-

Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by Joshua, Jun 23, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mvdm

    mvdm Puritan Board Junior

    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: Jul 5, 2011
  2. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member


    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.

    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.
     
  3. KevinInReno

    KevinInReno Puritan Board Freshman

    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 ----------

    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.
     
  4. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    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.




     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2011
  5. KevinInReno

    KevinInReno Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
     
  6. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    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.

     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2011
  7. Tbordow

    Tbordow Puritan Board Freshman

    "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.
     
  8. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    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
     
  9. mvdm

    mvdm Puritan Board Junior

    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.
     
  10. Tbordow

    Tbordow Puritan Board Freshman

    Mark,

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

    KevinInReno Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
     
  12. Tbordow

    Tbordow Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
     
  13. mvdm

    mvdm Puritan Board Junior

    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.
     
  14. Tbordow

    Tbordow Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
     
  15. mvdm

    mvdm Puritan Board Junior

    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.
     
  16. Tbordow

    Tbordow Puritan Board Freshman

    Mark,

    Yes, I'm new to the Purtian Board and learning the ropes.
     
  17. ChristianTrader

    ChristianTrader Puritan Board Graduate

    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
     
  18. Tbordow

    Tbordow Puritan Board Freshman

    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...
     
  19. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    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.


    .

    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
     
  20. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    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

     
  21. Tbordow

    Tbordow Puritan Board Freshman

    "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
     
  22. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    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?
     
  23. Tbordow

    Tbordow Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
     
  24. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    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.

    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?
     
  25. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    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.
     
  26. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    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
     
  27. Tbordow

    Tbordow Puritan Board Freshman

    "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?
     
  28. AlexanderHenderson1647

    AlexanderHenderson1647 Puritan Board Freshman

    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: Jul 6, 2011
  29. KevinInReno

    KevinInReno Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
     
  30. AlexanderHenderson1647

    AlexanderHenderson1647 Puritan Board Freshman

    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: Jul 6, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page