# Mediatorial Dominion, Rutherford, Gillespie, Legitimacy of Gov't



## deleteduser99 (Oct 31, 2019)

You probably knew by the title that this was going to be an interesting thread. I imagine too that in our political climate people are going to start asking questions about topics addressed in this post anyway.

I suppose inevitably this will end with some debate in mediatorial dominion, but I'll put up with it ready enough.

So far as I understand mediatorial dominion, here's what I've got down, and I subscribe to by Scripture: Christ in reward for His obedience was given as the God-man all authority in heaven and in earth, meaning He has become the appointed ruler of all things in heaven and in earth, including nations. According to Mt 28 this was given to Him. So government which is ordained of God in nature is now governed by God through the God-man, and all other things too. Christ rules all things for the good of the church (Ephesians 1), and without this dominion He would not have authority to give eternal life to the elect (Jn 17:2). All nations have a duty to covenant with Christ ("kiss the Son" per Psalm 2), meaning to swear allegiance, and pattern their laws after God's law. I agree.

Been browsing some old threads, and I discover that Rutherford and Gillespie did not hold to the doctrine of mediatorial dominion. First question, what did they hold to instead? I get the impression that perhaps they held a similar view. How is theirs distinct?

Another question has come up in this discussion of the legitimacy of a government that does not acknowledge Christ, or is founded on anti-Christian principles. So that would make, say, Islamic governments to be illegitimate since the very constitution of their government is against Christ. By default the Islamic government is a terror to good, they as inferior magistrates are acting against their supreme magistrate Christ, thus a Sharia government threatens its own ability to claim obedience for conscience sake. This would basically mean the so-called authority of an Islamic government to be null and void, and a Christian obeys for other reasons that do not draw from the authority of the government itself.

For example, a Christian living under Sharia law won't abstain from thievery because there's a civil law against it and because the magistracy enforces it, but because it is God's law he does not steal--but he does not obey the Islamic government for conscience sake. So he gives no countenance at all to the sham authority of an Islamic government. Though, in a lawful government there would be two reasons to abstain: one is because God condemns it, and because he is disobeying a legitimate minister of God who does rule to reward good and terrorize evil, and thus must obey that government for conscience sake. This seems to be the view of William Symington and Samuel Wylie.

There's an advantage to that view: it puts a real, definite border around the authority of a government, and it tells the government that God's law is the strict rule, and that they have no more authority than what they receive from God by His law. Anything beyond is wicked. The enforcement of God's law then becomes the substance of terrorizing evildoers and rewarding the good. Also, in such a view the Christian's conscience is not bound to tyranny, and a Christian should not fear that God judges him a sinner for not submitting to tyrannical laws.

But how does a Christian act in that kind of society? If he lives under an illegitimate government, then no law of the country is binding on him--not even the speed limit. I would imagine a real Christian will consider what he will do in light of maintaining peace with his neighbors, like Christ paying a tax which he was not subject to. So for the speed limit, he might still obey it simply for keeping peace And safety. What ultimately checks such a view from anarchy? Would it be Christ and the temple tax?

One thought I have is of 1 Peter 2. The submission in this passage is "for the Lord's sake", not necessarily the government's; he ropes in the activities of the government by the same qualifications as Paul (terror to evil, rewarder of good), and even when living under an oppressive government, the Christian accounts for what the governors and common people are going to think of his actions. So for example, a Christian might say the tax rates are exorbitant and unjust, and may argue that he is really being robbed, yet for the sake of testimony before governors and neighbors (and not because that government really binds him), he'll calculate and pay his taxes just as the government expects he would. In this way, a Christian "puts to silence the ignorance of foolish men", acts as one who is free in v. 16, acts as a servant of God by keeping a good name for his Lord, and is far from using his freedom as a cloak for maliciousness.

Last question, is the evaluation of the legitimacy of a government part-and-parcel of mediatorial dominion?

Thoughts all welcome.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> Another question has come up in this discussion of the legitimacy of a government that does not acknowledge Christ, or is founded on anti-Christian principles. So that would make, say, Islamic governments to be illegitimate since the very constitution of their government is against Christ.



This is very close to Roman Catholicism. The Confession rejected this position (23.4).

Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 31, 2019)

I only have so much time for this subject, so this is likely a post and run sort of post for me.



RPEphesian said:


> Been browsing some old threads, and I discover that Rutherford and Gillespie did not hold to the doctrine of mediatorial dominion. First question, what did they hold to instead? I get the impression that perhaps they held a similar view. How is theirs distinct?


Travis has a useful article at his site that outlines the various views: https://reformedbooksonline.com/the-extent-of-christs-mediatorial-kingdom-2/

See also: https://purelypresbyterian.com/tag/mediatorial-kingdom/



RPEphesian said:


> For example, a Christian living under Sharia law won't abstain from thievery because there's a civil law against it and because the magistracy enforces it, but because it is God's law he does not steal--but he does not obey the Islamic government for conscience sake. So he gives no countenance at all to the sham authority of an Islamic government. Though, in a lawful government there would be two reasons to abstain: one is because God condemns it, and because he is disobeying a legitimate minister of God who does rule to reward good and terrorize evil, and thus must obey that government for conscience sake. This seems to be the view of William Symington and Samuel Wylie.
> 
> There's an advantage to that view: it puts a real, definite border around the authority of a government, and it tells the government that God's law is the strict rule, and that they have no more authority than what they receive from God by His law. Anything beyond is wicked. The enforcement of God's law then becomes the substance of terrorizing evildoers and rewarding the good. Also, in such a view the Christian's conscience is not bound to tyranny, and a Christian should not fear that God judges him a sinner for not submitting to tyrannical laws.


Magistrates are always bound by natural law. They are God's ministers, so God's law still binds them, even if one does not take the mediatorial kingdom view; their authority comes from God by nature and natural revelation, which therefore ought to be obeyed for conscience's sake where the authority has been lawfully (i.e., recognized as the authority, not an usurper) ordained (except where they transgress God's law). Magistrates that come into more contact with special revelation will be more responsible for upholding the claims of Christ. If you can get ahold of it, you may find Matthew Winzer's article about Theonomy useful for seeing some historical understanding of the role of special revelation and the magistrate's authority (found in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal Volume 5).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 31, 2019)

Afterthought said:


> I only have so much time for this subject, so this is likely a post and run sort of post for me.
> 
> 
> Travis has a useful article at his site that outlines the various views: https://reformedbooksonline.com/the-extent-of-christs-mediatorial-kingdom-2/
> ...



So is it that Gillespie and Rutherford see Christ as having rule over all nations as God only, but not as God-man, and the rule as God-man pertains only to the church?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 31, 2019)

I think it might be good for me to make absolutely clear, considering the nature of my questions: I am absolutely opposed to anarchy or speediness to resistance. When 1 Peter says to be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, I take that to mean that even if you can consider a government illegitimate, still it is not for man's authority but for God's that, so far as possible, you comply with the laws that are over you. That's a divine curtailment to rebellion.

Even if a government could be considered illegitimate, you still have God's authority binding you to conscientious and reasonable obedience, which I think Peter means by "_every_ ordinance of man."
If they are legitimate, you have a double obligation--the authority of God, and the authority of a lawful minister.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> So is it that Gillespie and Rutherford see Christ as having rule over all nations as God only, but not as God-man, and the rule as God-man pertains only to the church?



Specifically, Jesus isn't mediating over the nations right now. Otherwise, pagan ministers are sub-mediating. Further, Jesus would be mediating his benefits to the pagans.

He has dominion as the Son of God, but not as the mediator. Gillespie is pretty clear on this.
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/review-gillespie-aarons-rod-blossoming/


Does Jesus reign over devils by his mediatorial work or by his divine power? Obviously the latter. Therefore, it is a separate kingdom.
His being the ‘heir of all things,’ receiving the heathen, relates to the church (Gillespie 94).
In Scripture pagan civil governments are recognized as legitimate, even if they aren’t under Christ.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 31, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Specifically, Jesus isn't mediating over the nations right now. Otherwise, pagan ministers are sub-mediating. Further, Jesus would be mediating his benefits to the pagans.
> 
> He has dominion as the Son of God, but not as the mediator. Gillespie is pretty clear on this.
> https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/review-gillespie-aarons-rod-blossoming/
> ...



Interesting. So did Gillespie hold the view that as divine person only He rules the nations, but as the God-man He only rules the church? And that as God-man He can only rule as Mediator in the Kingdom of Grace?

For the first point, I've understood MD to assume they are in a separate kingdom, but the God-man rules in both. No denial of another kingdom separate from the kingdom of grace.

I think an answer to his view on receiving the heathens in part depends on knowing why Gillespie says Christ may not rule over the nations as God-Man, if that's how I understand him.

Not sure how the third point helps Gillespie's premise, which is partially what I'm trying to figure out--how does MD lead to a conclusion that some governments are illegitimate?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> Interesting. So did Gillespie hold the view that as divine person only He rules the nations, but as the God-man He only rules the church? And that as God-man He can only rule as Mediator in the Kingdom of Grace?



He uses the distinction of Mediator and Dominion. I can't remember but I don't recall him saying "God-man" or making that a factor.


RPEphesian said:


> For the first point, I've understood MD to assume they are in a separate kingdom, but the God-man rules in both. No denial of another kingdom separate from the kingdom of grace.



But mediatorial reign sees the mediator over *both*. That's what Gillespie is denying.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 31, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This is very close to Roman Catholicism. The Confession rejected this position (23.4).
> 
> Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them



Is this infidelity and indifference in relation to individual magistrates, or the whole government itself? For Sharia law we're not talking about one pagan in a government that fears God, which the Assembly believed every government should do. In Sharia Law, they've avowed _not_ to be the minister of God by founding themselves on the Quran. 

I'm also thinking that someone like Samuel Rutherford cannot hold that a magistrate at all times has just and legal authority since he believed in popular revolution, so he would think that it would break down somewhere. I would imagine some others from the Assembly would agree. So can a so-called government start out and assert authority it doesn't have, and under which there is no obligation to obey?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 31, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He uses the distinction of Mediator and Dominion. I can't remember but I don't recall him saying "God-man" or making that a factor.
> 
> 
> But mediatorial reign sees the mediator over *both*. That's what Gillespie is denying.



I see. I'll have to look up Gillespie--or wait for someone else to do my homework and post it here. 

I use the term God-man because it sounded like Gillespie says Christ somehow ruled the kingdom of power only in divine essence. Some are probably hesitant to say that He rules over the nations as God-Man because it's in this way He also acts as Mediator. I've not conceived MD to lead to Christ being mediator for pagans anymore than household baptism making Him a mediator for unconverted baptized children, even though we speak of those children as in the church. He doesn't rule all the same way.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 31, 2019)

Here’s a helpful thread (and not super long): https://puritanboard.com/threads/mediatorial-kingship-mediator.92064/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> I'm also thinking that someone like Samuel Rutherford cannot hold that a magistrate at all times has just and legal authority since he believed in popular revolution, so he would think that it would break down somewhere.



That's not the argument I'm making. Your OP referenced "Another question has come up in this discussion of the legitimacy of a government that does not acknowledge Christ, or is founded on anti-Christian principles," which is a position that WCF specifically condemns.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Von (Nov 1, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Further, Jesus would be mediating his benefits to the pagans.


Yes, I agree with this. Also one of the reasons I do not hold to a millennium kingdom with Christ reigning physically over the nations and with the clearly redemptive benefits extending to both believers and unbelievers. 
PS: If I remember correctly, Jacob, you are historic premil?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2019)

Von said:


> If I remember correctly, Jacob, you are historic premil?



Prewrath, premil.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 1, 2019)

While I agree with the divines who held that Christ rules over the nations as the mediator (see John Owen, James Bannerman, A. A. Hodge, Richard Baxter, and Peter Sterry - none of whom were RPs) it must always be remembered that civil government (like marriage) is founded in nature and does not need to be Christian in order to be legitimate. The fact that it is founded in nature does not stop me from affirming that Christ is mediatorial king over the state, as grace perfects nature but it does stop me from running to the excess of thinking that a state or a particular civil magistrate is not legitimate unless it recognises the mediatorial kingship of Christ.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 1, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> While I agree with the divines who held that Christ rules over the nations as the mediator (see John Owen, James Bannerman, A. A. Hodge, Richard Baxter, and Peter Sterry - none of whom were RPs) it must always be remembered that civil government (like marriage) is founded in nature and does not need to be Christian in order to be legitimate. The fact that it is founded in nature does not stop me from affirming that Christ is mediatorial king over the state, as grace perfects nature but it does stop me from running to the excess of thinking that a state or a particular civil magistrate is not legitimate unless it recognises the mediatorial kingship of Christ.



Or otherwise you would have to say a marriage between unbelievers is illegitimate.

I'm still trying to figure out how one draws the conclusion of the illegitimacy of a government on MD grounds, but still it feels like it topples some plain NT grounds of submission.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Nov 1, 2019)

Christ being the Mediatorial King does not mean He mediates His benefits for pagans. Eph 1 is clear that His Mediatorial reign over the Church and nations is for the sake of the Church.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 29, 2019)

@Reformed Covenanter

@Romans922

I am reading a summary of Gillespie's arguments here, and I am confused just what is the difference between his view and Mediatorial Dominion.

The main work I've read is Symington, and I've had discussions with my elder. My understanding is not that Ephesians 1 makes Christ to mediate His saving benefits to all the world, but the authority over all things is given to him for the sake of benefiting the church. That seems to be Gillespie's view, but it seems to be my own MD view.

It sounds like Gillespie is countering a view that makes the magistrate a sort of ecclesiastical officer. Or even that governments or nations are under the authority of the church.

There seems to be a paradox in his view. He held that the nations given as an inheritance means that he has authority to take out of all nations his own people, though in another place Gillespie holds Christ as Mediator being the pre-eminent King of Kings. Per one footnote on King of Kings:
_
[Per Aaron’s Rod, ch. 6, section 2, Gillespie understands this phrase to refer to Christ: (1) as divine as the governing Head and King of all kings, or (2) as Mediator, the preeminent King of all kings with power over them all.]_

Gillespie also argues that because Christ has pre-eminence in glory and power as God-man Mediator, it doesn't mean he rules over those other kingdoms.

But it seems like in many cases the two views come to similar ends, and that is governments being concerned to enforce God's law and act as God's minister for terror to evil or reward of righteousness.

What separates Gillespie from MD proponents today? Or someone like Symington or Owen or Baxter?

Edit: Tagging one more, @Travis Fentiman , who wrote the referenced paper. Thoughts, sir?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 30, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> I am reading a summary of Gillespie's arguments here, and I am confused just what is the difference between his view and Mediatorial Dominion.
> 
> The main work I've read is Symington, and I've had discussions with my elder. My understanding is not that Ephesians 1 makes Christ to mediate His saving benefits to all the world, but the authority over all things is given to him for the sake of benefiting the church. That seems to be Gillespie's view, but it seems to be my own MD view.
> 
> ...



Gillespie's argument is that Christ isn't mediating to the pagan magistrates. He can say that, and say Christ still rules over the nations because he believes in natural law.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 30, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Gillespie's argument is that Christ isn't mediating to the pagan magistrates. He can say that, and say Christ still rules over the nations because he believes in natural law.



I see. So Gillespie is trying to prevent an idea that somehow the benefits of the kingdom of grace are mediated to the nations and their people--converted or unconverted. The idea of a vice-regent is to act as the main regent. In this case, governors acting a part in redemption, not just moral governance.

And the issue that Gillespie sees with the idea of governors being vice-regents of Christ the Mediator is that it creates the effect of the governor somehow being a salvific Mediator, thus essentially operating the nations like the church. Which is why Gillespie seems to be concerned that the end result could be a form of Erastianism.

So Gillespie is working hard to protect that distinction between the two kingdoms.

(Edited for clarity)


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 30, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> I see. So Gillespie is trying to prevent an idea that somehow the benefits of the kingdom of grace are mediated to the nations and their people--converted or unconverted. The idea of a vice-regent is to act as the main regent. In this case, governors acting a part in redemption, not just moral governance.
> 
> And the issue that Gillespie sees with the idea of governors being vice-regents of Christ the Mediator is that it creates the effect of the governor somehow being a salvific Mediator, thus essentially operating the nations like the church. Which is why Gillespie seems to be concerned that the end result could be a form of Erastianism.
> 
> ...



Yes. Gillespie believes very much in the 2 Kingdoms. I think many of us overreacted to some extreme versions of 2 Kingdoms years ago, and it allowed us to miss the obvious fact that all of the Reformed fathers believed in two kingdoms.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 30, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> I see. So Gillespie is trying to prevent an idea that somehow the benefits of the kingdom of grace are mediated to the nations and their people--converted or unconverted. The idea of a vice-regent is to act as the main regent. In this case, governors acting a part in redemption, not just moral governance.
> 
> And the issue that Gillespie sees with the idea of governors being vice-regents of Christ the Mediator is that it creates the effect of the governor somehow being a salvific Mediator, thus essentially operating the nations like the church. Which is why Gillespie seems to be concerned that the end result could be a form of Erastianism.
> 
> ...


Is that all that’s at stake- maintaining the distinction between the two kingdoms in order to hold off erastianism? I have struggled to really comprehend the issues at stake here over the past several years. I’ve come away with the idea of the “being” vs. the “well-being” of the office of the magistrate looming large as an issue.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 30, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Is that all that’s at stake- maintaining the distinction between the two kingdoms in order to hold off erastianism? I have struggled to really comprehend the issues at stake here over the past several years. I’ve come away with the idea of the “being” vs. the “well-being” of the office of the magistrate looming large as an issue.



That's part of it. The other part is rebutting the Roman Catholic idea that a magistrate who is ungodly either isn't a legit magistrate or may be deposed on that ground. That line of thought has also been a temptation for some Reformed.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 30, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> the magistrate who is ungodly either isn't a legit magistrate or may be deposed on that ground.


That illustrates the being vs well-being line of thinking, I think. How do these differences work themselves out in how Christ is honored and glorified? The Mediatorial view seems for instance to take a bolder stand in proclaiming Christ King of the nations and speaking about and calling on magistrates’ duty to kiss the Son. I apologize if I’m muddying things with these questions!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 30, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> What separates Gillespie from MD proponents today? Or someone like Symington or Owen or Baxter?



I am late replying because I only just noticed that I was tagged in the post. To be honest, I think the whole argument is largely a storm in a teacup, but, to be fair, George Gillespie's arguments against the potential abuse of mediatorial kingship are useful if only to serve as a reminder not to go too far in a certain direction. 

The problem that I have always had with Gillespie's position is that it does not sit well with a disinterested exegesis of scripture. Hence, most contemporary arguments that I have read in defence of his views on this issue seem to be traditionalist, rather than biblical in nature.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 30, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Is that all that’s at stake- maintaining the distinction between the two kingdoms in order to hold off erastianism? I have struggled to really comprehend the issues at stake here over the past several years. I’ve come away with the idea of the “being” vs. the “well-being” of the office of the magistrate looming large as an issue.



Possibly. Though, what's in the link I provided is only the views that Gillespie has endeavored to answer, so beyond Hussey and Coleman referenced in the link I'm not sure what Mediatorial Dominion might have meant to others.

The chain of logic that Gillespie seems to dislike is this:

- All authority in heaven and earth is given to Christ, and all things are subject to Him for the sake of the church
- They are given to Him as Mediator
- Gillespie seems to detect and implication that the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of power have become one
- So, governors are vice regents for Christ as Mediator
- If the kingdoms have essentially become one, then governors are vice-regents for Christ's salvific work, at which point the government and the church have conflated functions. Erastianism!

Gillespie is staving off a form which, in reading Symington, I did not derive at all, so I find the distinction between Gillespie and MD to be quite confusing since Symington has been much of my influence. Of course, Symington is circa 200 years after Gillespie, so ideas could develop quite a bit, and thus with MD.

But some of those whom Gillespie combats seem to hold an idea that governors are members of the church. His opponents try to prove it from 1 Corinthians 12:28 that in the list of gifts in the church there is "government".

That doesn't seem to be something others in MD would hold to. Bannerman most absolutely does not. In fact, Bannerman really helped me clarify the distinct roles of the church and government. For Bannerman the church has the keys of the kingdom, the government the power of the sword, but the church and government _never_ take on the functions of one another. Government may have commands from God _concerning_ religious/spiritual matters, but the administration of the kingdom of grace absolutely does not belong to them. Bannerman, from my limited reading, could not possibly hold the ideas that some of those whom Gillespie was answering did hold.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 30, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> That illustrates the being vs well-being line of thinking, I think. How do these differences work themselves out in how Christ is honored and glorified? The Mediatorial view seems for instance to take a bolder stand in proclaiming Christ King of the nations and speaking about and calling on magistrates’ duty to kiss the Son. I apologize if I’m muddying things with these questions!



Every Reformed thinker until 1789 would have said that. That's not the distinction. Are pagan rulers legitimate rulers, other things being equal?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 30, 2019)

Would you agree that the present day Mediatorial work itself out in a tendency to keep adherents from voting if none of the candidates are Christians? And was that Symington’s view? I do get the idea that our government is seen as illegitimate.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 30, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Every Reformed thinker until 1789 would have said that. That's not the distinction. Are pagan rulers legitimate rulers, other things being equal?


I guess the difference I’m considering is that the calling on the magistrates to kiss the Son is accompanied by a reluctance (?) to acknowledge them as legitimate.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 30, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I guess the difference I’m considering is that the calling on the magistrates to kiss the Son is accompanied by a reluctance (?) to acknowledge them as legitimate.



The Westminster STandards specifically condemn the idea that kings lose their legitimacy by being of the wrong faith/bad morals.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 30, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Westminster STandards specifically condemn the idea that kings lose their legitimacy by being of the wrong faith/bad morals.


Yes I know and I agree. I’m asking whether holding to the Mediatorial kingship view tends to work itself out contrary to the spirit of the standards, in practice at least, amongst those who hold to it. Regarding voting, running for public office, etc. (Gillespie would never have envisioned our Republic/democratic form of government.)


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 30, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’m asking whether holding to the Mediatorial kingship view tends to work itself out contrary to the spirit of the standards, in practice at least, amongst those who hold to it.



It doesn't have to. I don't see any logical connection. Among some young puppy bloggers, though, it probably does.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## earl40 (Nov 30, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Westminster STandards specifically condemn the idea that kings lose their legitimacy by being of the wrong faith/bad morals.



That is true, and why I still call President Trump and former President Obama our Presidents....even though I would never vote for either.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 30, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Among some young puppy bloggers.


No, I’m talking about the long-standing history and position of my own denomination, for instance. Which I respect. I am just trying to trace out certain necessary consequences of views of government by those holding to the Mediatorial kingship of Christ.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 30, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Yes I know and I agree. I’m asking whether holding to the Mediatorial kingship view tends to work itself out contrary to the spirit of the standards, in practice at least, amongst those who hold to it. Regarding voting, running for public office, etc. (Gillespie would never have envisioned our Republic/democratic form of government.)





Jeri Tanner said:


> No, I’m talking about the long-standing history and position of my own denomination, for instance. Which I respect. I am just trying to trace out certain necessary consequences of views of government by those holding to the Mediatorial kingship of Christ.



This is probably more an issue of a sinful oath. Can you rightly take an oath to uphold a constitution which essentially says that God is not going to be our God, or we don't have a duty to uphold the moral law of Scripture, or is not founded upon the authority of God but rather "we the people"? And does a Christian sin by voting for someone who will take such an oath? I would think that if you hold to a view like in the original (not revised) WCF, whether MD or nor, you'd have to seriously face the question. It doesn't mean you don't obey the government--only whether you can appoint someone to power who is going to run the show in an anti-Biblical fashion. It's a separate issue though.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 30, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> Can you rightly take an oath to uphold a constitution which essentially says that God is not going to be our God, or we don't have a duty to uphold the moral law of Scripture, or is not founded upon the authority of God but rather "we the people"? And does a Christian sin by voting for someone who will take such an oath? I would think that if you hold to a view like in the original (not revised) WCF, whether MD or nor, you'd have to seriously face the question. It doesn't mean you don't obey the government--only whether you can appoint someone to power who is going to run the show in an anti-Biblical fashion. It's a separate issue though.


But if a government is seen as legitimate, wouldn’t that open the way to participate as much as one could through voting (where and when one could) and running for public office? I think all this was addressed not so long ago in another thread but mainly here I’m talking about ideas. I don’t see how the legitimacy of a government can then square with a refusal to vote, for instance, even for a non-Christian candidate who might yet do some good in the public arena.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 30, 2019)

I understand about not taking sinful oaths and vows but after all the RPCNA now allows its members to vote, run for public office, serve in the military, etc.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 30, 2019)

Reverend Winzer speaks a bit to this issue in a thread with a few posts. 
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/symingtons-messiah-the-prince-wcf.79041/

Dr. David McKay wrote a piece in a book that is beneficial also. I purchased an audio session that is available at Reformed Resources you can get for a dollar.
*From Popery to Principle: Covenanters and the Kingship of Christ David McKay*

https://reformedresources.org/from-...ters-and-the-kingship-of-Christ-mp3-download/


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 30, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> But if a government is seen as legitimate, wouldn’t that open the way to participate as much as one could through voting (where and when one could) and running for public office? I think all this was addressed not so long ago in another thread but mainly here I’m talking about ideas. I don’t see how the legitimacy of a government can then square with a refusal to vote, for instance, even for a non-Christian candidate who might yet do some good in the public arena.



Just one thought, but we might rabbit trail. A government can be legitimate and do sinful things, though it doesn't necessitate that a Christian can participate in any sinful activities the government does. I still have a responsibility to honor and pray for whatever President is in office, though still refuse any activity that is sinful.

I wouldn't know why the RPCNA changed its membership requirements, though I'm not sure the basic stance on voting has changed.

From the Testimony--and it seems the stance of the RPCNA is to discourage voting that favors a sinfully-based constitution, yet participation as far as a good conscience towards God allows:

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

And...

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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 30, 2019)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Reverend Winzer speaks a bit to this issue in a thread with a few posts.
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/symingtons-messiah-the-prince-wcf.79041/
> 
> Dr. David McKay wrote a piece in a book that is beneficial also. I purchased an audio session that is available at Reformed Resources you can get for a dollar.
> ...


Yes, some of Rev. Winzer’s writings on it in various threads were helpful (helped me [dimly] see some of the issues at stake). Still struggling to fully comprehend.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 30, 2019)

Just a note, with highest respect, I'm kind of hoping not to rabbit trail on voting. It's a good discussion to have, though I'm hoping to keep on the subject of Mediatorial Dominion. I'm up for a separate thread though on it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 30, 2019)

Here are a few other resources that might be helpful. Dr. Blackwood first.

*The King and His Kingdom (Part 1)*
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-king-and-his-kingdom-part-1/

*The King and His Kingdom (parts 2-4)*

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

This has been very helpful to some of my friends....
*Christ the King of All
*
_By Philip H. Pockras, minister_
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/Christ-the-king-of-all/



Dr Blackwood speaking on the topic at an Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals Conference, God's Kingdom at War.






I have used both phraseologies One Kingdom and Two Kingdom. They refer to two different sides of a coin as I understand things. 

Dr. Jack Kinneer speaks on Two Kingdom theology here.

Dr. Kinneer reveals 3 various views. The Transformationalist view which is one Kingdom, the most recent West Coast view, and then the historical view. 
http://www.viewcrestchurch.org/ompodcast/om1002.mp3

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 30, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am late replying because I only just noticed that I was tagged in the post. To be honest, I think the whole argument is largely *a storm in a teacup*, but, to be fair, George Gillespie's arguments against the potential abuse of mediatorial kingship are useful if only to serve as a reminder not to go too far in a certain direction.
> 
> *The problem that I have always had with Gillespie's position is that it does not sit well with a disinterested exegesis of scripture. *Hence, most contemporary arguments that I have read in defence of his views on this issue seem to be traditionalist, rather than biblical in nature.



Would you be willing to elaborate on the emboldened parts?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 30, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> Last question, is the evaluation of the legitimacy of a government part-and-parcel of mediatorial dominion?


This is the last sentence of your OP, and I think it does come down to this (and that questions of participation through voting and holding elected office seem connected to the answer of the question but I understand not going down that trail). If I understand church history correctly, your question here was the very issue that kept the Society People (Cameronians, remnants of which later became the RP Church) from joining with the established Church after the Revolution Settlement. I would like a very definitive answer to your question also!


----------



## deleteduser99 (Nov 30, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> This is the last sentence of your OP, and I think it does come down to this (and that questions of participation through voting and holding elected office seem connected to the answer of the question but I understand not going down that trail). If I understand church history correctly, your question here was the very issue that kept the Society People (Cameronians, remnants of which later became the RP Church) from joining with the established Church after the Revolution Settlement. I would like a very definitive answer to your question also!



My concern was more along the lines of, when does a government become illegitimate, so that the laws are no longer binding? Symington indicates quite clearly there are circumstances when governments lose their authority, and you only have duty only so far as the laws themselves are moral, or adjoining you to do what God has already commanded you. Like a thief who takes over your house and commands you to fear God.

Whether MD or not, many seem to have conceded that there are cases in which the government has so dreadfully abused its power and done such terrible harm in opposite of the true intent of their office, that citizens have the right to revolution (addressed in another thread). Samuel Rutherford (a Westminster divine, no less), from what little I understand of Lex Rex, seems to have believed such cases existed. If there is a right of revolution, there is a right to disobedience. Knox clearly believed this was the case in Scotland. But I'd like to know too if this is a real extent of the doctrine of MD.

From my own look at Scripture, and some other reading, it must be in the extreme before a government loses its just and legal authority.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 30, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> Would you be willing to elaborate on the emboldened parts?



Both parties confess that Christ is Lord over the state, so, in practical terms, it makes or should make very little difference. It is only when mediatorial kingship is taken to illogical extremes, which I mentioned in an earlier post, that it becomes problematic. But as I said in an earlier post, seeing mediatorial kingship as an example of grace perfecting nature corrects these excesses. 

As for exegesis, what I mean is that I have rarely seen apologists for George Gillespie's position seriously grapple with the exegetical arguments that the likes of William Symington made in support of his view. Instead, all too often, mediatorial kingship is rejected on the basis of Erastian appropriations of the concept, rather than because the specific appropriation of MK advocated by Symington and others is exegetically mistaken.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 1, 2019)

Thanks all for the links and resources provided. Been doing some more reading, and doing some comparison.

In the end, I see little difference between Gillespie and what I understand to be Mediatorial Dominion. It seems like there's really one key difference: Does Christ rule the kingdom of power only as essential God, or as God-Man Mediator? I have to think that Gillespie and Symington would agree on much more than they disagree in reference to Christ's rulership over the kingdom of power. In the end, both say that Christ rules the kingdom of power not in order to give the benefits of redemption to the unconverted/non-elect or to rule the nations as a church-state of some kind, but that all things may work together for the good the church. I don't get the impression from anyone that I've read who espouses MD that Christ has essentially changed the function of civil governments from external enforcement of God's law by reward and punishment to a more church-state model.

So far, the thing that tips me in favor of the MD view saying that the God-man--and not just Christ as essential God--is king over the kingdom of power is 1) it seems to be the natural reading of the supporting texts since the giving is to Christ as He is God-man and not God essential, and 2) (I have some fear my language and conceptions might fall short) it feels like you must somehow divide up the person of Christ to say that as God essential He rules one kingdom, but as God-man Mediator he rules another--or, it seems to split up His personhood.

WLC 41, His God nature and man nature are in one person so that the works done according to each nature might be counted as that of the whole and singular person. Ruling as only essential God in NT times seems like it would bifurcate His person between two realms. That, and though He is fully God, it doesn't seem we are ever meant to conceive of Christ in His God nature only since the incarnation. The God-Man is forever His identity to us, all revelation in the NT ties His personhood to it, and all Christ does is in His tri-fold Mediatorial office. It doesn't seem the rulership over the nations is an exception.

Does Christ have all knowledge as essential God? Yes. But what answer would a glorified saint get from The Second Person if he asked about the date of the Second Coming? "Only the Father knows". Will anyone--man or angel--ever hear Christ say, "I as God am essentially equal to my Father", or will He always say, "My Father is greater than I"? There seems to be no manner in the New Testament where Christ as person acts apart from His work as God-Man and all that it entails. Why then rule the nations as essential God only?

But also, would we rather that Christ ruled the nations only as essential God, or as God-man? I would rather the latter anyway. As God-Man He took on our condition, that according to WLC 39 the Mediator must be man so that He "might have a fellow feeling of our infirmities." All His human experience goes into His rule as Priest-King. Wouldn't it be all the more to the advantage of the church He purchased if He rules the nations for our sakes as that same compassionate and sympathetic God-man? Edit: Not only that, but as one to whom we are united, and whose seed we are?

(Edit addition): But if He does it apart from His God-Man Mediatorial office, And yet He rules all things for the sake of the church (Eph 1:21-23), then you have a situation where He seeks to bless His church yet apart from the God-Man Mediatorial office that was initially appointed for that end. If He rules the nations for the sake of His church apart from God-Man nature and related offices, wouldn't that lead to ruling His church (WLC 45 on kingship "restraining and overcoming all their enemies") in some capacity apart from the Covenant of Grace as well? Why do it apart from the office and the union of natures meant for the good of the church?

Fully open to corrections. These are high ideas, and I fear going into speculations, though I think I am still talking in reference to things that are revealed, or inferring from revealed things. But neither am I an expert-trained or seasoned theologian.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 1, 2019)

Here’s another short little thread with some good comments including from Rev Winzer. It highlights some of the agreement between these men. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/symingtons-messiah-the-prince-wcf.79041/


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 1, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> Thanks all for the links and resources provided. Been doing some more reading, and doing some comparison.
> 
> In the end, I see little difference between Gillespie and what I understand to be Mediatorial Dominion. It seems like there's really one key difference: Does Christ rule the kingdom of power only as essential God, or as God-Man Mediator? I have to think that Gillespie and Symington would agree on much more than they disagree in reference to Christ's rulership over the kingdom of power. In the end, both say that Christ rules the kingdom of power not in order to give the benefits of redemption to the unconverted/non-elect or to rule the nations as a church-state of some kind, but that all things may work together for the good the church. I don't get the impression from anyone that I've read who espouses MD that Christ has essentially changed the function of civil governments from external enforcement of God's law by reward and punishment to a more church-state model.
> 
> ...


What exactly is the practical difference between the two views? Can I say that Christ rules both kingdoms in whatever fashion or does one way of ruling commit me to certian practical expectation of what the state does? In other words does a view of him ruling as God/man or God only make me a theonomist or a R2K guy practically speaking?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> What exactly is the practical difference between the two views? Can I say that Christ rules both kingdoms in whatever fashion or does one way of ruling commit me to certian practical expectation of what the state does? In other words does a view of him ruling as God/man or God only make me a theonomist or a R2K guy practically speaking?



Neither one is R2K, and as R2K guys admit, natural law was always seen as fairly theocratic. The tendency for the mediatorial view is to remove any natural law element and see non-Christian rulers are almost not legitimate. I say tendency.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 1, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The tendency for the mediatorial view is to remove any natural law element and see non-Christian rulers are almost not legitimate. I say tendency.



I am going to start a thread on a related subject soon (DV). More along the lines of how different people adhering to MK come to different conclusions about what the position entails. Bear with me in the meantime, as I am struggling to figure out how to frame the question.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2020)

“See Matthew Hutchison's Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, 206-208, where he gives the difference between the Secession and the Reformed Presbytery. The issue basically comes down to the being and well-being distinction. 

‘Both held that the civil authorities in Christian states are bound to have respect to the Word of God and the interest of the Kingdom of Christ in all their laws and administration, and that God had laid down in His Word certain qualifications that magistrates ruling over a Christian people should possess: but they differed as to the place to be assigned to these qualifications. Seceders maintained that a “due measure of those qualifications was essential not to the being and validity of the magistratical office, but to its well-being and usefulness:” while the Presbytery maintained that these qualifications were essential to the being of a lawful Christian magistracy.’ “

https://puritanboard.com/threads/mediatorial-kingship-mediator.92064/#post-1125324

(Only posting this because I’m also trying to get a firm grasp of the issues.)

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 2, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Neither one is R2K, and as R2K guys admit, natural law was always seen as fairly theocratic. The tendency for the mediatorial view is to remove any natural law element and see non-Christian rulers are almost not legitimate. I say tendency.


Yeah I've always known that about the two kingdom view but at least there willing to admit that they are reworking the ideas for our current socio-political claimant. I've always loved Luther's quip about "rather living under a just Turk over a tyrannical christian".


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 2, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> What exactly is the practical difference between the two views? Can I say that Christ rules both kingdoms in whatever fashion or does one way of ruling commit me to certian practical expectation of what the state does? In other words does a view of him ruling as God/man or God only make me a theonomist or a R2K guy practically speaking?



Talking with my Pr, Gillespie would probably agree with a good deal of what MD's believe. I think too they would have similar ramifications. Both believe the Decalogue to be the proper basis of national law. Gillespie was debating a breed of MD which bordered on Erastianism, that I don't think most hold to today. I don't.



Jeri Tanner said:


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



Have you read Symington's Messiah the Prince? Great help to me.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 2, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> Have you read Symington's Messiah the Prince? Great help to me.


I have not, remiss of me! I need to do so.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 3, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I have not, remiss of me! I need to do so.



Highly recommended. Excellent explanation of the position. Certain book salesman like @Reformed Bookworm might know exactly where to buy from


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jan 3, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> Highly recommended. Excellent explanation of the position. Certain book salesman like @Reformed Bookworm might know exactly where to buy from


A standard on the topic. 
https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...orial-dominion-of-Jesus-Christ-symington.html


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 3, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> Have you read Symington's Messiah the Prince?





RPEphesian said:


> Highly recommended. Excellent explanation of the position.





Reformed Bookworm said:


> A standard on the topic.


I have not heard of this book before but it has sparked my interest  Just a couple of questions:

Does this book promote Christ's Mediatorial Dominion and Kingship with a similar emphasis to the Scottish Covenanters?
I notice the edition sold by RHB has 242 pages whereas the older editions have over 460 pages. Has the new edition been abridged? If so in what way?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 3, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Does this book promote Christ's Mediatorial Dominion and Kingship with a similar emphasis to the Scottish Covenanters?



William Symington was a minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland, so he is writing as someone within the Covenanter tradition. Various earlier Covenanters such as George Gillespie and Alexander Henderson took a different view of the subject of mediatorial kingship. Hence, the later Reformed Presbyterian view should not be identified as _the_ Covenanter position on the subject. 



Stephen L Smith said:


> I notice the edition sold by RHB has 242 pages whereas the older editions have over 460 pages. Has the new edition been abridged? If so in what way?



If that edition is the one that I am thinking of (published by Christian Statesman Press or something like that), then it is not an abridged version but one with smaller print to the earlier editions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 3, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> William Symington was a minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland, so he is writing as someone within the Covenanter tradition. Various earlier Covenanters such as George Gillespie and Alexander Henderson took a different view of the subject of mediatorial kingship. Hence, the later Reformed Presbyterian view should not be identified as _the_ Covenanter position on the subject.


Thank you. That is informative. You said Symington is writing within the Covenanter tradition then later mentioned the later Reformed view and that "the later Reformed Presbyterian view should not be identified as _the _Covenanter position ..." Are you saying there are legitimate positions on this within the *broader *Covenanter position?


Reformed Covenanter said:


> If that edition is the one that I am thinking of (published by Christian Statesman Press or something like that), then it is not an abridged version but one with smaller print to the earlier editions.


The edition mentioned above at the Reformation Heritage Books is the edition published by Crown & Covenant Publications.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 3, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Thank you. That is informative. You said Symington is writing within the Covenanter tradition then later mentioned the later Reformed view and that "the later Reformed Presbyterian view should not be identified as _the _Covenanter position ..." Are you saying there are legitimate positions on this within the *broader *Covenanter position?



Yes, that is correct. I think people often make the mistake that because the RPs are the only denomination in recent times to adhere to the descending obligation of the covenants that, therefore, they are/were the only Covenanters. But that conclusion is not correct. The likes of Thomas Boston and the Seceders were Covenanters, but they were not RPs. 



Stephen L Smith said:


> The edition mentioned above at the Reformation Heritage Books is the edition published by Crown & Covenant Publications.



I think that edition may be a modernized/abridged version.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 3, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The likes of Thomas Boston and the Seceders were Covenanters, but they were not RPs.


I think this is a hugely important historical truth to understand for the sake of unity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

