Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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).
Does natural law, in your view, require all men to submit to the first table of the Ten Commandments?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.
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.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).
I have the confessions handy and I cannot glean two kingdoms from any of them either. He definitely needs to be more clear.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.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).
There is a distinction between church and the civil magistrate but both are under the word of God.
Does natural law, in your view, require all men to submit to the first table of the Ten Commandments?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.
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" . . .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.
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 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.
Does natural law, in your view, require all men to submit to the first table of the Ten Commandments?
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)?
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.
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.
Maybe I'm not understanding something -- which view above posits the physical action you reference here?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?
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,
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?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 pretty much question MGK as a good guide to any theological reflection
Maybe I'm not understanding something -- which view above posits the physical action you reference here?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?
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?
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.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! 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Again, what are the verses where God tells his people they have a responsibility to enforce his kingship in pagan societies?
The Government has no more place enforcing church attendance than the Church does in handing out speeding tickets or executing murderers.
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.
Does natural law, in your view, require all men to submit to the first table of the Ten Commandments?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.
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).
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).I don't see what this has to do with government, though.
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. I'll assume you were talking to someone else.What I am made most uncomfortable by with the idea of electing Christ as King, or putting him into our Constitution, etc, is . . .
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).I don't see what this has to do with government, though.
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. I'll assume you were talking to someone else.What I am made most uncomfortable by with the idea of electing Christ as King, or putting him into our Constitution, etc, is . . .