-

Status
Not open for further replies.
How does a two Kingdom theology thwart justice and promote theft? Muslim countries have far less theft then "christian" ones. Does it make them more Godly by your math equation. Singapore has I believe one of the lowest crime rates in the world, once again because of your premise Less theft = more godly. I guess they are on the right track
.

Again, a child could understand this. Yes, of course they are on the right track in that area, otherwise more theft would be the right track. Or theft is neutral.

More theft: Less godliness. Less theft: More godliness. Sin is any lack of conformity to or transgression of the law of God.

I'm sorry. I don't think I can have any agreement with the premise the Muslims are on the right track when it comes to theft. I don't think when Christ mentioned that your righteousness has to exceed that of the Pharisees to enter into the Kingdom of heaven the larger point was "They are on the right track". No they were in large part wolves in sheeps clothing.

Do you really think the early saints had a comprehension or concern of a time where this Christian sect would be wrestling with what are we going to do now that a state of 25+ million people (New York) allowed Gay Marriage? Paul's lack of commentary in his epistles about the worldly kingdom's politics isn't coincidence in my mind, and Rome had horrible civil practices. He does however really take an issue when those pagan beliefs make their way into churches as obstacles to the Gospel. Once again a reminder the Salt and Light call is not a worldly call.
I have to say that our Free Church friend earlier cautioned your use of "worldly." If civil governments are "worldly" [in the sense that it is fallen and of the fallen world] and their function and authority is "worldly" then we Christians ought never have a second thought about serving, voting, or advising our government officials in any matter. Note Darius under the influence of Daniel- only Jehovah is recognized by decree of the King: Daniel 6:26-28 (also note Daniel's lack of objection when Darius instituted this very 1st table of the Decalogue type law as the rex mundus.) Likewise, what was John the Baptist doing rebuking a secular ruler for a "Lawful" (Decalogue) matter? Mark 6:17-19? The King in Jonah declaring a decree for the people under his care to repent of sin and follow the living God? Jonah 3:5 and following Likewise, when Paul was being persecuted and brought to trial before Roman and Jewish courts, he never answered, "All religions deserve equal protection by the government!" It was always, 'I am telling the truth' and this deserves defense. He is telling the Roman government to hand down a judgment in his favor on the grounds that he is promoting the truth. See Acts 24, 25, 26.

Okay, but what was Paul's charge? What did the Romans really want from him, once charged? What did the Jews want from him? They didn't want Paul to preach - to share the Gospel. I'm not sure the relevance in this instance to this discussion...
I'd say it is relevant. Follow me and let me know if this makes sense. Since you picked out Paul, tell me, on what grounds should the Christian appeal to the worldly magistrate? Given the r2k it seems quite bizarre to say that a Christian would appeal on the grounds that they are right and God is the Lord. They would make a more "general" appeal to "natural law" our nonspiritual commonalities instead of such explicit references to the truth of Scripture as his case and an appeal for the government to recognize that truth. I don't see that the R2K would remotely be interested in such an appeal as Paul made.

Sorry the quoting is all screwed up so it's getting bigger font. Paul's real appeal was, "To Live is Christ, and to die is gain". He knew that even though the civil powers came down upon him - they could not ultimately defeat the Gospel. Just as when Satan did all he could to thwart Christ - it was all in vain. The civil world can not smote out the Gospel. It can not squash the good news. Even in the trials and difficulties of the saints - we can rest easy in remembering Romans 8:28. I don't see how you've decided two kingdoms means in my final moments and rationale in such a scenario would be to the other Kingdom. I just said that is the kingdom of the wolves. Why would I expect wolves to do anything but consume a sheep?

Two quotes from Calvin to conclude...
Quote Calvin if you will, but in practice, Geneva during his ministry and advisory role to the civil rulers could never be called a "principled pluralism."

...Calvin would be the first, I believe, to tell you often he caved to social pressures in Geneva, and that was wrong. There was a delicate balance being toed by Calvin in the sphere. We know for example he wanted more communion then he practiced in his church, etc.

Speculation. I can't see how Calvin would back off of his decisions- not one word in his writings have I read that suggests he regretted the decisions he made in serving as an adviser to the civil government of Geneva. Have you any quotes? Likewise, I have similar doubts for his contemporaries. Nor do I think that the rest of Reformed history (up until 19th century America) "caved" and I doubt they would recognize their positions and actions as "wrong."
[/QUOTE]

So you know the first part of my reply to you (Alexander) is stuck inside the quoting
Not speculation: I can fetch other sources on this later but here is the first summary via google ( 19. John Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: 2 - by Miles Hodges ) of the communion point I brought up. Pursue more study of the issue on your own, or later on I can provide more:

Calvin clearly viewed the celebration of the Holy Communion as being much more important than it had been to Zwingli. While Zwingli reduced the number of celebrations of Holy Communion to only a few times a year, Calvin wanted it celebrated at every worship service--very much like Luther. But the men who ran the government of Geneva, the members of the Genevan Consistory, had been strongly influenced by Zwingli and viewed Holy Communion as too Roman Catholic for their tastes. But they finally compromised with Calvin on the matter by allowing the celebration of Holy Communion in the Genevan churches once a month. But each Sunday Calvin preached not only at St. Pierre's in Geneva but at three other churches in the area as well. So Calvin saw to it that each of the four churches celebrated Holy Communion on different Sundays of the month--so that he personally could celebrate Communion every Sunday in at least one of his four churches.
 
Last edited:
I just want to thank you guys for evaluating R2K in the best way, interacting with its virtues and weaknesses, and making the tough questions.

I'm Following this with great interest, more on the side of 2KT, but thinking that the Kingdom present in the Church should not be confined to the Church,

if the expansion of the Kingdom happens now by the Church obbeying the great commission or more, that is one of my key questions.

Since the cultural - creation mandate had deep worship consequences - see G K Beale's the Temple & the Church's Mission - but also cultural and social consequences,

how much of it is still the Church's responsability?
 
Wow, I appreciate this thread. If the R2Kers are really advocating some of the stuff in this thread that I think I am reading and understanding, I know why it scares me. The lines of discussion keep getting moved and law and Society are disjointed. Kind of like law and the gospel in modern reformed thought. It even seems I can join a church and be a rabid Marxist, homosexual. and abortion on demand supporter and not have to worry about being disciplined. Something just isn't adding up here. As noted many times on this board, it just seems that dichotomies are being made instead of where distinctions should be recognized. Law is being disjointed where it should be recognized and loved and understood as something that goes hand in hand with grace. Common grace even works with and understands law as it's guide. But some just want to cut it off completely. Is this really where confessionalism is headed? Is this really what Reformed Confessionalism is?

Once again a complete miss representation. One in the vein of what I often get from my Roman Catholic family members since I left the works+grace model. You maybe should speak with them. They wonder why I'm not busy embracing orgies. As to the others they were more grounded - I'll respond to those momentarily (after I put the kiddos to bed).

Wow, if you thought I was blurring and making a compete misrepresentation.... LOL.

What is this works + grace model you speak of? Do you mean works + grace = salvation or leads to it? If so, you know even far less about this board than you think you know. And you have jumped into clean water but don't know it yet. What is your definition of Grace? I very much hold to the five sola's. But I must wonder how you define grace? I am almost willing to bet it stops at unmerited favor and doesn't look fully into the scriptures on what grace is. I hope I am wrong. Plus, I am not so sure about my supposed misrepresentation by reexamining what you guys have been saying. I don't have time to discuss this right now. Today is the Sabbath. You have a wonderful day seeing the most beautiful Being there is to behold.

Jesus paid it all.
All to Him I owe.
Sin hath left a crimson stain...
He washed it white as snow.

Being conformed into His Image. Very slowly I might add... :D
Randy
 
I'd say it is relevant. Follow me and let me know if this makes sense. Since you picked out Paul, tell me, on what grounds should the Christian appeal to the worldly magistrate? Given the r2k it seems quite bizarre to say that a Christian would appeal on the grounds that they are right and God is the Lord. They would make a more "general" appeal to "natural law" our nonspiritual commonalities instead of such explicit references to the truth of Scripture as his case and an appeal for the government to recognize that truth. I don't see that the R2K would remotely be interested in such an appeal as Paul made.
Two quotes from Calvin to conclude...
Quote Calvin if you will, but in practice, Geneva during his ministry and advisory role to the civil rulers could never be called a "principled pluralism."

...Calvin would be the first, I believe, to tell you often he caved to social pressures in Geneva, and that was wrong. There was a delicate balance being toed by Calvin in the sphere. We know for example he wanted more communion then he practiced in his church, etc.

Speculation. I can't see how Calvin would back off of his decisions- not one word in his writings have I read that suggests he regretted the decisions he made in serving as an adviser to the civil government of Geneva. Have you any quotes? Likewise, I have similar doubts for his contemporaries. Nor do I think that the rest of Reformed history (up until 19th century America) "caved" and I doubt they would recognize their positions and actions as "wrong."
[/QUOTE]

So you know the first part of my reply to you (Alexander) is stuck inside the quoting
Not speculation: I can fetch other sources on this later but here is the first summary via google ( 19. John Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: 2 - by Miles Hodges ) of the communion point I brought up. Pursue more study of the issue on your own, or later on I can provide more:

Calvin clearly viewed the celebration of the Holy Communion as being much more important than it had been to Zwingli. While Zwingli reduced the number of celebrations of Holy Communion to only a few times a year, Calvin wanted it celebrated at every worship service--very much like Luther. But the men who ran the government of Geneva, the members of the Genevan Consistory, had been strongly influenced by Zwingli and viewed Holy Communion as too Roman Catholic for their tastes. But they finally compromised with Calvin on the matter by allowing the celebration of Holy Communion in the Genevan churches once a month. But each Sunday Calvin preached not only at St. Pierre's in Geneva but at three other churches in the area as well. So Calvin saw to it that each of the four churches celebrated Holy Communion on different Sundays of the month--so that he personally could celebrate Communion every Sunday in at least one of his four churches.
I should have been clearer- I wasn't referring to the communion matter specifically. I concede that point. Assuming the ruling counsel restricted communion as the author above posits, that is a big overstep in their role, no question. I'm speaking generally to the issue of Calvin's civil involvement. I genuinely doubt he'd say that all his involvement in the Genevan govn't was a mistake. On the other points I'll respond later. God bless and have a good Lord's Day.
 
Quote from Kevin
then why are we told we'll be an alien, a stranger, even an enemy to the world in this walk?

James 4:4 "You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

Thanks for interacting Kevin, with some of us who are somewhat in disagreement with you. I see just how radical R2K is. A bit too radical for me.

We have to remember that the word "world" is used in two senses in the New Testament, the moral sense of the world that lies in the wicked one, and the creational sense of this world in which we live and its good institutions like the individual, family, church, society, businesses, nations and states.

Quote from Cesar
if the expansion of the Kingdom happens now by the Church obbeying the great commission or more, that is one of my key questions.

Christians are still under the Creation/Cultural Mandate, as well as the Great Commission, otherwise they could (should?) give up their day jobs and devote themselves to evangelism only.
 
Wow, I appreciate this thread. If the R2Kers are really advocating some of the stuff in this thread that I think I am reading and understanding, I know why it scares me. The lines of discussion keep getting moved and law and Society are disjointed. Kind of like law and the gospel in modern reformed thought. It even seems I can join a church and be a rabid Marxist, homosexual. and abortion on demand supporter and not have to worry about being disciplined. Something just isn't adding up here. As noted many times on this board, it just seems that dichotomies are being made instead of where distinctions should be recognized. Law is being disjointed where it should be recognized and loved and understood as something that goes hand in hand with grace. Common grace even works with and understands law as it's guide. But some just want to cut it off completely. Is this really where confessionalism is headed? Is this really what Reformed Confessionalism is?

Once again a complete miss representation. One in the vein of what I often get from my Roman Catholic family members since I left the works+grace model. You maybe should speak with them. They wonder why I'm not busy embracing orgies. As to the others they were more grounded - I'll respond to those momentarily (after I put the kiddos to bed).

Wow, if you thought I was blurring and making a compete misrepresentation.... LOL.

What is this works + grace model you speak of? Do you mean works + grace = salvation or leads to it? If so, you know even far less about this board than you think you know. And you have jumped into clean water but don't know it yet. What is your definition of Grace? I very much hold to the five sola's. But I must wonder how you define grace? I am almost willing to bet it stops at unmerited favor and doesn't look fully into the scriptures on what grace is. I hope I am wrong. Plus, I am not so sure about my supposed misrepresentation by reexamining what you guys have been saying. I don't have time to discuss this right now. Today is the Sabbath. You have a wonderful day seeing the most beautiful Being there is to behold.

Jesus paid it all.
All to Him I owe.
Sin hath left a crimson stain...
He washed it white as snow.

Being conformed into His Image. Very slowly I might add... :D
Randy

Go up and read my further explaining to CT why I said your criticism of 2K is of similar logic to my Roman Catholic families rejection to Grace = Salvation + Sanctification.

You are over simplifying Sanctification and Grace in my opinion to incredibly dangerous levels when you state how great you can now support abortion, marxism, homosexuality, etc.

These are your own words, "It even seems I can join a church and be a rabid Marxist, homosexual. and abortion on demand supporter and not have to worry about being disciplined."

I'm sorry that has no concept of sanctification and grace in that statement amongst the elect. It's far closer to my Roman Catholic family members who wonder out loud why I haven't become a "swinger" or participate in orgies - then a biblical understanding of grace. If you can't see the lack of responsible critique in that point, I don't know what to tell you.

As for my specific account - like most on this forum I have a quick outline of my coming to Christ in my profile. If you want to continue down the road of a personal account from me after reading it - you are welcome to private message me. However this thread isn't about personal accounts - it's about 2k theology.

I have a more simple question for you however, if you defend the "point" you made - which I quoted above. What paragraphs or main points specifically that I wrote - have made you feel that was an honest analysis of my argument? If I can see how you got to that point from what I wrote, maybe I can see where this gross miss understanding first took root.

---------- Post added at 08:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 AM ----------

Quote from Kevin
then why are we told we'll be an alien, a stranger, even an enemy to the world in this walk?

James 4:4 "You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

Thanks for interacting Kevin, with some of us who are somewhat in disagreement with you. I see just how radical R2K is. A bit too radical for me.

We have to remember that the word "world" is used in two senses in the New Testament, the moral sense of the world that lies in the wicked one, and the creational sense of this world in which we live and its good institutions like the individual, family, church, society, businesses, nations and states.

Quote from Cesar
if the expansion of the Kingdom happens now by the Church obbeying the great commission or more, that is one of my key questions.

Christians are still under the Creation/Cultural Mandate, as well as the Great Commission, otherwise they could (should?) give up their day jobs and devote themselves to evangelism only.

Richard I do agree and often understated in 2k circles is that ultimately God instituted the other kingdom (the civil) for our benefit. It's a blessing from God - which I would argue stems from the Noahic covenant (though some 2kers would say even the marking Cain received showed the blessing of the civil kingdom - which I don't take huge issue with).

But also remember Isaiah 40:15 as well, Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket, and are accounted as the dust on the scales; behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust.

Even the blessing of living in America as a Christian is just a drop in the bucket. It's not an ultimate in itself that can be redeemed, but it's still a blessing to us (though on second look, I guess you live in Scotland - but I think you get the point ;) )
 
Last edited:
I should have been clearer- I wasn't referring to the communion matter specifically. I concede that point. Assuming the ruling counsel restricted communion as the author above posits, that is a big overstep in their role, no question. I'm speaking generally to the issue of Calvin's civil involvement. I genuinely doubt he'd say that all his involvement in the Genevan govn't was a mistake. On the other points I'll respond later. God bless and have a good Lord's Day.

I agree, Calvin wouldn't say all his involvement was a mistake. My point was I don't think he would celebrate today caving to the Genevan government on the communion issue. In that instance I believe he allowed the lines to blur. Obviously there is some speculation in that statement, but I think it's a reasonable historical conclusion; What I was getting at is it's dangerous territory to allow civil authority to dictate religious practice (and in Geneva's case it was largely a call to maintain the peace with the wealthy of different theological practices). I think it's an example of the dangers of man blending the two kingdoms into one. I think that extends the other way too... it would be dangerous from the pulpit for example to preach politics. Doctrine naturally shapes from the pulpit because the preaching of the word dispenses blessing unto those who hear it. The Gospel organically sanctifies and unites in common belief.

When we see Christians defending the right to keep "In God we Trust" for example on Caeser's currency, my question is - to what kingdoms benefit? I don't believe it's to either benefit. Again this does not apply in areas scripture is explicit on. We advocate for positions because God has revealed the truth to us, but even in that we have to remember Romans 13. We are called to ultimately submit and trust there is blessing in the civil kingdom - even though it's not a place that can ever hold the keys to the heavenly Kingdom.
 
Last edited:
Kevin, how would you respond to post, #55?

As I think about what has been written in this thread, it really seems that R2K believes that A Christian cannot act in open rebellion against God and his revelation (natural law/natural revelation) in the civil realm. Whether the culture can be redeemed or not, is irrelevant to the issue of whether rebellion is a problem or not.
 
I should have been clearer- I wasn't referring to the communion matter specifically. I concede that point. Assuming the ruling counsel restricted communion as the author above posits, that is a big overstep in their role, no question. I'm speaking generally to the issue of Calvin's civil involvement. I genuinely doubt he'd say that all his involvement in the Genevan govn't was a mistake. On the other points I'll respond later. God bless and have a good Lord's Day.

I agree, Calvin wouldn't say all his involvement was a mistake. My point was I don't think he would celebrate today caving to the Genevan government on the communion issue. In that instance I believe he allowed the lines to blur. Obviously there is some speculation in that statement, but I think it's a reasonable historical conclusion;

Yep, as you see in my response, I concede that point, assuming what the author said was sound scholarship. Certainly, if that is what happened, then it was categorically wrong. As you say:

What I was getting at is it's dangerous territory to allow civil authority to dictate religious practice... I think it's an example of the dangers of man blending the two kingdoms into one.
You had me.

I think that extends the other way too... it would be dangerous from the pulpit for example to preach politics...
You lost me -depending on what you mean by "preaching politics." I essentially agree that as the church, there shouldn't be political sermons as such to the ignoring of preaching Christ and the whole counsel of God, but I do believe it is the church's responsibility to speak out against wickedness in government al la Mark 6:17-19. More later.
 
Kevin, how would you respond to post, #55?

As I think about what has been written in this thread, it really seems that R2K believes that A Christian cannot act in open rebellion against God and his revelation (natural law/natural revelation) in the civil realm. Whether the culture can be redeemed or not, is irrelevant to the issue of whether rebellion is a problem or not.

I believe Leviticus/Marriage law is demanded for the body of believers alone (even though the civil knows it's wrong because the Law is on their heart). So when the PCUSA church further and further goes down the road of Gays in the ministry and I'm sure gay marriage is probably going to be condoned by the liberal churches - it's a marking of it being not within the body of Christendom.

Now you might disagree with that, but I direct you to Daniel and the details of the Babylonian exile. Were the Jews busy trying to change Babylon law? Were they actively building a new Jerusalem. No in large practice they were obeying the civil government while preserving their own identity and law.

But lets go to Paul in the New Testament. Did the Roman elites and wealthy reinstitute a practice from the Greeks of "boy servants" aka homosexual pedophilia? From historical accounts it was going on. Along with other horrific sexual sins. Does Paul attack these practices in larger Roman culture? I don't see it in the epistles. He only attacks it when those pagan practices make their way into the church.

So it's not that a Pastor from the pulpit can't expose the ugliness in the sin of homosexuality. It's not that, that isn't righteous if biblically done. David VanDrunen doesn't advocate for an abandonment of the law. It's this silent "christian" idea we all want to have of taking over the civil realm. Not to serve in the civil realm. Once again David VanDrunen would defend that. It's this idea we have to conquer this nation for Christ.

I think an easier way to quickly examine this issue in your heart is the following: Where the Crusades a righteous action for the good of Christ's kingdom and his church?

Two Kingdoms theology says no, and I line up with that.
 
Kevin
Does Paul attack these practices in larger Roman culture? I don't see it in the epistles. He only attacks it when those pagan practices make their way into the church.

Well what's Romans 1 about?

What about John the Baptist taking on Herod?

There's clearly a time and a place for such engagement/conflict with the world that lies in the Wicked One, because this whole created world is Christ's, and He is King of kings.

There's clearly a time and a place for remaining silent also. It depends.
 
Kevin, how would you respond to post, #55?

As I think about what has been written in this thread, it really seems that R2K believes that A Christian cannot act in open rebellion against God and his revelation (natural law/natural revelation) in the civil realm. Whether the culture can be redeemed or not, is irrelevant to the issue of whether rebellion is a problem or not.

I believe Leviticus/Marriage law is demanded for the body of believers alone (even though the civil knows it's wrong because the Law is on their heart). So when the PCUSA church further and further goes down the road of Gays in the ministry and I'm sure gay marriage is probably going to be condoned by the liberal churches - it's a marking of it being not within the body of Christendom.

1)So R2k is incompatible with the WLC?

2)How can something be written on one's heart but not be required for them to do it? This is equivalent to saying natural law is not applicable for X or Y, while natural law by definition is always applicable to everyone everywhere.

3)Do you believe that marriage is a creation ordinance?

Now you might disagree with that, but I direct you to Daniel and the details of the Babylonian exile. Were the Jews busy trying to change Babylon law? Were they actively building a new Jerusalem. No in large practice they were obeying the civil government while preserving their own identity and law.

But lets go to Paul in the New Testament. Did the Roman elites and wealthy reinstitute a practice from the Greeks of "boy servants" aka homosexual pedophilia? From historical accounts it was going on. Along with other horrific sexual sins. Does Paul attack these practices in larger Roman culture? I don't see it in the epistles. He only attacks it when those pagan practices make their way into the church.

On the one hand, you talk about things being written on the heart of everyone (natural law). On the other hand, you seem to imply that any Christian who says anything (as a member of either kingdom) has somehow confused the Gospel etc.

Also one must remember that Paul was writing to the Church, which does not imply anything about how one should look at things outside the church.

So it's not that a Pastor from the pulpit can't expose the ugliness in the sin of homosexuality. It's not that, that isn't righteous if biblically done. David VanDrunen doesn't advocate for an abandonment of the law. It's this silent "christian" idea we all want to have of taking over the civil realm. Not to serve in the civil realm. Once again David VanDrunen would defend that. It's this idea we have to conquer this nation for Christ.

Who said anything about a Pastor in the pulpit? I have explicitly written about how a person in the civil realm (Christian or non Christian) is required to act or be in rebellion against God. The question is whether or not there are actions that one must take regardless of how one looks at conquering or redeeming this nation for Christ.

I think an easier way to quickly examine this issue in your heart is the following: Where the Crusades a righteous action for the good of Christ's kingdom and his church?

Two Kingdoms theology says no, and I line up with that.

An action is good/proper only if its Ends AND its Means are righteous. The only way that you can use the Crusades against a Transformationalist, is to argue that the ends and the means were correct but it was still wrong to do.

CT
 
Kevin
Does Paul attack these practices in larger Roman culture? I don't see it in the epistles. He only attacks it when those pagan practices make their way into the church.

Well what's Romans 1 about?

What about John the Baptist taking on Herod?

There's clearly a time and a place for such engagement/conflict with the world that lies in the Wicked One, because this whole created world is Christ's, and He is King of kings.

There's clearly a time and a place for remaining silent also. It depends.

Romans 1 I don't see any conflict with the doctrine. No where in Romans 1 is it talking about vengeance is ours. Actually later in the letter Romans 13 it makes it clear what are we supposed to do in the civil realm. But 2k theology states the "Mosaic Law" is on the hearts of ALL man. Romans 1 also says that. They affirm each other in that. Again NO WHERE in 2K doctrine is there some freedom from the Law argument for believers. Believers understand the only real FREEDOM is IN the law. If not we are a slave to our own wickedness, a slave to sin, a wretch mucked in our own depravity. If a believer is advocating against the law, and ways clearly against scripture they deserve to be removed from the community.

2k affirms this, I would venture anyone who argues otherwise has not actually read 2k respected works.

Where 2k comes into question is what for the unbeliever.

Is the Noahaic covenant still in effect? Absolutely. What's the sign of the covenant. A rainbow. Why is it a rainbow? A rainbow symbolizes God's maintaining/preserving the world at large. Once again Romans 13 and the Noahaic covenant need to be understood hand in hand in a 2kers mind.

Now does the Noahaic covenant ever Lord over the Abrahamic covenant? Absolutely not. You and I are blessed by the Noahaic covenant, but it's not an ultimate for us. Our obligations are different then those exclusively under teh Noahaic covenant. Blood atonement is/was required for us - which obviously we can only find satisfied in Christ and within His Law.

As for John on Herod... Is Herod a Jewish state ruler? Was the temple rite still in effect at that time or was it not? It's easy to forget but John was actually the FINAL Old Testament prophet.
 
Last edited:
For the purposes of this discussion, It is pertinent to recall that the Westminster assembly was called by the English Parliament with representation of the Scots and contained members with a variety of views concerning both the civil state and the form of church government. The Westminster Standards were consensus documents developed within a particular political, spiritual and cultural milieu.

In the American colonies, disagreement initially regarding the organization and power of the church while still recognizing the crown (the Cambridge Platform replaced WCF Chapters 25, 30, 31 with statements regarding the ascendency of the local church, eliminating the statement that Christ is the head of the church.) As our government shifted to a constitutional republic, the Presbyterians retained (obviously!) the redacted paragraphs and removed entanglement with the civil government.
 
Kevin
As for John on Herod... Is Herod a Jewish state ruler? Was the temple rite still in effect at that time or was it not? It's easy to forget but John was actually the FINAL Old Testament prophet.

I know he lived in different times - and a different redemptive administration - but I don't think we can dismiss the moral general equity or the paradigmatic application.

On the paradigmatic application of the judicial law and other OT ethical examples see e.g. books by Christopher J.H. Wright on OT ethics:

Amazon.com: Christopher J. H. Wright: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle
 
Kevin
As for John on Herod... Is Herod a Jewish state ruler? Was the temple rite still in effect at that time or was it not? It's easy to forget but John was actually the FINAL Old Testament prophet.

I know he lived in different times - and a different redemptive administration - but I don't think we can dismiss the moral general equity or the paradigmatic application.

On the paradigmatic application of the judicial law and other OT ethical examples see e.g. books by Christopher J.H. Wright on OT ethics:

Amazon.com: Christopher J. H. Wright: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

The temple rite made Herod fair game. He was ruler over a theocracy. That's significant. Yes if Obama for example ruled over the OPC and had authority in that sphere... he's fair game. Let me add, once Jesus has the same opportunity to blast the ruling authority... he doesn't He says give to Caeser what is Caeser - give to God what is God's.

Obviously Jesus is not at conflict theologically with John. However Jesus knows the temple rite is going away.

---

CT I feel your 1st question was answered by the other poster, but #2 - is rather simple to answer... Free will. You're allowed to reject the law. Even as a believer I reject the law in certain aspects daily. But an unbeliever has said "Thy will be done" not to God, but to themselves.

#3 - marriage is not in Heaven - in earthly form - it's at its best a prep to our heavenly marriage to Christ. That's scriptural. So Marriage is blessing to the civil unbeliever and believer alike. It also has an included benefit to a believer because there are covenant family promises in scripture. Let me also add, is the State of New York binding in Heaven? Thank goodness no. The civil can define marriage what ever they want. That doesn't change God or the elects knowledge of what is actually marriage.

Let me give another example... When a Mormon goes to a temple to worship god. Is that actually worship to God? Just because a group defines something one way doesn't change how God defines it.

If we are to fight for redemption of the civil kingdom (or if you prefer those under the Noahaic covenant) - where is that mandate in scripture clearly stated? I could point to John 18:36 for example: Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

If you're going to say the cross ushered in that Kingdom for the whole world, isn't that a theological problem? I mean that would in theory have unrighteous, unsaved, not covered by the blood of the lamb - within God's Kingdom which had been ushered in?

Obviously 2k has a clear explanation for this theologically. How is this hurdle jumped in civil society "redemptive" world views.

How are you guys accounting for this problem in your view? Please explain.
 
Last edited:
Kevin
The temple rite made Herod fair game. He was ruler over a theocracy. That's significant. Yes if Obama for example ruled over the OPC and had authority in that sphere... he's fair game. Let me add, once Jesus has the same opportunity to blast the ruling authority... he doesn't He says give to Caeser what is Caeser - give to God what is God's.

Obviously Jesus is not at conflict theologically with John. However Jesus knows the temple rite is going away.

That's pretty radical! If Obama or Cameron takes his brother's wife and the whole political and media establishment are shouting about it, the only people that are to be quiet about it are pastors?
 
Last edited:
CT I feel your 1st question was answered by the other poster

I do not remember what they said, so I asked you. What do you say?

, but #2 - is rather simple to answer... Free will. You're allowed to reject the law. Even as a believer I reject the law in certain aspects daily. But an unbeliever has said "Thy will be done" not to God, but to themselves.

So they are behaving in rebellion against the created order and by default God? So the question then is there a way a just civil magistrate acts vs. and unjust civil magistrate? They act in accordance with natural law, right? And bring consequences on those who do not!

#3 - marriage is not in Heaven - in earthly form - it's at its best a prep to our heavenly marriage to Christ. That's scriptural. So Marriage is blessing to the civil unbeliever and believer alike. It also has an included benefit to a believer because there are covenant family promises in scripture. Let me also add, is the State of New York binding in Heaven? Thank goodness no. The civil can define marriage what ever they want. That doesn't change God or the elects knowledge of what is actually marriage.

Who said anything about Heaven? I certainly did not. A creation ordinance means something binding on all at all times while still on earth. According to natural law and Westminster, a civil magistrate that allows deviations from the set pattern is acting in rebellion to the rules pertaining to him.

Yeah the civil magistrate can define things however, just like anyone can rape or murder if they wish to do so. The issue is whether or not they have rules on which one can say, "You are behaving evilly"

Let me give another example... When a Mormon goes to a temple to worship god. Is that actually worship to God? Just because a group defines something one way doesn't change how God defines it.

A person can define anything anyway, but that is besides the point of what a just society looks like.

If we are to fight for redemption of the civil kingdom (or if you prefer those under the Noahaic covenant) - where is that mandate in scripture clearly stated? I could point to John 18:36 for example: Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

Who said anything about redemption of the civil kingdom? Please point to where I have said that is the game plan, or admit that you are putting forth red herrings!

If you're going to say the cross ushered in that Kingdom for the whole world, isn't that a theological problem? I mean that would in theory have unrighteous, unsaved, not covered by the blood of the lamb - within God's Kingdom which had been ushered in?

Obviously 2k has a clear explanation for this theologically. How is this hurdle jumped in civil society "redemptive" world views.

How are you guys accounting for this problem in your view? Please explain.

WHAT????? I didn't say the cross ushered in anything. Natural law says the same thing to the civil sphere that it said before the cross. The various people were spew out of the promised land due to their violations of natural law before the cross. Are you saying after the cross, they are required to do less than before? Natural law has become more lax since the cross?

CT
 
Kevin
If you're going to say the cross ushered in that Kingdom for the whole world, isn't that a theological problem? I mean that would in theory have unrighteous, unsaved, not covered by the blood of the lamb - within God's Kingdom which had been ushered in?

The created world has been given to Christ and His people. The (ethical) world that lies in the wicked one is in this world that belongs to Christ and His people. The two forces are doing spiritual battle.

E.g.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. (Psalm 2:8, ESV)

So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's. (I Cor 3:21-23)

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (Rom 4:13)

but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.(Heb 1:2)

Just as Joshua and the Israelites took possession of the Land that had been given to them by the sword of iron, by God's grace, so Christ and His Church take possession of the Earth by the sword of the Spirit, by God's grace.

That doesn't justify persecuting those of false religions or false-worshippers or getting the work of the sword of the magistrate conflicting with the work of the sword of the Spirit. But Christian people will naturally and rightly desire the laws of the land to express the general moral equity of God's Word.

Depending on whether we're a or postmil we'll have different views of likely progress, but all things are Christ's, and all things are ours.

Would Newton and Wilberforce have sought the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire if they'd been R2K Christians?
 
Kevin
The temple rite made Herod fair game. He was ruler over a theocracy. That's significant. Yes if Obama for example ruled over the OPC and had authority in that sphere... he's fair game. Let me add, once Jesus has the same opportunity to blast the ruling authority... he doesn't He says give to Caeser what is Caeser - give to God what is God's.

Obviously Jesus is not at conflict theologically with John. However Jesus knows the temple rite is going away.

That's pretty radical! If Obama takes his brother's wife and the whole political and media establishment are shouting about it, the only people that are to be quiet about it are pastors?

On the Pulpit - Absolutely. Public policy is not the Gospel. Sinful leaders are not the subject. The Kingdom is no longer tied to a worldly place.

---------- Post added at 04:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------

Kevin
If you're going to say the cross ushered in that Kingdom for the whole world, isn't that a theological problem? I mean that would in theory have unrighteous, unsaved, not covered by the blood of the lamb - within God's Kingdom which had been ushered in?

The created world has been given to Christ and His people. The (ethical) world that lies in the wicked one is in this world that belongs to Christ and His people. The two forces are doing spiritual battle.

E.g.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. (Psalm 2:8, ESV)

So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's. (I Cor 3:21-23)

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (Rom 4:13)

but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.(Heb 1:2)

Just as Joshua and the Israelites took possession of the Land that had been given to them by the sword of iron, by God's grace, so Christ and His Church take possession of the Earth by the sword of the Spirit, by God's grace.

That doesn't justify persecuting those of false religions or false-worshippers or getting the work of the sword of the magistrate conflicting with the work of the sword of the Spirit. But Christian people will naturally and rightly desire the laws of the land to express the general moral equity of God's Word.

Depending on whether we're a or postmil we'll have different views of likely progress, but all things are Christ's, and all things are ours.

Would Newton and Wilberforce have sought the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire if they'd been R2K Christians?

Where is your first part in scripture. Where does it state Christ is currently the head of the created world? Where does it state Satan is Lord over the ethical world. Where is this in scripture?
 
Kevin
The temple rite made Herod fair game. He was ruler over a theocracy. That's significant. Yes if Obama for example ruled over the OPC and had authority in that sphere... he's fair game. Let me add, once Jesus has the same opportunity to blast the ruling authority... he doesn't He says give to Caeser what is Caeser - give to God what is God's.

Obviously Jesus is not at conflict theologically with John. However Jesus knows the temple rite is going away.

That's pretty radical! If Obama takes his brother's wife and the whole political and media establishment are shouting about it, the only people that are to be quiet about it are pastors?

On the Pulpit - Absolutely. Public policy is not the Gospel. Sinful leaders are not the subject. The Kingdom is no longer tied to a worldly place.


So you can't preach/teach what natural law states from the pulpit? Natural law which is binding on everyone everywhere, except the pulpit?

CT
 
As for CT, would it have been just for the Jews to take over Greece during old Covenant (very important question to ask yourself)? Would that have had biblical warrant?

The Cross did usher in a change CT. No longer are GPS coordinates the Kingdom. I'm not calling into question the Jews killing Pagans, in the Holy Land, in the old Covenant. Once again Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world however. That's just no longer the call.

With your focus on his Kingdom, you bless your neighbor. A neighbor can see you are within the spirit. I'm sure if not youself, you know many Christians who once they were saved - unbelieving friends noted a major change. Even when you do something simple as going to worship on Sunday - when neighbors seeing you pack your car to go - you minister to them.

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

Kevin
The temple rite made Herod fair game. He was ruler over a theocracy. That's significant. Yes if Obama for example ruled over the OPC and had authority in that sphere... he's fair game. Let me add, once Jesus has the same opportunity to blast the ruling authority... he doesn't He says give to Caeser what is Caeser - give to God what is God's.

Obviously Jesus is not at conflict theologically with John. However Jesus knows the temple rite is going away.

That's pretty radical! If Obama takes his brother's wife and the whole political and media establishment are shouting about it, the only people that are to be quiet about it are pastors?

On the Pulpit - Absolutely. Public policy is not the Gospel. Sinful leaders are not the subject. The Kingdom is no longer tied to a worldly place.


So you can't preach/teach what natural law states from the pulpit? Natural law which is binding on everyone everywhere, except the pulpit?

CT


CT That would be doctrine. So yes completely okay.

Obama's sex life is not doctrine.
 
As for CT, would it have been just for the Jews to take over Greece during old Covenant (very important question to ask yourself)? Would that have had biblical warrant?

This really seems to show that you are not listening to me. Where have I stated anything about Biblical warrant etc? I have written about natural law. Natural law positions don't need an explicit Biblical warrant, (not to say that they cannot have one). We can come back to this once we finish the current line of discussion.

The Cross did usher in a change CT. No longer are GPS coordinates the Kingdom. I'm not calling into question the Jews killing Pagans, in the Holy Land, in the old Covenant. Once again Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world however. That's just no longer the call.

Who said anything about killing Pagans etc. If killing Pagans is according to natural law, then no it did not change at the cross. If it is something consistent with natural law but not obligated by it then it is irrelevant to our discussion.

With your focus on his Kingdom, you bless your neighbor. A neighbor can see you are within the spirit. I'm sure if not youself, you know many Christians who once they were saved - unbelieving friends noted a major change. Even when you do something simple as going to worship on Sunday - when neighbors seeing you pack your car to go - you minister to them.

The question is not "what are ways to bless/minister to your neighbor". The issue is whether or not, Trying to keep yourself from partaking evil as much as possible is the only way to minister to your neighbor in the civil sphere?


---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

Kevin
The temple rite made Herod fair game. He was ruler over a theocracy. That's significant. Yes if Obama for example ruled over the OPC and had authority in that sphere... he's fair game. Let me add, once Jesus has the same opportunity to blast the ruling authority... he doesn't He says give to Caeser what is Caeser - give to God what is God's.

Obviously Jesus is not at conflict theologically with John. However Jesus knows the temple rite is going away.

That's pretty radical! If Obama takes his brother's wife and the whole political and media establishment are shouting about it, the only people that are to be quiet about it are pastors?

On the Pulpit - Absolutely. Public policy is not the Gospel. Sinful leaders are not the subject. The Kingdom is no longer tied to a worldly place.


So you can't preach/teach what natural law states from the pulpit? Natural law which is binding on everyone everywhere, except the pulpit?

CT


CT That would be doctrine. So yes completely okay.

Obama's sex life is not doctrine.


So one could say, "Anyone who takes his brother's wife is behaving against God's created order etc. Just do not name names" Then you are staying on the path of proper doctrine?

CT
 
Unless numbers have changed I am presuming Hermonta was referencing my post (#55) somewhere above, about the larger catechism and allowing/voting for allowing unlawful marriages, etc. I have not seen anyone address the argumentation in the thread as far as the intended application of the LC. It does not matter that the relation of church and state is different in this country and age than at the time of Westminster. Superiors and inferiors still have the same moral obligations.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/qs-radical-two-kingdom-ers-68417/index2.html#post879262
 
CT you keep returning to this separating Natural Law thing from biblical warrant. You have to remember the 2k position is that Natural Law has biblical warrant.

So when you state as you did,"Where have I stated anything about Biblical warrant etc? I have written about natural law. Natural law positions don't need an explicit Biblical warrant, (not to say that they cannot have one)."

I'm wondering what understanding we're operating under. Because this whole time I've been saying the Natural Law has biblical warrant not sometimes, not certain positions. All time. That's key to the whole thing.

In a 2kers mind I could write God's Law and Natural Law. They both mean the same exact thing. We respect it as God's Law when we accept it. Unbelievers reject God's Law and it's still the Natural Law. The question then revolves around ONLY the unbeliever. The 2ker isn't advocating for any radical change in church government. In how the session deals with problems within the church body. Protecting the flock from wolves within the church. ETC. You would see no difference in a 2ker. I've been a member in a church with no 2kers in the session. I've been a member in a church loaded with 2kers. There is no notable difference in church government. You would be unable to distinguish a worship service between the two.

2kers really come out as unique in dealing only with the unbeliever. It's actually viewed as wrong to essentially yoke them like a believer. For example when scripture basically says take care of your weaker brother... so if you drink but you have a brother who isn't a drinker and doesn't like to be around booze because maybe in the past he had a drinking problem. You would abstain from drinking. Obviously pagan citizens aren't my brother in that sense, but I don't expect the adherence to the Law because an unbeliever hates the law. I know. I used to be an unbeliever. That doesn't mean I don't advocate for the Law when given the opportunity. Heck one of my college majors is political science ironically. I'm opinionated. It means I don't believe in some conquering the civil by gaining political might stuff.

And again Roman's 8:28. Do you believe when it said God makes sure all things work together for good for the elect? Is our Church a stronger Church because of the blood of the martyrs in the early church? Did they probably feel that with strong conviction at the time? Probably not. There was probably a lot of ire at Rome. However what a wonderful testimony and proof we have of the historical truth of the resurrection from it.

In hindsight if you had the ability in yourself, would you be willing to change early Roman Laws to make Christian acceptance more palatable? If so why would you? If not, fantastic. You agree with me more then you are willing to admit. God doesn't lose names in the Book of Life based on the civil realm. Never has. Never will.

As for the concluding 2 points you made... If a Pastor is preaching doctrine and not on naming secular names, then yes that would be technically fine. It's legit.

As for the question on ministering to your neighbor. Obviously love your neighbor as yourself. So if your neighbor is a social liberal - you still show affection for them and care. Maybe in shoveling the snow off their driveway, helping in other ways, meals, etc.

I don't love my unyoked neighbor however, by putting them under a yoke they decided to reject, and one God gave them the freewill to reject.
 
CT you keep returning to this separating Natural Law thing from biblical warrant. You have to remember the 2k position is that Natural Law has biblical warrant.

So when you state as you did,"Where have I stated anything about Biblical warrant etc? I have written about natural law. Natural law positions don't need an explicit Biblical warrant, (not to say that they cannot have one)."

I'm wondering what understanding we're operating under. Because this whole time I've been saying the Natural Law has biblical warrant not sometimes, not certain positions. All time. That's key to the whole thing.

In a 2kers mind I could write God's Law and Natural Law. They both mean the same exact thing. We respect it as God's Law when we accept it. Unbelievers reject God's Law and it's still the Natural Law. The question then revolves around ONLY the unbeliever. The 2ker isn't advocating for any radical change in church government. In how the session deals with problems within the church body. Protecting the flock from wolves within the church. ETC. You would see no difference in a 2ker. I've been a member in a church with no 2kers in the session. I've been a member in a church loaded with 2kers. There is no notable difference in church government. You would be unable to distinguish a worship service between the two.

The issue is that the vast majority of R2Kers that I have interacted with always complain about mixing kingdom's up and the mixing the gospel with the law etc. The Bible is for the Spiritual kingdom while Natural law is for the civil/temporal kingdom. So my response, is okay, lets go with natural law. It comes down to the same answer on a number of hot button issues.

2kers really come out as unique in dealing only with the unbeliever. It's actually viewed as wrong to essentially yoke them like a believer. For example when scripture basically says take care of your weaker brother... so if you drink but you have a brother who isn't a drinker and doesn't like to be around booze because maybe in the past he had a drinking problem. You would abstain from drinking. Obviously pagan citizens aren't my brother in that sense, but I don't expect the adherence to the Law because an unbeliever hates the law. I know. I used to be an unbeliever. That doesn't mean I don't advocate for the Law when given the opportunity. Heck one of my college majors is political science ironically. I'm opinionated. It means I don't believe in some conquering the civil by gaining political might stuff.

Isn't the difference with the weak brother is that we are talking about things that go under the heading of Christian liberty. The subjects of this thread are not in such a category. Also I agree that the unbeliever hates the law of God in general or special revelation. I am not pushing for them to love it through just laws, I am pushing for them to stop murdering their children etc.

And again Roman's 8:28. Do you believe when it said God makes sure all things work together for good for the elect? Is our Church a stronger Church because of the blood of the martyrs in the early church? Did they probably feel that with strong conviction at the time? Probably not. There was probably a lot of ire at Rome. However what a wonderful testimony and proof we have of the historical truth of the resurrection from it.

I do believe Romans 8:28. That means when I organize against the legalization of same sex marriage, God is working out all thing together for the good, right? The issue again, is how is one supposed to act in the civil realm, are there any rules by which one can be judged or held accountable?

In hindsight if you had the ability in yourself, would you be willing to change early Roman Laws to make Christian acceptance more palatable? If so why would you? If not, fantastic. You agree with me more then you are willing to admit. God doesn't lose names in the Book of Life based on the civil realm. Never has. Never will.

You mean laws that are more in accord with natural law. Yes, I would change them.

As for the concluding 2 points you made... If a Pastor is preaching doctrine and not on naming secular names, then yes that would be technically fine. It's legit.

As for the question on ministering to your neighbor. Obviously love your neighbor as yourself. So if your neighbor is a social liberal - you still show affection for them and care. Maybe in shoveling the snow off their driveway, helping in other ways, meals, etc.

I don't love my unyoked neighbor however, by putting them under a yoke they decided to reject, and one God gave them the freewill to reject.

Everyone has obligations that they are held to whether they want to do so or not. Why should people get to out of their duties because they just "don't want to do it anymore or never wanted to do it in the first place"?

Finally, one question: "How does your position differ from the Antinomian one?"


CT
 
Kevin
Where is your first part in scripture. Where does it state Christ is currently the head of the created world? Where does it state Satan is Lord over the ethical world. Where is this in scripture?

You'd have to do a study of the way the word "world" is used in Scripture.

Sometimes it used positively of the created world and its inhabitants generally:
All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. (Ps 22:27, KJV)

Sometimes it is used negatively of those who will not accept Christ and their ways of thinking and the sins and temptations associated with the Devil's system :
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us , that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not (I John 3:1)

We know that Christ is currently the head of the created world because of what He said:
All power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth (Matt 28:18)

If Reformed thinking - and critique - is abandoned for the civil realm, then what about other "worldly" institutions like marriage?

There is a difference between worldly and worldly.
 
"If we assume the church member's intent is not to divide the church, but rather to pass laws in the civil sphere to sanction homosexual marriage and abort as many babies as women may see fit, the session could not step in under the R2k "liberty" principle?"

If a member confessed with the Bible that homosexual behavior and lust is sinful, and himself did not practice such things, but decided to vote to allow homosexuals thr right to marry, we would not discipline him. These are always opportunities to teach if necessary, but we wouldn't have the Bible's authority to cast them out of the kingdom for such political views.

In reality it is none of our business as clergy to know the voting practices of our members ( I know one could come up with some extreme or absurd example where this might not be true - fine - it is generally true).

Todd, you didn't specifically address it, but I assume your "it's not the church's business" R2k policy would apply to the member's advocacy of abortion as well, as long as the member herself was not aborting her own baby?
 
Mark,

What is meant by advocacy? Does it mean simply voting for a candidate who is not pro-life? Does it mean actually encouraging abortions? It depends on the situation, as in all pastoral cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top