Christian Citizenship Poll?

Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by ww, Jul 13, 2009.

  1. Klinean Two Kingdom View

    15 vote(s)
  2. Non Klinean Two Kingdom View

    12 vote(s)
  3. Kuyperian View

    8 vote(s)
  4. Bahnsen Theonomic View

    7 vote(s)
  5. Non Bahnsen theonomic View

    3 vote(s)
  6. Other (Feel free to explain)

    15 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ww

    ww Puritan Board Senior

    Which particular view of the Christian's responsibility as well as the Church's responsibility in Society, Politics, Culture do you adhere to? Feel free to explain the nuances of your differences if you adhere more or less to one of the particular view points above or a combination of view points.
  2. DonP

    DonP Puritan Board Junior

    I guess I am other because I am not fond of the choices you listed.

    What are the choices?

    I adhere to Rom 13

    other than that, if you are given the freedom to vote, picket, write, or run for office you have liberty to do or not do any of these.

    I think it could be seen as a responsibility to use that liberty to advance the kingdom. And if we knew for sure peace would advance it more than persecution we ought to vote that way. But most likely we don' t know and it would be for our own selfish desire for peace. But God does tell us to pursue peace with all men.

    If you live in a horrid govt like Paul did, submit to all laws that do not force you to sin, then refuse unto martyrdom.

    And proclaim the gospel as much as you can in all situations. This is not your home, you are an eternal citizen of heaven, only a stranger and pilgrim here. Don't be too attached.

    I see Christ is reigning now and He will continue through to the new heaven and earth.
    I tend to think it may be a pretty much new creation rather than a fixing up of this one form Peter's language but I am open on that.
    I am definitely non-Klinean on everything.
  3. Skyler

    Skyler Puritan Board Graduate

    That's what I've been trying to figure out for the past few months. :)

    Coming from a distinctly Anabaptist background, I've been trying to figure out exactly what they believe on the subject, and I'm not sure I've figured it out. It seems to me that, on the one hand, they teach that Christians shouldn't be involved in government, but on the other hand they have no problem with Christians being involved in businesses--two things which, in my opinion, are connected a little more than they seem to think.

    But on the other hand, I'm not sure about Klinean TK either, at least if that's what Gene Cook's been discussing in his new podcast. I don't know. I guess I'm still searching. :)
  4. ADKing

    ADKing Puritan Board Junior

    I hold to the historic Covenanter views of political dissent and the desireability of a covenanted church and nation. Thus, I voted other.
  5. KMK

    KMK Administrator Staff Member

    You might get more responses if you provide a short summary of each of the views.
  6. jpfrench81

    jpfrench81 Puritan Board Sophomore

    I agree, could you summarize each? I am not even sure what the difference are! Thanks.
  7. DonP

    DonP Puritan Board Junior

    Why don't we all just agree with Pastor King's view above and skip the other confusing concepts?

    Just kiddin of course, all free to exercise liberty of conscience.
  8. ww

    ww Puritan Board Senior

    Klinean Two Kingdom View (Generally line up with Kline's views on Covenant, Republication, Natural Law application for Civil Magistrates, and distinct separation of Church and State and an almost Libertarian approach to Politics)

    Non Klinean Two Kingdom View (Arrival at a Two Kingdom Approach based soley on your reading of Calvin, the Confessions, and more active approach to Politics with proper boundaries with little influence from Kline).

    Kuyperian View (Transforming Culture influenced by reading Abraham Kuyper where regardless of whether it is music, movies, politics, our Christian influence must transform it for the Glory of God).

    Bahnsen Theonomic View (Reconstructionist Theonomy influenced by reading the works of Greg Bahnsen including the Civil Magistrate enforcing both tables of the Law in Society with applicable penalties)

    Non Bahnsen theonomic View (Believe the Civil Magistrate should enforce both tables of the law but only in the general equity thereof with an open view of appropriate penalties and applications with little influence by Bahnsen, Rushdoony, to arrive at your conclusions).

    Other (Feel free to explain) "This speaks for itself, if none of the above apply or with distinction then choose other and explain your position."
  9. Prufrock

    Prufrock Arbitrary Moderation

    By the provided definitions, your "Non Klinean Two Kingdom View" and your "Non-Bahnsen theonomic view" are the same choice.
  10. ww

    ww Puritan Board Senior

    To clarify the Non Klinean 2k view would have more restricted boundaries in political endeavors whereas the Non Bahnsen theonomic view may be more actively involved in making sure Christian values were upheld in the Political arena and embraces it as one of his and the Church's primary responsibilities.
  11. ADKing

    ADKing Puritan Board Junior

    Unless I am right...In that case no one's conscience should feel liberty to disagree. Of course if I am wrong then no one should feel liberty to agree ;)
  12. ww

    ww Puritan Board Senior

    Wow! Klineans are in 2nd to "Other" on this poll. This is the PB isn't it?!? ;)
  13. Grillsy

    Grillsy Puritan Board Junior

    I think that you will find more with Libertarian leanings on PB than one would think.
  14. ww

    ww Puritan Board Senior

    You may be right Willie! :gpl:
  15. he beholds

    he beholds Puritan Board Doctor

    I like Kuyper and Principled Pluralism. Quoted below is the briefest definition I could find:
    As far as I can tell, this view does require the gov't to recognize the rights of each of these spheres and to protect those rights. For example, the gov't has to realize that the family is its own sphere and as such, its rights must prevail and be independent of decrees of the gov't, unless the family is encroaching on another sphere (or another family's rights).
    Examples of spheres with their own rights and responsibilities would be:

    In this view, these are seeds that were started in creation, to be separate from one another, but to work together.
    I personally do not believe that school is a separate sphere, but education is one that falls under family. I do think families can use schools with clear consciences, but they are the authority over it. But I see that even if school was a separate sphere, school would not have to deny the rights of family, since their rights are protected and the schools cannot encroach upon them. I guess Kuyper would disagree?
  16. Anton Bruckner

    Anton Bruckner Puritan Board Professor

    if the law of God doesn't stand, then we ought not to speak in the public square. A Christian can only live in accordance with the morality as laid down by the Bible hence by default a Christian can only vote according to the morality as laid down by the Bible. Its either righteousness is expanding from the individual, the family and the church into to political arena, or unrighteousness is expanding from the individual (unbelieving), the family and the church into the political arena. There are only 2 ways about it. As Van Til said, there is no neutrality.

    2 Sam 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

    Sorry there is no room for a 2 kingdom view. Either Theonomy or satanonomy. Either rulers must be just ruling in the fear of God, or unjust and not ruling in the fear of God.

    Let us enjoy abortion rights and homosexual marriages because it is obvious that these things come about because the rulers that put them into law were not just nor were they ruling in the fear of God.
  17. Prufrock

    Prufrock Arbitrary Moderation

    The bold statement is, of course, true; but this does not remove the two kingdoms. We still must distinguish between Christ's mediatorial kingdom, and the kingdom which he has by natural right as God. These are ruled and governed differently.
  18. Anton Bruckner

    Anton Bruckner Puritan Board Professor

    actually there is no difference. The stone cut without hands has crushed all kingdoms. Christ is ruling and must bring all things under Him.

    His mediatorial rule is only a compartment of His over all rule for those that He saved, but make no mistake, all come under His rule. Think about it as a circle. This circle is the whole world and the whole creation that is judged by the word of God and ruled by His Son. A quadrant of this circle is where the redeem resides. In this quadrant, God's peculiar favor is bestowed aka David towards Mephibosheth . But King David rules all with the word of God, and all will be judged by the word of God. Moab is His washpot and over Philistia He will cast his shoe.

    In the kingdom, unbelievers don't get an ounce of freedom. They are vessels prepared for wrath. Make no mistake, there is one kingdom, one gospel, one law, one king and one modus operandi. The rebels are punished and the believers are granted bliss.
  19. Grillsy

    Grillsy Puritan Board Junior


    So are you saying that we bring this about by voting for it? I am confused about your remarks in relation to the poll. You favor this form of government because, as you say, this is the way it is. Fair enough. But the way it is in its full fledged form is not yet hear. Then according to what you are we vote it in? Fight for it? Since you said we cannot vote contrary to the God's Word.
  20. satz

    satz Puritan Board Senior

    There is also a need to distinguish between what should be - i.e. rulers must be just - and what God wants his children to enforce or promote. Rulers will be accountable to God for their actions, but outside of OT Israel (which Acts tells us was the church in the wilderness) God has never tasked his children with a responsibility for directly promoting godliness in their nations. Even in the OT when the Israelites ended up as exiles or otherwise living in a pagan nation, their action was to live as they could in those nations. They never attempted to change those nations (although God in his providence did bring about some changes).
  21. he beholds

    he beholds Puritan Board Doctor

    I don't have any thanks left, but thanks!
  22. DonP

    DonP Puritan Board Junior

  23. ExGentibus

    ExGentibus Puritan Board Freshman

    This is quite an interesting poll. At the moment, I have not voted because I am a bit confused about the implications of both the "two kingdom" and the "non-Bahsen theonomy" views. Where would the combination of "The Crown Rights of Christ the King" + "My kingdom is not of this world" put me in this poll? :think:
  24. Anton Bruckner

    Anton Bruckner Puritan Board Professor

    its not our goal to bring it about, but it is our goal to live obediently to the word of God and to preach the whole counsel of God.

    The fact is, God judges nations, God judges churches, God judges families and God judges individuals. When the whole counsel of God is preached and practiced, nations, churches, families and individuals are changed and live obediently.

    -----Added 7/14/2009 at 08:09:44 EST-----

    1. you need to stop creating false dichotomies in the Bible thereby pitting the Old Testament against the New Testament.

    2. We have no king but Caesar vs We have no King but Christ was the battle of the first century Christians. So your comment of never attempting to change nations is ludicrous. When the whole counsel of God is preached nations and rulers are made accountable. Herod got killed, Rome got wiped off the map and Jerusalem in A.D 70 got destroyed.
    To say that a Christian can be a Christian and not change a nation is folly at best.

    3. The wicked are turned into hell and all nations that forget God. All nations that do not exist today were judged by God, and all nations that will not exist tomorrow will be because of God's judgment. We are Christians are the prophets a la the Jonah of our modern day. We are to preach the word making disciples of all nations,.
  25. Montanablue

    Montanablue Puritan Board Doctor

    I'm not sure I understand the Two Kingdom View very well. Does anyone have a link to a resource that gives a simple explanation?
  26. Casey

    Casey Puritan Board Junior

    Check the Westminster Standards' use of the word "kingdom." Never does the word refer to the civil magistrate in distinction from the church. Rather, the word always refers to God's kingdom vs. Satan's kingdom. The Standards observe a proper distinction between the church and the civil magistrate, but that's not the same as saying they teach a "two kingdom" view. If you define the non-Klinean two kingdom view as having "proper boundaries" then that's no different than any other view, for all these views claim to hold these "proper boundaries." I think you need to be more clear on the essential differences between them.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2009
  27. Anton Bruckner

    Anton Bruckner Puritan Board Professor

    I have the confessions handy and I cannot glean two kingdoms from any of them either. He definitely needs to be more clear.

    There is a distinction between church and the civil magistrate but both are under the word of God.
  28. Christusregnat

    Christusregnat Puritan Board Professor


    Christ's resurrection and victory over sin and death has made him the Head of His Church, as well as the King of kings and Lord of lords. It is in His function has Mediator that Christ functions as a King. Part of His kingly, mediatorial office is that "all authority has been given to me in heaven and upon the earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations" etc.

    Certainly, Messiah is the Prince and King of kings. Thus, He is not merely King by natural right (as Creator), but also by His office as Mediator, and Savior of the whole world.


    -----Added 7/14/2009 at 08:19:10 EST-----

    Crown rights describes the reality. My kingdom is not of this world describes the source and nature of Christ's power: it does not derive its authority from man, but from God Almighty. Also, it did not need to start an insurrection to save the world: it only needed His resurrection.

  29. satz

    satz Puritan Board Senior

    I don't see what the actions of the early church had to do with the fates of Herod, Rome or Jerusalem. Did those christians take any physical actions against those nations?
    God in his own time judged those leaders/nations for their sin, but he never asked his church to do anything about them.

    How did Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, Nehemiah in Persia attempt to change the pagan nations they were in? As far as I can see they simply tried to live godly lives within their nations.

    What are the verses where God tells christians to promote his kingship in the political realm (not verses simply declaring God's kingship)?
  30. DonP

    DonP Puritan Board Junior

    1. Right on, I think if I understand you.

    2. As long as you see this as from the preaching of the gospel and godly living and calling all including kings and rulers to repent and obey, and as a result they should seek to use Godly laws in their nations.

    But scripture does not tell us to go out seeking to get governors to change how they run the nation and implement OT civil laws, certainly not beyond the General Equity they display

    That is the natural side effect of their coming to know God. The church's commission is to preach the gospel so people are converted and enter the spiritual kingdom.
    Just as with Israel, though there was a temporal promise, this was not the primary focus and was possibly 100% typological, and to point them to Christ; but possibly there was some actual temporal blessing as part of the gracious act of spiritual awakening.

    To shift the balance as men like Rushdooney and Bahnsen messes the church up and detracts from the mission. Matt 28:19-20
    19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; NKJV

    We teach the disciples to obey all. And of course the moral law goes out as obligatory on all to obey. But not as a way of improving general society but as it was to Adam a way of showing inability in this life and a need for savior.
    Neither to the exclusion of the other but to put the cart before the horse is to diminish the need for a work of Christ to save a people for eternity.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page