KevinInReno
Puritan Board Freshman
.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.
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.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.
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?
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."Two quotes from Calvin to conclude...
...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.
[/QUOTE]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."
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: