to make that point without precision and greater care, he ended up collapsing his soteriology into his ecclesiology, undermining anything Reformed. My advice would be don’t make the same mistake. A little more nuance and occasional reiteration of your exceptions isn’t just for “world view types.” Clarity, especially for the sake of unity over truth, is always under good regulation.

Ron, I took out the trash. Now I need to do it joyfully? Stop. It’s a blog.​
[Even I know when someone isn’t interested in defending a position. The blog card. Right. Why didn’t I think of that?]

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

RWD said:


> “Nero did not violate God’s law if he executed Christians who obeyed God rather than man. If Paul continued to preach after the emperor said he may not, then Nero was doing what God ordained government to do.” _D.G. Hart_​Am I imagining things or did Hart just say that Nero cannot break God's law by obeying himself?



Having spent a considerable time following his blog (a number of years ago) I'd say that quote is an excellent summary of his philosophy. He should use it as his site's mast head.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith

Contra_Mundum said:


> There are 565 comments on that thread. The quote from DGH is about 1/4 of the way into them. That means that
> 
> 1. There's the original post for context.
> 2. There's a history of posting for context.
> 3. There's a whole series of exchanges within the comments, many of which are soundbite, many which are talking over one another, many which are continuation of previous conversation (so, snatches of exchanges that extend cross-post and cross-comment-thread)​https://oldlife.org/2017/01/04/is-donald-trump-mainstreaming-apostasy/
> 
> The critique offered by Triablogue is only applicable to itself. It isn't obliged, and it makes no systematic effort at any "interpretation" of DGH's thought. It exercises it's right to criticize one, isolated, _comment-section_ remark (not even a blog-post, where an author might choose to preempt certain critiques). That's fine, if the whole free-for-all is reckoned just a standard internet snipe-fest.
> 
> (BTW, I read a lot of Triablogue, and it is a quite useful site, so when I say it may critique as it wills, I'm affirming their right to express any opinions however desired.)​
> If you read more of the comments, along with the blog post that inspired them (all 3yrs ago), and put it in the context of the whole blog with many posts, the reductionist and provocative tenor of the post becomes more understandable. DGH takes critique from friend and foe, and offers his own subtle qualifications.
> 
> DGH is a college prof, an "intellectual." He is used to stimulating discussion in a classroom setting, he's seldom satisfied with pat answers, and his blog reflects that style. He also writes papers and books, and those are more likely to have a different style of engagement altogether.
> 
> 
> I think DGH would say that, judged purely on the question of whether punishing sedition (which is what Christians were usually accused of) is within the scope of a ruler's authority, clearly this is "YES." Which is a question that may be considered apart from whether the Christian was _*in fact*_ guilty of sedition as God's looks at it from heaven.
> 
> In other words, was Nero culpable on either the human level or the ultimate for his repression? And if so, was that culpability mitigated at all by his ignorance, by his duty to laws in place, or by other limitations? Sweeping these questions aside by peremptory decision for the defendants (Christians) seems to DGH to completely ignore the "ministerial" role fulfilled by the Roman ruler, and NT statements about that rule from the mouth or pen of both Lord and Apostles.
> 
> You don't have to agree with DGH's final, nuanced position. But he raises legitimate questions. And the biggest noise against his position come from the party that insists that their position is "self-evidently true," and so anyone who faults it is of course in sin and rebellion. Natch.
> 
> Is "the" Christian position on human government ascertainable from a simple read of the NT (or also incorporating OT witness)? I think not. I don't even think there is ONE biblical position; and if there is a single best form for it worldwide and in every time, it isn't discernible purely by theoretical derivation from Scripture. It has to be tried historically and evaluated. That is to say: it is a matter of sanctified, biblical wisdom; and not divine prescription.



Of course Hart's blog has a certain tone and purpose that is not that of the systematic theology professor. However his blog is purpotedly a _Christian_ blog. His purpose appears to be to offer direction and teaching to Christians and the church at large. His blog is not his classroom. He has a duty to the church to promote Biblical doctrine and godliness if he is going to take it upon himself to speak publicly on Christian things. The fact that he allows the sewer which is the comments section of his blog to carry on is enough to question the whole enterprise never mind what he himself actually posts.

As to the post in question maybe he is technically correct, maybe he isn't. What is more concerning is that- again, having spent a good deal of time reading his blog and the comments in the past- one thinks he would have been quite happy with Nero's slaughter of the Christians because of their insubordination.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## jwithnell

Would Tullian Tchividjian be considered R2K, particularly in making a cleft between grace and law? (Wish I could put that in the past tense, but he appears to be in the pulpit again.)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have a blog that has dealt with Tullian and others concerning this stuff. 

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ividjian-depraved-christianity-antinomianism/

I use to go back and forth with DG at one time on his blog. I like the guy. I would be able to sit down, imbibe, and share of bowl of Black Cavendish with him. I think he is a good clean example of Radical 2K advocacy (or as some would call it Natural Law Two Kingdoms). Either way it is Klinianism run a muck. He has also been called out for his interpretation of Machen. He interprets everything through the lens of his radical dichotomous views of Law and Grace which lead to his Radical 2 Kingdom conclusions. But I like the guy. He is fun.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have a blog that has dealt with Tullian and others concerning this stuff.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ividjian-depraved-christianity-antinomianism/
> 
> I use to go back and forth with DG at one time on his blog. I like the guy. I would be able to sit down, imbibe, and share of bowl of Black Cavendish with him. I think he is a good clean example of Radical 2K advocacy (or as some would call it Natural Law Two Kingdoms). Either way it is Klinianism run a muck. He has also been called out for his interpretation of Machen. He interprets everything through the lens of his radical dichotomous views of Law and Grace which lead to his Radical 2 Kingdom conclusions. But I like the guy. He is fun.



I sent him a bow tie once through a mutual friend. 

Here’s another interaction from another critical thinker. 
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/series-of-unfortunate-arguments-for-r2k.html?m=1


----------



## Nate

Has anyone published a direct critique of R2K, or at least the WSC flavor of R2K?

Elam and Van Kooten published a critique of Klinean Republication with their _Merit and Moses. _Has anyone done the same for R2K and/or what is being called here the WSC dichotomisation of law and gospel?


----------



## alexandermsmith

jwithnell said:


> Would Tullian Tchividjian be considered R2K, particularly in making a cleft between grace and law? (Wish I could put that in the past tense, but he appears to be in the pulpit again.)



Honestly I think he is just a rank antinomian. R2K at least makes the attempt to ground their understanding of the Law in the spirituality of the church doctrine. Ostensibly R2K should promote the use of the Law as regulative at least for the Christian. The problem is in practice I don't see that being the case beyond the most general application of the Law.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith

Nate said:


> Has anyone published a direct critique of R2K, or at least the WSC flavor of R2K?
> 
> Elam and Van Kooten published a critique of Klinean Republication with their _Merit and Moses. _Has anyone done the same for R2K and/or what is being called here the WSC dichotomisation of law and gospel?



Not that I'm aware of. The Bayly brothers on their blog interacted with it a lot a number of years ago (they could well be talking about it now). I don't know if you'd really want to go down that rabbit hole though. I think interactions with and critiques of Republication probably address some of the key presuppositions of R2K, indirectly at least. Although I don't know if Hart is a Klinean. 

I've always read R2K as more a sensibility rather than a fully fleshed out doctrine. A sensibility that is motivated by a sneering contempt for Fundamentalism (a number of the key R2K guys are ex-Fundamentalists) and a love for a lot of the things the world has to offer. In seeking Biblical support for this attitude they have adopted the spirituality of the church doctrine because of its pedigree and its association with the Southern Presbyterian church which, from what I understand, had a reputation as a very rigorous "truly Reformed" denomination which prized theological precision and didn't have the "pietistic" baggage of other Reformed denominations. (None of that is meant as a value judgment on any of those terms. Just reading it as I see it). Because these R2K guys have sought, since their conversion to Reformed theology, to be as Reformed as one can be they have attached themselves to what they consider the very essence of true Reformed Christianity: the Early Reformers and people like Machen. Their disdain for Puritan/Scottish experimental Christianity goes hand in hand with their views on these other matters.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Amen 1 | Sad 1


----------



## BottleOfTears

A.Joseph said:


> My pastor, Lane Tipton, would be regular for sure.


If I recall correctly, on an episode of Vos Group, Two Kingdoms came up. I believe Dr. Tipton was appreciative of some 2K stuff, but he definitely wasn't as negative as a lot of this thread has been. That's rather confusing to me.



alexandermsmith said:


> and a love for a lot of the things the world has to offer


This is a pretty serious accusation. Would you like to back it up in any way?



alexandermsmith said:


> Their disdain for Puritan/Scottish experimental Christianity goes hand in hand with their views on these other matters.


In what way are these connected? I also think there is a difference between critiquing say modern evangelical pietism and critiquing the puritans, which seems to be a far more common theme in Michael Horton or RSC's works.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000

Nate said:


> Has anyone published a direct critique of R2K, or at least the WSC flavor of R2K?
> 
> Elam and Van Kooten published a critique of Klinean Republication with their _Merit and Moses. _Has anyone done the same for R2K and/or what is being called here the WSC dichotomisation of law and gospel?



Not as exhaustive as you might like but I’ve provided a couple of links below that might be of interest.

Maybe keep in mind that because R2K is closely related to an over reliance upon natural law, to criticize the latter is to look unfavorably upon the former. That’s why these two critiques by Kloosterman and Frame of Van Drunen’s natural law gets into 2K considerations. 

https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=77

https://frame-poythress.org/review-of-david-van-drunens-a-biblical-case-for-natural-law/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

BottleOfTears said:


> If I recall correctly, on an episode of Vos Group, Two Kingdoms came up. I believe Dr. Tipton was appreciative of some 2K stuff, but he definitely wasn't as negative as a lot of this thread has been. That's rather confusing to me.
> 
> 
> This is a pretty serious accusation. Would you like to back it up in any way?
> 
> 
> In what way are these connected? I also think there is a difference between critiquing say modern evangelical pietism and critiquing the puritans, which seems to be a far more common theme in Michael Horton or RSC's works.



Hart's blog is _full_ of glowing references to tv shows, films and other worldly culture. It's not just one or two references but habitual. One of his heroes is Mencken. Just go through his blog it is all there. I might also have suggested reading the comments of his followers but that is grim reading.

I'm not saying that, for example, Clark is like that (though he's always talking about American Football) but Hart certainly is.

They're connected because people like Hart think Puritan/Scottish Christianity is subjective and unReformed. They rarely make references to writers from those periods and when they do often the references are unfavourable. Whereas someone like Clark is forever referencing the very early Reformers as if they are the pinnacle of Reformed thought. Clark will jump straight from the 16th century to the 20th. Other than Boston I honestly can't remember reading any engagement by him with Scottish divines.

It's an attitude which permeates them: anti-experimental religion (which they put under the banner of pietism) and a very lenient attitude to engagement with the world by Christians.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

alexandermsmith said:


> It's an attitude which permeates them: anti-experimental religion (which they put under the banner of pietism) and a very lenient attitude to engagement with the world by Christians.


This is slanderous (typical) nonsense.

Clark's extensive quotations favorably reference a particular _stream _of Reformed thought, both from the Continent and the Isles, which extend into the 17th and 18th centuries. In other words, his is an argument of continuity, and one that does not aim at so broad an embrace as some others might like. Others who, in their own right, often draw such a line demarcating their full approval themselves, only further afield.

In addition, Clark has numerous favorable references to the _Marrow of Modern Divinity, _which was opposed around the time it was republished (later annotated by Boston) as too experimental (among other things) by the legalist party. He has favorably quoted Seceders such as Ralph & Ebenezer Erskine.

Legalists and moralists don't have title to experimental religion. Neither do antinominans. One of the chief questions is: what determines true _piety? _Clark et al argue for a particular form of Reformed _piety, _not Pietism. The form they argue in favor of is distinct from that which is influenced by revivalism and by certain streams of introspective Puritanism (which is a label, like "Evangelicalism" so broad as ordinarily to demand qualification of some kind).

For his part, Hart is a defender of Christian liberty in an era that is both secularly licentious and _reactionarily _religiously moralist (outside the sphere where the church is just like the world). That is something he should not have to apologize for.

Reactions: Like 6 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Nate said:


> Has anyone published a direct critique of R2K, or at least the WSC flavor of R2K?
> 
> Elam and Van Kooten published a critique of Klinean Republication with their _Merit and Moses. _Has anyone done the same for R2K and/or what is being called here the WSC dichotomisation of law and gospel?



Frame, John. _Escondido Theology_.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> and a love for a lot of the things the world has to offer.



Wow. When Paul used that language in his epistles, it was directed at those who had abandoned the gospel. I disagree with the supposed "R" 2K guys on many things, but I would never go that far.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## mvdm

There are numerous lengthy critiques of Escondido R2k. Among them:

https://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/04-venemajournal2012.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Kingdoms-Apart-Engaging-Two-Perspective/dp/1596384352

https://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/29/calvin-2k-1/

https://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/29/calvin-2k-2/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

alexandermsmith said:


> Hart's blog is _full_ of glowing references to tv shows, films and other worldly culture. It's not just one or two references but habitual. One of his heroes is Mencken. Just go through his blog it is all there. I might also have suggested reading the comments of his followers but that is grim reading.
> 
> I'm not saying that, for example, Clark is like that (though he's always talking about American Football) but Hart certainly is.
> 
> They're connected because people like Hart think Puritan/Scottish Christianity is subjective and unReformed. They rarely make references to writers from those periods and when they do often the references are unfavourable. Whereas someone like Clark is forever referencing the very early Reformers as if they are the pinnacle of Reformed thought. Clark will jump straight from the 16th century to the 20th. Other than Boston I honestly can't remember reading any engagement by him with Scottish divines.
> 
> It's an attitude which permeates them: anti-experimental religion (which they put under the banner of pietism) and a very lenient attitude to engagement with the world by Christians.


What exactly do you mean by R2K? I didn’t think you meant what you are implying, which seems to be a Christian embrace of worldliness, almost to the point of being more comfortable in the world.

Are you a member of Free Reformed? There are probably some cultural distinctions at play that inform your critique. Ones that I probably won’t ever stop wrestling with. I would say my experience as a member of the NRC, occasional visitor of the Free Reformed Church, and now member of the OPC has sharpened my familiarity with various areas of distinctiveness and identity. And the more I learn about some of that the less I seem to truly know and understand.


----------



## A.Joseph

Could you dumb that down for me? What door did Kline exactly open? Can you not be too technical as to lose me? And how does it link to R2K in a practical sense (and curiously how may Hart accidentally or purposely be promoting it)? This is related to republication also? How exactly?


PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have a blog that has dealt with Tullian and others concerning this stuff.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ividjian-depraved-christianity-antinomianism/
> 
> I use to go back and forth with DG at one time on his blog. I like the guy. I would be able to sit down, imbibe, and share of bowl of Black Cavendish with him. I think he is a good clean example of Radical 2K advocacy (or as some would call it Natural Law Two Kingdoms). Either way it is Klinianism run a muck. He has also been called out for his interpretation of Machen. He interprets everything through the lens of his radical dichotomous views of Law and Grace which lead to his Radical 2 Kingdom conclusions. But I like the guy. He is fun.


----------



## SavedSinner

A.Joseph said:


> What exactly do you mean by R2K? I didn’t think you meant what you are implying, which seems to be a Christian embrace of worldliness, almost to the point of being more comfortable in the world.
> 
> Are you a member of Free Reformed? There are probably some cultural distinctions at play that inform your critique. Ones that I probably won’t ever stop wrestling with. I would say my experience as a member of the NRC, occasional visitor of the Free Reformed Church, and now member of the OPC has sharpened my familiarity with various areas of distinctiveness and identity. And the more I learn about some of that the less I seem to truly know and understand.


The revisionists are now the establishment, so if you want to read the authoritative biography of J Gresham Machen, by Stonehouse, you will see that he was not a libertarian.

I think Mr Smith is from Britain---The Free Reformed Churches are in Canada and the USA. The Free Reformed rejected kuyperianism and antinomianism that influenced the CRC and now most reformed churches. A good reference is Cornelis Pronk’s book “A Goodly Heritage: The Secession of 1834”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nate

BayouHuguenot said:


> Frame, John. _Escondido Theology_.



Have you reviewed this book, Jacob? I would be interested in your detailed take on the issue(s) too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nate

I think I remember a _sic et non _series on R2K and Law/Gospel in the some of the earlier Confessional Presbyterian issues too. That was a good rubric. Any interest in renewing that rubric, @NaphtaliPress?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

SavedSinner said:


> The revisionists are now the establishment, so if you want to read the authoritative biography of J Gresham Machen, by Stonehouse, you will see that he was not a libertarian.


We should define "libertarian."

Machen's _libertarianism, _if it may be called that, is discernible his _political _"libertarian" views, that is to say his public defenses as a private citizen of policy that was quite against the grain of the more popular (even then) progressive sort of interpretation of State power. He opposed, for various reasons, laws against jaywalking, prayer in public schools, and the creation of a Federal Dept. of Education (and perhaps other things as well). He also took a fairly anti-war posture, both before and after his experience as a RedCross volunteer (right behind the frontlines) in France during WWI.

All those positions are aligned today with one peculiarly "libertarian" political/economic view, which is distinct from a distinctly more *libertine *view of "libertarianism" as popularized by _Reason_ magazine or AynRandians; who also have political, warfare, and economic views. "Libertarianism" is diverse as opposed to doctrinaire and monolithic; as diverse as is "conservatism," or "liberalism," and the like.

Machen's views, then, on _Christian liberty _within a religious context are both distinguishable from his political mind, and also (as we might expect) at least somewhat consistent with them. Advocacy tends to latch on some aspect of a man's thought (who often lived in a very different time and clime from today), and claim him through-and-through for himself.

Machen was a man of his time, as we are men of ours. He may justly be classed as a "conservative" in certain religious matters of doctrine and life. He was also opposed to certain things that many of today's "conservatives" believe to be essential commitments of their general stance. People seem to think, also, that being "conservative" or "liberal" within one area of life demands alignment or consent to the label in other areas.

All conservatives aren't intrinsically opposed to change (some are), but some rather to the rate of change. Some conservatives believe some things shouldn't change at all, and that other things should change naturally. And, that some things should change as fast as feasible, so long as the particular problem demands it, and no greater harm results from undue haste.

The latter category describes the "conservative Reformation" of the 16th century. The aim was to get back to an older purity, recovering an ancient standard--which was a "conservative" ideal--but the papists treated all this activity as "liberal" and "radical." The Lutherans thought the Reformed generally went too far. The true radicals were the Anabaptists and others like them, along with doctrinal innovaters like the anti-Trinitarians.

So, was Machen a "conservative" or a "libertarian?" Yes. He was a champion of the faithful doctrine of the past, and sought to recover it for the church. And failing that, to preserve it among a remnant committed to Reformation Presbyterianism.

He was no antinomian, and believed in the moral (i.e. natural) law. He would not have been in favor of a state that paid no attention to sound laws benefiting the populace generally, not just Christians. He thought that if a city or a place had "blue laws" (Sunday restrictions), that was a good thing. He would vote to keep them if he could. But would he start a campaign to keep them, or bring them back; or support someone who was? That is not something we can tell, just from his favor of them in place; or from his theology.

Many USA conservatives today are down-the-line advocates of proactive military action (all in the name of "defense," of course). They'd prefer it was exercised by the POTUS they voted for, but in principle they aren't opposed to "foreign adventures," so long as there is some plausible justification, and some promise of a definable "victory." Machen, if we can project him out of his time into ours without substantive change of mind, would almost certainly be vociferously against these conservatives. He'd be a certain kind of "libertarian," or a certain kind of "conservative," depending on how those words are defined and what the opposition's own label is.

Many USA conservatives today think the public schools are justifiable (even if they don't like some or most of them); and that they'd be better off having formal prayer in them. Machen (again if we move him anachronistically) would stand opposed to the latter, and quite possibly the former. He had theological problems and Constitutional problems with the form and the matter. Here is a case of alignment of his notions of political and Christian liberty stances.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Nate said:


> I think I remember a _sic et non _series on R2K and Law/Gospel in the some of the earlier Confessional Presbyterian issues too. That was a good rubric. Any interest in renewing that rubric, @NaphtaliPress?


We introduced it as an occasional feature. I think we did another on exclusive psalmody. Both proved hard to manage I have to say. But if a subject and two temperate parties to engage proposed themselves, we might give a third go at it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## mvdm

DGH's statement was not nuanced. The context of that lengthy thread did not disabuse anyone of the clear meaning: Nero did not violate God's law when he executed Christians who obeyed God rather than Nero. The only question is whether that statement is in line with confessional Reformed thought or even basic Christianity.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist

Nate said:


> Have you reviewed this book, Jacob? I would be interested in your detailed take on the issue(s) too.



I have not, though I can sort of expect what Frame will say. Frame will press the Lordship in all areas angle. Frame, however, is weak on historical distinctions and nuances when it comes to the 2 kingdoms debate. I don't think either side has a knock-out argument.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BottleOfTears

alexandermsmith said:


> They're connected because people like Hart think Puritan/Scottish Christianity is subjective and unReformed. They rarely make references to writers from those periods and when they do often the references are unfavourable. Whereas someone like Clark is forever referencing the very early Reformers as if they are the pinnacle of Reformed thought. Clark will jump straight from the 16th century to the 20th. Other than Boston I honestly can't remember reading any engagement by him with Scottish divines.


If you glance through the Heidelblog you will see many quotations from Turretin, Witsius, and Owen, all 17th century figures. Clark hardly "jumps straight over" these periods. What about the fact that he has co-edited translations of Johannes Cocceius and JH Heidegger? A significant portion of his books and essays are devoted to Reformed Orthodoxy on some level. If he loves the "very early Reformers" so much, why does the Heidelblog have 4 posts on Martin Bucer a "very early reformer", compared to 10 on the later and much more obscure Amandus Polanus?

In terms of his view on the Puritans being too "subjective", I believe the first thing Dr. Clark would do, being the historian that he is, is argue that defining "puritanism" is incredibly difficult, and so it is hard to speak about the "puritans" in general terms.

In fact, he completely rejects the notion that "the puritans were unhealthily introspective" as a generalising caricature:



> One of the assumptions embedded in writing about “the Puritans” on introspection and assurance is that British Reformed writers were isolated from the continent and that simply isn’t the case. The fathers of English Reformed theology, e.g., William Perkins and William Ames were well read in the European Reformed writers of their period and they, in turn, were widely read by the Europeans. They all wrote in Latin, the universal academic language of the period. Dutch Reformed theology was deeply influenced by Perkins and Ames and I don’t think it’s possible to read them fairly and denounce them as unduly introspective and we don’t read much about the unhealthy introspection of the Dutch Reformed writers of the same period. The British and European Reformed writers in the period had no idea that there was any great theological chasm between them—because there was none.



I highly suggest you read the whole article.

Among others, Joel Beeke is listed by Clark as someone who "challenged decisively" the idea that "the puritans" were guilty of being overly-introspective. I mean, if RSC hates the puritans so much, what's he doing citing Joel Beeke, perhaps Puritan Fan Number One, as a good source on whether or not the puritans were too subjective?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

I prefer the guidance of the unedited Westminster Standards.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## A.Joseph

I think this sums up Hart from Wikipedia,

“In a Wall Street Journal review of Hart's 2013 book, Calvinism: A History; Barton Swaim describes him as, "a cantankerous conservative, a stalwart Presbyterian and a talented polemicist with a delightfully perverse sense of humor."[4]

Stephen J. Nichols states that, like many other theologians, Hart is of the opinion that "theology, like nature, abhors a vacuum," in that theologizing is influenced by culture.[5]

*H*art follows in the tradition of J. Gresham Machen (to whom he dedicated his book Secular Faith) in espousing an approach to politics that engages at the level of the individual rather than that of the church. Hart makes the observation that "[e]fforts to use Christianity for public or political ends fundamentally distort the Christian religion."[6] In Secular Faith Hart argues for the church to follow its mission by standing apart as a witness, suggesting that the nature of Christianity is "otherworldly", and criticizing those who "have tried to use their faith for political engagement".[7]


----------



## Pilgrim

I've never thought that Clark was anti-experimental religion. (To my recollection though, he did defend Tullian Tchvidjian's teaching at some length, which is evidence of what someone (Jean?) posted earlier about possible problems with an extreme law-grace distinction and perhaps the fruit of seeing everything through the lens of justification rather than union with Christ. You don't have to agree with things like "final justification" to suspect that there are problems with that perspective.)

But with Hart, however, the charge that he rejects anti-experimental religion --and more specifically, largely rejects Puritan spirituality--is some mud that sticks. We've had several threads about this in the past. (To my recollection, Rev. Winzer largely agreed with this critique and said he preferred the "hart" of Psalm 42.) In his invective against pietism, does Hart throw genuine piety overboard too?

Hart appears to look askance at all revivals, including the First Great Awakening, and would prefer prayers to be read from a prayer book than to have to listen to Presbyterian ruling elders and others (including some ministers) pray who are not up to his standards. Read this and then tell me that he doesn't look at any kind of experimental religion with a jaundiced eye. This is what led Hart to admire Nevin and take his side over Hodge and company. It's also why some FV and NPP fans who were in Reformed churches 15 years ago were surprised when Hart denounced Wright et al since previously he had basically agreed that Reformed worship was "Baptist." (Perhaps it was his commitment to a "secular faith," which FV and NPP both reject, and his churchmanship as a whole that led him to side with what his doctrinal standards say rather than take his views to what some might term their "logical conclusion" and embrace paedocommunion.) 

Hart is also wrong that there is rarely an adjustment for Baptists coming into Presbyterianism beyond the infant baptism issue. Has he not been in a Baptist church since his IFB days so many decades ago? I wonder. Does he not know that with the exception of extreme IFB congregations and perhaps churches where a 60 year old grandfather is a youngster, Baptist worship today (and perhaps for the past quarter century at least) more often resembles charismatic worship than anything else? Does he not know that many Baptists have probably never even sang from a hymnal and that many may never have even seen one? Typical OPC worship (which Hart says is "low church") is considered extremely formal by the vast majority of Baptists and evangelicals in general today, so much so that many would go once and would never return because of how "dead" it seems, and maybe even how "Catholic" it seems. In fairness, this article is about 20 years old. Regardless, the "Worship Wars" were already over by then in most Baptist churches, with the hymnals consigned to the dust bin, and the choir replaced by the "Praise Band." Most of the Baptist people for whom OPC worship wouldn't have been a huge adjustment even then would have been middle aged or older. (Just think of the words "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" on the mouth of a typical Baptist.) I know that Hart would probably say that his article is 20 years old and that it doesn't invalidate his argument. But I do think it is evidence of a skewed perspective that may not recognize what "low church" means today. 

I've been in dozens of Presbyterian congregations in the past 15 years. I've only been in one that was so "low church" that it didn't sing the doxology, say the creed, and generally resembled a Baptist church with the exception that they were still using hymnals, a non-Reformed one in their case.

The unique thing about Radical or Escondido 2k is that they (and Hart in particular) sometimes want to return to a more "High Church" or "pre-Puritan" spirituality of the Magisterial Reformers, (and laud Christendom in that sense, as Hart did in that article) yet they embrace a view of church and state that is totally opposed to Christendom and which no Reformed people before the late 18th Century would have embraced. Perhaps it is an overreaction to the Religious Right? I've got problems with prayer and Bible teaching in schools, etc., especially in today's climate, but wouldn't the USA be much more secular today (more resembling Europe) if the public schools hadn't been Protestant (in a generic sense) until the mid-20th Century? Part of the heat that Hart takes is because such a prospect doesn't seem all that undesirable for him. After all, he'd be rid of the Falwells and Robertsons of the world.

Reading R2k material (and perhaps Hart in particular) can leave you with the impression that Christianity is for home and church but doesn't have a whole lot of relevance elsewhere. This isn't without a grasp of some important truths, such as a critique of the idea that "All of life is worship" (almost always said by people who reject the RPW in any sense). But it can also lead to what I've termed a practical hyper-Calvinism, where you are eventually unable to speak into the wider culture, and maybe think it is relatively unimportant. Sharing your faith? Well that's the pastor's job. There is a lot of invective against worldview thinking. There are indeed problems with some of it. But R2k tends to leave you with the idea that the whole idea is wrongheaded.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pilgrim

This is one of the other threads I was thinking of: 

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-non-importance-of-prayer-meetings.86652/


----------



## A.Joseph

The only thing I can observe with a degree of certainty is that Hart is skeptical of the religious right evangelicals in the way Machen was.

But there are other pitfalls of being theologically on point and forgoing (or deemphasizing) the experiential part (in a reformed not mainstream evangelical sense). I don’t know enough to imply that Hart does that and I have no reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt in these matters. To risk name dropping one more time, Dr. Lane Tipton, who is my ‘part-time’ pastor, is always emphasizing union with Christ and how we often suffer to be conformed to (and comfort in) Him and our true home. This may be expressed and ultimately look a little different than the puritans in some ways and not so much in others. I think if pressed Hart would and does embrace his union with Christ, probably even in a way he didn’t 10 to 20 years ago, doesn’t mean he will lose his personality, outside interests and critical edge but I’m sure he puts first things first especially as he gets closer to his heavenly home.


----------



## Susan777

A.Joseph said:


> The only thing I can observe with a degree of certainty is that Hart is skeptical of the religious right evangelicals in the way Machen was.
> 
> But there are other pitfalls of being theologically on point and forgoing (or deemphasizing) the experiential part (in a reformed not mainstream evangelical sense). I don’t know enough to imply that Hart does that and I have no reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt in these matters. To risk name dropping one more time, Dr. Lane Tipton, who is my ‘part-time’ pastor, is always emphasizing union with Christ and how we often suffer to be conformed and comfort in Him and our true home. This may be expressed and ultimately look a little different than the puritans in some ways and not so much in others. I think if pressed Hart would and does embrace his union with Christ, probably even in a way he didn’t 10 to 20 years ago, doesn’t mean he will lose his personality, outside interests and critical edge but I’m sure he puts first things first especially as he gets closer to his heavenly home.


AJ, have you read the 3 posts that Pilgrim refers to above?


----------



## A.Joseph

Susan777 said:


> AJ, have you read the 3 posts that Pilgrim refers to above?


I have not.

I will add that if you want to measure Hart, you have to use Machen as your barometer. Was Machen a R2Ker? If so, in any form, what were his motivations/intent? I will, in turn, refer you to post #39 on this thread.

Also, It’s easy to see charges of theonomy/legalism being cast from one side and humanism(rather than the more acceptable theistic term/concept of natural law)/antinomianism from the other.


----------



## Susan777

A.Joseph said:


> I have not.
> 
> I will add that if you want to measure Hart, you have to use Machen as your barometer. Was Machen a R2Ker? If so, in any form, what were his motivations/intent? I will, in turn, refer you to post #39 on this thread.
> 
> Also, It’s easy to see charges of theonomy/legalism being cast from one side and humanism(rather than the more acceptable theistic term/concept of natural law)/antinomianism from the other.


I’m really not following your thoughts AJ. I’m not interested in “measuring Hart” so much as getting a good understanding of his theology. I don’t need to run him through the lens of Machen (of blessed memory). Hart writes in a public way and so I read his output. You should do this to be better informed. I don’t understand your last sentence at all.


----------



## A.Joseph

Susan777 said:


> I’m really not following your thoughts AJ. I’m not interested in “measuring Hart” so much as getting a good understanding of his theology. I don’t need to run him through the lens of Machen (of blessed memory). Hart writes in a public way and so I read his output. You should do this to be better informed. I don’t understand your last sentence at all.


I read one of the links and was touching on the charge that Hart is a R2Ker. I’m not sure that’s a sound conclusion. In what areas specifically do you think he’s lacking? I think his theology is what Machen espoused. I don’t think he advocates any changes in theology but he’s a realist regarding the affairs outside the church, which is to be expected with the revisions to the WCF and tolerance of different forms of religious expression including various Christian sects.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

For the sake of your own sanity, never get involved in the comments section of the Old Life blog. Daryl Hart is a friend of mine, but if you start taking the posts and comments on the blog seriously you are run the risk of becoming as crazy as he is.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

One other thing that we need to flag up, which often gets overlooked, is that the libertarianism of some of the R2Kers on homosexual "marriage" (to be fair, the likes of R. Scott Clark would oppose the legalisation of homosexual "marriages"), contradicts the original intent of Westminster Confession 24.4. 

In relation to incestuous marriages, the Confession states, "nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties." If that is true of incestuous marriages between persons of the opposite sex, how much more is it true of sodomite "marriages" between those of the same sex.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777

Reformed Covenanter said:


> For the sake of your own sanity, never get involved in the comments section of the Old Life blog. Daryl Hart is a friend of mine, but if you start taking the posts and comments on the blog seriously you are run the risk of becoming as crazy as he is.


Daniel, do you recognize any of the men and women shown on the masthead?


----------



## User20004000

Reformed Covenanter said:


> For the sake of your own sanity, never get involved in the comments section of the Old Life blog. Daryl Hart is a friend of mine, but if you start taking the posts and comments on the blog seriously you are run the risk of becoming as crazy as he is.



Great advice but those were from Greenbaggins. Does the general equity of your counsel still apply?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

RWD said:


> Great advice but those were from Greenbaggins. Does the general equity of your counsel still apply?



It is a parallel case, so, yes, I suppose it does. I hasten to add, though, that I do not regard @greenbaggins as being as nuts as D. G. Hart ... or even as nuts at all. 

One of the funniest moments of my Ph.D. studies was when I got a feedback sheet from my supervisor on a chapter that I had written. The first line of which read, "Citing D. G. Hart does not help your case." I enjoyed later telling Darryl about it in person.


----------



## User20004000

Reformed Covenanter said:


> It is a parallel case, so, yes, I suppose it does. I hasten to add, though, that I do not regard @greenbaggins as being as nuts as D. G. Hart ... or even as nuts at all.
> 
> One of the funniest moments of my Ph.D. studies was when I got a feedback sheet from my supervisor on a chapter that I had written. The first line of which read, "Citing D. G. Hart does not help your case." I enjoyed later telling Darryl about it in person.



Stirring the pot indeed! 

Point of clarification, Greenbaggins was a reference to the site from which the DGH quotes came. It wasn’t a reference to GB the man.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Susan777 said:


> Daniel, do you recognize any of the men and women shown on the masthead?



Do you mean of the blog? There was one guy smoking a cigarette when I checked it 5 minutes ago. I do not know who he is. I also do not get the obsession with smoking, though I have always hated the smell of cigarette smoke and the damage they do to people's health.

I did notice that DGH was doing a podcast of J. G. Machen with two PCI ministers that I know (one more so than the other).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I also do not get the obsession with smoking, though I have always hated the smell of cigarette smoke and the damage they do to people's health.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I hasten to add, though, that I do not regard @greenbaggins as being as nuts as D. G. Hart


You might have to do penance for a comment like that. But Lane has assured me if you quote Vos plenty of times, he will 'credit' it to your sanctification

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Hart has one of the funnier blogs and twitter accounts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

Contra_Mundum said:


> There are 565 comments on that thread. The quote from DGH is about 1/4 of the way into them. That means that
> 
> 1. There's the original post for context.
> 2. There's a history of posting for context.
> 3. There's a whole series of exchanges within the comments, many of which are soundbite, many which are talking over one another, many which are continuation of previous conversation (so, snatches of exchanges that extend cross-post and cross-comment-thread)​https://oldlife.org/2017/01/04/is-donald-trump-mainstreaming-apostasy/
> 
> The critique offered by Triablogue is only applicable to itself. It isn't obliged, and it makes no systematic effort at any "interpretation" of DGH's thought. It exercises it's right to criticize one, isolated, _comment-section_ remark (not even a blog-post, where an author might choose to preempt certain critiques). That's fine, if the whole free-for-all is reckoned just a standard internet snipe-fest.
> 
> (BTW, I read a lot of Triablogue, and it is a quite useful site, so when I say it may critique as it wills, I'm affirming their right to express any opinions however desired.)​
> If you read more of the comments, along with the blog post that inspired them (all 3yrs ago), and put it in the context of the whole blog with many posts, the reductionist and provocative tenor of the post becomes more understandable. DGH takes critique from friend and foe, and offers his own subtle qualifications.
> 
> DGH is a college prof, an "intellectual." He is used to stimulating discussion in a classroom setting, he's seldom satisfied with pat answers, and his blog reflects that style. He also writes papers and books, and those are more likely to have a different style of engagement altogether.
> 
> 
> I think DGH would say that, judged purely on the question of whether punishing sedition (which is what Christians were usually accused of) is within the scope of a ruler's authority, clearly this is "YES." Which is a question that may be considered apart from whether the Christian was _*in fact*_ guilty of sedition as God's looks at it from heaven.
> 
> In other words, was Nero culpable on either the human level or the ultimate for his repression? And if so, was that culpability mitigated at all by his ignorance, by his duty to laws in place, or by other limitations? Sweeping these questions aside by peremptory decision for the defendants (Christians) seems to DGH to completely ignore the "ministerial" role fulfilled by the Roman ruler, and NT statements about that rule from the mouth or pen of both Lord and Apostles.
> 
> You don't have to agree with DGH's final, nuanced position. But he raises legitimate questions. And the biggest noise against his position come from the party that insists that their position is "self-evidently true," and so anyone who faults it is of course in sin and rebellion. Natch.
> 
> Is "the" Christian position on human government ascertainable from a simple read of the NT (or also incorporating OT witness)? I think not. I don't even think there is ONE biblical position; and if there is a single best form for it worldwide and in every time, it isn't discernible purely by theoretical derivation from Scripture. It has to be tried historically and evaluated. That is to say: it is a matter of sanctified, biblical wisdom; and not divine prescription.


I agree. All too often I come across people who are frustrated at the state or sections of the church who see complex ethical, political, issues as simple. When they are complex. But I think all can agree that Lee and Mysty Irons are R2K. How much more do we we dial it back till we get to acceptable2 Kingdom thinking? Not all the way back to affirming things they wouldn't affirm, just to get them cause us or you. But to where someone could disagree with them and still call them ok?


----------



## Susan777

jwright82 said:


> I agree. All too often I come across people who are frustrated at the state or sections of the church who see complex ethical, political, issues as simple. When they are complex. But I think all can agree that Lee and Mysty Irons are R2K. How much more do we we dial it back till we get to acceptable2 Kingdom thinking? Not all the way back to affirming things they wouldn't affirm, just to get them cause us or you. But to where someone could disagree with them and still call them ok?


Jamey, making a Reformed case for same sex civil unions sounds like something no Puritan would have done, right?


----------



## jwright82

Susan777 said:


> Jamey, making a Reformed case for same sex civil unions sounds like something no Puritan would have done, right?


Oh yes, no Puritan would have done that. But I don't know the reference from Michael Horton, the Irons yes I've read their statement. But my curiosity would be this, in what context did he make that statement? If he did. BTW I don't think there is a Reformed argument for same sex whatever. Or biblical for that matter. Natural law pretty much deals with that, procreation is a natural part of life and ought to be considered in any conversation of such. 
I think the great strength of 2kingdom view is that it is realistic first and idealistic second.


----------



## Susan777

jwright82 said:


> Oh yes, no Puritan would have done that. But I don't know the reference from Michael Horton, the Irons yes I've read their statement. But my curiosity would be this, in what context did he make that statement? If he did. BTW I don't think there is a Reformed argument for same sex whatever. Or biblical for that matter. Natural law pretty much deals with that, procreation is a natural part of life and ought to be considered in any conversation of such.
> I think the great strength of 2kingdom view is that it is realistic first and idealistic second.



Here is the excerpt:
The challenge there is that two Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage _as Christians _may appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.

On one hand, it may be said that if we can no longer say that “Judeo-Christian” ethics are part of our shared worldview as a republic, then the ban seems arbitrary. Why isn’t there a campaign being waged to ban providing legal benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples? Or to make divorce more difficult? It just seems more symbolic than anything else: it looks like our last-gasp effort to enforce our own private morality on the public. On the other hand, we might argue that every civilization at its height, regardless of religion, has not only privileged marriage of one man and one woman but has outlawed alternative arrangements. Same-sex marriage means adoption, which subjects other human beings to a parental relationship that they did not choose for themselves. Are we loving our LGBT neighbors—or their adopted children—or the wider society of neighbors by accommodating a move that will further destroy the fabric of society?



I take the second view, but I recognize the former as wrestling as much as I’m trying to with the neighbor-love question. Legal benefits (“partnerships”) at least allowed a distinction between a contractual relationship and the covenant of marriage. However, the only improvement that “marriage” brings is social approval—treating homosexaul and heterosexual unions as equal. Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.


----------



## Susan777

jwright82 said:


> Oh yes, no Puritan would have done that. But I don't know the reference from Michael Horton, the Irons yes I've read their statement. But my curiosity would be this, in what context did he make that statement? If he did. BTW I don't think there is a Reformed argument for same sex whatever. Or biblical for that matter. Natural law pretty much deals with that, procreation is a natural part of life and ought to be considered in any conversation of such.
> I think the great strength of 2kingdom view is that it is realistic first and idealistic second.


https://www.whitehorseinn.org/2012/05/should-we-oppose-same-sex-marriage/


----------



## jwright82

Susan777 said:


> The challenge there is that two Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage _as Christians _may appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.
> 
> Here is an excerpt from his article:
> 
> On one hand, it may be said that if we can no longer say that “Judeo-Christian” ethics are part of our shared worldview as a republic, then the ban seems arbitrary. Why isn’t there a campaign being waged to ban providing legal benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples? Or to make divorce more difficult? It just seems more symbolic than anything else: it looks like our last-gasp effort to enforce our own private morality on the public. On the other hand, we might argue that every civilization at its height, regardless of religion, has not only privileged marriage of one man and one woman but has outlawed alternative arrangements. Same-sex marriage means adoption, which subjects other human beings to a parental relationship that they did not choose for themselves. Are we loving our LGBT neighbors—or their adopted children—or the wider society of neighbors by accommodating a move that will further destroy the fabric of society?
> 
> 
> 
> I take the second view, but I recognize the former as wrestling as much as I’m trying to with the neighbor-love question. Legal benefits (“partnerships”) at least allowed a distinction between a contractual relationship and the covenant of marriage. However, the only improvement that “marriage” brings is social approval—treating homosexaul and heterosexual unions as equal. Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.


I haven't thought much of it to be honest, before anyone jumps on me for my practical slant I have been wrestling with other problems. It is complicated for sure. What does legal protection do for society vs what we know to be true about marriage? The psychological state of these children must be confusing, to say the least. All in all its complicated. Marriage of heterosexual couples brings spiritual approval.


----------



## jwright82

Susan777 said:


> https://www.whitehorseinn.org/2012/05/should-we-oppose-same-sex-marriage/


I read the article and agree with him, at the end of the day (read the conclusion) he favors heterosexual marriage, as do I, as being in line with natural law. It's not as simple as a "though shall or shall not" ethic but it recognizes the compmplexity of the situation. I don't even think he got into the complexity of it.


----------



## jwright82

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Do you mean of the blog? There was one guy smoking a cigarette when I checked it 5 minutes ago. I do not know who he is. I also do not get the obsession with smoking, though I have always hated the smell of cigarette smoke and the damage they do to people's health.
> 
> I did notice that DGH was doing a podcast of J. G. Machen with two PCI ministers that I know (one more so than the other).


I don't know, I smoke but not at church. Not because I think it's wrong but I don't want to flaunt it in anyone's face. I love horror movies but I don't tell people at church because people have problems with it, and personally I'm too selfish to deal with the lecture. It's a blog so no one has to watch it but why smoke that much right in everyone's face? Being considerate is both scriptual and NL.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

PuritanCovenanter said:


> One thing that makes a person R2K is their radical dichotomous view of Law and grace. They make things so dichotomous that Law and Grace lose their biblical fullness. Another thing they do is remove the full responsibility and accountability to both tables of the Law for the civil kingdom based upon how they define Natural Law.


Okay. I agree the two tables of the law but isn't there a difference between thinking it is wrong (R2k?) And thinking it might not work out well, and shouldn't be tried right now until things change (neo-2K, myself)?


----------



## alexandermsmith

Contra_Mundum said:


> This is slanderous (typical) nonsense.



This is _actually _libellous, lol.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Clark's extensive quotations favorably reference a particular _stream _of Reformed thought, both from the Continent and the Isles, which extend into the 17th and 18th centuries. In other words, his is an argument of continuity, and one that does not aim at so broad an embrace as some others might like. Others who, in their own right, often draw such a line demarcating their full approval themselves, only further afield.
> 
> In addition, Clark has numerous favorable references to the _Marrow of Modern Divinity, _which was opposed around the time it was republished (later annotated by Boston) as too experimental (among other things) by the legalist party. He has favorably quoted Seceders such as Ralph & Ebenezer Erskine.
> 
> Legalists and moralists don't have title to experimental religion. Neither do antinominans. One of the chief questions is: what determines true _piety? _Clark et al argue for a particular form of Reformed _piety, _not Pietism. The form they argue in favor of is distinct from that which is influenced by revivalism and by certain streams of introspective Puritanism (which is a label, like "Evangelicalism" so broad as ordinarily to demand qualification of some kind).



Did I not say that Clark had referenced Boston? Indeed I did. Clearly not paying attention to what I wrote. Anyone who has actually spent time reading the blogs of these men will know that what I say is true. They often criticse Edwards and Hart has even criticised M'Cheyne for his religiosity.



Contra_Mundum said:


> For his part, Hart is a defender of Christian liberty in an era that is both secularly licentious and _reactionarily _religiously moralist (outside the sphere where the church is just like the world). That is something he should not have to apologize for.



His definition of Christian liberty is wrong, unconfessional and most importantly unBiblical. Clearly you are either blind to what is written on his blog or you agree with it. Either way, such a position you have taken is indefensible. I can only speculate as to why you are so eager to defend Hart but be assured, your defence of him is unwise (to say the least).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

BayouHuguenot said:


> Wow. When Paul used that language in his epistles, it was directed at those who had abandoned the gospel. I disagree with the supposed "R" 2K guys on many things, but I would never go that far.



Either what I've said is true or not true. If it's not true explain why. If it is true then I have merely stated facts. Either way please refrain from such loaded and rather hysterical reactions. It doesn't further the debate just heightens emotions and proves a distraction (which, of course, is usually the intended effect).


----------



## alexandermsmith

BottleOfTears said:


> If you glance through the Heidelblog you will see many quotations from Turretin, Witsius, and Owen, all 17th century figures. Clark hardly "jumps straight over" these periods. What about the fact that he has co-edited translations of Johannes Cocceius and JH Heidegger? A significant portion of his books and essays are devoted to Reformed Orthodoxy on some level. If he loves the "very early Reformers" so much, why does the Heidelblog have 4 posts on Martin Bucer a "very early reformer", compared to 10 on the later and much more obscure Amandus Polanus?
> 
> In terms of his view on the Puritans being too "subjective", I believe the first thing Dr. Clark would do, being the historian that he is, is argue that defining "puritanism" is incredibly difficult, and so it is hard to speak about the "puritans" in general terms.
> 
> In fact, he completely rejects the notion that "the puritans were unhealthily introspective" as a generalising caricature:
> 
> 
> 
> I highly suggest you read the whole article.
> 
> Among others, Joel Beeke is listed by Clark as someone who "challenged decisively" the idea that "the puritans" were guilty of being overly-introspective. I mean, if RSC hates the puritans so much, what's he doing citing Joel Beeke, perhaps Puritan Fan Number One, as a good source on whether or not the puritans were too subjective?



I'm not going to engage in a game of "this post counters that post". His blog has been running for many years. I'm talking about his overall approach to Reformed theology. And Clark is nothing if not a sucker for Reformers with Latin names unpublished in English.


----------



## alexandermsmith

A.Joseph said:


> What exactly do you mean by R2K? I didn’t think you meant what you are implying, which seems to be a Christian embrace of worldliness, almost to the point of being more comfortable in the world.
> 
> Are you a member of Free Reformed? There are probably some cultural distinctions at play that inform your critique. Ones that I probably won’t ever stop wrestling with. I would say my experience as a member of the NRC, occasional visitor of the Free Reformed Church, and now member of the OPC has sharpened my familiarity with various areas of distinctiveness and identity. And the more I learn about some of that the less I seem to truly know and understand.



Well I believe I have explained what I understand by it. I'm not arguing it is explicitly advocating the embrace of "wordliness" but that is usually the result of such an approach. It basically argues there are two "sets of rules": one for the church and one for the state/culture and that, in practice, Christians can quite legitimately live according to these two different sets of rules in their respective realms. This is because, they would argue, these two speheres being separate it is not the job of the church or Christians to "reform" the world morally because only regeneration is transformative. Now R2K people (and people in this thread it would appear) would argue that this doesn't result in worldliness in the Christian because the things outwith the church (i.e. of the world) embraced by R2K are lawful due to (their redefinition of) Christian liberty. To others (like myself) there is a contradiction because the things being embraced are not lawful for Christians and the view they are is very modern.

I'm not in the Free Reformed, no.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

A.Joseph said:


> I think this sums up Hart from Wikipedia,
> 
> “In a Wall Street Journal review of Hart's 2013 book, Calvinism: A History; Barton Swaim describes him as, "a cantankerous conservative, a stalwart Presbyterian and a talented polemicist with a delightfully perverse sense of humor."[4]
> 
> Stephen J. Nichols states that, like many other theologians, Hart is of the opinion that "theology, like nature, abhors a vacuum," in that theologizing is influenced by culture.[5]
> 
> *H*art follows in the tradition of J. Gresham Machen (to whom he dedicated his book Secular Faith) in espousing an approach to politics that engages at the level of the individual rather than that of the church. Hart makes the observation that "[e]fforts to use Christianity for public or political ends fundamentally distort the Christian religion."[6] In Secular Faith Hart argues for the church to follow its mission by standing apart as a witness, suggesting that the nature of Christianity is "otherworldly", and criticizing those who "have tried to use their faith for political engagement".[7]



It's hard to stand apart as a witness when you constantly reference _The Wire_ as an insightful meditation on the human condition. I'll stick with the Bible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

A.Joseph said:


> The only thing I can observe with a degree of certainty is that Hart is skeptical of the religious right evangelicals in the way Machen was.
> 
> But there are other pitfalls of being theologically on point and forgoing (or deemphasizing) the experiential part (in a reformed not mainstream evangelical sense). I don’t know enough to imply that Hart does that and I have no reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt in these matters. To risk name dropping one more time, Dr. Lane Tipton, who is my ‘part-time’ pastor, is always emphasizing union with Christ and how we often suffer to be conformed to (and comfort in) Him and our true home. This may be expressed and ultimately look a little different than the puritans in some ways and not so much in others. I think if pressed Hart would and does embrace his union with Christ, probably even in a way he didn’t 10 to 20 years ago, doesn’t mean he will lose his personality, outside interests and critical edge but I’m sure he puts first things first especially as he gets closer to his heavenly home.



I'm glad you mentioned union with Christ. For a while Hart had a series on his blog called "Where's Waldo" (see link below) which was focused on "proving" that union with Christ is not a central Reformed doctrine and that it doesn't come into play until consideration of the Sacraments. He was often responding to those he called the "obedience boys" (people who believe that regeneration results in godliness in the life of the believer). Instead Hart would focus on the forensic aspect of salvation. Of course that is very important. But considering Hart's writing as a whole his campaign against viewing union as important in salvation resulted in an overemphasis of the forensic and a dismissing of the necessity of evidence of salvation in the life of the believer. And while he is correct to argue that the Reformed today have a very low view of the sacraments compared to the early Reformed, his view of the Lord's Supper isn't without his problems. His embrace of Nevin is very worrying.

https://oldlife.org/?s=Waldo

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> Either what I've said is true or not true. If it's not true explain why. If it is true then I have merely stated facts. Either way please refrain from such loaded and rather hysterical reactions. It doesn't further the debate just heightens emotions and proves a distraction (which, of course, is usually the intended effect).



It's funny that you tell me to refrain from hysterical reactions when you admit that you use language that Paul used of those who apostasized.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> And Clark is nothing if not a sucker for Reformers with Latin names unpublished in English.



What does that have to do with anything? He can read Latin and points us to key Reformers who aren't yet in English. That's normally considered a positive.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## alexandermsmith

jwright82 said:


> I read the article and agree with him, at the end of the day (read the conclusion) he favors heterosexual marriage, as do I, as being in line with natural law. It's not as simple as a "though shall or shall not" ethic but it recognizes the compmplexity of the situation. I don't even think he got into the complexity of it.



Well here's the issue. It's not complex. The Bible couldn't be clearer on sodomy. It's rather disingenuous of Horton to ask why Christians aren't waging campaigns against other legal immoralities. At the time sodomite "marriage" wasn't legal, in fact many states explicitly prohibited it, but there was a campaign to make it so. That was the fight being fought at the time. We cannot campaign on every single issue. Why fight a battle that had already been lost when there was one which was actually being won? Legislatively, that is, until the Supreme Court interfered.

But Christians in the past did oppose no-fault divorce laws and the like. Just as they fought to keep prayer in schools and keep condoms out. But these battles were all eventually lost. 

I can't for the life of me think of a good reason why a Christian would be interested in promoting anything other than Christian, Bibical morality. It is not the Christian's job to protect the "separation of church and state". He should focus on witnessing for Christ. Christians who set themselves up as _Christian _commentators should stick to promoting _Christian_ doctrine and godliness and leave the secular stuff to the atheists.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's funny that you tell me to refrain from hysterical reactions when you admit that you use language that Paul used of those who apostasized.



Well I don't think Hart is converted so I suppose my unintentional use of the same language was providential.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

BayouHuguenot said:


> What does that have to do with anything? He can read Latin and points us to key Reformers who aren't yet in English. That's normally considered a positive.



Well I can't read Latin so it's of no help to me. It's just part and parcel of his approach: early scholastic is best, even better in Latin, and don't bother too much with the Puritans and Scottish.


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> Well I can't read Latin so it's of no help to me. It's just part and parcel of his approach: early scholastic is best, even better in Latin, and don't bother too much with the Puritans and Scottish.



You do understand that when he translates from Latin, he is translating into English? For us, even. And to say he doesn't bother with English Puritans is utterly false, given his numerous quotations of Owen.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith

BayouHuguenot said:


> You do understand that when he translates from Latin, he is translating into English? For us, even. And to say he doesn't bother with English Puritans is utterly false, given his numerous quotations of Owen.



I must have missed those amongst all his talk about Nebraska football or his _very_ regrettable promotion of (Lutheran) Ben Sasse.


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> I must have missed those amongst all his talk about Nebraska football



I will help you out.
https://heidelblog.net/?s=owen&submit=Search


----------



## BottleOfTears

alexandermsmith said:


> I'm not going to engage in a game of "this post counters that post". His blog has been running for many years. I'm talking about his overall approach to Reformed theology. And Clark is nothing if not a sucker for Reformers with Latin names unpublished in English.


It's not about "this post counters that post". You said that Dr Clark viewed the puritans as unhealthily introspective, and provided no evidence whatsoever for that accusation.

I linked an articled about that exact subject. Wherein Dr Clark states the exact opposite.

If we are talking RSC's "general approach" to Reformed theology, it seems we are both in agreement that he specialises in continental Reformed theologians from the late 16th century to the end of the 17th. Of course this negates your earlier statement that he ignores the 17th century.

Furthermore, he has said many times that there is little difference between the Continental and British Reformed in many areas. I mean read any of his stuff on Calvin and the Sabbath. He clearly shares this view in regards to piety and introspection as well, and being a historian is aware of the influence both ways via Perkins and Ames on the British side and Voetius and Wilhelmus à Brakel on the Continental.

Do you have any examples of the opposite?



alexandermsmith said:


> Either what I've said is true or not true. If it's not true explain why. If it is true then I have merely stated facts. Either way please refrain from such loaded and rather hysterical reactions. It doesn't further the debate just heightens emotions and proves a distraction (which, of course, is usually the intended effect).


"If it is not true explain why." 
I believe you are the one accusing brothers in Christ of being "worldly", the burden of proof is on your account, not on ours. I believe the reactions your accusation prompted are perfectly in line with the seriousness of the accusation. Personally, I would find the rest of your case far more compelling if it wasn't for such obviously false statements.

Why do you keep asking for evidence if you provide none yourself?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens.

Reformed Covenanter said:


> One other thing that we need to flag up, which often gets overlooked, is that the libertarianism of some of the R2Kers on homosexual "marriage" (to be fair, the likes of R. Scott Clark would oppose the legalisation of homosexual "marriages"), contradicts the original intent of Westminster Confession 24.4.
> 
> In relation to incestuous marriages, the Confession states, "nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties." If that is true of incestuous marriages between persons of the opposite sex, how much more is it true of sodomite "marriages" between those of the same sex.



I’ve noticed this trend amongst NAPARC too now and it really disturbs me. There’s even now “Reformed Anarchists” and the like which makes absolutely no sense in light of the confessional documents. 

I’ve watched twitter conversations where R2Kers which are often libertarian/anarcho-capitalists explicitly deny that the magistrate should ban things like p0rnography, usury, bestiality, etc. because “magic uniforms don’t allow anyone to exert force on someone who isn’t harming anyone else and is exercising liberty.”

It’s a very Enlightenment understanding of liberty.


Amongst R2Kers there’s a weird bifurcation that leads to soft egalitarianism as well. Women can’t be ordained leaders in church because of the creational differences between men and women, but when it comes to society those differences disappear somehow and they can be firefighters, police officers, soldiers, etc.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## jwright82

alexandermsmith said:


> Well here's the issue. It's not complex. The Bible couldn't be clearer on sodomy. It's rather disingenuous of Horton to ask why Christians aren't waging campaigns against other legal immoralities. At the time sodomite "marriage" wasn't legal, in fact many states explicitly prohibited it, but there was a campaign to make it so. That was the fight being fought at the time. We cannot campaign on every single issue. Why fight a battle that had already been lost when there was one which was actually being won? Legislatively, that is, until the Supreme Court interfered.
> 
> But Christians in the past did oppose no-fault divorce laws and the like. Just as they fought to keep prayer in schools and keep condoms out. But these battles were all eventually lost.
> 
> I can't for the life of me think of a good reason why a Christian would be interested in promoting anything other than Christian, Bibical morality. It is not the Christian's job to protect the "separation of church and state". He should focus on witnessing for Christ. Christians who set themselves up as _Christian _commentators should stick to promoting _Christian_ doctrine and godliness and leave the secular stuff to the atheists.


Well I'm no lawyer but it is complicated, as is "no-fault divorice". The moral stand the Christian should take is "homosexuality is morally wrong and one should oppose it by any and all legal means (that includes the legal right to voice ones opinion) possible". Our lack of legal understanding doesn't make a lay person wrong however they think but we lay people could be missing something.


----------



## RamistThomist

alexandermsmith said:


> Well I don't think Hart is converted so I suppose my unintentional use of the same language was providential.



I am just quoting this so the moderators can see this. You realize you are making these charges about an elder in good standing in a NAPARC church?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

alexandermsmith said:


> But Christians in the past did oppose no-fault divorce laws and the like. Just as they fought to keep prayer in schools and keep condoms out. But these battles were all eventually lost.



Ian Paisley mentioned no-fault divorce in a sermon back when it was being introduced into the UK. I think he said something to the effect that it would reduce marriage to nothing more than a human equivalent of a dog licence. In many ways, he was prescient on this point, as no-fault divorce seems to be the root of much of the lunacy that we have today.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## ZackF

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Ian Paisley mentioned no-fault divorce in a sermon back when it was being introduced into the UK. I think he said something to the effect that it would reduce marriage to nothing more than a human equivalent of a dog licence. In many ways, he was prescient on this point, as no-fault divorce seems to be the root of much of the lunacy that we have today.


I think NFD is just one box-car on the train. Contraception and other things were closer to the engine.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ZackF said:


> I think NFD is just one box-car on the train. Contraception and other things were closer to the engine.



You are right that there are definitely multiple factors; we could add abortion, childlessness, women's "liberation", delayed marriage, and various other things to the list.


----------



## User20004000

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am just quoting this so the moderators can see this. You realize you are making these charges about an elder in good standing in a NAPARC church?



Perhaps the moderators missed it but it’s sure to get attention now.

“Well I don't think Hart is converted...”

I don’t see that remark as a charge but an opinion. Perhaps I can understand one’s temptation to have such an opinion about someone, but I agree it should not have been voiced. Both because Hart is an elder and because he’s a member of a true church.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph

alexandermsmith said:


> Well I don't think Hart is *converted* so I suppose my unintentional use of the same language was providential.


I haven’t heard that word in a while and I don’t hear it in opc circles. It’s having to do with a changed life, correct?


----------



## User20004000

A.Joseph said:


> I haven’t heard that word in a while and I don’t hear it in opc circles. It’s having to do with a changed life, correct?



Repentance and faith together.

Interestingly enough, a person texted me a quote from Oswald Chambers the other day. This babe in the Lord was excited about what Chambers had to say. The sad part is, Chambers put forth the notion of people being “converted” while not yet regenerate. Chambers was referring to worldlings who hadn’t yet received the Spirit. Chambers held to a second blessing of sorts. Anyway, I explained a few things and my wife ordered and gave him Morning and Evening. He went so far as to recall an Utmost For His Highest he had given to someone else.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Amongst R2Kers there’s a weird bifurcation that leads to soft egalitarianism as well. Women can’t be ordained leaders in church because of the creational differences between men and women, but when it comes to society those differences disappear somehow and they can be firefighters, police officers, soldiers, etc.


I'm not interested in carrying any water for the people you have encountered, who apparently have traded-in a biblical appreciation for _at minimum_ the needful institution of local human governance, i.e. some form of communal law (legislation, enforcement, judgment); and offered nothing in its place. Reformed anthropology is concerned for *both *the requirement of external constraint, *and* the tendency to tyranny of all government staffed by sinners.

That said, I am quite unsure that the above statement accurately conveys the opinion of some significant portion of those who (whether they own the label or not) are being defined here as "R2K;" I'm especially concerned for some of the _named _folks in this thread. Because, I can say for certain that there are some of those named who would _never _say on account of "creational differences" "women can't be ordained." Never.

And why? Because, they would say: the reason women may not occupy ordained position in the apostolic NT church under the Lordship of Christ is that the Bible prohibits it. Full stop.

It's not 2K or "R2K" (that I've encountered) who are _embarrassed _to stand on the simple authority, the _ipse dixit _of divine authority. God's mere "say so," can govern and rule the church, and he doesn't have to give us (or expect us to come up with our own) rationale _for _that command.

The idea that there needs to be some additional "here's how _reasonable _God is, when he tells us to do X," so that the law of God is made palatable, and men's contending passions are assuaged, partakes more of the spirit of rebellion. Here is the twisting of God's word as in the garden once again, "..._*lest *ye die."_ No, not "for fear that ye will die; but ye will, and justice will require it, and none dare bid God stand before any other judge and prove him justified for so ordering.

How men do chafe under His raw authority! But I don't believe that faithful, confessional men feel much need to stand with any supplemental, _creation-order _prop.

As I myself have argued elsewhere here on the PB, women (who can meet publicly defined qualifications, which so far as I'm concerned might even include sex-restrictions if that's what human law ordains) are not forbade by the Bible from taking up occupations such as firefighting. Foolish legislation and judicial rulings may unnecessarily risk public safety by mandating quotas for hiring; which imbeciles will answer to the Judge-of-all for such unnatural attempts at social engineering. "Their condemnation is just." But, there isn't anything laid down in law from God in the Bible that sets those limits.

But there is such a law for the CHURCH. And it is SIN to flout it, and to defy the ordinance of God. And the only ones I can see who are bumbling about in a "soft-egalitarianism;" or some other effort at merging the scientific paradigm, the reigning cultural mind, and biblical counsels; are those who are *ashamed* of being seen as "fundy" for a simple resting on the law-word of Christ.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins

BayouHuguenot said:


> I have not, though I can sort of expect what Frame will say. Frame will press the Lordship in all areas angle. Frame, however, is weak on historical distinctions and nuances when it comes to the 2 kingdoms debate. I don't think either side has a knock-out argument.



I have read this book, and I cannot recommend it. There is a reason it is self-published, and why NO presbyterian or Reformed, or even generally evangelical publisher would take the manuscript: if they did, they would never be able to publish any WSC professor ever again. In one section he claims that his own personal treatment at the hands of WSC has nothing to do with why he wrote the book. Then, in another section, he goes on and on about how he was treated at WSC. The book is a hit piece. There are FAR better critiques of R2K out there, in my opinion, starting with the CPJ exchange. 

Mod Hat On:
R2K discussions have a very annoying habit of bringing out sinful tendencies in people. Believe me, I saw it plenty on my blog, where several threads ran to comments in the thousands. Accusations fly thick and fast because someone comes from a different perspective. People don't tend to listen very well. Slow down, calm down, and don't say anything about someone that you wouldn't be willing to say if that person were standing right in front of you.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

greenbaggins said:


> The book is a hit piece. There are FAR better critiques of R2K out there, in my opinion, starting with the CPJ exchange.


Lane, are there any books out there you can specifically recommend which give a balanced, fair, and edifying discussion of R2K? I am interested in the topic.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Been gone for a few days guys. Spent a few days out of town with my middle son and also had a furnace situation. Had to diagnose why it wouldn't stay on and heat the house. It ended up that I needed to clean the flame sensor. In the meantime this thread surely got terribly heated up. 

Something that ole D.G. and I went back and forth on was on his blog back in 2012. He decided to give a critique of something my Ole Pastor Dr. Blackwood wrote without having even read it. 

https://oldlife.org/2012/10/27/what-hath-jerusalem-monarchy-to-do-with-athens-democracy/#comments


----------



## RamistThomist

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, are there any books out there you can specifically recommend which give a balanced, fair, and edifying discussion of R2K? I am interested in the topic.



Without presuming to speak for Lane, my guess would be "no." The modifier "R" already poisons the well against the position. This means no advocate of this position would defend it, so you won't find any respectable critiques of it (since no one would defend it).

I do think the issue can be dealt with on meta-ethical levels, but that's a different level of analysis.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

One point that I have noticed, which is a fault shared by both neo-2K advocates and many theonomists, is that they make their view of the two kingdoms, the judicial law, or whatever else the front and centre of their identity. They are theonomists or neo-2Kers before they are anything else. 

In _Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices_, Thomas Brooks warns that such "majoring on the minors" is a mark of a false teacher. That conclusion is not true in all cases, though the fact that some from both these camps have departed for the FV on the one hand or to Rome on the other is a warning sign, but, either way, it is not spiritually healthy to be so obsessed with a lesser matter.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist

Reformed Covenanter said:


> One point that I have noticed, which is a fault shared by both neo-2K advocates and many theonomists, is that they make their view of the two kingdoms, the judicial law, or whatever else the front and centre of their identity. They are theonomists or neo-2Kers before they are anything else.



I was thinking about something similar this morning. If you are in a group or denomination that emphasizes its distinctives more than anything else, you might be in a cult.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins

BayouHuguenot said:


> Without presuming to speak for Lane, my guess would be "no." The modifier "R" already poisons the well against the position. This means no advocate of this position would defend it, so you won't find any respectable critiques of it (since no one would defend it).
> 
> I do think the issue can be dealt with on meta-ethical levels, but that's a different level of analysis.



In a word, yes (meaning I agree with Jacob).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000

“There is a reason it is self-published, and why NO presbyterian or Reformed, or even generally evangelical publisher would take the manuscript: if they did, they would never be able to publish any WSC professor ever again.”​
Lane,

That observation could be taken a couple of different ways. Obviously you don’t mean that publishers were fearful of siding with Frame’s interpretation of things while agreeing with him. Yet we mustn’t deny (not that you necessarily do) that such _could_ apply to some publishers. It’s certainly conceivable that a publisher might have agreed with Frame yet didn’t care to weigh in on the dispute for various reasons.


----------



## greenbaggins

Ron, I am not quite sure what distinction you are seeking to articulate here. It is certainly conceivable that a publisher might have agreed with Frame, and yet decided not to publish the work. All I am saying is that I don't believe any WSC prof would publish anything with a publisher willing to publish that book, and that I also think publishers would have been savvy enough to recognize that fact.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here are a few resources I have appreciated.


https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=41131323494

https://www.amazon.com/Kingdoms-Apart-Engaging-Two-Perspective/dp/1596384352

Here was something I found interesting some time ago.


Thomas Boston wrote (Works, 4:156-157):
“There is one thing, which, from experience, we are taught they may lay their account to lose, namely, the countenance and protection of the civil magistrate in their duty. This is in itself a great loss. And seeing God has promised to a church, when he is well pleased with her, “that kings shall be her nursing fathers, and their queens her nursing mothers;” the withdrawing of it must be a sign of the Lord’s displeasure. Yea, and if we trace the sins of rulers that bear hard on the people to their first spring, we will find that it is some quarrel that God hath with the people, 2 Sam. 24:1. This should humble us, and stir us up to pray for them, and be dutiful to them, to whom the Lord has said, “ye are gods,” in every thing that is not inconsistent with your duty to God himself. But this is a trial to us, whether we will regard God or man most; and the saints will ever prefer the countenance of the Lord to the countenance of the highest powers on earth, and depend upon his protection alone when they are deprived of all other.”



“If Thomas Boston’s viewpoint were accepted, the loss of the nursing father would be seen as a trial from which we should seek deliverance through ordained means. Those who hold to a dualist form of two kingdom theology regard the lack of a nursing father as ideal and normal for the church’s condition in the world, and would not see it as a trial or practically seek any improvement on the state of affairs.

To get down to the nitty-gritty of it, what love is it to your neighbour, what honour to your superiors, to wish the national interest to remain alienated from the life of God and strangers to His blessings? What Christian in his right mind is content to see God dishonoured and a plethora of other gods worshipped in His place?

We are not able to change the moral conditions of society apart from our own personal response to them, but our personal response should include vexation of soul and grieving over the ungodliness of our fellow-men. *The idea of building a doctrine from Scripture which supports and justifies being content with the dissolution of Christian standards in a society runs contrary to everything the Scripture tells us about the righteous Lord loving righteousness and hating wickedness*.” I can't remember who I quoted here.

In a blog I did years ago (2012) I pointed out that Dr. Kinneer rightly conveys this is a problem with a poor Christology. 
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ngdoms-view-vs-the-biblical-one-kingdom-view/



> This topic is being discussed and exposed a bit finally. Finally, it is being done with some balance and correct thinking. There are a few posts in this discussion “One Kingdom vs. Two Kingdom’s” on the Puritanboard which lead to some great comments and links. One link is an interview with Dr. Jack Kinneer who is a Professor at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary discussing this topic.
> 
> It is found here.
> 
> http://www.viewcrestchurch.org/ompodcast/om1002.mp3
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to the interview with Dr. Jack Kinneer I walked away with this…
> 
> Here are very brief Stereo-Typical ways of understanding these issues according to the Host of the show.
> 
> The Non Two Kingdom View is a Tranformationalist and or a Theonomic view saying, “If we can just make the culture Christian everything will Change and Christ’s Kingdom will come.”
> 
> The Two Kingdom view says that Culture Transformation is not the job of the Church. The Church receives the Kingdom. It doesn’t create one. The job of the Church is to take the sacraments, hear the word preached, be fathers and mothers and plumbers and just go on with our life. If Jesus wants to do something through it and for us He can.
> 
> Those are the two extremes…
> 
> The Host then asks Dr. Kinneer if his definitions are correct.
> 
> Dr. Jack Kinneer of Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
> replies,
> “What you have is the American A view and the American B view.”
> What you don’t have is the Historical C view.
> 
> Amen Dr. Kinneer! That is what I have been trying to tell some of the guys who are writing and discussing this issue now days.
> 
> Also Dr. Kinneer notes, that as all aberrations and heresies in theology tend to distort the doctrine of Christ, some of the of Two Kingdoms teachers distort the doctrine of Christ (Christology) also. A lot depends on how you define Two Kingdoms Theology. I believe it should be called a two fold government, to be more precise.
> 
> Both definitions the host defined were basically true but fall short of the Historical doctrine. And I would declare that the most vocal Modern Day Reformed Church Seminary Professors have no idea what the Historic view is. I deduce this by what I am hearing come out of the mouths of today’s Seminary Students, Graduates, and their Professor’s writings and comments. I can also assess this by the personal discussions I have been having with these men and younger theologians who have been taught by these guys.
> 
> These Authors and Professors are arguing against a view that is easily knocked down by their arguments. When they finally start to deal with the Historical view that Dr. Kinneer is declaring then their arguments will start to hit a brick wall. For one thing the historical view is not liberal and that is one of the main associations attributed to One Kingdom Theology.
> 
> This issue has a root problem in my estimation. It is the Law / Gospel issue that is being discussed in the Reformed Church. Some people are separating the Law so far from life and the gospel that the very Gospel of Christ is being truncated. They have gone from one extreme of refuting self-justification (works righteousness) to something that is turning into antinomianism. They view Sanctification and Glorification as separate from the Gospel. Dr. Michael Horton and many others around him teach that the Gospel is only an outward declarative statement about what God has done to pay a penalty for sin.  According to past interaction with these guys, those of us who hold to the view the Reformed Divine’s held to, that the Law turns into Gospel, are in “Serious Error.” They are divorcing the Law of Christ from the Gospel. They are also divorcing the work of Christ in us, the hope of Glory and a life of being conformed in the image of Christ, from the Gospel.
> 
> Newer Blog posts…..  https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/the-law-turned-into-gospel-gospel-obedience/
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...-not-about-distinction-it-is-about-dichotomy/
> 
> The root problem in a lot of this is a poor Christology (understanding His Mediatorial Kingship) and a poor understanding of the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace administers both the Old and New Covenant. Some say the Old Covenant is not the same in substance as the New Covenant. According to them the Mosaic Covenant differs in substance from the Abrahamic Covenant also. They say that only the Abrahamic Covenant is renewed in the New Covenant. This is in direct contradiction to the Westminster Confession of faith Chapter 7 sections 5 and 6 which states that they are of the same substance as they are administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The Old Covenant is the same in substance as the New and Abrahamic Covenant because they are Administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The same people that are saying this are the same people voicing this Newer Natural Law / Two Kingdom model that is being criticized here. At the root they all have Meredith Kline as a Mentor and hold to his thought concerning the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. Dr. R. Scott Clark voices it in his Covenant Theses point 13 of Biblical / Exegetical section. In so doing all this they are becoming Lutheran in their view of the Mosaic Covenant and saying that the Law is opposed to the Gospel. This is having a terrible affect upon the Church and Society in my estimation. They are dichotomizing the law and the gospel in a way that the scriptures don’t. Even Anthony Burgess a Divine and Scottish Commissioner of the Westminster Confession of Faith recognized this problem of the Lutherans back then. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...k-during-the-time-of-the-westminster-divines/
> 
> Oh yeah, they may claim to have a majority of the old guys as their teachers but they are propagating them through the eyes of a few who held to minority views or Klinean eye wear. The below is where you can find Dr. Clark’s thoughts.
> 
> http://clark.wscal.edu/covtheses.php
> Biblical / Exegetical section….
> 13.The Mosaic covenant was not renewed under Christ, but the Abrahamic covenant was.
> 
> Some have titled this theology Klhortian I call it Modern Reformed Thought because a lot of Western California Guys have adopted it and are promoting it with their media machine. It is a shame this is being propagated so loudly. It kind of reminds me of how dispensationalism got such a strong hold by media presentation through the Scoffield Reference Bible. I think I have made my point.
> 
> Klhorotonian Theology
> 
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...EjIiyRBcm895iEGrpYFZ5RYppsXxF7DG6A7pKKK8Oa9NE
> 
> I hope I am understanding things aright. Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy are so closely linked. I believe this is being proven in this situation. May we all be graced by the King and have eyes to see and ears to hear what the Spirit is saying. I hope I am seeing and hearing correctly. Weigh what I say heavily. Don’t just accept it as truth. I am a man. I can be just as deceived as I believe others to be.
> 
> Be Encouraged,
> 
> As a side note and recommendation this will be a topic in the upcoming Confessional Presbyterian Journal. It won’t be Polemic as I have been because it will be done by Scholars from various sides of the issue if I am not mistaken. I am not a Scholar. Please Remember That! But that doesn’t make anything I have said any less true. Just weigh it more heavily. LOL
> 
> The Confessional Presbyterian Journal should be out sometime this Winter. Here is the link to it.
> 
> http://www.cpjournal.com/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

BayouHuguenot said:


> Without presuming to speak for Lane, my guess would be "no." The modifier "R" already poisons the well against the position. This means no advocate of this position would defend it, so you won't find any respectable critiques of it (since no one would defend it).


Sorry I really meant 2K. I have not looked into the issue as much as I would like and I am aware it impacts on a number of areas of theology.


----------



## A.Joseph

I don't know, maybe Alexander is on to something. Not specific to Dr. Hart, necessarily. Although I think I understand his reasoning.

Is "true conversion" the experiential antidote to what is carnal and trivial or may it be a gateway to high minded legalism?

Maybe having all those earthly pursuits that cling to us be stripped away is what we truly need. Is this a fruit of initial conversion or something that comes much later in sanctification and a mortifying of sin? These are the things that I've been exposed to and wrestled with...




How can we influence the world if we still have these inner conflicts? It's hard to address and engage with the world, earthly institutions, and our fellow man appopriately without this level of spiritual life and maturity.


----------



## greenbaggins

Stephen, I forgot to mention this, since I thought at first you were only interested in critique. However, your question was broader, so I would recommend the books of David Van Drunen as a moderate, articulate, 2K guy.


----------



## RamistThomist

Stephen L Smith said:


> Sorry I really meant 2K. I have not looked into the issue as much as I would like and I am aware it impacts on a number of areas of theology.



2K is Reformed and only the most rabid reconstructionists and neo-calvinists would reject it. Turretin would be the best place to start. Then Gillespie,.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

greenbaggins said:


> However, your question was broader, so I would recommend the books of David Van Drunen as a moderate, articulate, 2K guy.


I wouldn't but that is something between klineanism and results of it as opposed to historical Two Kingdom thinking.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

greenbaggins said:


> Stephen, I forgot to mention this, since I thought at first you were only interested in critique. However, your question was broader, so I would recommend the books of David Van Drunen as a moderate, articulate, 2K guy.


Thank you Lane. Actually while you were replying to my comments, I was looking up "Messiah the Prince: The Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ" by William Symington. I understand he deals with avery similar issue from a 'broader' Scottish Covenanter perspective. Would his book be relevant from this perspective. From what I can see the modern edition sold today is an abridged edition of Symington's original.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dr. Blackwood was a Symington Scholar. He wrote a booklet that I have posted on my blog. I think you would appreciate it. 

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


> Used by permission by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
> 
> http://alliancenet.org/
> 
> 
> Dr. Roy Blackwood
> 
> Dedication
> 
> To Margie, my beloved wife of 57 years.
> 
> “Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband
> 
> also and He praises her.” (Proverbs 31:28)
> 
> And to the King of Kings who has made us a “Kingdom of Kings and priests to His God and Father.” (Revelation 1:6)
> 
> Acknowledgement
> 
> In grateful appreciation for Bud Wilson without whose help it would not have been finished and whose persistence in editing and helping has made this possible.
> 
> This article was originally published © Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals Inc, 1716 Spruce St Philadelphia PA 19103 USA
> 
> The Alliance calls the twenty first century church to a modern reformation by broadcasting, events, and publishing. This article and additional biblical resources can be found at AllianceNet.org.
> 
> All rights reserved. Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, © 2005 ARALL009
> 
> FOREWORD
> 
> I had just presented Friedrich Nietzche’s powerful and godless philosophy of the “Will to Power” to a recent class. Knowing that Nietzche had been declared clinically insane, and that he had lived his last decade in a vegetative state (probably related to his syphilis), a student nearly cried out, “How can people find his thinking powerful—when they know the tragedy of his life?”
> 
> The student was correct. Here was a philosopher who had praised the supposed “inner Superman,” yet was himself both weak in body and mentally out of touch with reality.
> 
> Dr. Blackwood and this book represent the diametrical opposite to Nietzche and his godless thinking. For Blackwood, there is only one King, only one Godman. There is one “super” Man— Jesus Christ the Righteous. Also, in contrast to Nietzche, those who know Roy Blackwood see in him the embodiment of this theology. While Blackwood is no Superman (even though it is at times hard to keep up with someone thirty years older!), Roy has been tireless in his efforts to communicate the nature of Christ’s Kingdom and to apply the lessons of this mediatorial Kingdom to believers’ personal walks—in our families, in the church, and in the state.
> 
> It is good that we have in our hands such a readable presentation of Dr. Blackwood’s life, thinking and work. For that, thanks go to the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
> 
> May our great Lord use this booklet to raise up many more who will take up the banner for The King and His Kingdom!
> 
> Richard C. Gamble
> 
> INTRODUCTION
> 
> “Seek Ye First the kingdom,” because His Kingship and Kingdom is the one authority that can keep all others in balance and because this is becoming of the crown rights and royal prerogatives of the king.
> 
> THE KING AND HIS KINGDOM
> 
> In His “Sermon on the Mount” [as recorded in Matthew], Jesus, as the King Himself, made His own inaugural proclamation of His Kingdom. In 3 chapters, He outlined in broad strokes the description of His Kingdom. In Chapter 5, He told us who the “blessed” are, the character of people who are citizens of His Kingdom. In Chapter 6, He explained the kinds of things they will be doing; e.g. giving, praying, and fasting, and why they are doing everything they do. In Chapter 7, He warned us never to “judge,” or try to relegate people, either into or out of His Kingdom, but to be careful to “know” all men and then build on the solid rock of His “sayings” to make five responses to His proclamation.
> 
> 1. To seek first the Kingdom (Matt. 6:33). So our highest priority in life will be:
> 
> Not the individual (Adam) whom He created in His own image, but who often “loves to have the preeminence”
> 
> Not the family, whom He formed out of man as the first social unit
> 
> Not the church, who is His bride, His darling, “the pillar and ground of my Truth,” the one of whom He said “I will build my Church”
> 
> Not civil government whom He has ordained to be “an ordinance of man”
> 
> But to seek first His Kingdom in all these other relationships of life, because His Kingship and Kingdom is the one authority that can keep all the other priorities in balance and because this is “becoming” of the Crown Rights and Royal Prerogatives of the King.
> 
> 2. To pray for it – that His Kingdom come and His will be done “on earth as it is in Heaven.”
> 
> 3. To recognize, know and understand how His Kingdom grows as He teaches us in all His sayings throughout the Gospels and in the Old Testament as well as New Testament, especially:
> 
> a. What the origin, reason, and purpose for His Kingdom is. Why He “needed” to be a King and to have this Kingdom.
> 
> b. What kind of Kingdom it is – the nature of it?
> 
> c. What the extent of His Kingdom is in terms of both space and time.
> 
> 4. To “think” Kingdom as well as to know the facts about it, because He said “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus…”. His “Kingdom” is more than just a well constructed, long range plan for His world and His Heaven, it is a way of thinking which will affect everything we say and do in personal, family, church and political relationships.
> 
> 5. And to expect with confidence to find ourselves caught up in our own lifetime in the reality of His Kingdom because the King of this Kingdom has also said “Fear not little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you this Kingdom.” (Luke 12:32)
> 
> So Jesus Christ, the King, directs us to seek, pray, know, think, and expect to be part of this Kingdom.
> 
> PART ONE
> 
> Defining the Kingdom “For the Kingdom is the Lord’s” (Psalm 22:28a)
> 
> What is this Kingdom? Three questions must be answered.
> 
> 1 What is the source and origin? Why did Jesus Christ “need” to be King and to have this Kingdom? What is THE PURPOSE?
> 
> 2 What kind of Kingdom is it, the nature of it?
> 
> 3 What is the extent of Christ’s Kingdom? When did it begin? When will it end? Where is it? Who all and what all are included in Christ’s Kingdom? And where will this Kingdom be?
> 
> As God, the second person of the Godhead did not “need” anything. And so it is not an absolute legal necessity that mandates that Christ be a King and have a Kingdom. But it is a relative moral necessity rising out of Christ’s work of atonement that makes it “necessary” for Christ to have a Kingdom and to be a King. The doctrine of the Kingship and Kingdom of Christ must always be understood as the sequel to the doctrine of atonement. If God had never made the decision to save a number of souls, then there never would have been any “need” for Christ to die on the Cross, and no need for Christ to be a King with a Kingdom. But once God, motivated by a love, at once wondrous and divine, made that sovereign decision to save a number of the human race, then it became “necessary” for the second person of the Godhead to leave Heaven to become man, and to die on the Cross in order to make man to be at one with God and God to be at one with those souls.
> 
> That is also why it was a relative moral necessity for Christ to be a real king with a kingdom. Without the power and authority of a King with a Kingdom, everything Christ had done on the Cross would have been in vain. If He had simply returned to Heaven and “retired” from active duty, not one soul would have been saved. His blood would have been wasted. He “needed” the power and authority of a king with a kingdom to apply the benefits which He had purchased for us on the Cross. It is in this sense that He “needed” the power and authority that the Father appointed to Him and that He willingly accepted and proclaimed in that remarkable appointment statement which His dialogue stated so vividly in Psalm 2:6-9; John 17:1-3; and Hebrews 5:5. Armed with all power and authority, Christ, as “the lamb slain before the foundation of the world,” created His world as a platform in space to carry out His work of redemption. After the fall of man, the destructive influences of Satan and sin would have destroyed His world, but now Christ stepped forward to grasp the very pillars of the universe to hold these awful destructive influences in abeyance until those souls for whom He “ever liveth to make intercession”, shall have had time to repent and turn to Him.
> 
> In a more personal subjective sense, Christ the Messiah “needed” the power and authority of a King with a Kingdom to subdue your own will and then to apply the benefits He had purchased for you on the Cross in order to receive you to Himself; to make you able to trust in Him; to put His kind of life into your heart; and then to nourish and build you up into the accomplishments of His life’s purpose for you in His Kingdom today, and then on into those purposes which He has planned for you in eternity. All this is accomplished while defeating all His and your enemies. So it was for this purpose, to meet this need, that the Father appointed Him to this Kingship and Kingdom. The purpose of His kingdom can all be summarized by the one word–REDEMPTIVE.
> 
> But what is the NATURE of Christ’s Kingdom? What kind of Kingship and Kingdom does Christ have today? When Pilate, representing Caesar, asked Jesus about His Kingdom, Jesus answered guardedly, “My Kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight that I should not be delivered, but now is my Kingdom not from here”. When Pilate pursued his own question further by asking, “Art thou a King then?” Jesus answered more fully, “Thou sayest that I am a King. To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world. . .” This may have been why Pilate later insisted on putting the inscription on His cross, “Christ, the King of the Jews”.
> 
> Christ’s Kingdom is a spiritual kingdom and a series of comparisons or contrasts with civil political kings and kingdoms may help to explain and define what it means for a kingdom and kingship to be spiritual.
> 
> 1 Christ was appointed to this Kingship and Kingdom by the Father, not just “born” into it through a royal family or elected to it by a willing people, nor did He conquer His way into it by spilling the blood of other people. The Father appointed Christ to be a real King with a real Kingdom and that Kingship and kingdom is here with us now. Of the four ways by which kings come to be kings; 1) taking it by force, 2) being born into it, 3) being chosen or elected, 4) being appointed; Christ Himself made it very clear when He said to us in Luke 22:29, “I appoint unto you a kingdom as My Father hath appointed unto Me”. That is what the prophecies had promised (i.e. Psalm 2:6,7). And this was true from all eternity. When the Council of the Trinity appointed Him the second person of the Godhead to this particular responsibility, it meant there never was a time when He was not King. But the announcement of that appointment came at His baptism and then His official investiture or actual induction came at the time of His Ascension.
> 
> 2 The grand purpose of Christ’s spiritual Kingship and Kingdom is to save souls, and not just to administer public justice, preserve peace, develop the morals of men and establish social order.
> 
> 3 The means of administration in Christ’s spiritual Kingdom includes the teaching of the Bible, the proclamation of the Cross, and the example (the tupos or definitive example) of the King who came to wrestle with the very consciences of men. All these means are in contrast to the other means used exclusively by other kings and kingdoms (i.e. fire, sword and physical violence).
> 
> 4 The principles of operation in Christ’s Kingdom and Kingship are scriptural and righteous as well as ethical and legal.
> 
> 5 Almost everything related to Christ’s Kingdom is spiritual. Its King is from Heaven and its citizens are “born-again”, “spiritual” people. Its homage is of the soul and its service is according to the will of God.
> 
> These comparisons between the Kingdom of Christ, the regnum Christi, and the kingdoms of the world, the regna mundi, help to define the essentially “spiritual” nature of Christ’s Kingdom. They (as we shall see later) provide a base for the development of church-civil government relationships. These distinctions or differences do not necessitate separation. If some could misread these comparisons to mean “keep them separate because they are different”, then this doctrine of Christ’s Kingdom and Kingship would say “bring them together because they are different”. Christ’s spiritual Kingdom can and does include things that are physical and mundane. For example, when God converts a soul so that he becomes a spiritual person, He does not cease to have a physical body. So long as God maintains a visible, witnessing Church on earth, as one form of the Kingdom of Christ, it will involve the physical being part of the spiritual kingdom. Since Christ has told us He has “all power” and has been made head over “all things”, then we can know that in His (spiritual) Kingdom, there will be those things that are, in and of themselves, physical.
> 
> Even money, “dedicated” to the Lord becomes an important factor in Christ’s development of His spiritual kingdom. Anything which can, or can be made to have, a spiritual purpose can be seen to be part of Christ’s spiritual Kingdom. When Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world”, He had no more thought of excluding physical things and political and social-family relationships than when He said to His disciples “ye are not of this world” (the Greek phrase is identical).
> 
> When we ask on behalf of the Christian businessman or the man in civil government or the father in a family, “but how can these physical things which occupy so much of my time ever be part of Christ’s spiritual Kingdom?”, we must know the question is caused by the statements in Scripture and so God will answer it. The answer is to be found in the fact that whatever is connected with Christ’s Kingdom is connected in some way to Christ’s spiritual objectives–objectives that live beyond the time and space restraints in our world. It is the ultimate objective which determines the nature of a thing. When the businessman or man in government can see a direct relationship between his daily work and Jesus’ reason for dying for him on the Cross, then he will see how his physical job is part of Christ’s Spiritual Kingdom.
> 
> Reason for a moment about how things natural are subordinate to things moral and things moral to things gracious (i.e. things having to do with Christ and His Grace, His work on the Cross). Those things which are gracious necessarily suppose the subordination both of those things which are natural and those that are moral. So it is that the natural and moral classes are also under Him officially as the appointed King. The result of all this then is that the essential dominion of Christ (i.e. what He owned and controlled as God Creator) and the mediatorial dominion of Christ (i.e. what He was appointed to as a direct result of His work on the Cross) are never subversive of one another but are always supportive of each other and perfectly harmonious and yet never so blended as to destroy the distinctive character of either one.
> 
> So anything physical in the regna mundi which can or can be made to have a spiritual purpose or to make a contribution to Christ’s spiritual Kingdom will be part of His spiritual Kingdom. This is why Christ was appointed to be “head over all things” to the Church. That includes His being head over such physical things as family and civil government. It is as though the Father has said to the Son as the direct result of His work on the Cross,
> 
> “Thou hast established thy right to rule that rebel world. Go through it now subduing sin and Satan and all other kings and kingdoms, building up your own individuals, families, civil government and church to accomplish your own purposes in time and on into eternity.”
> 
> The nature of His Kingdom can all be summarized by the one word—SPIRITUAL.
> 
> Having established the redemptive purpose and the spiritual nature for Christ’s Kingdom and Kingship, let’s move on to the EXTENT of Christ’s Kingship and Kingdom. In many ways it is the most important because His Kingdom is unlimited.
> 
> In Matt. 11:27, Jesus said to us “All things (ta ponta) are delivered unto Me of My Father”.
> 
> In Matt. 28:18, He said “All power (exousia) has been given to me”.
> 
> In Acts 10:36, Peter said, after living with Jesus for five years,”He is Lord of All”.
> 
> In Eph. 1:22, Paul said, “And (He) hath put all things under His feet and made Him to be head over all things to the Church”.
> 
> In Col. 2:10, Paul said, (I believe with special reference to angel powers) “And ye are complete in Him which is head of all principality and power”. He is the King of all angels.
> 
> In I Cor. 15:17, Paul specifies the one exception which surely does “prove” the rule, “For He hath put all things under His feet. But…it is manifest that He (the Father) is excepted which did put all things under Him.
> 
> In Heb. 2:6-8, Jesus quotes the words from Psalm 8,“…Thou hast put all things in subjection under His feet. For in that He put all in subjection under Him, He left nothing that is not put under Him,” as does Augustine, Martin Bucer, and John Calvin.
> 
> Christ is God-Creator, (John 1:3). As such, He had certain essential power and authority over all He had created. This was His Essential Kingdom and His power and authority in it could not be said to have been given unto Him. You cannot give to a person something which he already has. And yet, in every one of the references above, the power and authority is said to have been “given or “delivered” or “put upon” or “put under” Him. It is this distinction that causes us to know whether a reference in Scripture is referring to the inherent Essential Kingdom which is Christ’s by virtue of the fact that He is God-Creator or whether it is a reference referring to that Mediatorial Kingdom which was bestowed upon Him as the direct result of His work on the Cross. (Using this method, you may wish to find other references which describe Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom). [It is] true that Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom is as unlimited as is His Essential Kingdom. All that was included in His Essential Kingdom is now included in His Mediatorial Kingdom. The difference lies in the fact that the powers and things which He formerly used and ruled by inherent and original right as Creator He now uses and rules as Mediator for a new purpose, namely the salvation of souls and the best interests of all His people, the Christians or the church. very thing which He had formerly created and controlled as God-Creator, he now rules and uses for His redemptive purposes as God-Savior. Everything is—or must be made to—contribute to the salvation of souls. These things include:
> 
> 1 Inanimate and irrational things such as sun, moon, stars, animals, fish and birds–anything which can be shown in Scripture to be made to serve Christ’s redemptive purposes. Throughout the Gospels, we see Christ controlling all these things to accomplish His redemptive purposes.
> 
> 2 Angels, both Holy angels and fallen angels (even including Satan himself) are made to serve Christ’s redemptive purposes.
> 
> 3 Men, “all flesh”, elect and non-elect, alive or dead–in their official and their private capacities–are under Christ’s Dominion.
> 
> 4 Associations of people of every kind: family, civil or political, church, and business, because individuals by forming themselves into organizations or corporations, or societies may not get out from under Christ’s Lordship and Kingdom.
> 
> 5 The very “wheels of Providence” are directed and controlled by Christ to serve His redemptive purpose.
> 
> So everything that exists, except the Father, has been put under Christ’s Dominion. Had it not been for that, the world never would have been able to survive the curse. With this unlimited power, he steps forward and grasps the very pillars of the universe to hold off the destructive forces of sin and Satan, until His redemptive purposes are accomplished. The extent of Christ’s kingdom can all be summarized by the one word— UNLIMITED.
> 
> Christ’s Kingdom then is:
> 
> • Redemptive in origin and purpose
> 
> • Spiritual in nature and
> 
> * Unlimited in extent
> 
> Download pdf here.
> 
> http://www.allianceradio.org/EternityArticles/KingandKingdom.pdf


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



> Used by permission by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
> 
> http://alliancenet.org/
> 
> PART TWO
> 
> 
> The Application of the Mediatorial Kingdom “And He rules over the nations.” (Psalm 22:28b)
> 
> From Part II forward, the Kingdom discussed is the mediatorial Kingdom as defined in Part 1.
> 
> How does this Doctrine of the Mediatorial Kingship and Kingdom of Christ apply to:
> 
> The Individual (chosen of God)
> 
> The Family (basic unit of the Church)
> 
> The Church The Church—Civil Government Relationship
> 
> The Business and Life Walk
> 
> The Mediatorial Kingdom and The Individual
> 
> 
> When we begin with the Kingdom in the life of the Individual, we find that this is the plan and program that Christ builds down into the mind and life purpose of every soul who comes to know Him as Savior and Lord. It is this way of thinking that is that outline of Christian life which He can look forward to growing up into. When Christ saves a soul, He builds His particular life purpose down into that person’s life—His particular reason for dying on the Cross for that particular person. And that soul begins growing up into that purpose, through the three stages of kingdom development, that Christ described in Mark 5; 1) the blade stage, 2) the green ear stage, and finally 3) the full corn in the ear stage. He can grow up to realize that he’s been called by the King who is now His Lord and that he’s not been saved just to get his own soul out of Hell and into Heaven, but to be Christ’s witness on Christ’s earth so long as Christ chooses to leave him there. He has been saved to be a witness to others who do not yet know Christ as King and then to help them to grow up into spiritual maturity just as Jesus taught His disciples to “think” Kingdom and grow up into it. In the same way, the Apostle Paul taught Timothy not to be satisfied with just becoming a Christian, or even leading someone else to Christ, but to work and plan and pray two spiritual generations, beyond that to see a “faithful man” reaching “others also”. That is “kingdom-thinking” and an essential factor in Jesus’ long-range Kingdom plan for the evangelization of His world. That is true “apostolic succession” and an essential factor in glorifying God and enjoying Him forever.
> 
> The Mediatorial Kingdom and The Family
> 
> 
> When we begin with the kingdom in the family, we find that Christ has also built this kingdom plan down into the “mind” or purpose of the Family. So that the man and woman, bridegroom and bride, who are thinking with the mind of Christ will know that their marriage and family are not just for the purpose of developing a new level of romantic “love” nor just for the purpose of the propagation of the family name, but that they would be a two-person demonstration of the salvation relationship that exists between any soul who comes to know Christ as Savior and Lord and the Savior Himself. So that, as the world sees the way He, as the bridegroom, lays down his life for his bride-wife, they would begin to understand what was involved in Christ (as the bridegroom and King) laying down His life for His Bride (i.e. the church whose every soul comes to know Him as Savior and King). And as the world sees how she submits her whole life to her husband and puts herself into his hands without reservation, the world begins to understand what would be involved in surrendering without reservation to Christ, as Savior and Lord. The two of them will be a two-person demonstration of the salvation relationship. When this kind of kingdom-thinking or “mind” is the foundation and long-range plan for the family, then that family will grow up into spiritual maturity. “Father” will be more than just the oldest male member in the family. He will represent the Father in Heaven and he will pray for his family the way Job prayed for his children. Mother will “remind” them all of the place called Heaven and of what Christ wants His Church to be. The children will understand “grace” because they see and receive the grace and acceptance and purposefulness that is being demonstrated by both father and mother on a horizontal level and they will understand confession and forgiveness because they see it being demonstrated in the day to day relationships and conversations between a father and mother who begin with the Kingdom and Kingship of Jesus Christ. And Paul’s prayers for the family of Philemon, Apphia and Archippus will apply (i.e. “that the communication of your faith may become effectual in every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus,” (Philemon, verse 6). Other believers will say, ‘every time I think of you and your home, I just thank God’, and the extent of that family ministry will carry on beyond the four generations described by Paul to Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:2, from grandparents to parents to children and grandchildren to the end of time—wherever they may travel throughout His world.
> 
> The Mediatorial Kingdom and the Church
> 
> 
> When we begin with the Kingdom, in our thinking and planning for the church, there have been those who, by accident, oversight, or by design, would limit the doctrine of the Kingdom to the church, saying that the Kingdom is the church or the church is the Kingdom. The Kingdom includes, as we have seen, far more than the church. But Christ intends that the (redemptive) origin and purpose of His Kingdom, rising as it does out of His work of atonement on the Cross, will determine the origin and purpose and message of His Church. The (spiritual) nature of His Kingdom will provide the standard of spirituality for His Church in all her “services,” especially her worship services, and that the (unlimited) extent of His Kingdom will be the “mission vision” for His Church. It is not that the Church defines and determines what the Kingdom is, but rather that the Kingdom determines and defines what the Church is, and what she will become. The Kingdom is that overarching dome, of which the Church is a reflection. Just as it is never the blue of the lake that determines the blue of the sky, but always the blue of the sky that determines the blue of the lake; so then it is the pattern of the Kingdom that determines the origin and redemptive purpose of every church; and the spiritual nature of the Kingdom that determines the standards of spirituality in all the “services” of the church; and the (unlimited) extent of Christ’s kingdom that determines the mission vision of each church.
> 
> I Will Build My Church
> 
> 
> When Jesus, the Christ, made that remarkable promise, “I will build my Church”, over 2000 years ago, He had in mind a clearly-defined plan, a plan that He continues to implement throughout His world today. In Exodus 25:40, He had commanded Moses to build the Tabernacle according to “the pattern” which He had shown to him on the Mount. Throughout the Old Testament years, He led Israel and “the church in the wilderness” into the promised land. Now in the four gospels, He explains His Kingdom and His Plan for His Church in more detail and shows the relationship between His Kingdom and His church.
> 
> It is important to see how Christ begins in Matthew 6 with the command to “seek first the kingdom”, and then ten chapters later in Matthew 16:18 makes that remarkable promise “I will build My Church”. In Matthew 16:16-17, Christ first praises Peter with the highest commendation for making the kind of confession “thou art the Christ, the son of the Living God”, which is the rock of confession in every generation, upon which Christ’s promise to build His church is founded. When Christ proceeds to tell us about how He must be crucified in order to do this church building, and Peter begins to rebuke Him; saying in effect that he will find some easier way to do Christ’s work, Christ rebukes Peter with his sternest condemnation, calling Him Satan and saying the same thing to Peter that He had said to Satan on the Mount of Temptation. In effect, Christ is saying here to Peter and to all of us: Your responsibility is to “seek the kingdom”. I will build My church and when I do it My way then the very gates of Hell will not be able to hold out against it. You must learn to do My work , My way.
> 
> The Very Purpose of His Kingdom has been built down into His Church by the Lord Himself.
> 
> When we begin with the Kingdom, then the origin and purpose of the Kingdom become the origin and purpose of the Church. Both Kingdom and Church have arisen out of God’s sovereign will and redemptive purpose which is motivated by love to save souls. Once that decision had been made, then Christ was appointed and “became obedient unto death, even the death on the Cross, wherefore God also highly exalted Him” and gave Him the Kingdom (Philippians 2:5-11). Now He, in turn, builds His Church as a very important part of His Kingdom. Just as it was the primary and ultimate purpose of His Kingdom to glorify God, honor Christ Himself, and make it possible for Him to apply the benefits of redemption to His people and also meet their continuing needs for growing up into spiritual maturity, so now, these become the primary and ultimate purpose of His Church. Both Kingdom and Church are controlled and empowered by Christ and both are primarily concerned with the application of that redemption which He has worked out on the Cross. The Kingdom is not limited to the Church, but in these respects, they are the same.
> 
> There is a great difference between this and the idea that the Church originated in the minds of people as a voluntary spontaneous association who call themselves together in order to meet their own spiritual and social needs. This is Christ calling together His people, and ultimately it is not so much for man’s benefit as it is for God’s glory.
> 
> When we look at the Church beginning with the Kingdom, then there is a functional mission purpose that becomes very important. The Church becomes less “ours” and more “His”— not so much the place to which we come to add to our numbers and preserve ourselves, as it is the place to which He brings us, equips us, and sends us on to multiply into more congregations to evangelize His world.
> 
> On the one hand, there is a difference between the purpose Christ has built into an individual and a family and the purpose He has built down into His Church. Even a casual review of the works (erga) that Christ was reviewing in each of the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3, will show that He has assigned a particular ministry to a particular congregation. On the other hand, all churches have certain things in common and when we review them, beginning with the Kingdom, there is less emphasis on drawing distinctions and more emphasis on ultimate purpose and mission. Beginning with the Kingdom brings less emphasis on what one church “has”, that another “does not have” and more emphasis on what Christ has designed and called all of us to do to the Glory of God.
> 
> The spiritual nature of His Church also has been “built” down into her by her Lord
> 
> 
> Christ has also “built” the spiritual nature of His Kingdom down into His Church in such a way that the spirituality of the Kingdom provides a basis or standard for evaluating the spirituality of a particular congregation. Some churches are almost more dead than alive. They sing dead and pray dead and give and think dead. Others are “alive” in Christ and their services on earth can be seen as a kind of choir rehearsal for Heaven. That spirituality is also one practical basis for the Church’s independence of the power or control of all other organizations such as the civil government. Because she is a spiritual organization, she is not dependent on the State for her establishment or continuing existence. Her foundation is Christ alone. And because Christ has built her to be a spiritual organization, she is subject to Him alone. He is her only head and she is subject to Him as God has said, just as any person’s physical body is subject to the head. So the spiritual nature of Christ’s Kingdom built downward into His Church, provides the basis for 1) the spirituality of a church and especially the standard of spirituality for her worship services; 2) her independence to all other organizations and influences; and 3) her subjection to Christ alone. Also, as we shall see in a later section, this spiritual nature provides one basis for a healthy working relationship between Church and civil government.
> 
> The spiritual nature of the Church not only provides protection for Christ’s Church against the attacks of other organizations, like the civil government, from outside the Church but it also protects her against the attacks of the organizations from within the Church herself. It is clear in the records of history that the Church has been seduced or raped as often by those “legitimate” church boards (colleges, cardinals, assemblies, synods) that operate from within as she has been seduced and raped by emperors, kings, judges and other legislative bodies working from without. Whether it be hierarchical, congregational or Presbyterian form of church government, Christ has prescribed a form of church government simply because edification requires order and order requires government. The moment men begin to forget that their authority within His Church is not legislative but solely ministerial (the administration of the Word He has legislated), then they are usurping Christ’s authority within His Church. He never has permitted that and He never will. Whatever form of church government causes us to know that the Church is more “his” and less “ours” is what He was demanding and promising when He said that day to Peter, and to all the rest of us, “I will build My Church”.
> 
> When Christ built the unlimitedness of His Kingdom downward into His Church, He was establishing her unity, her universality, and her perpetuity. Today, we tend to think of unlimitedness in terms of the dimension of space but when we apply unlimitedness to the dimension of time, it means there never was a time when Christ was not a King with a Kingdom and there never will be. In the dimensions of space it means there is no “place” on the face of Christ’s world (or in outer space either, if we ever find souls in outer space), where we should not expect to find Him building His Church and using believers to do it. We catch a glimpse of the unity, universality, and perpetuity of His Church in that Passover-communion table stretching clear back into the Garden of Eden where we see Abel, the first man into Heaven, and then moving forward to include Job and Abraham and Isaac and Moses and the Prophets, all of them, looking forward through the Passover to the coming of the Messiah; and then, in the very center of that long table, Jesus the Messiah and His disciples; and then, Luther and Calvin and all the rest of the saints since then sitting at that same table looking back to the same Messiah/Christ to whom the Old Testaments saints looked forward. There never has been salvation in any other and never will be. All over His world! And universe from the beginning of time! His Kingdom will continue to grow and extend to the end of time and then on into eternity! And so will His church!
> 
> By building the specifications of His Kingdom downward into His Church, He provides his standards for:
> 
> 1 Her purpose
> 
> 2 Her spirituality
> 
> 3 Her independence of all outward control
> 
> 4 Her subjection to Himself alone
> 
> 5 Her unity
> 
> 6 Her universality
> 
> 7 Her perpetuity
> 
> All this then translates into the order and program of His Church as she makes progress through time toward bringing His world into conformity to the regnum Christi totum. This doctrine of the unlimitedness of Christ’s Kingdom projected downward into the mission vision of His Church promises to develop a strongly united, universally expanding, perpetually existing Church which will one day confront the State in such a way as to require their working together. But what is the relationship between Christ’s Kingdom-Kingship and the civil government?
> 
> The Mediatorial Kingdom and The Civil Government
> 
> 
> Everything Christ has been teaching us about His Kingdom provides reasons which imply that He is also Lord of civil government:
> 
> • His being invested with the mediatorial dominion in no way supposes His abrogation of any of His Rights of Dominion as God.
> 
> 
> His moral qualifications to rule over all things and especially “all flesh” would imply that such a vastly important thing as civil government would not be exempted from his mediatorial rule.
> And without such power over nations, Christ would be seriously handicapped in overruling the rebellions of men in order to bring about that time when “the kingdoms of this world shall become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ” (Revelation 11:15).
> This doctrine of the unlimitedness of Christ’s Dominion gives us every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is now King and Lord over all nations’ civil governments as well as Lord of the individual, the family, and the church.
> 
> But more important than reasons and implications such as these are the specific statements from the following Scripture. The commands of Scripture, e.g. Psalm 2, as quoted in Acts 4:25,13:33, Hebrews 1:4, 5:5 and Revelation 2:27. The Prophecies of Scripture; e.g. Psalm 47:2, 3, 8, 9; Psalm 72; Isaiah 49:22-23; 60:11, 12, 16; Ezekiel 45:17; Daniel 7:13-14; Revelation 11:15; 21:24,26: And such designations in Scripture wherein the Mediator is addressed as “Governor among the nations” (Psalm 22:28); “higher than the Kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27); “King of nations” (Jeremiah 10:6-7); “King of Kings” (Revelation 17:14; 19:16). All of these assert Christ’s actual Lordship over civil government. To ascribe such titles to Him if they were not true, would be to mock Him.
> 
> We may summarize Christ’s Lordship over civil government under 8 topics, the eight things Christ does for civil government. These are followed up by 4 responses civil government can make to Christ’s Lordship:
> 
> 1 The very origin of civil government is in the Hands of Christ. Of the Church, He has said “I will build my Church”. There is, however, a difference between the origin of the Church and the origin of civil government because He says—“civil government is an ordinance of man” and “the powers that be are ordained of (by) God”. This means that the God of nature has put the desire into man for a voluntary social compact. Civil government originated with God morally not less than providentially. God not only permitted it, He caused it and since, as we have seen earlier, the matters of Providence have also been put into the hands of Christ, then He is, as Mediator, the one who instituted and constituted civil government. It can never be the ordinance of man in any sense in which it is not ordained by God.
> 
> 2 It is Christ who continues to oversee the affairs of civil government. Throughout the history of the Old and New Testaments, we see him influencing the counsels of statesmen and the prowess of armies to set some up and take others down, in order to accomplish His redemptive purposes.
> 
> 3 Christ issues those commands through His Word which direct civil rulers in promoting the public good, restraining evil, administering laws with justice, promoting and protecting His Church and doing all this in such a way that it will promote the plans and holy name of the Mediator.
> 
> 4 It is Christ who overrules the rebellions of those who oppose Him.
> 
> 5 It is Christ who executes the judgments of God on those rulers and people who refuse to be guided by His moral law.
> 
> 6 It is Christ who also works through civil government to disseminate the Gospel throughout His world. As King of Kings, He authorizes those whom He has commissioned to enter and evangelize any nation on earth. So it is not only what He does for them and to them, it is also what He does through them that proves His Lordship over nations. He is Lord of “common” grace.
> 
> 7 Christ works through civil government in such a way as to gather together and protect and promote His Church. Because of the character of nations as they now are, there could be no hope for the Church if it were not for the fact that Christ is Lord of the civil government as well as Lord of the Church.
> 
> 8 Christ promises to bring about an entire change (reformation) in the character and constitution of the nations of the world and in Isaiah 9, He adds this promise, “the zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform it”.
> 
> In all these eight ways, Christ, as King, asserts His Lordship over His civil government, working through them to carry out the purposes of His Kingdom Plan. Conversely, at each of these points, civil government is thrust more and more up into the light and plan of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom. One practical result of all this is that men are thus confronted in civil government, as well as in church with the mediatorial authority and plan of Christ. This is something more than Theocratic, it is Christocratic. Christ’s authority in the civil government becomes as absolute as it is in the Church. Everything here points to civil government being an ordinance of God—a moral ordinance, a divine institution. This is a very high doctrine of civil government.
> 
> Now what response can a nation make to Christ and His Lordship in civil government? There are at least four responses civil government can make to Christ’s Lordship:
> 
> 1 The Glory of Christ, her King, can and will be the chief end or highest purpose of the State. It is just not enough to be satisfied with the promotion of domestic tranquility, peace, social order, happiness among men or the patriotic good of our own community. Everything the civil government does, every constitution and law and treaty she writes, every home and foreign policy she makes, every appointment she makes, must be reviewed with an eye to the excellency of her Lord. Even indifference or neglect of this can be seen as an insult, dishonoring to the King. This tends to equate civil government with what is commonly known as moral government. It means that the best interests of God, government, and men are one. Government is intended to do more than guard, defend, and protect the civil rights and properties of her citizens, it is also intended to hold together moral and political truth.
> 
> 2 The Law of Christ can and will be the rule of conduct. Since God has commanded His people in Old Testament times to use His Laws and Precepts as the basis for their governing and civil government, then less could not be expected of those of us in New Testament times who have access to the whole of God’s Revelation in Scripture. This means then that the State, by virtue of being an instrument of Christ, a moral ordinance, is not just limited to such grounds as common consent, protection of property, or physical needs as a basis for her laws. But she can, and therefore should, go on directly to God’s moral law in the Scriptures as the best basis for all her laws. Those who break those laws would be, disciplined not only because of what they have done against man, but also because of what they have done against God. In both legislation and the restraint of irreligion, the most important thing would be, what is most honoring for Christ as the Lord of Civil Government.
> 
> 3 The standards that Christ demonstrated in His own character as King will be the base for evaluating or electing men for office in civil government. Using Christ’s character as the basis for our evaluation of the character of those seeking our vote, we would want to see in their lives:
> 
> • His kind of dignity or respectability
> 
> • His kind of “near relationship” to us
> 
> • His kind of knowledge and wisdom
> 
> • His kind of power—ability to get things done
> 
> • His kind of moral purity
> 
> • His kind of compassion
> 
> • His kind of authority
> 
> Throughout both the Old Testament and the New Testament, God has defined and described these character qualities as essential prerequisites for one who will be both “a terror to evil” and “a minister of God for good”. And because of Christ’s Lordship over Civil Government, Christians, in voting, are bound to rule out choice based on passion, prejudice or party and subject their choice to the character standards and policies found in God’s Word. Yes, the franchise is a civil right, but it is to be exercised to the will and honor of Christ. This does not mean that non-Christians will ipso facto cease to be magistrates but it does mean that in a nation that has received God’s revealed will, it is unfitting, even dishonoring to Christ to elect to office those who have rejected Him. At the same time, Christians who are elected to office need to remember that they are not just the servants of their constituencies, but are “the ministers of God” and regulate both their public and private conduct accordingly.
> 
> 4. The authority of magistrates and the submission of Christian citizens in any nation which has access to the Gospel is dependent on these standards. Power and obedience in this nation does not arise out of either slavish fear of “my constituency” or from selfish motives but from love and respect for the Redeemer-King. It will include a respectful kind of fear, well doing, paying of taxes and customs, and giving of honor, as described in Romans 13. Disobedience become disobedience to Christ.
> 
> At this point, it becomes necessary to make a distinction between “power” and “authority”. God has invested people with democratic power in political matters and those people have the right to exercise that power. This is moral power as distinguished from physical-strength kind of power. It is the power to organize their own social relationships, agree on constitutions and laws, and to elect and invest certain individuals to rule over them. This is just the basis for the secular state. But we are going beyond this when we make a distinction between this kind of power, and the kind of authority which Christ as King has given to a Christian magistrate. Both moral power and moral authority come from God. But the moral power comes immediately from God as a natural thing. The moral authority comes mediately as an added thing. And there are two essential prerequisites for a person’s getting the right or title to this moral authority:
> 
> 1 A moral capacity, i.e. he must have some age of maturity and a sound mind; and
> 
> 2 A moral ability, which is not necessary for him to have moral power, but is necessary for him to have moral authority. For example, a man who is of age and a sound mind may have demonstrated his moral inability to rule his own children. And yet his (terrible) moral power over those children cannot be denied. Such a man cannot be said to have moral authority. And since God has not given such a man any such authority, then Christian citizens who desire to honor Christ as Lord of civil government should not attempt to give him any such moral authority by electing or appointing him to rule over them. It may not be the responsibility of a Christian citizen to investigate the moral authority of the man who makes his shoes, but before electing a man to rule over him, he must examine carefully his natural, moral, and spiritual qualifications by evaluating his qualifications against the very character of Christ the King of all civil governments.
> 
> Beginning with the Kingdom lays a foundation for the development of Christian influences in civil government and the purpose, nature, and extent of civil government. It provides a Kingdom-based initiative for the further study of church and civil government relationships, that would be honoring to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
> 
> The Kingdom and the Business and Life Walk
> 
> 
> When we begin with the Kingdom in Christian Life, then we can see how surely some men are “called” into business just as directly as others are “called” to be pastors or missionaries. Those men will see a relationship between whatever they do or produce or build, and Jesus’ reason for dying for them on the Cross. The purpose or reason for their business will be directly related to the purpose of Christ’s Kingdom. The spirituality of Christ’s Kingdom will permeate the very character of their personnel and corporation and the honesty, integrity and dependability of their services and products. They will be as successful as was Job and Abraham and Joseph and Solomon and Lydia. The unlimitedness of the extent of Christ’s Kingdom will unlock the entreprenurial creativity and initiative of owners and employees. Their attitude toward the wealth of the world and their control of that portion of it which the King entrusts to their stewardship will be directly related to the fact that in one sense they do not “own” anything. Everything they “have” belongs to the King Himself and is to be managed by them as stewards of the Lord in such a way as is useful to Him in His building of His Kingdom.
> 
> Christ’s promise is the promise of the King Himself and these men who have been “called” into business have learned that when they seek first the Kingdom of God in their business, then all these other things will be added unto them. No man who has learned to do that has ever been known to “fail”.
> 
> PART THREE The Conclusion of the Matter
> 
> 
> “Therefore since we are receiving a Kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” (Hebrews 12:18)
> 
> Beginning with the King and His Mediatorial Kingdom does make a difference in the Christian walk.
> 
> The Individual Soul who comes to know God in the person of Jesus Christ discovers that the One who gave His life for him on the Cross is the King with all this Kingdom. Lordship takes on new reality. He has been “saved” or called, not just to get out of Hell, but to be a witness to this King so long as the Lord chooses to leave him on His earth, and then on into eternity. Something of the mind and purpose of Christ begins to “renew” his mind so that he thinks with the mind of Christ (Romans 12:1-2). He becomes a “spiritual” man with a sense of responsibility (vision) for what Christ, His King, is doing all over his world. He becomes a friend of Christ, not just a servant in His Family. He will have a redemptive purpose for living, a spiritual nature, and a world vision. He will see a relationship between his occupation or work and Jesus’ reason for dying for him on the cross.
> 
> The Family who learns to begin with the Kingdom will know and rejoice in the fact that their family relationships are not a do-it-yourself work. But “unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it” (Psalm 127:1a) and that, as a matter of fact, the Lord is building their family and that the King who formed the first family in the Garden of Eden has also formed them into His family. He designed the father to be the demonstration or illustration of Christ’s kind of self-sacrificing love and the mother to be the demonstration of the submission of any soul to Christ as Savior, and all the family to demonstrate the spirituality of Christ’s Kingdom and the children, from generation to generation, to demonstrate the unendingness of Christ’s Kingdom. So Christ the King designs and directs the family to explain and demonstrate the redemptive purpose, the spiritual nature and the unending extent of His eternal Kingdom. It will keep on multiplying to the end of time.
> 
> The Church who learns to begin with the Kingdom will be a family of families. She will recognize that Christ is not only Her only King and Lord, but that He is Her beloved Bridegroom and She will be very jealous for all His Crown Rights and Royal Prerogatives. She will want His purposes and plan to be the purpose and plan for everything She does. Since He is a reaching God who is always reaching out to evangelize, She will want to be a reaching church. Since He is an equipping and sending God, She will want to be an equipping and sending Church. She will reflect the nature of His Kingdom by the way she worships Him and the way she maintains her independence of all other controls and Her submission to Him alone as Her only King and Head. Her very unity, universality and perpetuity will be reflections of the spiritual nature of His Kingdom. Her growth and multiplication will be a reflection of the unlimitedness of the Kingdom and of Her King.
> 
> The Civil Government who would learn to begin with the Kingdom would find a God-given basis for working and for working together with the church. This would be more than a faith-based initiative, it would be a Kingdom-based initiative. W. E. Gladstone (Prime Minister of England) had made a careful study of Church-State relationships in the light of Christ’s Kingdom and published a book titled The State in Its Relationship to the Church. His opponents condemned him for making a political blunder that almost cost him his political life (his election). They condemned him for believing that the State revolved around the Church. They insisted that churches came and went–revolving around the State.
> 
> They might have said the same thing about any one of the social units we have been looking at. Some individuals, dictators or emperors or even church leaders, have thought that everything and everyone else revolved around them. Some others have insisted that everything and everyone else; church, state, and individual must revolve around the family. Others have insisted that everything else, including the family must be sacrificed for the church. Pastors have sacrificed their children and family life “for” the church and some have chosen celibacy instead of family life.
> 
> The doctrine of the Kingship and Mediatorial Kingdom of Jesus Christ provides God’s answer to all this imbalance. The proper relationship between church and civil government and all these other social units rests on three foundations.
> 
> 1. This doctrine of the Kingdom and Kingship of Jesus Christ “beginning with the Kingdom” provides ample basis for Church- State relationship. The spirituality of Christ’s mediatorial dominion has been built down into the very nature of the Church in such a way as to provide a basis for resolving Church- civil government conflicts and the continuing close cooperation of the two. It is also the basis for the assurance that the Church will continue to remain independent of the control of the civil government and subject to Christ alone as her only King and Head and it will prohibit the Church from ever dominating the civil government. The unlimitedness or universality of Christ’s mediatorial dominion has also been built down into the very nature of the Church in such a way that the powerful principles of a multiplying ministry of the Gospel of Jesus are sending a closely unified, universally expanding, perpetually existing Church, moving throughout the world. It will, one day, require a coming to terms between Church and civil government.
> 
> In all this, the basic essential difference between Church and civil government will continue to be preserved. They are different insofar as their immediate origin, their immediate ends and their forms of administration are concerned. They are particularly different in their means of operation, their attitude toward their subject citizens or members, and the character or results of their work. But having said all this, the fact is that the origin of both is in the hands of Christ. His Word is the ultimate rule and standard for both. His Glory is the ultimate objective for both. Both are subject to Him, whether they know and want it or not. Both are subject to Him as King and distinction does not mandate hostility. Things can be diverse without being adverse. The Church-civil government relationship can be a practical working out of the spirituality of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom. It is a reflection of the relationship between the regnum Christi and the regna mundi. There is a clear, sharp distinction, but that does not mandate a further separation of the two. In fact, it is the distinction which makes the “separation” of Church and civil government unnecessary. It is actually because of their differences as well as their similarities that the two are designed to work together to the glory of Christ and the establishment of His Kingdom. The fact which is seen so clearly in history that “help” given by the State to the Church has been misused, does not mean that it must always necessarily be misused to “secularize” and corrupt the Church, or otherwise blend and confuse Church and civil government anymore than it means that civil governments, by virtue of having suffered in history, especially the medieval years, from the encroachments of the Church, no longer have need for the Church. Both Church and civil government are ordinances of God and the fact that Christ has been made Lord of both, guarantees that the necessary distinctions can/will be preserved when they form a right Church-civil government relationship. It is the overarching dome of Christ’s unlimited Kingdom and in particular His moral Lordship over nations that provides the grand basis for the alliance of Church and civil government, as well as the motive for bringing these two historically unruly persons together. They are two different moral provinces but they are under the same King as separate departments of one vast moral empire. Ptolemy may have initiated the idea of the overarching dome of the kingdom, but he found it in the Scriptures.
> 
> 2. The second foundation for this Church-civil government alliance is to be found in the Scriptures. God’s Word authorizes these kinds of working relationships. In the New Testament, God defines the magistrate as the “minister of God” who is a “terror to evil”, so he must necessarily be concerned with the suppression of irreligion and the discouragement of offenses against religion. And as the minister of God for good, he must necessarily be concerned with the promotion of the true religion. The important thing is that God put no restriction on either of the two words “evil” or “good”. That is God’s New Testament definition of a magistrate, and the Old Testament provides three kinds of God-approved examples of this principle.
> 
> A.) In the pre-Jewish patriarchal economy, Melchisidek demonstrated a combination of sacred and civil things which were pleasing to God.
> 
> B.) During the Mosaic economy, the Jewish kings demonstrated a combination of things civil and sacred which were pleasing to God.
> 
> C.) The Gentile princes, such as Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, who made contributions to the work of the Church helped to destroy the idea that such civil government support was purely Jewish, and therefore without God’s approval for any other dispensation. Scripture, when not limited to either Old or New Testaments, authorizes an alliance that produces a good working relationship between Church and civil government.
> 
> 3. The third foundation for a good Church-civil government relationship is just to review again what the civil government can do for the Church (faith) and what the Church (faith) can do for the civil government. The civil government, on the one hand, can do more than just restrain irreligion and protect the work of Christ and His Church. She can carry out Her own part in that work by making Her own profession of faith in Christ and pledging Her loyalty to Him. She can demonstrate His standards of character and conduct in her magistrates and laws. She can contribute to the extension of the special work of His Kingdom through the exercise of Her official or diplomatic influences.
> 
> On the other hand, true faith, as taught by the Church is a very important factor in the establishment of that kind of a sound political economy which is most honoring to Christ and most conducive to the progress of His Kingdom and the welfare of her citizens. She teaches magistrates that they are “vice-regents” of Christ with real authority from Him and directly responsible to Christ as well as to men, for putting down all selfish temptations to dominate or tolerate, legislate, administrate, or judge in any way that will run counter to His revealed law. She teaches the citizens the value of true liberty and the real source of it—which results from their knowledge of the true faith. The Church teaches the citizens of the State to restrain natural tendencies toward anarchical licentiousness and indifference which are dishonoring to the Lord of the State and detrimental to the efficiency of civil government. The Church, as the teacher of true faith is also directly concerned with the natural wealth of the nation and, to some extent, responsible for securing new industry through the development of habits of honesty, industry, creativity and thrift without at the same time actually becoming involved in that industry or acquiring that wealth for herself. She is involved in the prevention of indulgence, waste, and poverty, and the establishment of the real “moral” prosperity of the nation. History and current events show that when this is neglected whole civilizations and nations have collapsed. The Church can use the means peculiar to her own nature to reach (far beyond where the State can go) into the very hearts and consciences of men to promote the cause of peace and go to the very sources of lawlessness, profligacy, and impiety, to points that lie far beyond the scope of civil law and its physical means. Beginning with the Kingdom does make a difference.
> 
> 4. But what does Christ mean when he directs us to “think Kingdom”? In Philippians 2:5-11, God says it this way, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus” and in Romans 12:1-2, he calls it being “transformed by the renewing of your mind”. In Philippians 2, God continues to give us a detailed outline of the steps of incarnation, the thought processes of the Messiah in leaving Heaven to come to earth to that last step when “He became obedient unto death even the death of the Cross, wherefore God also hath mightily exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name. That at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father”. That is the description of the Father’s appointment of the Son to His Mediatorial Kingdom and His statement of the extent of it. Now He says, in effect, I want you to think with the mind of Christ—the way He thought (and still does think) about leaving Heaven to come to earth to face death and then to receive this Mediatorial Kingdom. I want you to have that kind of love. To think Kingdom is a process. In Romans 12:1-2, God said, “Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God”.
> 
> From the time of conversion, perhaps before that, God begins breathing through His inspired Word, His Kingdom Plan for each particular soul that He redeems—not only the general redemptive purpose and spiritual nature and unlimited mission vision of His Kingdom, but also the particular application of it all for that particular soul—His particular reason and life purpose for dying for that particular soul on the Cross. And the obedient soul will grow up into every day of that Life Plan.
> 
> That can be called “thinking Kingdom”. Understanding the redemptive purpose, the spiritual origin and the unlimited extent of Christ’s Kingdom can sometimes help us to recognize where Christ will be leading us next—his next “development” in our life. Then seeking His Kingdom may mean that we will begin praying; asking him to show us more about his atonement; about greater spiritual maturity in working with others; and for more mission vision and understanding of what He is doing in other parts of His world. It was that kind of prayer and desire that He put into our hearts as a family that sent us to drive around the whole world in 1974-1975. That mission was directly related to this doctrine of the unlimited extent of Christ’s Kingdom. We came back with a new sense of responsibility for what He is doing all over His world.
> 
> What does God mean when He promises to “give you the Kingdom”. (Luke 12:32)?
> 
> He means what He had kept explaining privately over and over again to his disciples—His long-range Kingdom plans for His world and how they will keep on working after He leaves them; what He was saying in John 15:15, “hereforth, I call you not servants (slaves) but friends, for the servant knoweth not what his Lord doeth, but I have called you friends for all things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you.” This Kingdom will be yours—it is yours now.
> 
> PART FOUR
> 
> 
> The Author’s Personal testimony
> 
> 
> “You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” 2 Timothy (2:1-2)
> 
> Allow me to step back for a moment to personalize all of this in the form of a personal testimony that the King might use to make someone reading it to be sure of his/her own relationship to the King. Let me be the “individual” that the King is bringing into His Kingdom and building down into my own life something of the redemptive purpose, the spiritual nature and the unlimited extent of His Kingdom.
> 
> I realize now that He is the King who loved me in a manner wondrous and divine, who caused me to be born in 1925. He took my Mother to be with Himself when I was just three years old. He put it into the heart of my Father to give me away to his sister, a maiden lady and schoolteacher who loved me and taught me to memorize God’s Word (especially Psalm 19, wherein God speaks so precisely about how the “line” of the sun, the moon and the stars speak without words, in every language all over the world). As King, He had put me into the U.S. Navy (1942-1946) and made me the Acting Navigator on board that aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Petrof Bay, where those stars and their timing made the difference between life and death. He kept me alive and then brought me to the point of knowing that things were not “right” between Himself and myself. I did not think or talk or live the way He did. There were big differences between us, and there was nothing I could do to make things right between us. At that juncture, He caused me to remember and to know what I had learned as a boy, that He Himself had come down to earth in the form of Jesus Christ and deliberately given His life on that Cross at the other end of the Mediterranean Sea in order to make things “right” between us—if I would but trust in Him. He put it into my heart to trust in Him and I did.
> 
> It was 1948. He began “breathing” the facts about His Kingdom down into my heart/life through the study of His Word. He sent me through three years of seminary, and then directly on to graduate school to begin study of the doctrine of His Kingdom (1948-1953).
> 
> In 1953, He brought me back to the United States and called, ordained and installed me to be Pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Bloomington Indiana, home of Indiana University (40,000 students and 40,000 citizens), where He sent two friends who began to show me how to apply and communicate what He had been teaching me about His Kingdom—how to do His work His way. He then called me back to University (1960-1963) to study more of His Kingdom and then brought me to Indianapolis where He wanted to use me in His building of Second Reformed Presbyterian Church. In the last 40 years, He has allowed me to be involved in the lives of a dozen or more other pastors who can do everything I can do, but better than I can do it. He lets me be close enough to His Church “building” to see Him build six other churches (and three or more developing) and twelve more men working to become pastors.
> 
> Readers: In Philippians 2:8-11 (NKJ), “. . . and being found in appearance as a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and those on earth, and those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father.” Since this is the will of the Father for the Son, then why not join Him in that express purpose for your own life, that is the exalting of Jesus in all that you are, know, and do, in a prayer of personal commitment.
> 
> Father, whatever it was You committed Yourself to by highly exalting Your son Jesus, a name above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in Heaven and of those below the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. To Your glory, Dear Father, I hereby now commit myself to full obedience of this command and make this the ultimate purpose of my life in Your Kingdom. Amen.
> 
> In 1948, after a four-year stint (1942-1946) in the U.S. Navy as Navigator and Division Officer in the South Pacific and Atlantic theatres, Dr. Roy Blackwood obtained his Bachelors degree in Chemistry from Geneva College in Ohio. Also in 1948, he married his wife Margie with whom he has three children. Roy obtained a graduate degree from RP Seminary in 1953 and became Pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Bloomington Indiana. In 1961, Roy and his family moved to Scotland where he received a Doctorate in The History of Theology from New College, University of Edinburgh. Dr. Blackwood became Senior Pastor of the Second Reformed Presbyterian Church, Indianapolis, Indiana in 1966 where he serves to this day.
> 
> http://alliancenet.org/
> 
> pdf
> 
> http://www.allianceradio.org/EternityArticles/KingandKingdom.pdf



I also recommend Pastor Phil Pockras' work.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/Christ-the-king-of-all/



> I appreciate Pastor Pockras’ concise way of putting things. May you be encouraged in seeing Christ’s Mediatorial Dominion. Thanks for allowing me to post this Pastor Pockras.
> RMS
> 
> 
> Christ the King of All
> _By Philip H. Pockras, minister
> Belle Center Reformed Presbyterian Church
> Belle Center, Ohio_
> http://www.bcrpchurch.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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).
> 
> This teaching, unknown or poorly understood within much of the evangelical church, is one of the doctrinal linchpins of the Reformed Presbyterian Church throughout the world. Historically, Christ’s Mediatorial Kingship has been asserted, during the whole of the RP Church’s existence, against several errors: Popery and Erastianism in Britain, and secularism in other nations in which she has been planted. As we look to Scripture, we see this doctrine taught in both Testaments.
> 
> “1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying], 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. 6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. 10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed [are] all they that put their trust in him.” (Ps 2)
> 
> “13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.” (Dan 7:13-14)
> 
> “18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.” Mat 28:18-20)
> 
> “20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places], 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church, 23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” (Eph. 1:20-23)
> 
> “5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; 11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11)
> 
> Certainly, more references could be multiplied. Enough have been cited to show, however, that there is a distinct Dominion given to Messiah. This Mediatorial Dominion is distinct from, additional to, and coterminous with that Dominion which He retains essentially as the Second Person of the Godhead. Note that this additional Dominion is given to Him. It is bestowed upon Him. The reasons for this bestowal by the Father are given, too. This bestowal is a reward for Christ’s “doing and dying.” The Mediatorial Dominion is by purchase. Further, we see that this economy is bestowed in order to bless Christ’s body, the Church.
> 
> The extent of this Mediatorial Dominion is universal. This is absolutely necessary for Messiah, as He must rule over all things in order to make them work together for good for those who love Him, and who are the called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28). It may be objected that the reprobate cannot be under His Mediatorial Reign, for how could He be a Mediatorial King to those who do not benefit from His work of redemption? Let us remember that, in our common experience, we see many who live lives of continual criminality, yet we do not deny that they are under the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate. So it is with the reprobate. Indeed, they get no benefit from the King; only judgment and condemnation (Mat. 25:31ff). Nonetheless, the King sovereignly directs them and all their ways, that His church may be benefitted and the Father made glorious.
> 
> Again, it may be objected that the doctrine of a universal Mediatorial King derogates from the dignity, glory, activity, and even the immanence of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Further, Christ’s high dignity as the only-begotten Son is lost sight of. In reply, it should be noted that the orthodox church concurs that the Lord Jesus Christ is Zion’s only King and Head. Does anyone seriously believe that, in the church, the dignity, glory, and activity of the other Persons of the Godhead are in any way impaired? Is there a soul who maintains that teaching that Messiah alone is King of Saints removes the presence of the Father and the Spirit from the Church? And who will say that such teaching leads to the eclipse of His Deity? Who? Such a man, in any orthodox Protestant denomination, would be condemned in the courts of his church for maintaining such positions. If Christ’s Mediatorial Kingship in the church be so obviously acceptable, then there should be no objection of this sort to teaching that He holds sway over all the creation.
> 
> One further objection comes to mind. It is that someone else exercises sovereign rule over all things extraneous to the Church. An objector may say that this someone is the Son in His essential Deity. It must be remembered that, although Christ has two distinct natures, He is one Person, one Savior. “Is Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1:13a) remains a relevant question just at this point. Such an assertion goes against clear Scripture teaching already cited, declaring Christ’s universal dominion as the Mediator. Some bizarre attempts at “exegesis” have been tried in order to elude this conclusion, but such attempts would have been laughable had the subject not been so solemn and majestic.
> 
> If not the Son Himself, then perhaps another Person of the Godhead, or the undifferentiated Deity rules in all things extraneous to the Church, it may be said. A problem arises in connection with this proposal. God has determined all blessing, all redemption, all things necessary to the accomplishment of His gracious purposes, to come through the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant, of course, cannot be separated from Him who is its Head. To attempt to approach God apart from a Mediator in these post-Fall times is fatal. To seek any blessing from the Holy and Righteous Judge, deeply offended at sin, is absurdity. To expect anything but God’s wrath and curse, apart from a Mediatorial administration, is folly. If all things extraneous to the Church are in the hands of God essentially, then the Church cannot repose in confidence and trust that all will work for her good. Might they not work for wrath upon her who is still stained, wrinkled, blemished, impure and unrighteous in her current experience? Should she not cower at the approach of the Holy One, strong to smite? Of course she does not, because all things are now ordered through the Covenant of Grace for her benefit. All things, internally and externally, are under the feet of her glorious and loving Husband, the King. His Father becomes Her Father in heaven, strong to save, not the offended Judge mentioned. Her Beloved’s Spirit is sent abroad to be at work as the King’s agent. All Providence, at the King’s command, is ordered for her ultimate good, ultimate purification, ultimate salvation. In the Universal Mediatorial Dominion, and only in it, blessing is certain.
> 
> APPLICATIONS
> 
> I. For the Church
> 
> As noted above, there is a general concensus among Reformed churches that Christ is Mediatorial King of Saints. The Church is His Kingdom of Grace, His “special Kingdom”. As we look at this particular aspect of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingship, we should assume that there would be implications for doctrine, discipline, government, and worship. In these four areas, it must be asserted that the Word of Christ alone determines matters, either as it is “expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence…deduced from Scripture” (WCF 1:6). Therefore, the Church of Christ, and every branch of it, must see that it holds and practices the directions of Him Who is Head and King of Zion. Everything that is truly attained from Scripture must be held tenaciously and perseveringly. Anything that is added must be excised. That which has been dropped must again be carried aloft. This is the reason that the RP Church has retained what she believes to be Scriptural doctrine, although it keeps her apart from other brethren whom she holds dear. This is why the RP Church has tried, though grieving over much of her own inconsistency and negligence, to maintain Scriptural church discipline, especially in the matters of common confession, testimony bearing, and the Sacraments. This is why the RP Church still professes to believe in _jure divino_ Presbyterianism. This is why the RP Church, despite unpopularity and ridicule, retains what she believes to be Scriptural worship principles and practices. These things she believes to be binding upon all the Church of Christ, not mere quirks of her own little circle. Any change on her part must occur as she is convinced that she has erred in her understanding of the Word of God, as has happened in the past. Of course, this is the required basis for change in any part of the Apostolic Church.
> 
> This leads to a consideration of church union. That this is a desirable goal, and commanded by Christ no one can deny. Can it come legitimately by the scuttling of the truth of the Bible? Our Savior has commanded His disciples to disciple the nations, teaching them to observe everything that He has commanded (Matt 28:18-20). Putting aside one part of Christ’s commandments in order to effect another is wrong. The one is sinfully ignored and the other is not truly brought about. Both end up lost. Union must be a union in truth. Any true union within the Church of Christ must be a union in the truth, where the formerly divided brethren come to a concensus in their understanding of the King’s gracious decrees. Further, there should then be a corporate pledging of allegiance to the King. In the past, this has been called “public social covenanting”.
> 
> 2. For the State
> 
> Christ is King of nations as well as saints. Nations are distinctly part of His universal Mediatorial Dominion. They are part of His Kingdom of Power, His “subordinate Kingdom”. A very obvious _a fortiori_ argument to this point could be inserted here, but there is no need. Suffice it to say, that since a universal Dominion is demonstrated, there can be nothing remaining outside it, but what is specifically excluded. We have such an exclusion from Messiah’s sway mentioned, but it is not the Civil Magistrate/Civil Government/Nation. “For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.” (1 Cor 15:27).
> 
> That Christ, as the Mediatorial King, claims the allegiance of earth’s nations is quite explicit in Scripture passages already cited. To these testimonies we could add more: “1 O clap your hands, all ye people; shout unto God with the voice of triumph. 2 For the LORD most high [is] terrible; [he is] a great King over all the earth. 3 He shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet. 4 He shall choose our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob whom he loved. Selah. 5 God is gone up with a shout, the LORD with the sound of a trumpet. 6 Sing praises to God, sing praises: sing praises unto our King, sing praises. 7 For God [is] the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding. 8 God reigneth over the heathen: God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness. 9 The princes of the people are gathered together, [even] the people of the God of Abraham: for the shields of the earth [belong] unto God: he is greatly exalted.” (Psalm 47) In connection with this citation, it ought to be remembered just who it is that has ascended. It is not God considered in His unity, nor the Heavenly Father, nor the Holy Spirit, nor yet the Son essentially considered, but Messiah. He is the One addressed as God in Psalm 47. The fulness of revelation that we now have in these last days shows us that it is God-man Who is ascended, Who is King, Who reigns over nations, before whom officials, as officials, assemble to learn and to do His will.
> 
> Further witness to Christ’s Mediatorial Kingship over the nations can be found in Revelation:
> 
> “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.” (11:15)
> 
> Of Him Who rides forward to conquer the nations with the sword of His Word we read, “And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” (19:16)
> 
> Further official statements on this doctrine as currently confessed by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America are in its _Testimony_, chapter 23, “Of the Civil Magistrate”, pp. A69 – A78 in its Constitution.
> 
> From time to time different objections to this teaching come forth. One of the most common comes from misunderstanding the words of our Savior when, before the judgment seat of Pilate, He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36) Some say that these words are in conflict with a notion of nations formally pledging allegiance to Christ as King. The apparent tension relaxes when we remember what Jesus means when He says that His Kingdom is not of this world. He surely does not mean that it is a purely privatized affair, or something irrelevant to matters of this earth, something of grace as opposed to nature, or something noumenal as opposed to the phenomenal. He does mean that His Kingdom is of a different order, not merely one more kingdom in the midst of many others. He does mean that it is one that acknowledges Him as its immediate supreme overlord, instead of others claiming that role. He does mean that the weapons of conquest are the preaching and teaching of His Word, which bring sinners and societies under Him. He does mean that it is established by the power of the Spirit, rather than that of man. He does mean that it is established in the righteousness and holiness of heaven, not the pride and cruelty of man. This Kingdom is in the world, although not of the world. The nations of this world, along with all else, can, should, and shall be explicitly under the aegis of Christ the King.
> 
> Another objection commonly mentioned is that this doctrine seems to force a union of Church and State, with one or the other in ascendancy. While some have perverted this teaching to such an end, proper practical application militates against either an Erastian or Romanist conception of church-state relations. It remains true that Christ alone is Head of the Church, not a pope nor yet a civil magistrate. The proper civil powers remain in their place, too. Scripturally, both Church and State have distinguishable subjects, different ends, different officers, and different sanctions, among other things. Both, nonetheless, are under the same Mediatorial King, the King of Zion and the King of kings. Both Church and State are under the same obligation to covenant with Him in their own appropriate ways, yielding loyalty to their Lord. Both are obliged to support each other in appropriate ways, that the King may be glorified by men in their public lives. Both are obliged to conform to God’s Law, in ways proper to each institution. The State is under constraint in these areas just as much as the Church, in order that it may fulfill its role as God’s ordinance, His ministry for good (Romans 13:2,4). Especially in those nations where the Gospel has been preached, to “Kiss the Son” is an absolute necessity for the national well-being. To resist or refuse such submission is to invite total national annihilation from the offended “King on Zion’s hill.”
> 
> In this matter of national submission to Messiah, the Church of Christ has a prominent responsibility. Part of her duty in supporting the State is declaring what is true and false, what is right and wrong, as defined by the Old and New Testament Scriptures. The Church catholic must declare that the State is morally compelled to own Messiah as King and His Law as the law of the land. She must declare the State immoral at these extremely critical points, if it does not repent. Christians, in such a case, in such as we live now, cannot participate in any action that would entrap them in such immorality themselves. There can be no unqualified allegiance sworn to immoral constitutions of government that do not themselves swear allegiance to Christ.
> 
> In connection with this national submission, often called “national reform”, the Church has the duty of calling the nation to formal public social covenanting with the King. This follows approved Scriptural example in the times of Joash, Hezekiah, Josiah, Nehemiah, and others. Some may say that the situation of OT Israel was unique. It is true that, in OT times, Israel was unique among the nations of the world in containing the visible Church, and that no nation in these last days can ever make a legitimate claim to be the sole Christian nation. This precludes no land, however, from covenanting to be _a_ Christian nation.
> 
> In the matter of putting men into civil office, the Christian citizen must recall, first, that only personally godly men who espouse Scriptural righteousness and justice are worthy of office (Deuteronomy 17:14-20, 2 Samuel 23:3), not those who are of a certain political party or those considered the “lesser of two evils”. Further, these candidates must, themselves, hold to the Christian view of civil government that has just been explained. To elect a man to office who has no conscience qualms about swearing to uphold and defend, without proper qualification, a Christless constitution of government involves both him and the elector in treason to Jesus.
> 
> Many, when receiving these teachings for the first time, react negatively. They call them quixotic, out of touch with the rampant ungodliness within our nation. Such principles are unrealistic, they declare. In initial reply, a simple question is appropriate: “But aren’t they Biblical?” If so, then no matter how contrary to common sense they may initially seem to be, we must embrace the doctrines and emplace their practical applications. Many are the times that God has blessed faithful obedience to His Word despite what appear to be pretty long odds, as man perceives. Who knows but that, as we follow the command of Christ to call the nations to repentance in this matter, we shall see them turning contritely to their King by the power of His Spirit? So it happened with Nineveh in the days of Jonah. Our preaching and teaching Christ’s Mediatorial Kingship over the nations will pull people from their pietism and privitization of Christianity. It will prepare the people of God, the Body of Christ, for proper action when the time comes to enact changes in the constitution of civil government, changes that will reflect proper, godly national submission to Messiah.
> 
> Another word that may spring up in the mind of some is “triumphalism”. It must be admitted that, historically, the Reformed Presbyterian Church has been postmillenial. Even now, whether they call themselves postmillenial or amillennial, most members of the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church would consider themselves to be optimistic in their eschatology. This optimism, however, is not absolutely necessary in order to hold to the doctrine of Christ’s Mediatorial Reign over the nations, as is known from personal acquaintance. Is it “triumphalist” to teach and act on plain teachings of the Bible? If so, let us triumph in being “triumphalist”! _In hoc Christo vinces!_ (In this Christ conquer!) Really, though, this name-calling is no more profitable in this discussion than that of my fellow theological/eschatological optimists who castigate “pessimillenialists”.
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> This, then, is a very condensed presentation of the doctrine of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingship, with some practical application. The Reformed Presbyterian Church believes it to be Biblical and binding on all the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. Much of this material may be new to brethren in other branches of the Church, even those branches very near in most points of doctrine, discipline, government, and worship.
> 
> The Interchurch Committee of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America originally assigned this essay in the spirit of obedience to the church’s _Covenant of 1871_. In the actual engagement, paragraph 4, we read, “That, believing the Church to be one, and that all the saints have communion with God and with one another in the same Covenant; believing, moreover, that schism and sectarianism are sinful in themselves; and inimical to true religion, and trusting that divisions shall cease, and the people of God become one Catholic church over all the earth, we will pray and labor for the visible oneness of the Church of God in our own land and throughout the world, on the basis of truth and of Scriptural order. Considering it a principal duty of our profession to cultivate a holy brotherhood, we will strive to maintain Christian friendship with pious men of every name, and to feel and act as one with all in every land who pursue this grand end. And, as a means of securing this great result, we will by dissemination and application of the principles of truth herein professed, and by cultivating and exercising Christian charity, labor to remove stumbling-blocks, and to gather into one the scattered and divided friends of truth and righteousness.”
> 
> It is hoped that this essay will lead to a better understanding of this vital, yet much overlooked, doctrine; a greater unity in the Church of Jesus Christ; and a determination to work for the recognition of Christ’s crown rights in the nation. May He Who is Head and King of the Church, Zion’s only Potentate; He Who is King of kings and Lord of lords bring it to pass, to the praise of His Name and the glory of His and our Father!
> 
> _By Philip H. Pockras, minister
> Belle Center Reformed Presbyterian Church
> Belle Center, Ohio_
> 
> 
> SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
> 
> Boyle, Samuel E. _The Christian Nation_. Pittsburgh: The Christian Government Movement, n. d. [1971].
> Edgar, William. “The National Confession Position.” In _God and Politics_, pp 176-99. Edited by Gary Scott Smith. Foreword by John H. White. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1989.
> Hodge, Archibald Alexander. _Evangelical Theology_. 1890; Reprint ed., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976.
> McAllister, David. _Christian Civil Government in America_. 6th ed. Revised by T. H. Acheson and Wm. Parsons. Pittsburgh: National Reform Association, 1927.
> Oburn, William. _The Dominion of Our Savior Jesus Christ as Mediator_. Galion, OH: By the Author, 1878.
> Palmer, Benjamin Morgan. “Christ’s Universal Dominion.” _The Southern Pulpit_ I:9 (September, 1881): 526-36.
> _____________________. “Sermon, Preached in the First Presbyterian Church, Augusta, Ga., December 4th, 1861, at the Opening of the First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the Confederate States of America.” _Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America, 186_1.
> Reformed Dissenting Presbytery. _An Act, Declaration, and Testimony of the Reformed Dissenting Presbyterian Church, in North-America_. West-Union, Ohio: Reformed Dissenting Presbytery, 1839.
> Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. _The Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America_. Pittsburgh: Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America Board of Education and Publication, 1989.
> Reformed Presbytery. _Act, Declaration, and Testimony_. Ploughlandhead, Scotland: 1761; reprint ed. with added historical and declaratory supplement, Philadelphia: Reformed Presbytery [“Steelite”], 1876.
> Symington, William. _Messiah the Prince_, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: John Johnston, 1840.
> Thornwell, James Henley. “Relation of the State to Christ. (A Memorial).” _The Collected Works of James Henley Thornwell. Vol IV: Ecclesiastical_, pp. 549-56. Edited by B. M. Palmer, 1875; reprint ed., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1986.
> United Presbyterian Church of North America. “The Testimony of the United Presbyterian Church of North America,” _The Subordinate Standards of the United Presbyterian Church of North America_, pp 535-92. Pittsburgh: United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1903.
> Note: William Symington’s tremendously important _Messiah the Prince_ and the _Act, Declaration, and Testimony_from 1761 are currently in print and obtainable from Still Waters Revival Books Edmonton, AB.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Stephen L Smith said:


> From what I can see the modern edition sold today is an abridged edition of Symington's original.



It has been a while since I read the manuscript of J. K. Law's book. He is from here and was mentored here on the topic. It has been many years since I read a few editions of Symington's books. There are some variants. Some are more Post Mil than I perceived than other editions.


----------



## User20004000

“There is a reason it is self-published, and why NO presbyterian or Reformed, or even generally evangelical publisher would take the manuscript: if they did, they would never be able to publish any WSC professor ever again.”

Lane, let me try again. You said there was a reason no Reformed publisher took on the book. You then seemed to offer a concrete reason. 

One thing I was trying to distinguish is I wouldn’t want to say that the publishers avoided the book for financial pragmatism (i.e. they’d never in the future be able to publish a book by an Escondido professor if they published Frame’s book). 

Whether they were for or against Frame, publishers could have just not wanted to touch the topic because it’s just too divisive. Or perhaps they thought it was badly argued by Frame. Maybe the book was junk in their opionion. That faculty would not publish with such publishers (had those publishers taken on the book) might not have entered into the reasoning of those publishers was my point. There are many other possible reasons. Your point seems to index a rationale that I’m unable to infer with any confidence. I was trying to soften your strong inference, that’s all. Thx


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Susan777 said:


> Daniel, do you recognize any of the men and women shown on the masthead?



I'm hardly on ANY forum lately. Rather burned out on "social media", but I lurk on PB a good deal and this thread caught my eye, and took a fair amount of my time (lol). I can tell you that Hart's avatar is Richie Allen--a great baseball player who should probably be in the HOF. Allen made a lot of enemies in his day, but man could he thwack a baseball. I don't think Richie Allen is R2K.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## greenbaggins

Ron, fair enough. I was not intending to imply any purely monetary incentive on the part of publishers. I was thinking of it in more positive terms as, say, publishers wanting to keep their options open for future writers. In which case, the divisiveness of the issues would be of paramount concern.


----------



## Susan777

Clark-Tillian said:


> I'm hardly on ANY forum lately. Rather burned out on "social media", but I lurk on PB a good deal and this thread caught my eye, and took a fair amount of my time (lol). I can tell you that Hart's avatar is Richie Allen--a great baseball player who should probably be in the HOF. Allen made a lot of enemies in his day, but man could he thwack a baseball. I don't think Richie Allen is R2K.


Thanks. I thought it was maybe an old blues singer. Do you recognize any of the people on his blog masthead? They change with every screen refresh.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Susan777 said:


> Thanks. I thought it was maybe an old blues singer. Do you recognize any of the people on his blog masthead? They change with every screen refresh.



Well, I do recognize Machen! Some are actors, and a few of them in the past have definitely been characters from The Wire.


----------



## User20004000

greenbaggins said:


> Ron, fair enough. I was not intending to imply any purely monetary incentive on the part of publishers. I was thinking of it in more positive terms as, say, publishers wanting to keep their options open for future writers. In which case, the divisiveness of the issues would be of paramount concern.



That was my inclination. I was trying to tease it out so that you weren’t misunderstood. Badly done at my end!


----------



## Susan777

Clark-Tillian said:


> Well, I do recognize Machen! Some are actors, and a few of them in the past have definitely been characters from The Wire.


Thanks again.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Clark-Tillian said:


> Allen made a lot of enemies in his day, but man could he thwack a baseball. I don't think Richie Allen is R2K.


But I think Darryl would like to think he hits it out of the ballpark on his blog. But I found him quite lacking in fact and posting with jaded eyes in a Klinean hermeneutic. I once announced that I was amazed he was a prof given the status he is given as a historian at Hillsdale. He misses some things concerning Machen's social beliefs concerning the World and education. Hillsdale should have sought a better historian as WSC should look for a better Systematic Theology historian also. I was once told John Ball had no influence upon those who who contributed to the Standards and I should avoid him. That is not just my criticism alone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But I think Darryl would like to think he hits it out of the ballpark on his blog. But I found him quite lacking in fact and posting with jaded eyes in a Klinean hermeneutic. I once announced that I was amazed he was a prof given the status he is given as a historian at Hillsdale. Hillsdale should have sought a better historian as WSC should look for a better Systematic Theology historian also. That is not just my criticism alone.



I think he's quite the underachiever. The Lord's obviously gifted him with a fine intellect, and yes, a dry as a 4 olive martini sense of humor, but his books, which are academic in nature, do not knock me out in any manner. His blog is impish at best, frivolous at mid-depth, and sometimes sinful at worst, in the way he mocks other human beings. I think he can do better. Then again, so can I, even though I'm not in his league intellectually.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Clark-Tillian said:


> I think he's quite the underachiever. The Lord's obviously gifted him with a fine intellect, and yes, a dry as a 4 olive martini sense of humor, but his books, which are academic in nature, do not knock me out in any manner. His blog is impish at best, frivolous at mid-depth, and sometimes sinful at worst, in the way he mocks other human beings. I think he can do better. Then again, so can I, even though I'm not in his league intellectually.


I like Darryl. I even posted a blog as a joke asking who should be President with these pics as our Posters. 





 

 
And I am not a Southern Presbyterian either. But I like the pipes. Mine probably cost more. LOL


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Clark-Tillian said:


> I think he's quite the underachiever.


I think he speaks too much and exposes himself. I have known of Darryl for many years. I know the guy who coined the phrase Radical Two Kingdom Theology. I prefer to acknowledge Radical and Neo Two Kingdom. Their view is definitely Neo. Machen would have a few things to say to Darryl in my estimation that would shape him better if he would listen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I like Darryl. I even posted a blog as a joke asking who should be President with these pics as our Posters.
> 
> View attachment 6550View attachment 6550 View attachment 6551
> And I am not a Southern Presbyterian either. But I like the pipes. Mine probably cost more. LOL



He is funny; those pics are funnier. I know people who know him well, and they say he's a riot. I'd vote for you. I'm a Jersey boy, born and bred, but i'll take Lee over Grant any day. And Lincoln's war could've been avoided with maybe a decade's more patience. To think that Presbyterians separated over NOTHING that contradicted the Standards is painful. Then again, you cannot partake of The Table together if you're killing each other.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I think he speaks too much and exposes himself. I have known of Darryl for many years. I know the guy who coined the phrase Radical Two Kingdom Theology. I prefer to acknowledge Radical and Neo Two Kingdom. Their view is definitely Neo. Machen would have a few things to say to Darryl in my estimation that would shape him better if he would listen.



I think we can all learn a lot from J. Gresham. He was a mensch.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I’m convinced that the wedding of exclusive redemptive-historical hermeneutics with neo-Two Kingdoms theory, resulting in the view that pastors shouldn’t teach/preach on public policy issues lest they jeopardize “the spirituality of the pastoral call,” would have excluded from ordination and the pastorate John Calvin, John Knox, and pretty much all the English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians of the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, including pretty much all the members of the Westminster Assembly. A theory the implication of which would be that is, I think, simply not credible.

Let the neo-Two-Kingdom guys urge that we maintain the centrality of the focus on the gospel; let them urge that we keep our priorities straight; let them urge that before pastors speak on public policy issues they take the time really to learn enough about them to speak credibly; let them even recommend, as a matter of prudence, that no pastor devote more than, say, 5 hours a week to studying a public policy issue, and therefore that he not presume to teach on it until he’s been studying it (i.e., the broad principle question–a specific legislative or regulative proposal might be new and susceptible of much quicker understanding) for at least two years, or something like that. But, unless they really just want to jettison the Reformed/Presbyterian heritage (and for that matter the heritage of all the Biblical prophets), let them not say that pastors must simply eschew teaching about public policy issues. The members in the pews, some of whom must fill public offices and all of whom are called, in this democratic republic, to vote for those who will fill public office, need their Biblically–and economically or historically or scientifically, etc.–informed wisdom.

E. Calvin Beisner

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Clark-Tillian said:


> To think that Presbyterians separated over NOTHING that contradicted the Standards is painful. Then again, you cannot partake of The Table together if you're killing each other.


I disagree here. The RPCNA moved North because of the slavery issue. I am solidly on the side of States rights and our differing constitutions having issues. This was a time of infancy I think. Both sides had moral implications. That is part of my problem here. The Church has a problem with knowing history. I think God made his choice and has given us over to our own lust in this day. That happened back then too even though Lee and Jackson wouldn't have been contributors in that.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BTW, my denomination has remained a solid Church for the past centuries despite the weirdness of pragmatists of the neo 2K movement in the URCNA and OPC.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I actually find that most who come into the URCNA and OPC don't understand the historical significance of their forefathers. There are too many new comers who find themselves here without understanding. I was and I am like like that in the Centuries old RPCNA. It is hard. Too bad that Kline redefined so much theooogical stuff in the OPC that it is unrecognizable.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/two-different-definitions-of-merit/


----------



## Clark-Tillian

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I disagree here. The RPCNA moved North because of the slavery issue. I am solidly on the side of States rights and our differing constitutions having issues. This was a time of infancy I think. Both sides had moral implications. That is part of my problem here. We have a problem with knowing history. I think God made his choice and has given us over to our own lust in this day. That happened back then too even though Lee and Jackson wouldn't have been contributors in that.



Politics on the PB? Well, I suppose the entire R2K issue involves politics at a deep level. I don't think the War Between the States was fought over slavery, primarily. Was it a factor? Certainly. But to have Christians--especially Confessional Presbyterians, killing each other is tragic. I often think of Europe; if all those nation states of "Christendom", with monarchs that were often cousins, had thought of themselves first as Christians rather than "English" etc. Think of the time and money and blood that could've been saved.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Clark-Tillian said:


> Politics on the PB? Well, I suppose the entire R2K issue involves politics at a deep level. I don't think the War Between the States was fought over slavery, primarily. Was it a factor? Certainly. But to have Christians--especially Confessional Presbyterians, killing each other is tragic. I often think of Europe; if all those nation states of "Christendom", with monarchs that were often cousins, had thought of themselves first as Christians rather than "English" etc. Think of the time and money and blood that could've been saved.


This is another topic. Sorry. I brought it in. I don't believe Slavery was the primary issue either but it is today as it is taught. You have to set Europe aside unless you want to involve non involvement. Walter Williams is a much better historian than Darryl Hart. 

I think of the bloodshed in terms of freedom over land and belief. Slavery was a main motivator unless you want to speak about New York and the draft. Only 13 percent of the Confederate Army owned slaves. It was a matter of invasion to them. There is a lot you are leaving out. And Hollywood gets it wrong. So don't depend upon the recent films.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I actually find that most who come into the URCNA and OPC don't understand the historical significance of their forefathers. There are too many new comers who find themselves here without understanding. I was and I am like like that in the Centuries old RPCNA. It is hard. Too bad that Kline redefined so much theooogical stuff in the OPC that it is unrecognizable.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/two-different-definitions-of-merit/



I hear that. I recently had a major conflict with an RE that I considered one of the best fiends I ever had. Over the PCA's BCO. He didn't know NAPARC churches existed until he met me; he wasn't a convinced Trinitarian. And yet he thought he understood the BCO better than I did. Even though I've been in the PCA since he was in high school; have been on Overtures at GA; Chair of the Admin Committee of Ascension Presbytery; took a Seminary class 1 x 1 with Paul Gilchrist etc. He doesn't know the history of compromise in the BCO. He doesn't get the nuances. He's ripped my life and my congregation apart. Saddening. And sobering.

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## Clark-Tillian

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This is another topic. Sorry. I brought it in. I don't believe Slavery was the primary issue either but it is today as it is taught. You have to set Europe aside unless you want to involve non involvement. Walter Williams is a much better historian than Darryl Hart.
> 
> I think of the bloodshed in terms of freedom over land and belief. Slavery was a main motivator unless you want to speak about New York and the draft. Only 13 percent of the Confederate Army owned slaves. It was a matter of invasion to them. There is a lot you are leaving out. And Hollywood gets it wrong. So don't depend upon the recent films.



Of course, I'm leaving a lot out--it's an Internet forum, and I've not seen any of the recent films.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

They need to get to know Frank Smith then. He was there at the beginning. He is RPCNA now.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter




----------



## Susan777

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I’m convinced that the wedding of exclusive redemptive-historical hermeneutics with neo-Two Kingdoms theory, resulting in the view that pastors shouldn’t teach/preach on public policy issues lest they jeopardize “the spirituality of the pastoral call,” would have excluded from ordination and the pastorate John Calvin, John Knox, and pretty much all the English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians of the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, including pretty much all the members of the Westminster Assembly. A theory the implication of which would be that is, I think, simply not credible.
> 
> Let the neo-Two-Kingdom guys urge that we maintain the centrality of the focus on the gospel; let them urge that we keep our priorities straight; let them urge that before pastors speak on public policy issues they take the time really to learn enough about them to speak credibly; let them even recommend, as a matter of prudence, that no pastor devote more than, say, 5 hours a week to studying a public policy issue, and therefore that he not presume to teach on it until he’s been studying it (i.e., the broad principle question–a specific legislative or regulative proposal might be new and susceptible of much quicker understanding) for at least two years, or something like that. But, unless they really just want to jettison the Reformed/Presbyterian heritage (and for that matter the heritage of all the Biblical prophets), let them not say that pastors must simply eschew teaching about public policy issues. The members in the pews, some of whom must fill public offices and all of whom are called, in this democratic republic, to vote for those who will fill public office, need their Biblically–and economically or historically or scientifically, etc.–informed wisdom.
> 
> E. Calvin Beisner


Does your pastor preach on public policy issues?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Yes, When it defies God's command. We have a denominational statement also. We are not Canada.

I pray we don't end up there. The next generation will suffer more if they believe that marriage is marriage.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Clark's extensive quotations favorably reference a particular _stream _of Reformed thought


Probably out of context. How do you define a Covenant of Works? Do you want to visit your military accusation of a Covenant of works stuff?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> In addition, Clark has numerous favorable references to the _Marrow of Modern Divinity, _


We have problems Houston.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...-divinity-and-the-recent-republication-issue/



> Someone on the Puritanboard wanted to know how the view of Republication contained in the Marrow of Modern Divinity measured up.
> 
> He asked, “I have some questions in regards to Republication in the book Marrow of Modern Divinity. The book seems to be supporting some sort of republication of the CoW at Sinai. The Republication of the CoW proposed in Marrow does not seem like what we have in modern Republication. Am I right?”
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/marrow-modern-divinity-republication-83911/
> 
> Reverend Winzer does a really good job pointing out the positions advocated in the Marrow. He speaks and addresses a few questions in the discussion linked to above that I think highlight some of the problems with the Modern understanding propagated by those who hold to the modern Republication model advocated by David Van Drunnen, R. Scott Clark, Bryan Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and those who adhere to the teachings of Meredith G. Kline’s later theological stance concerning the Mosaic Covenant.
> 
> Reverend Winzer comments in Post 2…
> 
> ‘The traditional view held that there was a republication subordinate to the covenant of grace, whereas *the modern movement maintains that republication is co-ordinate with the covenant of grace*._* The one sets forth the unity and continuity of the covenant of grace as administered under Law and Gospel while the other introduces division and discontinuity into the covenant of grace*_.”
> 
> The last post at this time ,post #12, is an answer to Reverend Todd Ruddell.
> 
> Reverend Ruddell asks, “What is the “Marrow” combating in that line of argument?”
> 
> Reverend Winzer replies,”Antinomista questioned the belief that the covenant of grace was renewed with the people of Israel and is the same in substance with the new covenant, and quoted Jeremiah in an attempt to show there are two covenants differing in substance. From an Antinomian perspective, the law and the old covenant are one and the same and the abrogation of the old covenant entails abrogation of the law in every respect.”
> 
> Now, I know for a fact that one of the Professors I use to communicate with holds to a doctrinal stance that Antinomista is advocating in the Marrow. That being that the Mosaic Covenant is both an administration of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. It is a mixed Covenant. Let me quote Dr. R. Scott Clark’s Theological Theses at the end of this blog. It is certain that even Evangelista is in opposition to the movement that is being presented today as an acceptable understanding of Republication. But it wasn’t Fisher’s or Boston’s view that these men are teaching and claiming to advance. I have heard one of them specifically say they are in agreement with what the Marrow men advocated. If the Marrow of Modern Divinity is teaching the doctrine of the Marrow Men then it appears that some of these guys are off base. Reverend Winzer points out that the root of this teaching advocated by this Modern teaching has more in common with Antinomista’s position. Reverend Winzer makes note of this in his last sentence on post 6 stating, “If one is looking to trace the co-ordinate view of republication to its ancestry the tree will lead back to Antinomista, not Evangelista.”
> 
> Dr. Clark’s Theological Theses.
> http://clark.wscal.edu/covtheses.php
> Biblical / Exegetical section…
> 13. The Mosaic covenant was not renewed under Christ, but the Abrahamic covenant was.
> 
> 16. With regard to the land promise, the Mosaic covenant was, mutandis, for pedagogical reasons (Galatians 3:23-4:7), a republication of the Adamic covenant of works.
> 
> 17. With regard to justification and salvation, the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.
> 
> 18. The Israelites were given the land and kept it by grace (2 Kings 13:23) but were expelled for failure to keep a temporary, typical, pedagogical, covenant of works (Genesis 12:7; Exodus 6:4; Deuteronomy 29:19-29; 2 Kings 17:6-7; Ezekiel 17).
> 
> 19. The covenant of grace, initiated in history after the fall, was in its antepenultimate state under Adam, Noah, and Abraham, its penultimate state under the New Covenant administration and shall reach its ultimate (eschatological) state in the consummation.
> 
> 20. The term “Old Covenant” as used in Scripture refers to the Mosaic epoch not every epoch before the incarnation nor to all of the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures indiscriminately.
> 
> 21. The New Covenant is new relative to Moses, not Abraham.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the thread was pretty explanatory. It lays out that the modern understanding of Republication differs significantly from that of the teaching in the Marrow of Modern Divinity. This should draw a line for some of us. I personally am not a Marrow Man but it is within the confessional bounds of Reformed teaching. That being that the Mosaic Covenant is an Administration of the Covenant of Grace and not a mixed Covenant.
> 
> Be Encouraged guys. Press on.


----------



## jwright82

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I wouldn't but that is something between klineanism and results of it as opposed to historical Two Kingdom thinking.


So where do you draw the line between radical and ok? That was kind of the point of this thread. How much disagreement with your POV is ok and when does it become radical, and I already know you'll mention the first table of the law so pick something else for conversation sake? Love your blog posts BTW.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Have you listened to this?


----------



## jwright82

PuritanCovenanter said:


> BTW, my denomination has remained a solid Church for the past centuries despite the weirdness of pragmatists of the neo 2K movement in the URCNA and OPC.


Pragmatists, you're gonna make me blush, William James is great. I'm only a pragmatist when it comes to a decision that will kill, persecute, and or disenfranchise people's lives. If people's lives aren't worth religious freedom than I don't know what is.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

jwright82 said:


> Pragmatists, you're gonna make me blush, William James is great. I'm only a pragmatist when it comes to a decision that will kill, persecute, and or disenfranchise people's lives. If people's lives aren't worth religious freedom than I don't know what is.


Then you do not live in Canada do you?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Thomas Boston wrote (Works, 4:156-157):
“There is one thing, which, from experience, we are taught they may lay their account to lose, namely, the countenance and protection of the civil magistrate in their duty. This is in itself a great loss. And seeing God has promised to a church, when he is well pleased with her, “that kings shall be her nursing fathers, and their queens her nursing mothers;” the withdrawing of it must be a sign of the Lord’s displeasure. Yea, and if we trace the sins of rulers that bear hard on the people to their first spring, we will find that it is some quarrel that God hath with the people, 2 Sam. 24:1. This should humble us, and stir us up to pray for them, and be dutiful to them, to whom the Lord has said, “ye are gods,” in every thing that is not inconsistent with your duty to God himself. But this is a trial to us, whether we will regard God or man most; and the saints will ever prefer the countenance of the Lord to the countenance of the highest powers on earth, and depend upon his protection alone when they are deprived of all other.”



“If Thomas Boston’s viewpoint were accepted, the loss of the nursing father would be seen as a trial from which we should seek deliverance through ordained means. Those who hold to a dualist form of two kingdom theology regard the lack of a nursing father as ideal and normal for the church’s condition in the world, and would not see it as a trial or practically seek any improvement on the state of affairs.

To get down to the nitty-gritty of it, what love is it to your neighbour, what honour to your superiors, to wish the national interest to remain alienated from the life of God and strangers to His blessings? What Christian in his right mind is content to see God dishonoured and a plethora of other gods worshipped in His place?

We are not able to change the moral conditions of society apart from our own personal response to them, but our personal response should include vexation of soul and grieving over the ungodliness of our fellow-men. *The idea of building a doctrine from Scripture which supports and justifies being content with the dissolution of Christian standards in a society runs contrary to everything the Scripture tells us about the righteous Lord loving righteousness and hating wickedness*.” I can't remember who I quoted here.

In a blog I did years ago (2012) I pointed out that Dr. Kinneer rightly conveys this is a problem with a poor Christology.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ngdoms-view-vs-the-biblical-one-kingdom-view/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...t-all-politics-are-a-war-for-the-soul-of-men/


I was taught right and wrong based upon a presumption. I was taught what my Society taught me was true. I freely admit that. My parents were not raised in Church. I wasn’t. But I was raised knowing the Ten Commandments and how they relate to some of my life. I came from a Dutch family that migrated to America for a better life I imagine. My English predecessors (which are a small faction in my heritage) were here for progress as I can imagine. We have cars in our heritage. My German (and I am mostly Dutch / German and Swede) came over for probably religious reasons as some of my heritage suggests. But I am not sure. My Swedish family came over for probably other reasons even though they were strictly Lutheran as I know. But I am an actual descendant of William Bradford (English) the Governor of the Plymouth Plantation who came over for the true reason of seeing Christ’s Kingdom being furthered. Yes, For that purpose. So they could WORSHIP GOD FREELY. FREEDOM. NOT ANARCHY.

Let me say I am an actual descendant of the William Bradford’s line. He helped write and put together the Mayflower Compact which is one of our Nation’s original Governmental Covenantal documents. I think I can prove that.

I can imagine some of the arguments against such a proposition. Especially since I have communicated with D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark, and others of their theological perspective…. Guess how I will end this story as a descendant of our founder in light of recent Modern Reformed discussions? Especially since I am from a Covenanter theological persuasion. Guess what recent controversies we would discuss? Their perspective is called Radical Two Kingdom Theology and what I call Klineanism. They believe in a dualism that is dichotomous. The Government operates from a different foundation than the Church concerning what is Moral. Is it doing us any good as a Church in light of what I may have been taught concerning the Kingdom of Christ: Is this teaching doing anyone’s children any good? Is it opposed to what we have been taught? I believe it is and it has hurt the Church and Society as a whole. I will post what I have been taught in a video below. Some would refer to it as Romanism. I would say it isn’t. It is not like Romanism. It does depend upon the Decalogue though. Why is that bad or not bad? I believe Rome is better than this Society in some ways since I believe some Roman Catholics do find Christ as our Reformers did. I also believe some Roman Catholics are saved. At least they had the whole Law to guide them. This Society in the United States of America has very little if nothing. It even denies the founders now saying they were incorrect in so many ways.

Please don’t bring up the Slavery issue. It is a moot issue. Check your facts.

I believe when the Ten Commandments are denied the soul of men are left to death. There is nothing to point to what is correct or wrong. The Ten Commandments point to life also. Some say they point to death only. I would say they are the way of life for the Christian also. Just try disobeying them and denying them as a Christian. Hold tight to them you will find life in Christ. You can not go against the grain of God’s word and find goodness. There is some truth in both statements concerning life and death. The Law has to understood contextually. It has to be understood contextually. It has to be understood contextually. Everyone says that. Even those who are R2K. I believe DR. Clark would agree with that. But we are losing the battle right now. Politics are a war for the soul of men. Even when others deny it in my estimation. Our Society (Government) tells others what they should be comfortable with. It even enforces it. I think the modern R2K guys have lost sight of that. We started off worrying about Marijuana. But I believe Homosexuality is way worse than any argument over what we put in our bodies. The things we can put into our bodies may lead to debauchery but to endorse homosexuality in any form is reprobate and now the USA has done that. Forget the Marijuana thing. This is even worse.

Even the Rainbow has been perverted. Wow! The very symbol that God cares about a perverse mankind and demands repentance has been perverted.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Then you do not live in Canada do you?


Nope. Never even had the pleasure of going there.


----------



## jwright82

PuritanCovenanter said:


> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...t-all-politics-are-a-war-for-the-soul-of-men/
> 
> 
> I was taught right and wrong based upon a presumption. I was taught what my Society taught me was true. I freely admit that. My parents were not raised in Church. I wasn’t. But I was raised knowing the Ten Commandments and how they relate to some of my life. I came from a Dutch family that migrated to America for a better life I imagine. My English predecessors (which are a small faction in my heritage) were here for progress as I can imagine. We have cars in our heritage. My German (and I am mostly Dutch / German and Swede) came over for probably religious reasons as some of my heritage suggests. But I am not sure. My Swedish family came over for probably other reasons even though they were strictly Lutheran as I know. But I am an actual descendant of William Bradford (English) the Governor of the Plymouth Plantation who came over for the true reason of seeing Christ’s Kingdom being furthered. Yes, For that purpose. So they could WORSHIP GOD FREELY. FREEDOM. NOT ANARCHY.
> 
> Let me say I am an actual descendant of the William Bradford’s line. He helped write and put together the Mayflower Compact which is one of our Nation’s original Governmental Covenantal documents. I think I can prove that.
> 
> I can imagine some of the arguments against such a proposition. Especially since I have communicated with D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark, and others of their theological perspective…. Guess how I will end this story as a descendant of our founder in light of recent Modern Reformed discussions? Especially since I am from a Covenanter theological persuasion. Guess what recent controversies we would discuss? Their perspective is called Radical Two Kingdom Theology and what I call Klineanism. They believe in a dualism that is dichotomous. The Government operates from a different foundation than the Church concerning what is Moral. Is it doing us any good as a Church in light of what I may have been taught concerning the Kingdom of Christ: Is this teaching doing anyone’s children any good? Is it opposed to what we have been taught? I believe it is and it has hurt the Church and Society as a whole. I will post what I have been taught in a video below. Some would refer to it as Romanism. I would say it isn’t. It is not like Romanism. It does depend upon the Decalogue though. Why is that bad or not bad? I believe Rome is better than this Society in some ways since I believe some Roman Catholics do find Christ as our Reformers did. I also believe some Roman Catholics are saved. At least they had the whole Law to guide them. This Society in the United States of America has very little if nothing. It even denies the founders now saying they were incorrect in so many ways.
> 
> Please don’t bring up the Slavery issue. It is a moot issue. Check your facts.
> 
> I believe when the Ten Commandments are denied the soul of men are left to death. There is nothing to point to what is correct or wrong. The Ten Commandments point to life also. Some say they point to death only. I would say they are the way of life for the Christian also. Just try disobeying them and denying them as a Christian. Hold tight to them you will find life in Christ. You can not go against the grain of God’s word and find goodness. There is some truth in both statements concerning life and death. The Law has to understood contextually. It has to be understood contextually. It has to be understood contextually. Everyone says that. Even those who are R2K. I believe DR. Clark would agree with that. But we are losing the battle right now. Politics are a war for the soul of men. Even when others deny it in my estimation. Our Society (Government) tells others what they should be comfortable with. It even enforces it. I think the modern R2K guys have lost sight of that. We started off worrying about Marijuana. But I believe Homosexuality is way worse than any argument over what we put in our bodies. The things we can put into our bodies may lead to debauchery but to endorse homosexuality in any form is reprobate and now the USA has done that. Forget the Marijuana thing. This is even worse.
> 
> Even the Rainbow has been perverted. Wow! The very symbol that God cares about a perverse mankind and demands repentance has been perverted.


Yes the mayflower compact was one of our original governmental covenantal documents, so we're the articles of confederation. Both null and void after the constitution. But don't know what that has to do with this thread. From what I can gather from your post, it is a "dichotomist" view of church and state that makes one R2K? I don't know what you mean by that, could you elaborate?


----------



## Susan777

PuritanCovenanter said:


> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...t-all-politics-are-a-war-for-the-soul-of-men/
> 
> 
> I was taught right and wrong based upon a presumption. I was taught what my Society taught me was true. I freely admit that. My parents were not raised in Church. I wasn’t. But I was raised knowing the Ten Commandments and how they relate to some of my life. I came from a Dutch family that migrated to America for a better life I imagine. My English predecessors (which are a small faction in my heritage) were here for progress as I can imagine. We have cars in our heritage. My German (and I am mostly Dutch / German and Swede) came over for probably religious reasons as some of my heritage suggests. But I am not sure. My Swedish family came over for probably other reasons even though they were strictly Lutheran as I know. But I am an actual descendant of William Bradford (English) the Governor of the Plymouth Plantation who came over for the true reason of seeing Christ’s Kingdom being furthered. Yes, For that purpose. So they could WORSHIP GOD FREELY. FREEDOM. NOT ANARCHY.
> 
> Let me say I am an actual descendant of the William Bradford’s line. He helped write and put together the Mayflower Compact which is one of our Nation’s original Governmental Covenantal documents. I think I can prove that.
> 
> I can imagine some of the arguments against such a proposition. Especially since I have communicated with D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark, and others of their theological perspective…. Guess how I will end this story as a descendant of our founder in light of recent Modern Reformed discussions? Especially since I am from a Covenanter theological persuasion. Guess what recent controversies we would discuss? Their perspective is called Radical Two Kingdom Theology and what I call Klineanism. They believe in a dualism that is dichotomous. The Government operates from a different foundation than the Church concerning what is Moral. Is it doing us any good as a Church in light of what I may have been taught concerning the Kingdom of Christ: Is this teaching doing anyone’s children any good? Is it opposed to what we have been taught? I believe it is and it has hurt the Church and Society as a whole. I will post what I have been taught in a video below. Some would refer to it as Romanism. I would say it isn’t. It is not like Romanism. It does depend upon the Decalogue though. Why is that bad or not bad? I believe Rome is better than this Society in some ways since I believe some Roman Catholics do find Christ as our Reformers did. I also believe some Roman Catholics are saved. At least they had the whole Law to guide them. This Society in the United States of America has very little if nothing. It even denies the founders now saying they were incorrect in so many ways.
> 
> Please don’t bring up the Slavery issue. It is a moot issue. Check your facts.
> 
> I believe when the Ten Commandments are denied the soul of men are left to death. There is nothing to point to what is correct or wrong. The Ten Commandments point to life also. Some say they point to death only. I would say they are the way of life for the Christian also. Just try disobeying them and denying them as a Christian. Hold tight to them you will find life in Christ. You can not go against the grain of God’s word and find goodness. There is some truth in both statements concerning life and death. The Law has to understood contextually. It has to be understood contextually. It has to be understood contextually. Everyone says that. Even those who are R2K. I believe DR. Clark would agree with that. But we are losing the battle right now. Politics are a war for the soul of men. Even when others deny it in my estimation. Our Society (Government) tells others what they should be comfortable with. It even enforces it. I think the modern R2K guys have lost sight of that. We started off worrying about Marijuana. But I believe Homosexuality is way worse than any argument over what we put in our bodies. The things we can put into our bodies may lead to debauchery but to endorse homosexuality in any form is reprobate and now the USA has done that. Forget the Marijuana thing. This is even worse.
> 
> Even the Rainbow has been perverted. Wow! The very symbol that God cares about a perverse mankind and demands repentance has been perverted.


This discussion has been helpful but had led me to more questions about how these 2 perspectives would actually play out in someone’s life. If a Christian baker, for example, were asked to bake a cake for a sodomite couple how would he respond as a 2k believer? Would he do it out of a principle of love to neighbor, or civil society being ruled under a different morality? Would he feel he had incurred no displeasure from the Lord for doing so but rather had preserved God’s plan and purpose for the secular realm? What about an establishmentarian Christian? Would he bake the cake in obedience to the magistrate who has established “anti-discrimination” laws, believing that he must obey unjust laws if they arise from lawfully appointed servants?
Should such an action (refusal or willingness to bake the cake) derive from a Christian ethic and if so, what would this ethic be? Thanks for any thoughts.

I do want to clarify that I’m not asking anyone to speculate about what any particular proponent of either position would himself do, just the average believer who may hold either position. I don’t believe my question is irrelevant in our day but I can understand if no one wants to address it. It is a pity because if there is no practical outworking for a deeply held belief in the life of a Christian there seems little reason to discuss it at such length. In the end, I think I’m asking if I refused to bake the cake would my brothers have my back, or would they throw me under the bus.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Here are some older PB threads to peruse. I narrowed them down in my search to those in which Rev. Matthew Winzer participated, as he tended to give insight and provoke conversation in a particularly helpful way. So you'll need to back up from where the links start you in each thread to get context.
https://puritanboard.com/search/40136724/?q=two+kingdom+theology&o=relevance&c[user][0]=1012

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777

Jeri Tanner said:


> Here are some older PB threads to peruse. I narrowed them down in my search to those in which Rev. Matthew Winzer participated, as he tended to give insight and provoke conversation in a particularly helpful way. So you'll need to back up from where the links start you in each thread to get context.
> https://puritanboard.com/search/40136724/?q=two+kingdom+theology&o=relevance&c[user][0]=1012


Thank you Jeri.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

“All are agreed that the "two kingdoms" paradigm was worked out within the historical reality called "Christendom," which is nothing more than a friendly relationship between church and state as they both function to glorify God. The Gelasian theory of the two swords understood that civil and ecclesiastical power were distinct but connected. Calvin and the reformed tradition adopted and developed this paradigm with a view to properly distinguishing the different foundation and function of civil and ecclesiastical power, but in such a way as assumed that each worked for the mutual benefit of the other. We now have a situation where "Christendom" has broken down, or there is at least a theory of political philosophy which requires the church and state to be completely separate. Reformed people have addressed that situation from a number of different perspectives in the last century and a half. In the process the "two kingdoms" teaching has been lost or confused. Some in the reformed community are attempting to revitalise the two kingdom paradigm while insisting on the complete separation of church and state. Their starting point is contradictory to the starting point of Calvin and the refromed tradition. They believe the two kingdoms are two separate spheres of activity and require two different ethical approaches; they go so far as to say that principled pluralism is the most consistent outworking of the two kingdom paradigm and regard the "Christendom" ideal as incoherent. This is a paradigm shift. The very state of affairs which called two kingdom thought into existence is regarded as an incoherent and inconsistent application of two kingdom thought.” -MW

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

jwright82 said:


> From what I can gather from your post, it is a "dichotomist" view of church and state that makes one R2K? I don't know what you mean by that, could you elaborate?


It is a radical separation of God's law that makes it R2K. The moral law should have authority in both spheres of the Civil and the Church. They are both responsible to the Moral Law as they are responsible to God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It is a radical separation of God's law that makes it R2K. The moral law should have authority in both spheres of the Civil and the Church. They are both responsible to the Moral Law as they are responsible to God.


Ok got you now.


----------



## jwright82

A.Joseph said:


> “All are agreed that the "two kingdoms" paradigm was worked out within the historical reality called "Christendom," which is nothing more than a friendly relationship between church and state as they both function to glorify God. The Gelasian theory of the two swords understood that civil and ecclesiastical power were distinct but connected. Calvin and the reformed tradition adopted and developed this paradigm with a view to properly distinguishing the different foundation and function of civil and ecclesiastical power, but in such a way as assumed that each worked for the mutual benefit of the other. We now have a situation where "Christendom" has broken down, or there is at least a theory of political philosophy which requires the church and state to be completely separate. Reformed people have addressed that situation from a number of different perspectives in the last century and a half. In the process the "two kingdoms" teaching has been lost or confused. Some in the reformed community are attempting to revitalise the two kingdom paradigm while insisting on the complete separation of church and state. Their starting point is contradictory to the starting point of Calvin and the refromed tradition. They believe the two kingdoms are two separate spheres of activity and require two different ethical approaches; they go so far as to say that principled pluralism is the most consistent outworking of the two kingdom paradigm and regard the "Christendom" ideal as incoherent. This is a paradigm shift. The very state of affairs which called two kingdom thought into existence is regarded as an incoherent and inconsistent application of two kingdom thought.” -MW


Good post. My only question would be, doesn't the fact that Calvin and such were working out two kingdom theory within the late stage of Christendom and modern theories are working it out within pluralism? Hence a different historical context entails a different theory?


----------



## Ed Walsh

jwright82 said:


> Hence a different historical context entails a different theory?



Well, maybe...
And as you know I prefer to refer to 'pluralism' as 'polytheism,' which is of course what it is. All law is religious.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## jwright82

Ed Walsh said:


> Well, maybe...
> And as you know I prefer to refer to 'pluralism' as 'polytheism,' which is of course what it is. All law is religious.


Oh I agree, all worldviews are religious in nature. But all these worldviews exist in people living in a neutral space. We all have jobs, start families, etc. Keep the economy going, vote. All that stuff is within a neutral sphere, the common kingdom.


----------



## Taylor

jwright82 said:


> We all have jobs, start families, etc. Keep the economy going, vote. All that stuff is within a neutral sphere, the common kingdom.



How is this possible, given Genesis 1:28? How is there _any_ "neutrality" _anywhere_? Unless, of course, by "common" you simply mean "something we all do." That’s different than neutrality, though.


----------



## jwright82

Taylor Sexton said:


> How is this possible, given Genesis 1:28? How is there _any_ "neutrality" _anywhere_? Unless, of course, by "common" you simply mean "something we all do." That’s different than neutrality, though.


If by neutrality you mean spiritual or epistemological, than no there is no neutrality. But space, as I pointed out, is neutral. That's all I meant. The kingdom is common. Does that make more sense?


----------



## Taylor

jwright82 said:


> If by neutrality you mean spiritual or epistemological, than no there is no neutrality. But space, as I pointed out, is neutral. That's all I meant. The kingdom is common. Does that make more sense?



Yes, my apologies. I misread you. My inner Van Tilian had a visceral reaction to the word "neutrality."

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## jwright82

Taylor Sexton said:


> Yes, my apologies. I misread you. My inner Van Tilian had a visceral reaction to the word "neutrality."


As a Vantillian myself, I understand.


----------



## jwright82

Taylor Sexton said:


> Yes, my apologies. I misread you. My inner Van Tilian had a visceral reaction to the word "neutrality."


My thoughts on Van Til, and this whole debate (I started a whole thread on it for others opinion), are as any great thinker he was multifaceted and so it's no surprise that his warrior children are divided on how best to interpret/develop his thinking. One side emphasizes the absolute antithesis (which in the extreme results in not being able to communicate with the unbeliever), the other emphasizes common grace (which in the extreme results in basically absolute neutrality with some Vantillian buzzwords thrown in for taste). I think he lies more in the middle. It was his way of analysis that gave rise to this, I think Frame and Poythress are right in their perspectival interpretation of him. From one perspective he seems to agree with strong antithesis, from another strong common grace. But if you keep both poles in mind and his method of analysis it makes more sense.
I for one have rejected the idea that he gave an absolute argument (in the traditional sense) for Christianity in favor of an absolute method of apologetics. The difference is this captures the fact that when he talks of this proof he does it from different angles, hence more of a method.


----------



## A.Joseph

If you want to take a wholly pragmatic position the only way for the Reformed faith to be in America and to remain a purer form may be the Benedict Option. This is essentially how we are functioning anyway, except it’s worse than that. We are not even maintaining a Benedict Option mentality, the secular culture is in our drivers seat. If only we would maintain a type of Benedict Option.


----------



## jwright82

A.Joseph said:


> Then call it something else. I think Luther and Calvin were right. And I believe Jefferson’s anti-Calvinist take on separation of church and state defaulted to a higher criticism form of Unitarian Christianity as the most acceptable and progressive form of faith. This ushered in blatantly false Christianity, and eventually a rebirth of paganism and even satanism as potentially equal in recognition and accommodation. So if I’m stuck in the past, so are you.


I don't know about Satanism, maybe you know something I don't. So what would your alternative be?


----------



## jwright82

A.Joseph said:


> If you want to take a wholly pragmatic position the only way for the Reformed faith to be in America and to remain a purer form may be the Benedict Option. This is essentially how we are functioning anyway, except it’s worse than that. We are not even maintaining a Benedict Option mentality, the secular culture is in our drivers seat. If only we would maintain a type of Benedict Option.


If you're talking about the whole "works out" thing, it's not Pragmatism. It's like this, Mao couldn't transplant Marx's ideas as they worked out in Russia onto China without tweaking the theory to make it work (as far as getting people to go along with it). The Great American experiment hasn't had the same success in places where we've transplanted it, that was formally a dictatorship. It's made things in a sense better but it hasn't been as successful as here. So the language of "working out" is not in reference to pragmatic ways of thinking but in how one takes concepts and ideas and try make them work out historically in a cultural context.
For instance you can't just say Calvin's Geneva did this so we must do that too, it might not work. But taking the ideas that lay behind the practical actions and seeing how best to incorporate them into our society and culture is what I'm referring to. Does that make more sense?


----------



## jwright82

A.Joseph said:


> First, do you realize that you are allowing the non religious to set the agenda? They’ve been doing it for a while now; why do we adopt their language and foundations?
> Thomas Jefferson was a religious humanist. You are under a false premise that there is a form of neutrality. See the pluralism project. ... http://pluralism.org/about/our-work/mission/
> There is no neutrality or coexisting. They (the powers that be) are seeking out eradication. The enemies are at the gates and they are not looking to engage, they are seeking to legislate our demise. Why are you seeking an alternative? Why are you seeking appeasement where preservation is required? We are not influencing anything if we implode from the inside.Thats the pressing concern, not establishment principles or 2KT.


Since I clearly denied neutrality both spiritually and epistemologically I have no idea what you're talking about. You know there is difference between saying neutral space, which is what I said, and neutrality spiritually and epistemologically which I denied.
No coexistence, that's weird we seem to be coexisting just fine, not perfectly but good enough. That sounds a little warlike to me, I'm sure you don't mean to give off that impression.


----------



## jwright82

A.Joseph said:


> The great American experiment is on the downside, you realize that, right?


I don't think you got that post at all. If that's all you got out of it, than I think you ought to go back and reread it.


----------



## A.Joseph

If heads of church and seminary continue to account for pluralism, I don’t see how our true identity and distinctiveness isn’t erased in the process. I’m not concerned with changing anything. I guess I would leave it to you to offer something in which we don’t lose anything in the process.

First we legitimize pluralism, eventually we find ourselves on the wrong side of it. I know there’s an instinct to adjust and change our emphasis, but is it worth it?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The ancient Jews wanted Messiah to come, so *they *could finally get in the driver's seat. They understood this to be an inevitable outcome of his ascendancy. They wanted to tell *unbelievers and idolaters* what to do, instead of it always being the other way around.

And now, quite apart from there being any substantive rationale found in the NT that it should fall to the church to take up those expectations, Christians nonetheless spend significant energy attempting to "bring in the kingdom."

Or, feeling as though there was some old-time glory-day when the kingdom was better approximated on earth, they scheme for getting back again what privilege or protection they think they had, as an entitlement.

Even going so far as to say that it was most proper to have (at length) obtained it as the rightful inheritance of the church, and so any alienation of _their property _(i.e. social status) constitutes a loss; which recovery ought to be the duty-business of all good Christians.

The means of the recovery are inevitably the weapons of the world--sometimes weapons of physical violence (which many of the same mind repudiate), but other times weapons of legal violence--but significantly, all wielded (it is claimed) on behalf of the spiritual church and for righteousness' sake.

That which has happened in 2000yrs of church history, and particularly the heritage of most of us westerners, tends to be viewed as the "best possible outcome" _thus far, _and signs of how everything was meant to turn out, except for some recent reversals.

The quest for reason "why those reversals" often leads to proposals such as that the church has slipped up somewhere, or is losing because it is complacent, or this is all a big *test* for the faithful, who only need to "step up to the battle line" and contend with lawful means, and so reassert _Christian control _of the cultural rudder.

What if the church's realized prospect in the West has simply been one way it has muddled along in the world for two millenia, and churches in the East (and other directions) have had their own successes and failures?

What if the western church has also failed in the midst of its progress? Maybe having a hand on the rudder was, not a mistake per se, but opened up an avenue of temptation for men to assume that it was "meant to be" in the sense of inevitable advance of Kingdom cause.

Because, having lost the tiller, an awful lot of energy and treasure is being spent to take it back, on the assumption that Christians were "made captain" at some past moment (because... they knew where things were going?).

Those who ruled, who claimed to be Christian: does history show them to be noticeably superior in that role? Has the relatively short-lived American experiment in republican and democratic ideals, infused with Christian virtues, been any better at its job than the Roman and Greek expressions from Classical times? Has it been any better than monarchies and other forms (also infused with Christian salt-and-light) in other times and places?

I say the answer to all those questions is: no. All Christians and the church can BE is salt-and-light. All believers can DO is theorize and "wing-it" in contest for hearts and minds with the best the unbelieving world can come up with.

The institutional church should maintain its independence from control by external governments; but then it has to give up any inclination to pursue control of other governments, contenting itself with offering biblical counsel in extraordinary moments.

It's nauseating to see the positional jockeying and the photo-ops of the current crop of standby "spiritual advisers" to the D.C. masters. They think they are both indispensable and ordinary counselors; oblivious to how they and their followers are being used. They are under-the-influence in more ways than one.

The extraordinary counsel the true church offers worldly elites is not likely to be listened to. Its chief value is for its own members; and for those times when later it may be said, "You should have listened," Act.27:21.

And when it is listened to (even belatedly), the danger is that this "success" will lead to the ordinary polling of its counsels, and the eventual promotion of ecclesiastical ministers to positions of State ministers.

When this "triumph" is achieved, the prophetic mission of the church is already fatally compromised. There will be no end to the eager "yes men" (and women) who will scramble for those places, from which they will tickle the ears of officialdom. Only rarely will there come an Elijah to confront the king.

This is the pattern, folks. Sometimes it takes only a single generation; other times the movement is much slower, undulating over centuries. When matters take ages to reach crisis dimensions, hardly anyone alive can imagine how the church was once a foreign Kingdom's embassy.

That identity never _really _changes, though it may be forgotten. All this concern that Christians (or A Christian) won't have a certain kind of moral influence on people outside of the church ignores the fact that the impact on the world of "doing the right things" will *forever *have a mixed character.

That's what Jesus and his apostles told us and wrote to us to explain about life in this fallen world, a place destined to roll on its broken way until the Second Coming. Sometimes we'll have peace, our good citizenship rewarded. Sometimes we'll have tribulation, and unthankful leaders and minions will make ruin of us.

One administration will have a Christian as its face, another will have an enemy of Christ, another will have a pretend Christian, another will see an enemy converted while in his office, another will apostatize.

Today, those who call good evil and evil good want to enforce "good behavior" on all their citizens, even the Christians. The attitude of those in charge seems to be: "You Christians forced your _morality_ on everyone in your salad days; and now you complain when it's our turn to call the shots?"

We might reply: in old time laws were commended by us and good conduct compelled by government independent of any religious preference. However, in fact Christianity was at times summoned to prop up all sorts of decisions, as a way of adding "moral fiber" to strengthen them.

So now, what once might have been an "innocuous" appeal, has been turned into condemnation. Past use of Scripture to defend slavery (even if such appeals were found on both sides of the question) is trotted out as evidence of Christian duplicity, of giving moral cover to horrible abuse.

The power to tell other people what they may and may not do, and what they must do, is intoxicating. Not many who attain it use it wisely, nor have professing Christians proved exceptionally competent.

Eagerness to reclaim the levers of authority, couched in terms of moral renewal and pious principle, is often just eagerness.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

jwright82 said:


> The Great American experiment hasn't had the same success in places where we've transplanted it, that was formally a dictatorship. It's made things in a sense better but it hasn't been as successful as here.



Why is that exactly? Do you know?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

In the reformed, historic 2K view of Gillespie, Rutherford, and others, they were addressing a society with Christian magistrates and so called on those magistrates to uphold the Law of God. Chris Coldwell said in one of the threads I linked to earlier, "but I don’t think one can say either way that they (the Westminster divines) held that all magistrates as magistrates should be held to account to the law as revealed in Scripture for their ruling. At the very least George Gillespie and Samuel Rutherford would view that kind of argument led to Erastianism... Rutherford’s view was that while the Christian Magistrate should look to God’s law in Scripture, the standard for heathen magistrates of nations to whom the Gospel has not come, is to look to natural law. Coffey in his book on Rutherford opines that Rutherford was perhaps a bit optimistic in just how much of the ten commandments and applications could be derived from nature, but Rutherford does affirm it is a dim source."

Chris went on to say, "...While it is a guess, I suspect Rutherford would look far differently on apostatizing nations and magistrates _that still have a history of Christianity and culture to reference._ I suspect he’d preach repentance and say to expect persecution, and would not think that we should let the _apostate_ magistrate off the hook for the standard of the heathen magistrate’s natural law. He discusses this in Divine Right of Church Government. As I say, it is pretty wrapped up with his view of the two fold nature of Christ’s Kingdom and combating Erastianism."


Matthew Winzer commented in that same thread, "I recognise the obvious fact that we live in societies which are self-consciously aiming to be post-Christian. My point in relation to _the post-Christendom appropriation of the reformed "two kingdom paradigm"_ [referring to R2K] is that it rejects the native soil of the paradigm while it feeds upon the fruit which has grown out of the soil. That is, it rejects the principles of Christendom while relying on the intellectual distinction and benefit which has grown out of those principles. It is epistemologically self-defeating.

"What is a post-Christendom society? It is one which speaks the language of Christianity but strips the language of its original and meaningful referent -- the Lord Jesus Christ. We have ideals, values, morals, laws, and judgements, which have emerged from the influence of Christian, and especially Protestant, faith and life, but the principles of Christianity and Protestantism are being challenged and rejected. Hence, while I am bound to recognise the obvious fact that we live in what calls itself a post-Christian society, I cannot accept the propaganda that the social good requires us to deliberately move beyond Christianity into the unknown. It is self-defeating to accept this propaganda.

"Ideas like liberty, equality, fraternity, are natural law ideas, that is, ideas which presuppose the revelation of "God" in nature. The Christian and the non-Christian will compete to fill those ideas with the content of their own systems. The Christian cannot accept the content which the non-Christian pours into those terms because the acidity of that content burns a hole in the very bottom of the ideal. The Creating and Redeeming God of holy Scripture alone cements these ideals and values. That being the case, as we believe therefore we should speak, and ought to resist society's "onward march" to perdition, call upon it to repent of its wicked imaginations, and return to the living God Who gives us all things richly to enjoy."

These were interesting thoughts to me, just thought I'd post them.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## jwright82

Ed Walsh said:


> Why is that exactly? Do you know?


Historians have pointed it out. There were some (on the political right mostly) who thought if we just give we just spread democracy to third world dictatorships they will be better and be our allies against communism. That hasn't always worked hence experiment, it doesn't always work. I believe it waz Montisque, defeninantly didn't spell that right, was French and wrote a book about it. I think he compared the French revolution to the American and why one was had more bloodshed than the other. I believe so.


----------



## A.Joseph

Hasn’t faithful Reformed churches and denominations been on the fringes of society for at least half a century? I don’t think we are even much on anyone’s radar. Outside the brief neo-Calvinism phenomenon, we’ve been reduced to pockets of influence. Invite people to church, love your neighbors and pray to remain faithful in doctrine and practice at home, local community, work, etc. That’s 2KT. I support when James White gets up before local officials to express concern over pro-abortion legislation, or when denominations address their legislatures when appropriate. I think the true spirit of 2KT and even the establishment principle should remain very much alive. It would be easier to compartmentalize my faith but agree that there are dangers in attempting to politicize it at this point. I would agree with Hart that it can get complicated but not sure we have to make any major adjustments either.


----------



## jwright82

Jeri Tanner said:


> In the reformed, historic 2K view of Gillespie, Rutherford, and others, they were addressing a society with Christian magistrates and so called on those magistrates to uphold the Law of God. Chris Coldwell said in one of the threads I linked to earlier, "but I don’t think one can say either way that they (the Westminster divines) held that all magistrates as magistrates should be held to account to the law as revealed in Scripture for their ruling. At the very least George Gillespie and Samuel Rutherford would view that kind of argument led to Erastianism... Rutherford’s view was that while the Christian Magistrate should look to God’s law in Scripture, the standard for heathen magistrates of nations to whom the Gospel has not come, is to look to natural law. Coffey in his book on Rutherford opines that Rutherford was perhaps a bit optimistic in just how much of the ten commandments and applications could be derived from nature, but Rutherford does affirm it is a dim source."
> 
> Chris went on to say, "...While it is a guess, I suspect Rutherford would look far differently on apostatizing nations and magistrates _that still have a history of Christianity and culture to reference._ I suspect he’d preach repentance and say to expect persecution, and would not think that we should let the _apostate_ magistrate off the hook for the standard of the heathen magistrate’s natural law. He discusses this in Divine Right of Church Government. As I say, it is pretty wrapped up with his view of the two fold nature of Christ’s Kingdom and combating Erastianism."
> 
> 
> Matthew Winzer commented in that same thread, "I recognise the obvious fact that we live in societies which are self-consciously aiming to be post-Christian. My point in relation to _the post-Christendom appropriation of the reformed "two kingdom paradigm"_ [referring to R2K] is that it rejects the native soil of the paradigm while it feeds upon the fruit which has grown out of the soil. That is, it rejects the principles of Christendom while relying on the intellectual distinction and benefit which has grown out of those principles. It is epistemologically self-defeating.
> 
> "What is a post-Christendom society? It is one which speaks the language of Christianity but strips the language of its original and meaningful referent -- the Lord Jesus Christ. We have ideals, values, morals, laws, and judgements, which have emerged from the influence of Christian, and especially Protestant, faith and life, but the principles of Christianity and Protestantism are being challenged and rejected. Hence, while I am bound to recognise the obvious fact that we live in what calls itself a post-Christian society, I cannot accept the propaganda that the social good requires us to deliberately move beyond Christianity into the unknown. It is self-defeating to accept this propaganda.
> 
> "Ideas like liberty, equality, fraternity, are natural law ideas, that is, ideas which presuppose the revelation of "God" in nature. The Christian and the non-Christian will compete to fill those ideas with the content of their own systems. The Christian cannot accept the content which the non-Christian pours into those terms because the acidity of that content burns a hole in the very bottom of the ideal. The Creating and Redeeming God of holy Scripture alone cements these ideals and values. That being the case, as we believe therefore we should speak, and ought to resist society's "onward march" to perdition, call upon it to repent of its wicked imaginations, and return to the living God Who gives us all things richly to enjoy."
> 
> These were interesting thoughts to me, just thought I'd post them.


Wow! I liked that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

A.Joseph said:


> Hasn’t faithful Reformed churches and denominations been on the fringes of society for at least half a century? I don’t think we are even much on anyone’s radar. Outside the brief neo-Calvinism phenomenon, we’ve been reduced to pockets of influence. Invite people to church, love your neighbors and pray to remain faithful in doctrine and practice at home, local community, work, etc. That’s 2KT. I support when James White gets up before local officials to express concern over pro-abortion legislation, or when denominations address their legislatures when appropriate. I think the true spirit of 2KT and even the establishment principle should remain very much alive. It would be easier to compartmentalize my faith but agree that there are dangers in attempting to politicize it. I would agree with Hart that it can get complicated but not sure we have to make any major adjustments either.


You seem to have an axe to grind against (America, contemporary churches, R2K?) I'm not sure. I don't see what paganism or Satanism have to do with when someone moves from being simple 2K to R2K? Which was the op.


----------



## Ed Walsh

jwright82 said:


> think he compared the French Revolution to the American and why one was had more bloodshed than the other. I believe so.



I think you missed my question. I asked WHY it worked here and not there. Do you know? I think I do.


----------



## jwright82

Ed Walsh said:


> I think you missed my question. I asked WHY it worked here and not there. Do you know? I think I do.


Sorry. What I've read was that we were already pretty free. So when king Goerge, was it, needed to pay for his war he taxed us (which was legal) so we rebelled. But we were already pretty much free, so it worked. The interesting thing about it was the difference between our revolution and the French revolution was that for us the church wasn't part of the problem. So for us religious liberty made the church nothing more than supportive or silent maybe. 
But the French were revolting against both church and state, who were in cahoots. Which is why, at least to one historian, the Jocobian faction (atheists) were able to take over and the reign of terror began and than it took a dictator Napoleon to bring order.
Two different trajectories one with the church as part of the problem and the other where it wasn't. That's probably simplistic but it's what I've read.


----------



## jwright82

A.Joseph said:


> You seem to have a blind spot regarding the American experiment. I believe the fruit of that experiment is what moved you toward R2K and will probably send you to RR2K before long. The seeds were planted... https://mereorthodoxy.com/john-calvin-thomas-jefferson/
> “His later embrace of Unitarianism in fact allowed him to continue his loathing of historic Christian teaching like the Trinity that he found so essential to Calvinism. Both Deists and Unitarians found the divinity of Christ and associated doctrines–the Virgin birth and the Incarnation–*revolting*. Jefferson’s fear of the Calvinists was not without reason.”


I don't think that I'm R2K, and I don't know what RR2K is, really radical 2 kingdom maybe? But what I gleaned from your post was an implication. If I'm wrong please correct me. So the father of our right to religious freedom only inserted it for nefarious purposes, to undermined true religion and corrupt the common good? That's seems to be what you've been laying out in your case against America.
Since you really haven't laid what R2K is, outside of liking America, I don't see how I can be that.


----------



## A.Joseph

No, you’re fine. As far as Jefferson is concerned, I guess he followed his heart, and we’ve benefited from the freedoms we’ve been granted.

I don’t want to derail your thread anymore than I have. It sounds like you are concerned with reaching those outside the church and those are pure motives. I tend to be guarded and I am more cautionary about change even if it seems more practical. So I’m probably not the best person to discuss this with, sorry if I wasted your time.


jwright82 said:


> I don't think that I'm R2K, and I don't know what RR2K is, really radical 2 kingdom maybe? But what I gleaned from your post was an implication. If I'm wrong please correct me. So the father of our right to religious freedom only inserted it for nefarious purposes, to undermined true religion and corrupt the common good? That's seems to be what you've been laying out in your case against America.
> Since you really haven't laid what R2K is, outside of liking America, I don't see how I can be that.


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> My thoughts on Van Til, and this whole debate (I started a whole thread on it for others opinion), are as any great thinker he was multifaceted and so it's no surprise that his warrior children are divided on how best to interpret/develop his thinking. One side emphasizes the absolute antithesis (which in the extreme results in not being able to communicate with the unbeliever), the other emphasizes common grace (which in the extreme results in basically absolute neutrality with some Vantillian buzzwords thrown in for taste). I think he lies more in the middle. It was his way of analysis that gave rise to this, I think Frame and Poythress are right in their perspectival interpretation of him. From one perspective he seems to agree with strong antithesis, from another strong common grace. But if you keep both poles in mind and his method of analysis it makes more sense.
> I for one have rejected the idea that he gave an absolute argument (in the traditional sense) for Christianity in favor of an absolute method of apologetics. The difference is this captures the fact that when he talks of this proof he does it from different angles, hence more of a method.


But for CVT one can only account for common grace if he presuppose the Christian worldview.


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> But for CVT one can only account for common grace if he presuppose the Christian worldview.


Yes that's correct, one logically only account for natural law from a Christian worldview, that's an apologetic method though. As far as common grace goes whether they can account for it on their worldview, which they can't, doesn't change the fact that it's operative none the less. That's a place you can challenge them.


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> Yes that's correct, one logically only account for natural law from a Christian worldview, that's an apologetic method though. As far as common grace goes whether they can account for it on their worldview, which they can't, doesn't change the fact that it's operative none the less. That's a place you can challenge them.


I was talking about common grace, but since you mentioned law, yes, the fact that any use of the concept of law necessitates the Christian worldview, entails that the governing authorities, as such, must recognize and submit to the all-conditioning, self-revelatory God, kissing the Son.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> I was talking about common grace, but since you mentioned law, yes, the fact that any use of the concept of law necessitates the Christian worldview, entails that the governing authorities, as such, must recognize and submit to the all-conditioning, self-revelatory God, kissing the Son.


That's stretching it a bit, I see where you're going. I was reffering to society functioning with natural law already in place vs an apologetical method. Since the state doesn't explicitly do the things you mentioned than how can you account for why we have laws in the first place?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B.L.

Wow, what a thread this is. I poked my head in for the first time this morning and skimmed my way through the sea of posts. I'm not well informed on this topic, but see a wealth of links and references to look into later.

While reluctant to enter the fray, I did want to mention a book I purchased just yesterday coincidentally, which is a critique of two kingdoms theology. The title is "The World is Christ's: A Critique of Two Kingdoms Theology" by Willem J. Ouweneel.

Is anyone familiar with this book or the author?

From the back of the book:

_"The 'Two Kingdoms' controversy has become a matter of increasing scholarly debate in recent decades. However, this is one debate which is not confined to the academy._​
_As Willem J. Ouweneel demonstrates in The World is Christ's, behind the scholarly terms lie very practical, everyday questions, such as where to shop, whether and how to vote, and how to educate our children. The Two Kingdoms controversy is at root a question of how we ought to understand and live in a world that refuses to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord.

Dr. Ouweneel details a number of historical, logical, and exegetical considerations surrounding these questions, and helps readers understand that everything we do is an act of worship--the issue is whether our worship is directed toward God or away from him.

It is through us that God wants to realize his kingdom, every day a bit further, in every domain of life, because the world is Christ's."_​

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ed Walsh

jwright82 said:


> Since the state doesn't explicitly do the things you mentioned then how can you account for why we have laws in the first place?



Since the creation of the first man, no society of men has been without law. Without law, a society, commonwealth, or whatever you call it, would not exist. Law is a form of warfare. Every law declares specific individuals or groups of individuals as enemies of the state and therefore are coerced by appropriate (we could hope) power to cease the rebellious offense or offenses. As I said previously, All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion.

Neither is there neutrality in law. Take one example. In the Bible, even the accidental killing of a baby still in the mother's womb could result in death of the "murderer." In our country, this is backward in that the law permits abortion, which results in the murder of an innocent child. There is a death in either case: the abortionist's death or the child's death. The only question is, Who is going to die? There is no neutral ground between the two laws.

Some of my ideas were taken from, Rushdoony, R. J. (1973). The institutes of Biblical law, volume one (p. 113). Nutley, NJ: Craig Press.​

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> That's stretching it a bit, I see where you're going. I was reffering to society functioning with natural law already in place vs an apologetical method. Since the state doesn't explicitly do the things you mentioned than how can you account for why we have laws in the first place?


Humans, according to their places and stations, make laws to serve their gods. It’s what they do.


----------



## RamistThomist

Some of these comments still equate neutrality with common.

A red light is common. Sure, it reflects order, which reflects rationality, which reflects God (incidentally, the same argument made by Thomas Aquinas on natural law). But to fret over supposed neutrality on every statute is mind-numbing.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

BLM said:


> It is through us that God wants to realize his kingdom, every day a bit further, in every domain of life, because the world is Christ's."



Nobody disagrees with that. Even the most rigid Lutheran could say that.


----------



## B.L.

BayouHuguenot said:


> Nobody disagrees with that. Even the most rigid Lutheran could say that.



Um, okay...

I was simply interested in learning whether anyone had read the book or was familiar with Willem J. Ouweneel.

Thanks.


----------



## A.Joseph

Nothing to add, just wanted to share Hart’s latest blog post. I wonder if he reads PB? Anyway, based on his position, the 2KT framework is dead. I’m just unsure if he’s promoting for the Christian to retreat from society, maintain faux ignorance, or provide a well intentioned, biblically based recommendation on civil law and church relations...

https://oldlife.org/2020/01/16/how-small-are-your-ten-commandments/


----------



## RamistThomist

While I don't think we should retreat from society (that's one extreme), I do think there is another extreme where the church is supposed to be politically obnoxious and come up with political action committees to advocate for fair housing prices.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph

I think the harkening to natural law ship has sailed as well. You don’t? How do you define natural law?


jwright82 said:


> Okay, that's good. But not sure that D. G. Hart would be "radical", however it's defined. But I agree with the rest of it. But simple 2 kingdom people, myself and I believe Hart, would emphasize natural law as dictating human behaviour. What you describe is radical. But I don't think it applies to simple 2 kingdom people. I also think radical goes beyond that as well, like accepting gay marriage as ok to support (Lee and Mysty Irons, I believe?) as civil unions.


----------



## RamistThomist

A.Joseph said:


> Is that happening?
> 
> By default, I’m retreating from presidential politics, at least from the uniparty system. That’s a loser for sure. Unless the shadow gov is usurped. Which outside divine providence, won’t happen.



Is what happening? I think the fear over "2K" is overblown. Most evangelical churches have issued statements against abortion. BUt since the church isn't the state, we can't lobby for political action reform. We preach the gospel. Etc.


----------



## jwright82

A.Joseph said:


> I think the harkening to natural law ship has sailed as well. You don’t? How do you define natural law?


I live on the coast, so I'm fine. I've given other threads about method.


----------



## jwright82

Ed Walsh said:


> Since the creation of the first man, no society of men has been without law. Without law, a society, commonwealth, or whatever you call it, would not exist. Law is a form of warfare. Every law declares specific individuals or groups of individuals as enemies of the state and therefore are coerced by appropriate (we could hope) power to cease the rebellious offense or offenses. As I said previously, All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion.
> 
> Neither is there neutrality in law. Take one example. In the Bible, even the accidental killing of a baby still in the mother's womb could result in death of the "murderer." In our country, this is backward in that the law permits abortion, which results in the murder of an innocent child. There is a death in either case: the abortionist's death or the child's death. The only question is, Who is going to die? There is no neutral ground between the two laws.
> 
> Some of my ideas were taken from, Rushdoony, R. J. (1973). The institutes of Biblical law, volume one (p. 113). Nutley, NJ: Craig Press.​


Since I never said there was neutrality in spirit or in mind, I won't comment on that. But we exist in an orderly realm, not perfect, but necessary.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

We've defined natural law about two or three dozen times here over the past six months. Natural law is a human application of the Eternal Law, which is the Divine Mind. This is the historic, pre-Grotian position.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> We've defined natural law about two or three dozen times here over the past six months. Natural law is a human application of the Eternal Law, which is the Divine Mind. This is the historic, pre-Grotian position.


Application in what sense?


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> Application in what sense?



When you apply norm A to situation X. It is how every law works. It's what the Confession calls equity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> When you apply norm A to situation X. It is how every law works. It's what the Confession calls equity.


The general equity of 19:4 refers to perfect morality.

But you said natural law is a _human _application. Humans aren’t perfect.

Explain.


----------



## A.Joseph

jwright82 said:


> I live on the coast, so I'm fine. I've given other threads about method.


But is it still binding today? What are today’s understanding of natural law?


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> The general equity of 19:4 refers to perfect morality.
> 
> But you said natural law is a _human _application. Humans aren’t perfect.
> 
> Explain.



Humans apply laws. Even God's perfect law has to be applied by humans. Example: In vitro Fertilization. Is it legit or not? God's perfect law doesn't address this, so humans have to use their fallible logic and fallibly apply it to determine what to do. This is true of every single law code in human history.

God's perfect law doesn't exist in some Platonic vacuum where it directly addresses every contingency. It has to be applied. This application is a function of natural law. That explains why our Reformed fathers all held to natural law but also used God's law, too.


----------



## A.Joseph

This is a strange discussion in that natural law is no longer binding in the cultural/political spheres. There’s too much atheism and faux Christianity to have a compelling impact and influence in mainstream society. I don’t see how attempts to “affirm a robust doctrine of natural law as part of our system of doctrine” will have much of an impact. I think believers already buy into such concepts. Our inability to apply them is due to the current state of the world and its adversity to even the truths of natural law grounded in God’s creation. 

*See: Natural Law in Reformed Theology: Historical Reflections and Biblical Suggestions*
by David VanDrunen https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=301&issue_id=74


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> Humans apply laws. Even God's perfect law has to be applied by humans. Example: In vitro Fertilization. Is it legit or not? God's perfect law doesn't address this, so humans have to use their fallible logic and fallibly apply it to determine what to do. This is true of every single law code in human history.
> 
> God's perfect law doesn't exist in some Platonic vacuum where it directly addresses every contingency. It has to be applied. This application is a function of natural law. That explains why our Reformed fathers all held to natural law but also used God's law, too.


That doesn’t explain how natural law, understood the way you understand it, can be the perfect general equity of WCF 19.4.


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> That doesn’t explain how natural law, understood the way you understand it, can be the perfect general equity of WCF 19.4.



There is nothing to explain. Equity is simply the application of a law to a unique circumstance. There is no "perfect" once for all equity. Equity isn't some Platonic concept.


----------



## RamistThomist

Whether the Christian Magistrate be bound to observe the Judicial laws of Moses, as well as the Jewish Magistrate was. He answereth by the common distinction, he is obliged to those things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations: 
GILLESPIE, GEORGE, _Wholesome Severity Reconciled With Christian Liberty_ (London: Christopher Meredith, 1645), 6–7.


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> There is nothing to explain. Equity is simply the application of a law to a unique circumstance. There is no "perfect" once for all equity. Equity isn't some Platonic concept.


No, general equity, as it is understood in _WCF _19.4, is not human application. It is of a piece with the moral law. The perfect moral law.


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> No, general equity, as it is understood in _WCF _19.4, is not human application. It is of a piece with the moral law. The perfect moral law.



Equity just means what is fair. There is no Platonic realm of general equity. And the writers of the Confession do not equate the judicials with general equity simpliciter. Otherwise they wouldn't use expired language.


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> And the writers of the Confession do not equate the judicials with general equity simpliciter


No one here says that.

Equity refers to what is moral.

If the general equity of 19:4 is as you say human application, then are we to understand Psalm 99:4 (KJV—same English as used in the WCF) as saying that 


**3* Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy.

*4* The king's strength also loveth judgment; thou dost establish [*human application]*, thou executest judgment and righteousness in Jacob

?


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> No one here says that.
> 
> Equity refers to what is moral.
> 
> If the general equity of 19:4 is as you say human application, then are we to understand Psalm 99:4 (KJV—same English as used in the WCF) as saying that
> 
> 
> **3* Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy.
> 
> *4* The king's strength also loveth judgment; thou dost establish [*human application]*, thou executest judgment and righteousness in Jacob
> 
> ?



Do you agree with Gillespie that we should use the common principles of nations?


----------



## Henry Hall

If "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations" should be considered conditioned by Gillespie's Proposition 41 (of _111_) that 

"41. The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly
acknowledge, that every lawful magistrate, being by God himself
constituted the keeper and defender of both tables of the law,
may and ought first and chiefly to take care of God's glory, and
(according to his place, or in his manner and way) to preserve
religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed and corrupted:
and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also
and synods, as likewise *to restrain and punish as well atheists,
blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violaters of justice
and civil peace*" and similar statements in _Wholesome Severity_, so that by such "things" he should be interpreted as meaning "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable (because moral), and, unlike expired laws peculiar to the State of Israel e.g. the Year of Jubilee law and the Cities of Refuge laws and the boundaries of the tribes laws, are capable of being made common to all Nations," then, yes.

If "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations" is somehow to be interpreted as contrary to _WCF _19.4, where "general equity" has been shown by the discussion above to be of a piece with the moral law, and not human application, then, no.


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> If "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations" should be considered conditioned by Gillespie's Proposition 41 (of _111_) that
> 
> "41. The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly
> acknowledge, that every lawful magistrate, being by God himself
> constituted the keeper and defender of both tables of the law,
> may and ought first and chiefly to take care of God's glory, and
> (according to his place, or in his manner and way) to preserve
> religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed and corrupted:
> and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also
> and synods, as likewise *to restrain and punish as well atheists,
> blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violaters of justice
> and civil peace*" and similar statements in _Wholesome Severity_, so that by such "things" he should be interpreted as meaning "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable (because moral), and, unlike expired laws peculiar to the State of Israel e.g. the Year of Jubilee law and the Cities of Refuge laws and the boundaries of the tribes laws, are capable of being made common to all Nations," then, yes.
> 
> If "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations" is somehow to be interpreted as contrary to _WCF _19.4, where "general equity" has been shown by the discussion above to be of a piece with the moral law, and not human application, then, no.



I don't think things *in* the judicial law = the judicial law en toto. But if that's what you think it means, okay. Paul said not to wrangle about the law, so that's probably all I have to say. I do a pretty good job of picking up bird nests on the ground, but I don't worry about it any further than what the general equity requires.


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> If "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations" should be considered conditioned by Gillespie's Proposition 41 (of _111_) that
> 
> "41. The orthodox churches believe also, and do willingly
> acknowledge, that every lawful magistrate, being by God himself
> constituted the keeper and defender of both tables of the law,
> may and ought first and chiefly to take care of God's glory, and
> (according to his place, or in his manner and way) to preserve
> religion when pure, and to restore it when decayed and corrupted:
> and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also
> and synods, as likewise *to restrain and punish as well atheists,
> blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violaters of justice
> and civil peace*" and similar statements in _Wholesome Severity_, so that by such "things" he should be interpreted as meaning "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable (because moral), and, unlike expired laws peculiar to the State of Israel e.g. the Year of Jubilee law and the Cities of Refuge laws and the boundaries of the tribes laws, are capable of being made common to all Nations," then, yes.
> 
> If "things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations" is somehow to be interpreted as contrary to _WCF _19.4, where "general equity" has been shown by the discussion above to be of a piece with the moral law, and not human application, then, no.


What do you think "general equity" means for the revised American WCF?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't think things *in* the judicial law = the judicial law en toto. But if that's what you think it means, okay. Paul said not to wrangle about the law, so that's probably all I have to say. I do a pretty good job of picking up bird nests on the ground, but I don't worry about it any further than what the general equity requires.


Why do you think I think it means that? This is like when you thought I was saying that there was absolutely no exception to having to work 6 days a week for absolutely everyone, absolutely every week.
smh

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> the revised American WCF


Hard to say, Jamey. The revised American WCF is not completely consistent within itself. To some extent it reflects the moral law.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> Why do you think I think it means that? This is like when you thought I was saying that there was absolutely no exception to having to work 6 days a week for absolutely everyone, absolutely every week.
> smh



I have no idea what you are talking about. I might have said that. I don't remember it. I post on topics besides theonomy, so it's harder for me to remember various discussions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> Hard to say, Jamey. The revised American WCF is not completely consistent within itself. To some extent it reflects the moral law.


So I'm assuming, please correct me if I'm wrong, the the change was not good and had no good reason for being done? And those of us who hold to that change are equally wrong as well?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall

The changes were not good. They didn't result from godly study of the Scriptures. That means that those who think the changes were good are in error. Which is not the same thing as saying that officers in denominations that use the American *WCF* should take exception.

I don't know what this has to do with the general equity clause.


----------



## VictorBravo

Henry Hall said:


> I don't know what this has to do with the general equity clause.



I'm not following your discussion of the general equity clause. I thought it was pretty straightforward.

An example of Israel's judicial code not being literally applied today, but being applied in general equity:

"Deu 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence."

It is very rare for someone to build a battlement on a roof our our houses in Eastern Washington. So we literally violate this command.

But we do have a building code that focuses on safety. It specifies things like rails on stairs, how high a window can be above the ground before precautions must be applied, etc.

So our law does follow general equity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

VictorBravo said:


> But we do have a building code that focuses on safety. It specifies things like rails on stairs, how high a window can be above the ground before precautions must be applied, etc.



And that illustrates my claim that general equity isn't static. It is by definition dynamic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall

VictorBravo said:


> I'm not following your discussion of the general equity clause. I thought it was pretty straightforward.
> 
> An example of Israel's judicial code not being literally applied today, but being applied in general equity:
> 
> "Deu 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence."
> 
> It is very rare for someone to build a battlement on a roof our our houses in Eastern Washington. So we literally violate this command.
> 
> But we do have a building code that focuses on safety. It specifies things like rails on stairs, how high a window can be above the ground before precautions must be applied, etc.
> 
> So our law does follow general equity.


Victor, the disagreement lies in the use of moral case laws like the one in your example, and like the law having to do with bestiality, and like the law having to do with the *penalty* for bestiality. I agree with your take on the case law (and the general equity of it), because I believe that moral case laws, as moral, are binding.

Others believe that such laws are either not moral (untenable), or moral, but not binding (untenable), and say that "natural law" should be used instead. Some identify this "natural law" (which in one case was claimed to be a "human application") with the general equity of *WCF* 19.4.

Using their method for ethics, they come to many of the same conclusions about laws like the Eastern Washington safety laws, but disagree on others.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Henry Hall said:


> Why do you think I think it means that? This is like when you thought I was saying that there was absolutely no exception to having to work 6 days a week for absolutely everyone, absolutely every week.
> smh



To be fair, it may have been me rather than Jacob who thought that this conclusion was the logical outworking of the argument you were making on that occasion. I realise now it was not your intention to argue thus, but the way you framed the argument on said occasion led me to believe that it was the logical conclusion of the position you were defending. 



BayouHuguenot said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about. I might have said that. I don't remember it. I post on topics besides theonomy, so it's harder for me to remember various discussions.



Henry is alluding to the thread on Thanksgiving and the Fourth Commandment. And, again to be fair, he does post on various topics as well.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> Victor, the disagreement lies in the use of moral case laws like the one in your example, and like the law having to do with bestiality, and like the law having to do with the *penalty* for bestiality. I agree with your take on the case law (and the general equity of it), because I believe that moral case laws, as moral, are binding.
> 
> Others believe that such laws are either not moral (untenable), or moral, but not binding (untenable), and say that "natural law" should be used instead. Some identify this "natural law" (which in one case was claimed to be a "human application") with the general equity of *WCF* 19.4.
> 
> Using their method for ethics, they come to many of the same conclusions about laws like the Eastern Washington safety laws, but disagree on others.


Ok some problems, natural law is binding on all humans. It also reflects the moral law, which is equally binding. If it's the method of analyzing natural than say that. Based on natural law all know they must worship the one true God, but they don't. So keeping this thread on point, you equate R2K with not wanting the state to acknowledge that? I'm not R2k because I don't think it is morally wrong to install the first table of law in a society. I think the inevitable evil that would be done to get there is wrong but it's possible. You participated in that discussion so we dont have to rehash it here, the point I'm making is R2k believe it is immoral to do that. I only think it's impractical to the point of requiring evil to get there. 
That said the bestiality thing is moot because all states and, I believe, western societies have laws against it. If you're a Theonomist and believe the only proper punishment is what the Mosaic law demands, fine but lay your theonomy cards down so at least we know where you're coming from. If it's American society's failure to punish them in a way you think is ppropriate, than fine but looking back at the law from a scholarly perspective why did society go the way it went? I'm also gleaning that an R2K person doesn't hold to theonomy. That's the majority of the Reformed world, if I'm incorrect about anything please correct me.


----------



## Henry Hall

jwright82 said:


> Ok some problems, natural law is binding on all humans. It also reflects the moral law, which is equally binding.


Glad you believe that.



jwright82 said:


> If it's the method of analyzing natural than say that.


Ok...I was trying to limit my comments to @VictorBravo 's concerns.
But the method's difficulty is revealed when it is asked, "Can the unbeliever on his unbelieving presuppositions know the content (ethical) of natural law?"



jwright82 said:


> Based on natural law all know they must worship the one true God


They know it inasmuch as they presuppose the Christian God (but *that* they have suppressed in unrighteousness). They became futile in their thoughts. How would such a person develop a righteous ethical system?



jwright82 said:


> R2k believe it is immoral to do that.


I would say that their R2K-ness means that they wouldn't see the obligation to recognize and submit to Christ as King of the nations. (Unlike, say, Calvin.)



jwright82 said:


> That said the bestiality thing is moot because all states and, I believe, western societies have laws against it.


...which (if true, but I don't think it is) is why I added the moral case law about the *penalty* for bestiality.
Or adultery.



jwright82 said:


> If you're a Theonomist and believe the only proper punishment is what the Mosaic law demands, fine but lay your theonomy cards down so at least we know where you're coming from.


Theonomy? *Theos*-*nomos*? God's Law? Yes. But I said as much when I said the the moral case laws have abiding validity. 
In the good sense of the word, as Schwertley would say, not the (1st-table denying) kooky sense.



jwright82 said:


> If it's American society's failure to punish them in a way you think is ppropriate, than fine but looking back at the law from a scholarly perspective why did society go the way it went?


Society abandoned God's Law.



jwright82 said:


> I'm also gleaning that an R2K person doesn't hold to theonomy.


That might be the understatement of the year.


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> Glad you believe that.



We don't have to agree with natural law, but the Reformers understood it to be moral law.

Hieronymus Zanchius (_Operum_, _Tom_. iv. lib. i. c. 11), Maintains at large, and by several arguments, that we Christians have nothing to do with the moral precepts, as they were given to the Israelites by Moses; but only in so far as they agree with the law of nature, common to all nations, and confirmed by Christ, whom we acknowledge to be our king.

WITSIUS, _Economy of the Covenants_, 2.179.


----------



## Henry Hall

Unfortunately, r2Ker VanDrunen: "“As a point of clarification, I note that the question of the Christian’s continuing obligation toward the norms and institutions of the Mosaic law must be handled differently from the way I address their obligation toward the natural law, even though the Mosaic and natural laws are both proto-logical laws with so many similarities. Without question the Mosaic law remains relevant for Christians (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17, e.g.). But while the natural is directly binding upon human beings _as human beings_ living in this world, the Mosaic law was directly binding upon people _as OT Israelites_. Christians today remain human beings living in this world, and hence the natural law remains straightforwardly binding upon them. Christians today, however, are not OT Israelites, and thus the Mosaic law does not obligate them straightforwardly, but must always be interpreted through the grid of new covenant reality” (p. 419, footnote 5).

Pfffffffft. There goes the moral content of the Mosaic law.

That was why I was glad Jamey has the view that he does. The strongest thing DVD can say here about the relationship of "Mosaic" law (he doesn't distinguish between the ethical and positive content in Moses) and natural law is that "the Mosaic and natural laws are both proto-logical laws with so many similarities." That was his disclaimer to the contrast he was drawing between the two.


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> Glad you believe that.
> 
> 
> Ok...I was trying to limit my comments to @VictorBravo 's concerns.
> But the method's difficulty is revealed when it is asked, "Can the unbeliever on his unbelieving presuppositions know the content (ethical) of natural law?"
> 
> 
> They know it inasmuch as they presuppose the Christian God (but *that* they have suppressed in unrighteousness). They became futile in their thoughts. How would such a person develop a righteous ethical system?
> 
> 
> I would say that their R2K-ness means that they wouldn't see the obligation to recognize and submit to Christ as King of the nations. (Unlike, say, Calvin.)
> 
> 
> ...which (if true, but I don't think it is) is why I added the moral case law about the *penalty* for bestiality.
> Or adultery.
> 
> 
> Theonomy? *Theos*-*nomos*? God's Law? Yes. But I said as much when I said the the moral case laws have abiding validity.
> In the good sense of the word, as Schwertley would say, not the (1st-table denying) kooky sense.
> 
> 
> Society abandoned God's Law.
> 
> 
> That might be the understatement of the year.


Ok, well I don't think you understand pressupossitonalism, to say that unless the unbeliever presupposes God's law in a positive sense, that is begins with it like a premise of an argument, they can't have a foundation for morality, or any morality it seems (despite evidence to the contrary). Great but they are moral unless Paul is lying in Romans. An apologetical argument is not the same thing as having morality, it is only for persuasion.
By theonomy I mean it seems that you're saying unless we prescribe the Mosaic penalties for a crime we are wrong? But why, and you offered no scholarly answer merely asserted, did society go the way it went? Your best argument is "yes society punishes bestiality (which shows a moral recognition) but I don't like the punishment, therefore society is immoral". If that's not what you're saying than please correct me.

So to sum it up:
1. you misunderstand pressupossitonalism
2. your own opinions of punishments are clouding your judgements, that is unless they punish people the way you think they should they are immoral (despite the fact that they do punish these people, which seems to disprove the whole immoral thing)
3. you sound like a Theonomist, without admitting it. So it's hard to pinpoint where you're coming from
I'm just trying to keep the conversation moving. If your beef is with Dr. Vandrunen, than take it up with him. And you haven't disproven my method for natural law, only presented an untenable position both in the face of common sense/facts and Van Til himself (and the apostle Paul).


----------



## jwright82

Henry Hall said:


> Unfortunately, r2Ker VanDrunen: "“As a point of clarification, I note that the question of the Christian’s continuing obligation toward the norms and institutions of the Mosaic law must be handled differently from the way I address their obligation toward the natural law, even though the Mosaic and natural laws are both proto-logical laws with so many similarities. Without question the Mosaic law remains relevant for Christians (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17, e.g.). But while the natural is directly binding upon human beings _as human beings_ living in this world, the Mosaic law was directly binding upon people _as OT Israelites_. Christians today remain human beings living in this world, and hence the natural law remains straightforwardly binding upon them. Christians today, however, are not OT Israelites, and thus the Mosaic law does not obligate them straightforwardly, but must always be interpreted through the grid of new covenant reality” (p. 419, footnote 5).
> 
> Pfffffffft. There goes the moral content of the Mosaic law.
> 
> That was why I was glad Jamey has the view that he does. The strongest thing DVD can say here about the relationship of "Mosaic" law (he doesn't distinguish between the ethical and positive content in Moses) and natural law is that "the Mosaic and natural laws are both proto-logical laws with so many similarities." That was his disclaimer to the contrast he was drawing between the two.


Again you're equating any other view than theonomy as "not having the moral law" even though in your quote Dr. Vandrunen affirms the law "through the grid of the new covenant". You just don't like the way he's doing it, because it's not theonomy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Henry Hall said:


> Pfffffffft. There goes the moral content of the Mosaic law.



I love your humble and reverent tone. That really adds to the discussion, especially since we are discussing Teaching Elders of good standing in the church.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Time for this one to rest. Folks review the board rules for discussion. Or the general principle at least, let all things be done unto edification.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------

