-

[PuritanCovenanter]

"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?

Todd, Is the gospel just a message of our justification?

 

[Tbordow]

Martin,

No

 

[mvdm]

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.

Given that you, DVD, and Horton are R2k proponents, I would agree there likely is no difference among yourselves on views of church discipline, the law and the gospel. The question is whether R2k views comport with the Reformed confessions. It is that questioning which prompted Keister's vitriolic post on vitriol.

 

[KevinInReno]

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.

God prevents it from completely being ruled by the wickedness of Man's hearts. There was a time this was not the case. Remember pre-flood we know there were cities, etc - because Cain had a city. It's not that there was just this clandestine smattering of people. There was a period where the wickedness can't be understated, because a God who redeemed us also stated at the time blotting us out of existence entirely would have been on the table if not for Noah. It's a blessing we didn't live in this time, don't have to fear such a reality. I mean you could make a strong biblical argument that the pre-flood world is the lowest of the low in redemptive history. That's massively significant to comprehend when talking about Noahaic blessing.

So is your argument that there has been a nation, outside Israel - during the temple rite period, that has successfully answered to the Heavenly Kingdom throughout it's history? (and lets be honest Israel really has a great argument of not qualifying under that definition) Because your view seems to require such a state in that concept. I would emphatically say there is no such successful state that has linked the civil in answering only to the Heavenly Kingdom (but we do know it will happen eventually in Revelation). Ultimately all fell pray to the wolves in that sphere. All were like a drop in the bucket (Isaiah 40:15). Has God placed restrictions on Satan in certain times in redemption history? Yes. Job is one example and the Noahaic covenant is another. God has his guiding hand over all creation - however it's uniquely guided over the church, but there are also certain protections he upholds over the civil.

For the record David VanDrunen goes into great detail about this, far better then a simpleton like I can. The blessing of the Noahaic covenant is a central point in his Natural Law and Two Kingdoms books. This isn't just something I conjured up, now do I say it as well as he does? Nope (refer back to the simpleton point). But it is apart of the view.

 

[AlexanderHenderson1647]

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.

God prevents it from completely being ruled by the wickedness of Man's hearts. There was a time this was not the case. Remember pre-flood we know there were cities, etc - because Cain had a city. It's not that there was just this clandestine smattering of people. There was a period where the wickedness can't be understated, because a God who redeemed us also stated at the time blotting us out of existence entirely would have been on the table if not for Noah. It's a blessing we didn't live in this time, don't have to fear such a reality. I mean you could make a strong biblical argument that the pre-flood world is the lowest of the low in redemptive history. That's massively significant to comprehend when talking about Noahaic blessing.

So is your argument that there has been a nation, outside Israel - during the temple rite period, that has successfully answered to the Heavenly Kingdom throughout it's history? (and lets be honest Israel really has a great argument of not qualifying under that definition) Because your view seems to require such a state in that concept. I would emphatically say there is no such successful state that has linked the civil in answering only to the Heavenly Kingdom (but we do know it will happen eventually in Revelation). Ultimately all fell pray to the wolves in that sphere. All were like a drop in the bucket (Isaiah 40:15). Has God placed restrictions on Satan in certain times in redemption history? Yes. Job is one example and the Noahaic covenant is another. God has his guiding hand over all creation - however it's uniquely guided over the church, but there are also certain protections he upholds over the civil.

For the record David VanDrunen goes into great detail about this, far better then a simpleton like I can. The blessing of the Noahaic covenant is a central point in his Natural Law and Two Kingdoms books. This isn't just something I conjured up, now do I say it as well as he does? Nope (refer back to the simpleton point). But it is apart of the view.

I don't think I'm getting through. My questions to you remain untouched as yet. But, regarding my view, no I am not making such an argument. My view doesn't lose its weight in light of your objections as the view is based on justice which is mandated by God and the moral law which was in force from the foundation of creation and remains in force today. Anyway, I don't want to look like I'm just jousting with you. I am often reluctant to talk about weighty matters over a discussion board because it can often look like uncharitable tit for tat. I promise I am not attempting that and have all respect for you- just for the record.

 

[Fly Caster]

This has been an interesting thread.

As much as I appreciate the concern to maintain saltiness by retaining a pure and distinct form of worship in the church-- by psalm singing and doctrinal preaching-- I still am far from compelled to embrace a mandate to 'Go and do as thou wilt' in the civil sphere. I'm just a simple soul, but in reading my Bible I find many accounts of God's people who get the outward forms of religion right, but neglect the weightier matters (like justice), and they are never good. They always are described as something like salt which has lost its savor.

Surely we all can agree that civil magistrates are servants of God, and as such, will each someday give an account to God for how they have ruled and judged. From that premise alone, how one can deny the obligation of one bound to declare the "whole counsel of God" to speak with authority regarding matters of truth and justice is beyond my ability to comprehend. The magistrate who permits the murder of unborn children will give account for that evil. I tremble with fear at the suggestion that men called and ordained to "Cry aloud" a warning are to be muzzled to silence.

 

[discipulo]

Great thread guys, I was truly hoping this kind of dialogue on 2Ks would be possible here on the PB.

Randy my 2 cents on your concerns on Law and Gospel / Law vs Gospel - I just read the new ST Christian faith chapter on Santification, I find no antinomianism in Horton,
he states cleraly the use of the Law as the moral rule that the regenerate christian will love and will yearn to obbey, the Law reveals what pleases God and the true christian
will want to please God. Will he suceed, of course never perfectly. Will the christian need to grow in obedience to God's Law, absolutely - progressive santification is very clearly explained by Horton.

 

[MICWARFIELD]

PuritanCovenanter -

Thanks for posting the link to the discussion between Dever and DVD. Dever really did press DVD into an obviously uncomfortable place toward the end. DVD was literally stumbling over his words, trying to respond to some very relevant questions.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Great thread guys, I was truly hoping this kind of dialogue on 2Ks would be possible here on the PB.

Randy my 2 cents on your concerns on Law and Gospel / Law vs Gospel - I just read the new ST Christian faith chapter on Santification, I find no antinomianism in Horton,
he states cleraly the use of the Law as the moral rule that the regenerate christian will love and will yearn to obbey, the Law reveals what pleases God and the true christian
will want to please God. Will he suceed, of course never perfectly. Will the christian need to grow in obedience to God's Law, absolutely - progressive santification is very clearly explained by Horton.

I understand that brother. But he separates it from the gospel only making it a result of the gospel. The gospel is something outside of us. I will have to work on this later. I am sorry. That is why I mentioned chipping away at the stone in an above post. He does not deny the third use of the law. And for that I am grateful but if you mention anything like gospel obedience or gospel law you have crossed the line. It is no longer gospel. It is dangerous in their thinking. I believe that the gospel message very much includes our sanctification which is Christ in us the hope of glory as well as also including our future glorification. I messaged with a person who is a WSCAL person and they affirmed to me that sanctification is not a part of the gospel in their estimation. It muddies up the gospel message. It confuses it.

 

[Peairtach]

Cesar

Great thread guys, I was truly hoping this kind of dialogue on 2Ks would be possible here on the PB.

Randy my 2 cents on your concerns on Law and Gospel / Law vs Gospel - I just read the new ST Christian faith chapter on Santification, I find no antinomianism in Horton,
he states cleraly the use of the Law as the moral rule that the regenerate christian will love and will yearn to obbey, the Law reveals what pleases God and the true christian
will want to please God. Will he suceed, of course never perfectly. Will the christian need to grow in obedience to God's Law, absolutely - progressive santification is very clearly explained by Horton.

But the R2K debate is (more) about what Luther calls the First Use of the Law

that "thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars]"

and that Calvin calls the Second Use of the Law

2.It acts "by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice."

I know that this resraining function of the law isn't limited to the Christian transformation of the laws of the land, but the transformation of the laws of the land to reflect Christian ethics is an important subset of the Usus Civilibus.

E.g. there is some degree of restraint in the family in the upbringing and discipline of children, including sometimes corporal punishment. There is some degree of restraint in the church through the threat of church sanctions and socialisation into Christian norms. There is some degree of restraint in Christian society through what isexpected and societal disapproval, etc, etc.