-

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Appreciate the desire for more concrete terminology. As mentioned in my previous question, again assuming no intent to divide the congregation, I will limit the definition of "advocacy" to any number of actions in the political realm. This could include voting or encouraging others to vote for a known pro-abortion candidate, passing out pro-abortion pamphlets, lobbying legislators to pass pro-abortion laws, speaking out at town hall meetings on the topic, etc.. The point is the advocacy undertaken is with the known and clear goal to pass laws in the civil sphere to allow the abortion of many babies as a woman may see fit. Would *any* of these forms of advocacy be censurable by the church under R2k "liberty" principles?

{As should be clear, I am excluding from my definition of "advocacy" the private encouragement of a *particular woman* to commit an abortion.}
 
Last edited:
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.
Kevin,
My response was directed at those promoting R2K. Not specifically anything toward you unless you want to claim the same position as Tborow is advocating below. And it isn't necessarily 2K theology we are discussing. It is R2K. So in reality your critique of my assumption is not based upon knowing me nor what I am referring to evidently. I can point you to podcasts where the kind of stuff that is advocated below is being said by R2Kers. Mind you that I am not saying 2Kers. There does seem to be a difference.

"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?

I would also add that I don't think anyone is advocating throwing anyone out of the kingdom but that discipline should be exercised in a situation where someone is advocating the right for abortion or the right for homosexuals to marry. It is the Churches business to promote and pray for the peace of the Kingdom of Christ in any sphere that it might go well for the Church.
 
CT
On Antinomianism: I am expected to love the Law, in the continued sanctification both my adherence and/or my being able to see how I fail to uphold the Law should be expected. Antinomianism is a dangerous extreme that tries to change the place of the law within the church itself. My brother who has an MDiv and is not a 2ker but more of a Kellerite/Driscoll type - frankly always argues 2kers from the Antinomianism perspective. Which is ironic because I don't support Antinomianism at all and in its extremes - I see it as heretical.

2k theology should not change the church government in any way shape or form in my opinion. Only if you believe that sermons focused on civil topics/etc (Killing of Osama, Elections, Candidates, etc) are kosher from the pulpit. Which I have been to churches, even some classified as reformed where that is completely kosher. Beyond that stipulation it pertains really to nothing which emphasizes the church.

2k believes in avoiding the civil topically, not in some let them (the world) burn concept, but because it first and foremost helps protect the church. Is it beneficial for the PCUSA to be so topically minded? Absolutely not. I remember one time on vacation (for the 4th a couple of years ago ironically) a PCUSA church was the only one around. I was at a USA pep-rally rather then worship service. I was disgusted. Ironically the worship service at one point was actually talking about and praying for the PCUSA to continue to be against the practice of gay marriage/pastors/etc in between songs like God Bless America. There was no doctrinal conversation about it. Just topical. I just found it both a sad and an ironic emphasis. If the church loved the law, then they wouldn't have fear of such things. Those churches that love the law and not the world - aren't changed by the world (aka pro gay movements, pro-baby genocide, etc). Which preserves our saltiness and in turn blesses the world both directly and indirectly. By giving the world a bear hug the PCUSA has failed to love the world - in the false call of "being more loving to 'everyone'".

It's easy to say, "Yeah but that is the PCUSA". However remind yourself, my Grandfather is 96 for example. He remembers a PCUSA that would have been very conservative in his lifetime. It can slip away quickly, and I think in large part it was them being so topically minded. Now... they are willing to hang gay pride flags in front of their "churches" photo example of a Gay friendly church from Wikipedia - so churches like Redeemer today [and don't get me wrong I love Keller for example he's one of two pastors outside my own I frequently listen to sermons of] with huge calls out into the world for their neighbor. If those social programs, etc become more and more of a point of emphasis and doctrine and worship become secondary. I fear for them preserving their saltiness - probably not in Keller's lifetime, but after he passes. Etc.

---------- Post added at 09:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 AM ----------

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.
Kevin,
My response was directed at those promoting R2K. Not specifically anything toward you unless you want to claim the same position as Tborow is advocating below. And it isn't necessarily 2K theology we are discussing. It is R2K. So in reality your critique of my assumption is not based upon knowing me nor what I am referring to evidently. I can point you to podcasts where the kind of stuff that is advocated below is being said by R2Kers. Mind you that I am not saying 2Kers. There does seem to be a difference.

"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?

I would also add that I don't think anyone is advocating throwing anyone out of the kingdom but that discipline should be exercised in a situation where someone is advocating the right for abortion or the right for homosexuals to marry. It is the Churches business to promote and pray for the peace of the Kingdom of Christ in any sphere that it might go well for the Church.

Alright brother. I can accept that.

The most controversial thing David VanDrunen does go into is voting for candidates. He for example does say if you are voting for a candidate and they support abortion. But lets say that candidate everywhere else is solid and is going to be put into a civil position where he won't have a voice/authority on that topic anyways. It doesn't make it wrong to vote for them in that case.

Or if a believer who is in congress has the chance to vote on a bill that still allows for abortion, but would greatly reduce its number. A believer can vote for that in good conscience, shouldn't be under the threat of discipline from his church, etc. When reading his position and having listened to him personally speak on the subject however. I never took what he was saying as on those issues christians can be neutral. More of a "if this is your job in the world, you can be more pragmatic then the church at large is allowed to be." He doesn't give a complete free pass in this matter.
 
Kevin. If you go back and look through the posts Todd (Tbordow) posted he spoke a bit more plainly about those who held to what he termed as unbiblical views in light of liberty. It ended up pointing to a few questions and answers. The last post below is one pointing to the WLC and scripture. I am not sure it has been dealt with completely.




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).

So someone who attacks/fights against abortion/homosexuality etc is only doing it because they wish to earn their salvation with good works? Doing such because it is the right things to do, is not an option?

CT

If it is a sin to engage in and a sin to perform an unlawful marriage (according to God's law), surely it is a sin to approve of and facilitate such with our vote (i.e. granting power to superiors with our vote to command things unlawful, LC 130) rather than oppose with our vote?:think:
Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

...prohibiting of lawful,and dispensing with [i.e. granting of] unlawful marriages*....
*Leviticus 18:1-21. Mark 6:18. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife. Malachi 2:11-12. Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
 
Last edited:
Well Todd (I'm assuming Tbordo is Todd) did make a statement of a more extreme form then I believe David VanDrunen actually believes in. Now he might understand it better then me, but we recently had an associate pastor at our church who studied under David VanDrunen and now they are close friends. It allowed for a unique access to David's ideas. Also an elder of ours is literally on a first name basis with David.

That being said the state has no ultimate control over the 7th commandment. Just because "Bob and Jack" got married today in New York city, doesn't mean they got married. I did talk about John earlier but it would be completely understandable to miss it (with all the responses). John was the final Old Testament prophet. He was working under the Temple Rites system, and Herod was the ruler over the Theocracy. He was fair game in that situation. John's calling out of Herod's sexual sin I don't see as some exception to the rule.

In a church discipline sense I know I have heard David VanDrunen say, what he doesn't think is right is for example a believer voted for a bill that had the allowing for abortion still in it - but lets say it reduced abortions by 50% - or now required notification for minors to their parents - etc. Being put under church discipline because in a general sense he voted for something that in theory "supports abortion". Because we should be able to understand there are two kingdoms and it's a benefit that the bill passed because it did reduce the number. Small steps like that should be allowed in the civil format for an individual - even though the church can not condone or support the finalized bill in a black and white sense.
 
I should note that the Scripture proof texts for granting unlawful marriages being a sin in LC 139 are as follows as far as American proofs of the PCUSA tradition, which includes the PCA and OPC.
PCUSA/PCUS (1797; 1910)* first set. Leviticus 18:1-21.
PCUSA (1896) revision. Leviticus 18:1-21. Mark 6:18
PCUS (1910) Leviticus 18:1-21.
OPC (2001; 2005) Leviticus 18:1-21. Mark 6:18.
*PCUS retained the first set of PCUSA until new proofs in 1910 and 139 was unchanged. The PCA has no official proof texts, but publishes the originals for reference.

If it is a sin to engage in and a sin to perform an unlawful marriage (according to God's law), surely it is a sin to approve of and facilitate such with our vote (i.e. granting power to superiors with our vote to command things unlawful, LC 130) rather than oppose with our vote?:think:
Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

...prohibiting of lawful,and dispensing with [i.e. granting of] unlawful marriages*....
*Leviticus 18:1-21. Mark 6:18. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife. Malachi 2:11-12. Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
 
Last edited:
"Well Todd (I'm assuming Tbordo is Todd) did make a statement of a more extreme form then I believe David VanDrunen actually believes in."

Kevin,

What statement?

---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

Mark and Chris,

Advocating for the sin of abortion or homosexuality is not the same as voting for a pro-choice candidate, that a Christain might do for a number of reasons that have little to do with abortion, just as advocating for the government to allow Mormons the right to assemble and propagate their religion freely is not the same as advocating for the sin of Mormonism. It's a complicated issue that cannot be resolved by quoting a Scripture against a particuliar sin. In the same way, not allowing homosexual marriage among God's people, or God's people approving of homosexuality, which is clearly forbidden in Scripture, is not the same thing as believing the non theocratic state must disallow homosexual marriage. I do not believe the statecraft question is as clear as either of you suggest. But then again I am a radical after all.
 
Please be patient with me here. I am reliving some things in this post that relate to past discussions. And I do want clarification to my questions from R2K guys. This isn't really a 2K discussion in my opinion. Yes, I do pull out some punches here so be patient with me. I am drawing off of things these guys say in the following podcasts that I link to. I am not a Theonomist as in the Bahnsen vein. But I do view Christ's Kingdom a bit more encompassing than others maybe.

Here is a podcast where Mark Dever actually seems to corner VanDrunen into providing his thought and conclusions. The last ten minutes is killer in my estimation. And I also think VanDrunen comes up on the short side of the stick. A very short side.

The Two Kingdoms and the Natural Law with David VanDrunen | 9Marks


And this is something I have have wondered about here before.

I listen to Office Hours quite often. I do believe Horton has some problems that interlink with his view of the Gospel / Law and the applications he draws because of his views. Below is a link to Office Hours that I think truly illustrates his positions concerning this topic and the gospel. And I think they are flawed. He exposes what level of authority he believes the church has as well as he does for the government. I believe he is mistaken when he discusses the authority of the church. I also believe the Church is called to tell Civil Government how it is to function morally. I have problems with the interview on the Churches authority. This is basically telling Christian's things that aren't true about the authority of the Church under Christ's headship. 6:30 - 8:30 on causes. The Church also has the right to tell me I am being a terrible father and discipline me. They have the honor and commission to instruct me in the areas of parenthood. They also can authoritatively tell me I shouldn't support the cause of Planned Parenthood or abortion mills or organizations that are terrible and undermining the truth. He does accuse others of redefining the Gospel. And I think this episode reveals a lot.

The Gospel is more than just about the great commission as defined by Michael Horton in the episode I reference below. It seems that Dr. Horton removes a lot of the responsibility and the authority that the Church was given under the Kingship of Christ in the Gospel. The Gospel encompasses the whole concept of the Kingdom of God and our reconciling all of life to Him. It is about Thy Kingdom Come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. The Kingdom and Authority of the Kingdom of Christ are a part of this Gospel it seems to me. Especially when I read the Divines who framed the Westminster Confession of faith. I would like to refer again to an episode I link to below. The time frame of the part of the discussion that has me concerned is between about 6 minutes and 8 minutes. It seems that Dr. Horton removes authority of the Church that it has. Doesn't the Church have the authority to make sure it's families are growing and doing things correctly? I do believe the Church is responsible for making sure our families grow up in the fear, nurture, and admonition of the Lord. Doesn't the Church have the responsibility to rebuke and bring under discipline those who are not acting biblically based upon Christ reconciling all things unto unto Himself for the Church. Is not the Church called to do what John the Baptist did in calling Rulers to account? When this isn't done don't we end up with things that are happening in New York right now?

In relation to some of Dr. Horton's assumptions in the below podcast.... Sure maybe the Church can't teach Economics 103 but it is responsible to make sure that we are learning to do all things in the fear, nurture, and admonition of the Lord. At one time the Church sure saw it's function as educating the world in these areas through higher education. It hired men to do so and use to exercise authority over the teachers who taught. The Church is to protect us from vain philosophies that might creep in from these areas of life. It seems to be more important and needful these days concerning the realms of Science and Politics. To separate the Church's commission and authority in these areas is to render the flock unprotected and left to their own defenses. And it seems to me it is to Remove Christ as Head over all things. Maybe I am just not getting it. Maybe I am. I hope I am not crossing any lines.

I do see this R2K doctrine as something that is considered as possibly dangerous and injurious to the Kingdom, our society, and our Children in the long run. I do find it strange that this teaching has gained such ground as it has. It seems to be coming from one seminary and a group of men who adhere to it. Maybe I am mistaken. It sort of reminds me of how Scofieldism took root in America. It was so quickly and successfully propagated that it entered in unquestioned and it became the norm for theological interpretation. It came from such a small minority and it grew into such a big theological stance in a small amount of time that when it was finally discussed it was already considered to be proper truth. When it was questioned and refuted it was considered that nut jobs or liberals were the ones critiquing it and that they didn't believe the Bible. I am sorry if the illustration doesn't fit but this is happening to me and this is what I am seeing. When I do reference the divines in context it seems to fall on deaf ears because of the personality issues.


Of course I am going to have my problems with their definitions of Gospel, law, and now their definition of Ministerial authority. I am sorry if this is all muddled. I am bringing in thoughts from past threads and things that confuse me. Kline seems to be a big portion in this discussion also. But I believe a lot of this theology is tied together. Their view of Gospel, Law and grace, Church authority, and how the Church relates to the State. It is all tied together it seems to me. They are all tied to the same view of how the law is dichotomized from the Gospel. Instead of showing the distinctions they are dichotomizing them.

Westminster Seminary California - Resources - The Gospel Commission by Michael Horton:: Westminster Seminary California
 
"Well Todd (I'm assuming Tbordo is Todd) did make a statement of a more extreme form then I believe David VanDrunen actually believes in."

Kevin,

What statement?

---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

Mark and Chris,

Advocating for the sin of abortion or homosexuality is not the same as voting for a pro-choice candidate, that a Christain might do for a number of reasons that have little to do with abortion, just as advocating for the government to allow Mormons the right to assemble and propagate their religion freely is not the same as advocating for the sin of Mormonism. It's a complicated issue that cannot be resolved by quoting a Scripture against a particuliar sin. In the same way, not allowing homosexual marriage among God's people, or God's people approving of homosexuality, which is clearly forbidden in Scripture, is not the same thing as believing the non theocratic state must disallow homosexual marriage. I do not believe the statecraft question is as clear as either of you suggest. But then again I am a radical after all.

Todd, my question was specifically focused on a person undertaking forms of civil advocacy with a specific goal in mind, i.e., aborting as many babies as a woman may see fit. You really have not answered my question about whether the church can censure any of the advocacy I described.
 
Todd when you stated, " 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. "

I think that has gone a little too far. If lets say (which in the political realm) he traded his vote for gay marriage so he could get legislation through for something he valued as a more important issue - such as abortion. I think that was the spirit of David's larger point. The reality is often church discipline is instruction and exhortation and not clear "punishment" which we often like to associate it. That would without a doubt be a time for the session to provide instruction if a member just out and out voted for gay marriage. Especially if they were so brazen about it that it became knowledge of the church - obviously everyone has privacy in the voter booth. In such a scenario they are active advocates against the Natural Law. That needs to happen for the benefit of the Church - not the civil. Now that instruction should be rooted and focused not in some specific civil topic, but on doctrine itself. They are abusing God's separation between the church and the civil - to give themselves license to advocate for clearly stated biblical harm.

If they continued to defend that position in an active public context - partake in gay pride parades - lobby for those to vote with them in the issue. A session could reasonably decide after trying to provide exhortation and discipline that this is a situation to protect the flock from wolves.
 
Kevin,

I agree with you on the second part on parades, etc... but not on simply voting for or against gay marriage. I think the point is that all of us apply the 2k principle a bit differently, even among those of us labeled R2k.
 
Mark,

Yes, the church can censure a person doing such a thing as you suggest.

Thanks, Todd. Then may I ask: on what authority/basis may the church censure an individual for such advocacy in the civil realm? The reason I ask is your guiding principle is not clear to me: you answer me in the affirmative about church censure on my listed forms of advocacy on the abortion issue. But then I see you make a distinction on the availability of censure between someone voting on a gay marriage law and marching in a gay-pride parade.
 
I said who I believed were on the wrong side, and one can be wrong and not necessarily in sin.

---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 PM ----------

"Thanks, Todd. Then may I ask: on what authority/basis may the church censure an individual for such advocacy in the civil realm? The reason I ask is your guiding principle is not clear to me: you answer me in the affirmative about church censure on my listed forms of advocacy on the abortion issue. But then I see you make a distinction on the availability of censure between someone voting on a gay marriage law and marching in a gay-pride parade."

Mark,

Not being a theonomist or theocrat, I do not believe it is the state's role to enforce religion or Christian morality. So allowing something legally is not the same as endorsing it morally. I don't want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality. Other Christians disagree. Fine. That's allowed. That is the distinction. Another example - beastiality is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to church discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices; I'm content to let the Lord judge it when he returns. A fellow church member might advocate for beastiality laws. Neither would be in sin whatever the side of the debate. Now if the lines are blurry in these disctinctions, that is always true in pastoral ministry dealing with real people in real cases in this fallen world.
 
I said who I believed were on the wrong side, and one can be wrong and not necessarily in sin.

I think your response here is responding to my question on your BLOG entry-- rather than responding to my question in post #104 above in this THREAD. It will be confusing to readers if we are conducting dialogue at 2 locations.
 
Pastor Todd,
What sort of morality should the state enforce? Given Rom 13, it is enforcing some form of morality or put another way, punishing immorality. Also I disagree with your point that making something legally is not the same an endorsing it morally. Saying that something should be legal implies that you believe it to be at the very least, morally neutral. For example, one removing fraud laws from the legal books. One cannot defend such a decision by saying, well I'm not endorsing fraud, I am just saying it should be legal.

CT
 
CT,

As to your second point, one would then have to say the state should not allow anyone not to believe in Jesus for salvation. Allowing unbelief to freely exist is not the same as endorsing it morally or suggesting it is morally nuetral. This is where a Biblical view of the two kingdoms comes in handy. As to your first point: each governing body takes into account natural law, history of that nation, what is unique to that particuliar people and area, problems going on in that nation that must be addressed, etc... and should govern to keep the peace and protect the common good. Of course you are asking sinners to do this, so...
 
Mark,

Not being a theonomist or theocrat, I do not believe it is the state's role to enforce religion or Christian morality. So allowing something legally is not the same as endorsing it morally. I don't want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality. Other Christians disagree. Fine. That's allowed. That is the distinction. Another example - beastiality is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to church discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices; I'm content to let the Lord judge it when he returns. A fellow church member might advocate for beastiality laws. Neither would be in sin whatever the side of the debate. Now if the lines are blurry in these disctinctions, that is always true in pastoral ministry dealing with real people in real cases in this fallen world.

So what if a Nation's government does start to enforce a morality? Whose morality should they work from? To whom are they responsible to? Where is this coming from. Does the State operate in a vacuum and have no responsibility itself to be loving and honest? Is it a loving thing to allow them to languish in an amoral vacuum? Are you truly being loving? Are you an evidentialist, classical apologist, or presuppositionalist? I have so many questions running through my mind right now. From what foundation is this thought coming from? I am not sure that the lines are as blurry as you seem to be implying. Especially concerning general equity. The WLC is very explicit concerning the Decalogue. Crimes are very defined. The discernment of what crime someone might have performed might not be. We are considered innocent until proven guilty. And that has it's foundation set in scripture also. The need for three witnesses is very important.


(Rom 13:1) Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.


(Rom 13:2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.


(Rom 13:3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:


(Rom 13:4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.


(Rom 13:5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.


(Rom 13:6) For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.


(Rom 13:7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.


(Rom 13:8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.


(Rom 13:9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


(Rom 13:10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law
.

It seems to me even the book of Romans has some basis for the law of love. Part of that law is thou shalt not bear false witness. Isn't there a positive side to that also? Isn't there a responsibility to speak the truth in love even to those who are the State? Shouldn't the Church issue warnings that says that they will stand in judgment for what they do and accept?

Please remember post 97. also
 
FYI. I have found this Confessionally very instructive and done very well concerning Natural Law, General Equity. and Moral Law. Here is a portion of the article.

The Divine Law of Political Israel Expired: General Equity - The Westminster Presbyterian

General EquityThe Confession uses the term general equity to identify the element in the judicial laws which is of enduring obligation. The meaning of this term is evident from the chapter in which it appears. There is an equity or righteousness which on four other occasions in this chapter is said to still oblige, amidst all the changes in redemptive history. That equity is the moral law, which 1) was first given at creation, 2) was afterwards delivered in the ten commandments, 3) is distinguished from the ceremonial and judicial laws as such, 4) is always backed by the authority of the Creator, and 5) is strengthened by Christ in the Gospel: "God gave to Adam a law, . . . by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience . . . . . This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness . . . . . Beside this law, commonly called moral, [are the ceremonial and judicial laws] . . . . . The moral law doth for ever bind all . . . to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it: neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation."

Confirmation that "general equity" signifies the moral law is furnished by an examination of the earlier Reformed and contemporary Puritan literature which forms the background and context for the writing of the Confession. These writers regarded equity as identifiable by reference to well-known standards. In the classical Reformed tradition, equity is the righteousness of the moral law, which is 1) embodied in a natural law binding upon all men as creatures under the authority of the Creator, and 2) common to moral teaching found in the Scriptures as a whole. We shall see that Calvin and the Puritans did not allow the judicial laws to define equity. Conformity to the moral law was the standard against which these writers reviewed the judicial laws and isolated the elements of perpetual equity in them. Outstanding statements of this hermeneutical perspective were given by Calvin, William Ames and Francis Turretin, and many others gave briefer expression to the same teaching.

Calvin (1509-64), writing in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, gives the following definition of what belongs to equity in the judicial laws: "The judicial law, given to them for civil government, imparted certain formulas of equity and justice, by which they might live together blamelessly and peaceably. . . . . The form of their judicial laws, although it had no other intent than how best to preserve that very love which is enjoined by God's eternal law, had something distinct from that precept of love. Therefore, as ceremonial laws could be abrogated while piety remained safe and unharmed, so too, when these judicial laws were taken away, the perpetual duties and precepts of love could still remain.

"But if this is true, surely every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable for itself. Yet these must be in conformity to that perpetual rule of love, so that they indeed vary in form but have the same purpose. . . . .

"What I have said will become plain if in all laws we examine, as we should, these two things: the constitution of the law, and the equity on which its constitution is itself founded and rests. Equity, because it is natural, cannot but be the same for all, and therefore, this same purpose ought to apply to all laws, whatever their object. Constitutions have certain circumstances upon which they in part depend. It therefore does not matter that they are different, provided all equally press toward the same goal of equity.

"It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws.

"Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to that goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law, or among themselves."(37)

Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Calvin's contemporary at Geneva, employs the expression general equity to define the element of justice, derived from natural law, which belongs to all civil laws, despite the variation between the political constitutions of different nations. "If again someone were to raise the objection that public law referring to the constitution of the people or nation . . . differs widely from the law of nature common to all nations, I shall concede that this is true indeed in certain matters, but with this limitation that that entire distinction is connected with circumstances which cannot prevent general fairness and equity [generalis illa aequitas et epieicheia] from so far remaining steadfast and invariable that every polity acting in violation of it - as for example if undisguised impieties, robberies and similar crimes both against God and against the law of nations and good morals were to meet with approval - should be utterly condemned and cast off."(38)

Elsewhere, in arguing that the civil magistrate should punish heresy, Beza applied to the political laws of Moses the distinction between a political constitution and natural or general equity. Beza defends the laws of ancient Rome, saying, much as Calvin did, that these laws and those of Moses "were adapted to the same goal of natural equity." When the political laws of Moses embody natural equity, which rises above the special circumstances of one nation, to that extent they are binding. But though the magistrate may learn much from the Mosaic law because of the natural equity in it, he is at liberty to depart from such things as the Mosaic penal sanctions when the circumstances of his society dictate. The Mosaic penal sanctions are not permanent obligations. "Although we do not hold to the forms of the Mosaic polity, yet when such judicial laws prescribe equity in judgments, which is part of the decalogue, we, not being under obligation to them insofar as they were prescribed by Moses to only one people, are nevertheless bound to observe them to the extent that they embrace that general equity which should everywhere be in force. . . . . The Lord commands that a deposit be returned, and that thieves be punished. . . . . Because it follows natural equity, and expounds that perpetual precept of the decalogue, Thou shalt not steal, to this extent all are bound to fulfill them both. The thief is sentenced to make restitution for the theft, sometimes twice as much, sometimes four times as much . . . . . This penalty is purely political, and it binds the one nation of the Israelites, to whom alone it was adapted. Therefore it is permitted for the magistrate, in his exercise of sovereignty and for definite and good causes, to prescribe a more severe manner of punishment . . . . . And to be sure, if anyone compares several of the laws of the Greeks, and many of the laws of the Romans, with the Mosaic, he will find a similarity among them in establishing penalties, so that it is sufficiently plain that all were adapted to the same goal of natural equity."(39)

The expression general equity is also found in a treatise on conscience by the English Puritan William Perkins (1558-1602). Perkins uses the phrase to identify the element in the judicial laws which is of enduring obligation. The standard to which Perkins appeals is conformity to the law of nature, which embodies the moral law: "Again, judicial laws, so far forth as they have in them the general or common equity of the law of nature are moral; and therefore binding in conscience, as the moral law."(40)

Perkins says that the moral law is that which forever binds all men: "Moral law . . . is contained in the Decalogue or ten commandments; and it is the very law of nature written in all men's hearts . . . in the creation of man: and therefore it binds the consciences of all men at all times . . . . ."(41) The other laws given through Moses do not carry this permanent obligation: "Judicial laws of Moses . . . . . were specially given by God, and directed to the Jews; who for this very cause were bound in conscience to keep them all . . . . . But touching other nations and specially Christian commonwealths in these days, the case is otherwise."(42)

Perkins speaks of a particular equity prescribed for a particular people in the special circumstances of Old Testament Israel, and a common equity drawn from the law of nature and which therefore is common to all men. That element in the judicial laws which partakes of this common equity still binds: "Therefore the judicial laws of Moses according to the substance and scope thereof must be distinguished . . . . . Some of them are laws of particular equity, some of common equity. Laws of particular equity, are such as prescribe justice according to the particular estate and condition of the Jews' Commonwealth and to the circumstances thereof . . . . . Of this kind was the law, that the brother should raise up seed to his brother, and many such like: and none of them bind us, because they were framed and tempered to a particular people. Judicials of common equity, are such as are made according to the law or instinct of nature common to all men: and these in respect of their substance, bind the consciences not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles: for they were not given to the Jews as they were Jews, that is, a people received into the Covenant above all other nations, brought from Egypt to the land of Canaan, . . . but they were given to them as they were mortal men subject to the order and laws of nature as all other nations are."(43) For Perkins, common equity is the conformity to the law of nature found in some of the judicial laws.

Perkins' successor in the pastorate of St. Andrew's, Cambridge, was another influential Puritan, Paul Baynes (d. 1617), whose commentary on Ephesians was posthumously published in London in the same year that the Westminster Assembly was called. Commenting on Eph. 2:15 and the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, Baynes remarked on what endures in the judicial laws. As with Perkins, the rule is concurrence with the moral law, set forth in the law of nature: "For the first, we are free from them as ordinances political delivered; they bind us, . . . as the perpetual equity of God, agreeable to the law of nature and moral, is in them . . . . ."(44)

Similarly, Samuel Bolton (1606-54), a Puritan pastor in London during the Westminster Assembly, and later the vice chancellor of Cambridge University, uses the word moral to identify the element of perpetual obligation in the judicial law, and identifies the "common and general equity" of the judicial law as that which is shared with natural law: "Secondly, for the judicial law, which was . . . an ordinance containing the precepts concerning the government of the people in civil things. 1. That there might be a rule of common and public equity. 2. That they might be distinguished from others. 3. That the government of Christ might be typified. And so here as this was typical of Christ, so far it is ceased;(45) but that which is of common and general equity remains still in force. It is a maxim: Those judgments which are common and natural, are moral and perpetual."(46)

William Gouge (1575-1653) was a member of the Westminster Assembly. During the preparation of the Confession's chapter on the law, the Assembly appointed a committee to consider propositions "about the meaning of the description of ceremonial and judicial" laws, and Gouge was made a member of the committee.(47) In his folio commentary on Hebrews, Gouge reflects on the ordinance of taking tithes, and draws a correspondence between its various features and the threefold distinction of the law. Gouge uses the term general equity to identify the element which corresponds to the moral law, in distinction from the ceremonial and judicial laws. "This was it, which is here said to be according to the law: and that the judicial, ceremonial and moral law. 1. By the judicial law the Levites had not their portion in Canaan for their inheritance, as other tribes had: therefore in lieu thereof, by the said law they had the tenth of the rest of the people. 2. The holy services which they performed to the Lord for the people were ceremonial. Therefore the recompence given was by a like law. 3. The general equity that they who communicate unto us spiritual matters should partake of our temporals, and that they who are set apart wholly to attend God's service should live upon that service, is moral."(48)

As a Scottish commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, Samuel Rutherford (1600-61) sat with the drafting committee which bore primary responsibility for the text of the Westminster Confession.(49) His Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience was published three years after the Confession was completed. In defending the role of the civil magistrate in suppressing heresy, Rutherford refers often to the question whether there is an enduring obligation in the judicial laws, and in this connection he uses the term equity in the same way as do the Genevans and the English Puritans. Rutherford argues that the practice of magistrates must rest upon a broader justification than the Mosaic judicial laws. Apostolic doctrine and the law of nature hold forth a common moral equity that defines what remains pertinent in the judicial laws. This common equity requires magistrates to punish moral offences, but it will not sustain an appeal to the specific penalties in the judicial laws.

"Judicial laws may be judicial and Mosaical, and so not obligatory to us, according to the degree and quality of punishment, such as in Deuteronomy 13, the destroying the city, and devoting all therein to a curse; we may not do the like in the like degree of punishment, to all that receive and defend idolaters and blasphemers in their city. And yet that some punishment by the sword be inflicted upon such a city, is of perpetual obligation; because the magistrate bears the sword to take vengeance on ill doers, and so on these that are partakers of his ill deeds, who brings another gospel, I John 5:10. . . . . Because the slaying of man, woman, infant, and suckling, ox and sheep, was temporary, and cannot have a perpetually obligatory ground in the law of nature or natural justice obliging us. . . . . No man but sees the punishment of theft is of common moral equity, and obligeth all nations, but the manner or degree of punishment is more positive: as to punish theft by restoring four oxen for the stealing of one ox, doth not so oblige all nations, but some other bodily punishment, as whipping, may be used against thieves."(50)

Rutherford separates the temporary aspect of Israel's war against the Canaanites from the aspect which can be supported by the moral equity in natural law: "For our divines strongly argue from the moral equity, and the law of nature warranting Joshua to make war with the Canaanites in the Old Testament, to prove the lawfulness of wars under the New Testament upon the same moral equity, as Joshua 11:19-20. Those that refused to make peace with Israel, and came against Israel in battle, against those Israel might raise war, by the law of nature in their own defence. . . . . But the war, tali modo, to destroy utterly young and old, cattle, and all they had, was from a ceremonial and temporal law peculiar to the Jews, because God would have his church neither enriched by their goods, nor to make covenants, and marriages with them, or to live in one society with them, nor to see their groves, lest they should be ensnared to follow their religion and strange gods."(51)

What Perkins called "general or common equity" and Rutherford termed "common moral equity" is that element in the judicial laws which is shared with the law of nature and with the general teaching of Scripture about morals, and hence can be discovered in these other sources.(52) In other words, the only element in the judicial law which rises above temporary obligation is that which also belongs to other sources of divine revelation about ethics. Because general equity is known from these other sources, it can be recognized when it is present in the judicial law of Moses.

When equity is spoken of as "general or common" to several members of the same class, the meaning of the word general is not distant from the Latin word generalis from which it is derived. The connotation of the Latin word is especially pertinent because the classical Reformed divines read, spoke, wrote and thought in Latin, the language in which university instruction was still delivered at the time of the Westminster Assembly. The Oxford English Dictionary comments on the sense of the Latin word as background for the first meaning of the English word. "The primary sense of the Latin adj. is thus 'pertaining to the (whole) class.' The word is somewhat rare in classical Latin; in the later lang., when genus and species (after the Aristotelian genos and eidos) had become familiar as the technical terms for classes respectively of greater and lesser extension, generalis came to be often used in contrast tospecialis; the antithetic use of the two words remains in all the European langs." Hence general indicates "participated in by . . . all . . . the parts of a specified whole, . . . . opposed to partial or particular."(53)

This sense of equity in the judicial law as generic to the whole of a more inclusive class, and hence discoverable elsewhere, is illustrated in the Latin translation of the Confession, published in 1656 by sympathetic Presbyterians at the University Press of Cambridge;(54) "general equity" was expanded to read "general and common equity."(55) There are other occurrences of the word general in the English text of the Confession that well illustrate this contrast between what is the shared possession of all in a class, and what is particular to individuals: V.vii, XV.v, XXI.vii, and cf. Larger Catechism 97.

Two aspects of generality in equity are notable in the Reformed tradition before and at the time of the Westminster Assembly. Neither of these may be excluded from the phrase which appears in the Confession. First, and perhaps less significantly, there is the concept that the political constitution of a particular society carries an element common to all constitutions, and yet expresses equity in the special circumstances of that people, with laws and penal sanctions different from those of other nations; the common goal of natural equity is realized in particular polities which differ from one another.

Second, as we have found in numerous citations from contemporary Reformed theologians, there is the notion of equity as general because it is common to several sources of ethical knowledge. Classical Reformed writers isolate in the judicial laws those moral directions which are held in common with natural law and the moral law teaching of Scripture as a whole, in distinction from what is peculiar to the judicial laws and hence does not rise above temporary obligation. The classical Reformed tradition has sought corroboration from other sources for the content of general equity, before accounting a provision of the Mosaic judicial law to be of perpetual obligation. Often the initial point of reference for Puritan writers was natural law, and this is reflected in the Confession's references to the light of nature, and to the law given to man at creation.

We should also consider the connotation carried by the word equity. Beyond the notion of "what is fair and right," the word carried the sense of "impartiality, evenhanded dealing." The Oxford English Dictionary comments again on the influence exerted by the ancient languages. "The Latin aequitas was somewhat influenced in meaning by being adopted as the ordinary rendering of Greek epieicheia, which meant reasonableness and moderation in the exercise of one's rights, and the disposition to avoid insisting on them too rigorously. An approach to this sense is found in many of the earlier English examples."(56) This connotation of moderation and the appearance of fair dealing is evident in the only other occurrence of the word equity in the Westminster standards, outside of the Confession's statement on the judicial laws. Larger Catechism 120 begins, "The reasons annexed to the fourth commandment, the more to enforce it, are taken from the equity of it, God allowing us six days of seven for our own affairs, and reserving but one for himself . . . . ."

The Oxford English Dictionary lists several senses for the word equity, its third being a usage in English jurisprudence: "The recourse to general principles of justice (the naturalis aequitas[natural equity] of Roman jurists) to correct or supplement the provisions of the law. Equity of a statute: the construction of a statute according to its reason and spirit, so as to make it apply to cases for which it does not expressly provide."(57) Here is an interesting combination of the concept of moderation with that of appealing to a superior standard. In this connection, equity meant weighing the reason and spirit of a statute, and considering what should be either corrected or more widely applied, according as the principles of natural law might dictate.(58) This is the approach to the Mosaic judicial law illustrated by Calvin and Rutherford.


(37) John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols., Library of Christian Classics, vol. 20 (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 2:1503-04 (IV.xx.15-16). Cf. W. Robert Godfrey, "Calvin and Theonomy," inTheonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1990), p. 302: "The key distinction for Calvin between the moral and the ceremonial or judicial laws is that the moral law is unchangeable, whereas the ceremonial and judicial laws are changeable. . . . . Calvin sees this unchanging moral law as the foundation of all particular civil laws. The moral law is the equity or the common, natural basis of all civil law."
(38) Theodore Beza, Concerning the Rights of Rulers Over Their Subjects and the Duty of Subjects Towards Their Rulers, trans. Henri-Louis Gonin, ed. A. H. Murray (Cape Town: H.A.U.M., 1956), p. 68. The work was published in 1574 as De iure magistratuum.
(39) Theodore Beza, De Haereticis a civili Magistratu puniendis Libellus (Geneva: Robert Stephanus, 1554), pp. 222-23. Quanvis politiae Mosaicae formulis non teneamur, tamen quum Iudiciales istae leges iudiciorum aequitatem praescribant, quae pars est Decalogi, nos, ut illis non obligemur quatenus à Mose uni populo perscriptae sunt, eatenus tamen ad eas observandus teneri, quatenus generalem illam aequitatem complectuntur, quae ubique valere debet. . . . . Iubet Dominus depositum reddi, & furem punir. . . . . Quia tamen naturalem aequitatem sequitur, & perpetuum illud Decalogi praeceptum NE FURERIS explicat: hactenus omnes ad utramque illam praestandem tenetur. Fur interdum ad furti restitutionem, interdum in duplum, nonnunquam in quadruplum . . . . . Haec poena merè est politica, & unam Israelitarum gentem obligat, quibus scilicet unis est accomodata. Licet igitur Magistratui in sua ditione ob certas & bonas causas asperiorem poenae modum praescribit . . . . . Et sanè siquis Graecorum nonnullas, Romanorum autem plerasque leges cum Mosaicis compararit, tamen inter eas etiam in poenis constituendis similitudinem inveniet, ut omnes satis appareat ad eundem naturalis aequitatis scopum fuisse accomodatus.
(40) William Perkins, A Discourse of Conscience (1596), in Works (Cambridge: John Legate, 1608), 1:514. Reprint in William Perkins, ed. Thomas F. Merrill (Nieuwkoop, Netherlands: B. De Graaf, 1966), p. 13.
(41) Ibid., p. 513. Reprint in William Perkins, p. 11.
(42) Ibid. Reprint in William Perkins, p. 12.
(43) Ibid., pp. 513-14. Reprint in William Perkins, pp. 12-13.
(44) Paul Baynes, An Entire Commentary upon the Whole Epistle to the Ephesians (London: M. F. for R. Milbourne and I. Bartlet, 1643), p. 294.
(45) Bolton gives here in the margin a quotation from the German Reformed theologian J. H. Alsted (1588-1638), who was a member of the Synod of Dort: Ex legibus judicialibus illae sunt perpetuae quae sunt juris communis, sive quae habent aliquid morale, illae vero abrogatae quae sunt particularis, etc.
(46) Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (London: J. L. for Philemon Stephens, 1645), p. 72. Cf. reprint (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1964), p. 56. Fortescue,Catalogue of the Pamphlets, 1:375, assigns the date April 30, 1645 to the first edition.
(47) Mitchell and Struthers, Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, pp. 178, 182-83 and 185.
(48) William Gouge, A Learned Commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrews (London: A. M., T. W. and S. G. for Joshua Kirton, 1655), second part, p. 149, on Heb. 7:5: "and have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law." Cf. second part, pp. 129-30.
(49) Rogers, Scripture in the Westminster Confession, p. 176.
(50) Samuel Rutherford, A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience(London: R.I. for Andrew Crook, 1649), pp. 298-99.
(51) Ibid., pp. 206-09 (Dd4-Ee1).
(52) Frederick S. Carney, "Associational Thought in Early Calvinism," in D. B. Robertson,Voluntary Associations: A Study of Groups in Free Societies(Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1966), p. 48: "Common law is the term usually employed by these Calvinists to express the shared content of natural law, the Decalogue, and the Great Commandment."
(53) Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, s.v. "general."
(54) William Cunningham, "The Westminster Confession on the Relation Between Church and State," in Discussions of Church Principles: Popish, Erastian, and Presbyterian(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1863), p. 223.
(55) Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 3:641. IV. Iisdem etiam tanquam corpori politico leges multas dedit judiciales, quae una cum istius populi politeia expirarunt, nullos hodie alios obligantes supra quod generalis et communis earum aequitas postularit.
(56) Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, s.v. "equity."
(57) Ibid.
(58) Ibid. Indeed, this approach to law produced a separate court in England. "In England (hence in Ireland and the United States), the distinctive name of a system of law existing side by side with the common and statute law, . . . and superseding these, when they conflict with it. The original notion was that of sense 3, a decision 'in equity' being understood to be one given in accordance with natural justice, in a case for which the law did not provide adequate remedy, or in which its operation would have been unfair. . . . . In England, equity was formerly administered by a special class of tribunals, of which the Court of Chancery was chief . . . . ." The dictionary illustrates this usage with a citation from Lambarde (1591): "And likewise in his Court of Equity he doth . . . cancel and shut up the rigor of the general Law."
 
"The WLC is very explicit concerning the Decalogue. Crimes are very defined...So what if a Nation's government does start to enforce a morality? Whose morality should they work from? To whom are they responsible to? Where is this coming from. Does the State operate in a vacuum and have no responsibility itself to be loving and honest? Is it a loving thing to allow them to languish in an amoral vacuum? Are you truly being loving? Are you an evidentialist, classical apologist, or presuppositionalist? I have so many questions running through my mind right now. From what foundation is this thought coming from?"

Martin,

The decologue mentions sins, not necessarily crimes and punishment, even in the Israeli theocracy. For example, not all lying was punishable by law. But beyond that, since the Bible is clear, both in the theocracy and through natural law (Rom 1), that idolatry is a sin, and punishable in Israel, how do you in your conception of government allow unbelief to exist without punishment? And if you allow it, how do you distinguish between allowing that sin but not others?

Thanks,

Todd
 
"The WLC is very explicit concerning the Decalogue. Crimes are very defined...So what if a Nation's government does start to enforce a morality? Whose morality should they work from? To whom are they responsible to? Where is this coming from. Does the State operate in a vacuum and have no responsibility itself to be loving and honest? Is it a loving thing to allow them to languish in an amoral vacuum? Are you truly being loving? Are you an evidentialist, classical apologist, or presuppositionalist? I have so many questions running through my mind right now. From what foundation is this thought coming from?"

Martin,

The decologue mentions sins, not necessarily crimes and punishment, even in the Israeli theocracy. For example, not all lying was punishable by law. But beyond that, since the Bible is clear, both in the theocracy and through natural law (Rom 1), that idolatry is a sin, and punishable in Israel, how do you in your conception of government allow unbelief to exist without punishment? And if you allow it, how do you distinguish between allowing that sin but not others?

Thanks,

Todd

Great question. Thanks Todd. As I said before. I am not having a problem with 2K. Only radical Two Kingdom theology. I asked in a prior post for others to examine a podcast and listen to just a few moments. http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/qs-radical-two-kingdom-ers-68417/index3.html#post879847 I have listened to the whole thing a few times through. I honestly believe that many are trying to bring the limits of the State into the Church. And this is what I am having the biggest problem with. They are wanting to limit and redefine the role of Law in the Church (ie defining the gospel the way they are and the great commission) and its authority over believers. I don't know if they are realizing it but they are making us libertarians in spirit taking the authority of God's law away in the Christian and the Church. And I am still trying to work this out. I would like to know one thing. If the Decalogue is Natural Law and the Government and Church are suppose to operate on the basis of that law as general equity, then what is the will of the Lord? I am more concerned about this on the level of the Church. First the Church must be cleaned up before the world can even have any hope. This libertairan spirit has been leading confessional Churches into anti confessionalism for a very very very long time now. Do we need examples?
 
Martin,

On the level of the church, I think if you attended mine, or Horton's or DVD's church, you would not find any difference in what is acceptable and not, any difference in church discipline, what the gospel is, the neccessity of repentance, etc...I think that was Lane's original point that started all this.
 
I have thought about the question of idolatry. I do not believe in a forced religion. And I believe the New Testament does answer this even in light of general equity.

(2Pe 3:9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

(2Pe 3:15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

This is an area that no one can openly know. The Secret things belong to the Lord but those things that are revealed belong unto us and our children that we may do all the words of this law. Deuteronomy 29:29 But for a Nation to advocate and promote a Libertene spirit as our Nation is doing is beyond recognition from the scriptures and Romans 13 in my estimation. As the scripture says..... Pro 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

And as you said.... The decalogue discusses sin. It is a reproach to any people. So would it not be better if our Nation at least advocated the Crown Rights of Christ as being Lord of lords and King of kings?
 
Martin,

On the level of the church, I think if you attended mine, or Horton's or DVD's church, you would not find any difference in what is acceptable and not, any difference in church discipline, what the gospel is, the neccessity of repentance, etc...I think that was Lane's original point that started all this.

You obviously haven't seen past discussions we have had concerning law and Gospel. We definitely disagree on some major issues and definitions. Lane and I have discussed this a bit. I think I will let DVD speak for himself. When the definitions start to change and the Gospel redefined to exclude sanctification and gospel obedience or gospel living then there are some concerns that need to be addressed in my estimation. And that has been done. It only starts with a chipping away at the stone to get to where the PCUSA is today.
 
BTW, did you listen to the podcasts by Mark Dever and the Office hours? Concerning the Office hours episode I truly see some major differences between their understanding of Church authority and what is biblical. They are moving the bar and taking away the authority of the church. It is radical in my estimation. It is gives a license for others to tell the Church that they have no business in their affairs. And that is just not so. Especially concerning the issues they name from about the 6 to 8 minute mark.

Please refer back up to post 99.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/qs-radical-two-kingdom-ers-68417/index3.html#post879847
 
"You obviously haven't seen past discussions we have had concerning law and Gospel. We definitely disagree on some major issues and definitions. Lane and I have discussed this a bit. I think I will let DVD speak for himself. When the definitions start to change and the Gospel redefined to exclude sanctification and gospel obedience or gospel living then there are some concerns that need to be addressed in my estimation. And that has been done. It only starts with a chipping away at the stone to get to where the PCUSA is today."

I have seen these debates for years, maybe not on this blog. But if you don't mind - what do you mean by a gospel that excludes sanctification?
 
Paul doesn't have much trust at all for justice on the civil realm there...That doesn't mean they aren't image bearers. That doesn't mean they are without worthwhile qualities. But if they don't ultimately answer to the Heavenly Kingdom, who do they serve? Should they be held to our standard here on earth?

...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.

I just said that is the kingdom of the wolves. Why would I expect wolves to do anything but consume a sheep?

You do realize you just put your position at odds with itself. You say in one breath it is "instituted by God" and “worthwhile” and a “blessing” etc. Then it is the “wolves.”

You want to make a dichotomy between the church and the civil sphere that says that “they” (the state) is evil, the world, and never seeks justice and "we" (the church, apparently not allowed to have any of our membership serving in the state since “they” are wolves) just sit by and be the church. Please explain this novel position. This isn't even held by the R2K. I think you've taken it to up to R2K²
 
Last edited:
Paul doesn't have much trust at all for justice on the civil realm there...That doesn't mean they aren't image bearers. That doesn't mean they are without worthwhile qualities. But if they don't ultimately answer to the Heavenly Kingdom, who do they serve? Should they be held to our standard here on earth?

...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.

I just said that is the kingdom of the wolves. Why would I expect wolves to do anything but consume a sheep?

You do realize you just put your position at odds with itself. You say in one breath it is "instituted by God" and “worthwhile” and a “blessing” etc. Then it is the “wolves.”

You want to make a dichotomy between the church and the civil sphere that says that “they” (the state) is evil, the world, and never seeks justice and "we" (the church, apparently not allowed to have any of our membership serving in the state since “they” are wolves) just sit by and be the church. Please explain this novel position. This isn't even held by the R2K. I think you've taken it to up to R2K²

Not at odds when you remember how bad the world was PRE-Flood.
Point #1: Paul doesn't have trust for the civil kingdom to uphold the law and justice to the standard of the Church (completely reasonable). I used the passage of scripture where he talks about the mistake of brothers settling a dispute in the civil realm.

Point #2: All you need to do is go to scripture immediately pre-flood where it states, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." - Without the Noahaic covenant things were so bad the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth. That's pretty bad. Not sure how calling the Noahaic covenant a blessing is contradictory. We can't even comprehend how bad it was pre-flood, and thankfully so.

Point #3: If I remember right you were using an example of religious persecution. We were specifically alluding to martyrdom/trials of Paul if I remember right. My point there was, if the wolves have surrounded me at that point in time. The wolves have surrounded me. No need to make an appeal to them based on the Natural Law. Time to follow Steven's example of how to die well as a Martyr [If the Holy Spirit blesses me with the strength in such a situation]. That's just a, "To Live is Christ, and to die is gain" scenario.
 
Paul doesn't have much trust at all for justice on the civil realm there...That doesn't mean they aren't image bearers. That doesn't mean they are without worthwhile qualities. But if they don't ultimately answer to the Heavenly Kingdom, who do they serve? Should they be held to our standard here on earth?

...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.

I just said that is the kingdom of the wolves. Why would I expect wolves to do anything but consume a sheep?

You do realize you just put your position at odds with itself. You say in one breath it is "instituted by God" and “worthwhile” and a “blessing” etc. Then it is the “wolves.”

You want to make a dichotomy between the church and the civil sphere that says that “they” (the state) is evil, the world, and never seeks justice and "we" (the church, apparently not allowed to have any of our membership serving in the state since “they” are wolves) just sit by and be the church. Please explain this novel position. This isn't even held by the R2K. I think you've taken it to up to R2K²

Not at odds when you remember how bad the world was PRE-Flood.
Point #1: Paul doesn't have trust for the civil kingdom to uphold the law and justice to the standard of the Church (completely reasonable). I used the passage of scripture where he talks about the mistake of brothers settling a dispute in the civil realm.

Point #2: All you need to do is go to scripture immediately pre-flood where it states, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." - Without the Noahaic covenant things were so bad the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth. That's pretty bad. Not sure how calling the Noahaic covenant a blessing is contradictory. We can't even comprehend how bad it was pre-flood, and thankfully so.

Point #3: If I remember right you were using an example of religious persecution. We were specifically alluding to martyrdom/trials of Paul if I remember right. My point there was, if the wolves have surrounded me at that point in time. The wolves have surrounded me. No need to make an appeal to them based on the Natural Law. Time to follow Steven's example of how to die well as a Martyr [If the Holy Spirit blesses me with the strength in such a situation]. That's just a, "To Live is Christ, and to die is gain" scenario.

You are speaking completely past the points I made. The civil sphere cannot both be of God and of Satan at the same time and I'm trying to get you to interface with that. From all I can tell you are making a case that even the R2K doesn't- now, I am willing to grant that the movement isn't monolithic and that you are speaking your own voice here, but you are creating a new dichotomy that I've never seen anyone even try to make a case for. Think about what you're saying. Likewise, I asked you to address how Paul appealed to civil authority when he was put on trial and gave you reference to Acts 24, 25, and 26.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top