Christian Citizenship Poll?

Which Christian Citizenship and Church's responsibility view do you embrace?

  • Klinean Two Kingdom View

    Votes: 15 25.0%
  • Non Klinean Two Kingdom View

    Votes: 12 20.0%
  • Kuyperian View

    Votes: 8 13.3%
  • Bahnsen Theonomic View

    Votes: 7 11.7%
  • Non Bahnsen theonomic View

    Votes: 3 5.0%
  • Other (Feel free to explain)

    Votes: 15 25.0%

  • Total voters
    60
Status
Not open for further replies.
Based on the descriptions given, I have to say that I am a Kuyperian--to an extent. I tend to take Augustine's view of Christianity as transforming culture, but not necessarily political structures.
 
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.

Keon,

I am not sure you understand the 2 Kingdom view, nowhere does it state that that rulers aren't ruling in the fear of God that is what Natural Law is all about. What you do with the Civil Magistrates who are ungodly in personal living, not in a relationship with Christ and do not even attend Church but rule properly and in accordance with the Moral Law due to their conscience? It's called the Natural Law of God ruling through his appointed Government. There is plenty of room with the 2 Kingdom view as it truly exhibits Christ's intentions in the New Testament with regard to His Kingdom.

I am growing weary of Christians and Churches seeking to transform culture through the ballot box. Let's transform culture with the Gospel, Word and Sacrament.

I'm not sure what your "enjoyment" of abortion rights and homosexual marriage has to do with all of this as I oppose both as a Christian Libertarian. I speak in that regard whenever given the opportunity.

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:06:01 EST-----

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.

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.

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).

:amen:
 
I am not sure you understand the 2 Kingdom view, nowhere does it state that that rulers aren't ruling in the fear of God that is what Natural Law is all about.
Does natural law, in your view, require all men to submit to the first table of the Ten Commandments?
 
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).
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.

Casey,

I have provided appropriate clarification. Enough for 34 people to vote so far with confidence on what they embrace. For some who have not voted or need even further clarification it is my hope that it will spurn in them the desire to find out what they do embrace. I've been a Christian for 34 years, a Calvinist for 20, and a Reformed Presbyterian for 12 and at the ripe old age of 39 I've discovered Covenant and Two Kingdom Theology as that which most accurately represents what I embrace as my role in both the Civil and Spiritual Kingdom.

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:21:01 EST-----

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).
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.
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.

Right but not in the way the Theonomists desires otherwise we would be stoning Sabbath breakers.

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:23:46 EST-----

I am not sure you understand the 2 Kingdom view, nowhere does it state that that rulers aren't ruling in the fear of God that is what Natural Law is all about.
Does natural law, in your view, require all men to submit to the first table of the Ten Commandments?

Does yours require that we stone Sabbath breakers? You can't have it both ways Casey. If you are going to enforce the first table of the Law upon the general public you better be prepared to apply the appropriate penalty and if you aren't then you may need to go back to the drawing board.
 
Casey,

I have provided appropriate clarification. Enough for 34 people to vote so far with confidence on what they embrace. For some who have not voted or need even further clarification it is my hope that it will spurn in them the desire to find out what they do embrace. I've been a Christian for 34 years, a Calvinist for 20, and a Reformed Presbyterian for 12 and at the ripe old age of 39 I've discovered Covenant and Two Kingdom Theology as that which most accurately represents what I embrace as my role in both the Civil and Spiritual Kingdom.
Every view listed above would claim to have "proper boundaries" for the church and the state. And probably every view listed above would claim to have Calvin and the Confession on its side. All I'm saying is that your description of the "Non Klinean Two Kingdom View" could describe any of the above views! How about adding to the description that "additionally, the Bible teaches this view" . . . :lol:
Does yours require that we stone Sabbath breakers? You can't have it both ways Casey. If you are going to enforce the first table of the Law upon the general public you better be prepared to apply the appropriate penalty and if you aren't then you may need to go back to the drawing board.
Where did I say anything about enforcing it? That wasn't my question. All I asked was whether or not (in your view) natural law includes the first four of the Ten Commandments?
 
Does natural law, in your view, require all men to submit to the first table of the Ten Commandments?

Does yours require that we stone Sabbath breakers? You can't have it both ways Casey. If you are going to enforce the first table of the Law upon the general public you better be prepared to apply the appropriate penalty and if you aren't then you may need to go back to the drawing board.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you could answer this question Wayne? I was interested to hear what you would say.

Cheers,
 
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.

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)?

Mark,

You are on Fire! :flamingscot: And you are making too much sense! Although plenty of folks embrace the Biblical view of our and the Church's responsibility in the the Civil and Spiritual realm most allow me to become the PB football whenever the discussion arises. :smug:
 
Keon,

I am not sure you understand the 2 Kingdom view, nowhere does it state that that rulers aren't ruling in the fear of God that is what Natural Law is all about.

So, the fear of God means to obey Natural Law? Is this what David had in mind in the passage quoted? Is this what Solomon had in mind in Proverbs? Do you really expect us to buy that?

Cheers,
 
Does natural law, in your view, require all men to submit to the first table of the Ten Commandments?

Does yours require that we stone Sabbath breakers? You can't have it both ways Casey. If you are going to enforce the first table of the Law upon the general public you better be prepared to apply the appropriate penalty and if you aren't then you may need to go back to the drawing board.

Perhaps you could answer this question Wayne? I was interested to hear what you would say.

Cheers,[/QUOTE]

Most certainly Adam, the answer to the question in the Civil sphere would be "NO" as I believe it is the Church's responsibility to enforce the first table as it speaks to Man's relationship to God but the second table speaks more to man's relationship with one another which would fall under the sphere of the Civil Magistrate.
 
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?
Maybe I'm not understanding something -- which view above posits the physical action you reference here? :scratch:
 
Keon,

I am not sure you understand the 2 Kingdom view, nowhere does it state that that rulers aren't ruling in the fear of God that is what Natural Law is all about.

So, the fear of God means to obey Natural Law? Is this what David had in mind in the passage quoted? Is this what Solomon had in mind in Proverbs? Do you really expect us to buy that?

Cheers,

Do you expect me to buy the fact that Christ's coming had no effect? Because that is what your saying. Let's place ourselves under the Burden of the Law again, that's what Christ intended, yeah but no thanks! :worms:
 
Most certainly Adam, the answer to the question in the Civil sphere would be "NO" as I believe it is the Church's responsibility to enforce the first table as it speaks to Man's relationship to God but the second table speaks more to man's relationship with one another which would fall under the sphere of the Civil Magistrate.
The question has to do with natural law as such, without reference to any sphere (presumably you mean "kingdom"). So, do you believe natural law does not include the first four commandments?
 
I don't know what I am. And frankly, I'm OK with that.
(that disclosure might even categorize me above! I don't know)

I can say I have been all over that map.

I've been a clueless government agnostic.
I've been totally positive on Bahnsen, and then negative.
I've been totally convinced on a (original) Westministerian theocratic judgment, now unconvinced.
Now, am I a "Secular-atheist"?!? (hahahaha!)

I pretty much question MGK as a good guide to any theological reflection.
I think the WHI guys do a fair job presenting a case for some form of 2K;
they have to work at being balanced, because of the triple-perspective of the participants.

But by now, I've jumped out of as many beds I've jumped in, so I'm not anxious to be pigeonholed.


This much I'm sure of today:
the Beast of Daniel and Revelation is the apotheosis of the State.
And so, I am an Enemy of that State.
Sworn, and Amen.
Maranatha.
 
I pretty much question MGK as a good guide to any theological reflection

Because of his Framework interpretation of Creation I would gather? Am I wrong?
 
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?
Maybe I'm not understanding something -- which view above posits the physical action you reference here? :scratch:

Sorry if I was not clear, the OP asked about the christian/church's responsibility to society. My point was that the judgment of Herod, Rome or Jerusalem had nothing to do with any actions taken by the christians of those days. God had never given them responsibility to "bring about" change of this sort.
 
Wayne,
Only in part for his FH views; also for the latent anti-nomianism in his formulations (though he would probably not have thought that way). For now, I'm willing to allow that L.Irons and even some Baptists may have taken MGK's ideas to conclusions I'm not sure are so INconsistent with his beginnings.

Personally, I do not like what I see in MGK as an over-emphasis on the Mosaic covenant viewed principally through the lens of the CoW. Additionally, his "intrusion ethic" raises way more problems (in my opinion) than those it may seem to address.

I think that any estimate of God's promises to Abraham (and later to Israel) that seems to imply that formalism could even theoretically have sufficed to fulfill the land-covenant (a reading of Kline which makes him sympathetic to certain Baptists), makes OT religion something other than a heart-religion, i.e. other than a species of the CoG at the basic level.

MGK wasn't MY professor, so I have no other access to him, beside his publications. I think he was probably a force more for good than ill, during his many years of teaching. I think he really did love the Reformed faith.

But, I do think there was a heavy layer of his own peculiar vision that blanketed his work. And peculiarities tend to compartmentalize, rather than generalize one's usefulness.

Calvin is someone even those with MAJOR disagreements with him can find so much of him on which they resonate. Hence, his monumental stature and influence. His bust belongs on the shelf next to Augustin, and a handful of others.

G.Vos may turn out to be one of those "second-tier" figures, simply for his capturing BT for a useful discipline for conservatives; but probably not for his inversion principle (eschatology before everything). Just my opinion.

CVT will likely be a "third-tier" figure, remembered alongside other Reformed stalwarts like Warfield and Bavink (provided his "consistent-apologetic" remains accessible and apprehensible in the common language).

In my (generally worthless) opinion, I don't think MGK's sweeping vision will capture the current of Reformed covenant-theology for the future. I think he will be one influence, but only future historians will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
 
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?

Kathleen,

Here are some posts provided by Scott Clark that you may find helpful as well as a link to some podcasts on a Blog that started and seems to have gone defunct called "Two Kingdoms" which I found helpful.
 
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.

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)?

Mark,

You are on Fire! :flamingscot: And you are making too much sense! Although plenty of folks embrace the Biblical view of our and the Church's responsibility in the the Civil and Spiritual realm most allow me to become the PB football whenever the discussion arises. :smug:
actually he is not on fire. Daniel with Judah was in captivity for 70 years for their wickedness. And Babylon at the end of the 70 years was judged by Cyrus for her wickedness, idolatry and injustice.

The same goes for Joseph and the Egyptians. These are elementary learning from the Bible. The fact that Mark totally missed it shows that he needs to do some more learning in this area. But then again I am not surprised at Mark's position since I too was once of that position.
 
Does yours require that we stone Sabbath breakers? You can't have it both ways Casey. If you are going to enforce the first table of the Law upon the general public you better be prepared to apply the appropriate penalty and if you aren't then you may need to go back to the drawing board.

Why do I need to go back to the drawing board if I believe that the magistrate is concerned with both tables of the Decalogue, but not the penal sanctions of the Jewish polity? Can you elaborate a bit on this charge for me? You've just sent a lot of people back to the drawing board.
 
Last edited:
Most certainly Adam, the answer to the question in the Civil sphere would be "NO" as I believe it is the Church's responsibility to enforce the first table as it speaks to Man's relationship to God but the second table speaks more to man's relationship with one another which would fall under the sphere of the Civil Magistrate.

Wayne,

Thanks for the response! So, then, in your understanding, the Law Natural only includes the last six commandments. Can you explain where in Scripture you derive that conclusion from? Also, can you explain how you think that position agrees or disagrees with the Confession, as it seems apparent that the "Law Natural" in our Confession seems to be the equivalent of the Law given to Adam, the Law delivered on Sinai (for the substance of it), and is the 10 Commandments, not just the final six.

Cheers,

-----Added 7/15/2009 at 11:10:51 EST-----

Do you expect me to buy the fact that Christ's coming had no effect? Because that is what your saying. Let's place ourselves under the Burden of the Law again, that's what Christ intended, yeah but no thanks! :worms:

Wayne,

If this is supposed to be a rational discussion, please refrain from such irrational assertions. I did not say that Christ's coming had no effect.

I simply asked whether you really think it a credible assertion that can be supported biblically that the phrase "ruling in the fear of God" has to do with natural law (or, to use your stipulated definition, the last 6 commandments). A cursory reading of David's Psalms (the "sweet Psalmist of Israel") would convince one of the ludicracy (at least on the face) of such an assertion. I could be convinced of the illudicracy by some sound exegesis.

If you think that the judicial laws are a burden, you are thinking like a God-hater. As a Christian man, you above all people on the earth should realize that the Law of God is a means of freedom, not of bondage. It is God's perfect law of liberty. Did the Jews turn the good Law of God into a form of bondage? Yes. Did that nullify the fact that the Law is good if a man use it lawfully? No.

If you care to consult Paul, he quotes the judicial laws to prove the right use of the law (for civil sanction rather than for justification in God's court).

Furthermore, you may need to clarify your categories. Simply because someone holds that the mosaic sanctions against certain civil crimes are the only just sanctions does not mean that he believes that people can be justified by keeping the law. The same Moses that delivered those righteous sanctions also preached the gospel to the Hebrew people. At best, you are reasoning as an Anabaptist.

Cheers,
 
Daniel with Judah was in captivity for 70 years for their wickedness. And Babylon at the end of the 70 years was judged by Cyrus for her wickedness, idolatry and injustice.

The same goes for Joseph and the Egyptians. These are elementary learning from the Bible. The fact that Mark totally missed it shows that he needs to do some more learning in this area. But then again I am not surprised at Mark's position since I too was once of that position.

I wish you would specify what exactly I have missed, because we seem to be talking past each other.

The OP asked what is the christian's responsibility in society. I see nothing in the bible to indicate that Daniel saw it has his responsibility to reform or change the nation of Babylon. When he was given the opporunity he spoke of his faith and rebuked sin, but he did not take it has his duty to change that nation. The reason why Judah was in babylon, or what happend to babylon in the end doesn't seem relevant to the question of what was Daniel's duty, in the eyes of God, to that society.

Similarly with Joseph. He made no attempt at all to try to reform pagan Egypt.

Again, what are the verses where God tells his people they have a responsibility to enforce his kingship in pagan societies?
 
Again, what are the verses where God tells his people they have a responsibility to enforce his kingship in pagan societies?

Mark,

Where are verses that support women participating in communion? Where are verses saying that abortion is explicitly wrong? What about homosexual marriage?

You very well know that we draw out conclusions from the text without having explicit commands.

Furthermore, you need to get rid of this notion of Christians enforcing God's law in (here comes the keyword) pagan societies. We need the majority of a people in the nation to be Christians, and then subject everyone, including the minority of pagans, to God's law. I have never read in Rushdoony, North, or Bahnsen of Theonomists taking a top down approach. It must be from the bottom up if we are to have God's law applied.

Why is it that Christians today are so complacent living under pagan law? There is all kinds of garbage we put up with. As Adam said earlier, God's law produces freedom. You'd think Christians would want that. California, and more specifically San Francisco, are great examples of how screwed up pagan law can become.
 
Last edited:
I would consider it to be the duty of the government not to enforce the first table of the law for the reason that it violates the Church's God-given sovereignty. Governments are instituted to enforce justice between men (Romans 13). The Government has no more place enforcing church attendance than the Church does in handing out speeding tickets or executing murderers.

I personally find it weird that we would even think of applying a medieval "two swords" theory in reverse like this.
 
The Government has no more place enforcing church attendance than the Church does in handing out speeding tickets or executing murderers.

The establishment of the Christian faith by the magistrate in no way necessarily leads to such actions. The prohibition of public worship of other gods is not the imposition of the Christian faith on any.
 
I would consider it to be the duty of the government not to enforce the first table of the law for the reason that it violates the Church's God-given sovereignty. Governments are instituted to enforce justice between men (Romans 13). The Government has no more place enforcing church attendance than the Church does in handing out speeding tickets or executing murderers.

I personally find it weird that we would even think of applying a medieval "two swords" theory in reverse like this.

Philip,

So, did God violate the church's God-given sovereignty in the Old Testament?

Governments are instituted to bring the wrath of God down upon those who do evil. If you think it is more evil to commit adultery or to murder than to worship idols, you are severely mistaken. The Apostles never questioned or rebuffed the propriety of being on trial for their theological postions: they objected that there positions were orthodox. Paul went so far as to say that he would be willing to forfeit his life if he was truly a heretic. You have to read your view into Romans 13. God already describes what "evil" is, as used in Romans 13, in the rest of Scripture. And, mind you, it is far more evil to transgress on God's rights than on men's.

The "sovereignty" of the church, properly understood, consists in its preaching of the gospel, worship, sacraments, prayer, theological disputation, building up of believers, and excommunication. Assertion of this area of government does not negate other areas of government (such as, say, the family, or the individual). In fact, it is the church's duty to teach the magistrate to root out idolatry, to punish blasphemers, to see that the sabbath is hallowed, and that their nation have no other god, but the LORD.

This is basic Reformed theology.

Cheers,
 
I am not sure you understand the 2 Kingdom view, nowhere does it state that that rulers aren't ruling in the fear of God that is what Natural Law is all about.
Does natural law, in your view, require all men to submit to the first table of the Ten Commandments?

I think it is clear that all men are to submit to the whole of the moral law. I think the result of disobedience is death. I think Christ died that death, and for those that believe, they are seen as justified and righteous. Those that don't, will pay with their own deaths.

I don't see what this has to do with government, though.

The wicked rulers will perish. Those who are wicked under their rule will perish.
The wicked ruler in a theonomic nation will perish. Those who are wicked under their rule will perish. Those who believe, under any ruler of any type, will live.

What I am made most uncomfortable by with the idea of electing Christ as King, or putting him into our Constitution, etc, is the premise behind that that signifies, in my mind, His need for our putting him there. He IS King. No matter what any nation or person says or does. He needs us not to prove that Kingship. He is the ruler of this country and this world.

Now as for the pragmatic implications of putting Christ in our constitution, or calling him King of America (or whatever country), I think would work against Christianity. I think people have enough trouble accepting that they are not Christians simply because they live in a country that has "In God We Trust," on its dollar bills. I think the Kingdom thrives where the lines are actually as clear as can be. Putting Christ's name on our constitution, naming Him King of the universe, would not bring salvation to one person, and I think would or could actually prevent people from recognizing their need for true belief and true repentance. What are we to be concerned with? Will Christ not receive the glory due to him without our help or our recognition?

It is my opinion that the church should handle the matters that affect the spiritual lives of her members (marriage and divorce, sins against God and sins against brothers, etc.) and the gov't should handle the matters that disrupt an orderly nation and that prevent the church from thriving. I think belief in God and church attendance and holy living IS required of all men--I just don't think we need the government's help in enforcing that, just like I don't think we need the government's help in enforcing parental authority. Sure, I want the government to protect my right as a parent to make all rulings for my children, and protect my right to decide how they are schooled, what they may eat or drink, etc, but I don't want its help in making decisions or decrees.
As for the Law, I don't think the gov't could enforce matters of the heart and I believe that is what the Law is most concerned with.
I also don't think that we need any validation from the gov't, and I don't see anywhere in the Bible, Christian citizens of untheonomic nations working to turn the gov't toward Christ. Yes, we hope and pray that all individuals, including governors, come to know Christ--but not for our earthly benefits, but their own eternal ones.

Also, as for looking to theonomic Israel as an example, GOD himself established his rule there. He did not require the Israelites to come up with that idea or to invoke his presence. I truly believe that if He wanted to be a political ruler here, He would be.
 
I'm not sure how much or how little I agree with the options.

I believe that in a Christian state, the truth should be established, that is there should be a Confession which must be agreed to by Christian churches which are recognised and given succour by the state.

I believe that theonomy is wrong-headed, one reason being because the many death penalties that were added at the time of Moses, were typological of the fact that all sin deserves death and pointed to God's wrath against sin which had been unatoned for by sacrifice (e.g. Hebrews 2:1-4; 10:26-29).

This means that in looking for the general equity in Moses, the death penalty can't be imposed simply because it was suitable in the Old Covenant - which was an administration of death (II Cor. 2:7).

This leaves, reparation and restitution for property offences, reparation and restitution plus corporal punishment for some offences against the person, the death penalty for murder, fines, and prisons where necessary, run on Christian and commonsense lines, rather than pagan and counter-intuitive lines. The lex talionis which is inscribed in every man's heart, i.e. that the punishment should fit the crime, would always apply. Where there is a victim, their justice and reward should be put at the centre. There should be re-examination in the light of Scripture of the division/relationship between civil and criminal law systems.

There are ways of the state applying the first two of the 10C while not waging Holy War against the unbelievers - e.g. immigration control. The other eight should be enforced at a certain level by the state e.g.

3C There should be criminal laws and civil remedies against gross and public blasphemy.

4C There should be laws to restrict certain activities on the Lord's Day.

7C Certain acts of immorality e.g. adultery, homosexuality, should be illegal/have a remedy available in law for the innocent party.

10C There should be laws to restrict gambling.
 
I believe that theonomy is wrong-headed, one reason being because the many death penalties that were added at the time of Moses, were typological of the fact that all sin deserves death and pointed to God's wrath against sin which had been unatoned for by sacrifice (e.g. Hebrews 2:1-4; 10:26-29).

This means that in looking for the general equity in Moses, the death penalty can't be imposed simply because it was suitable in the Old Covenant - which was an administration of death (II Cor. 2:7).

Richard,

So, would you consider George Gillespie to be a theonomist? He said that whoever was punishable by death under Moses is punishable by death now, and whoever was not punishable by death under Moses is not now.

How do you avoid the charge of arbitrariness when simply asserting that the judicial sanctions were typical? If the Old Covenant was an "administration of death" in the sense that you have stated, why not, during the "administration of life" do away with all forms of capital punishment? In fact, why not do away with all punishment due to the "grace" vs. "death" paradigm you are superimposing on the magistrate?

It appears that you have bought into an anti-Confessional form of Biblical theology which seeks to evade the clear teaching of scripture by typology. Our confession states that the ceremonial laws were typical. Perhaps I misread, however, and it does state that the judicial laws were typical. If it doesn't, however, this sounds similar to an anabaptist argument Zwingli refuted in his Tricks of the Anabaptists.

Cheers,
 
I don't see what this has to do with government, though.
Because the WSC two kingdom view posits that the civil kingdom (realm) is to be governed by natural law. And if one admits that natural law includes the whole moral law, then it logically follows that the civil kingdom is to enforce the first table of the Ten Commandments. Wayne has attempted to bypass this conclusion, apparently, by saying that the content of natural law is limited to the second table only (thought I haven't seen any exegetical basis for this).
What I am made most uncomfortable by with the idea of electing Christ as King, or putting him into our Constitution, etc, is . . .
I'm not a theonomist and I haven't said anything about "putting him into our Constitution," so I don't understand why you've replied talking about this and other things throughout your post. :scratch: I'll assume you were talking to someone else. ;)
 
I don't see what this has to do with government, though.
Because the WSC two kingdom view posits that the civil kingdom (realm) is to be governed by natural law. And if one admits that natural law includes the whole moral law, then it logically follows that the civil kingdom is to enforce the first table of the Ten Commandments. Wayne has attempted to bypass this conclusion, apparently, by saying that the content of natural law is limited to the second table only (thought I haven't seen any exegetical basis for this).
What I am made most uncomfortable by with the idea of electing Christ as King, or putting him into our Constitution, etc, is . . .
I'm not a theonomist and I haven't said anything about "putting him into our Constitution," so I don't understand why you've replied talking about this and other things throughout your post. :scratch: I'll assume you were talking to someone else. ;)

I definitely was only talking to people who do want to put Christ's name into the constitution. I did not know if you were one of those people, but since you aren't, there's no argument for you in my post.
There's no easy way to say, "This part is in response to the quoted part, and this part is for anybody," so I see why you had the old head scratch! I usually think of most posts as being anybody's game, so don't take anything I say personally, unless it has your name on it;).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top