Christianity & Politics 2011 Lectures [audio]

Status
Not open for further replies.

jason d

Puritan Board Freshman
shapeimage_1.png


Christ REFORMED CHURCH PRESENTS: 2011 CHRISTIANITY & POLITICS

Separation of church and state?
Whatever you may think of the contemporary application of our first amendment freedom of religion, Christianity and politics are ever confused in our national consciousness. Preachers seek influence in the political sphere; politicians manipulate and calculate the faithful in their constituencies.

What are the faithful to do? How should we understand our callings as citizens, both on earth below and in heaven above?

Christianity & Politics presents a range of speakers approaching this topic from a range of perspectives while discussing topics as diverse as the mission of the church, the place of evangelicals in American political culture, natural law, and the spirituality of the church. Our five lectures will take place on Thursday evenings and Sunday mornings over the span of two weeks.

All lectures:

1
The Great Commission

Dr. Michael Horton
Matthew 28:16-20; Isaiah 60:1-14

2
The Great Commission and Social Justice

Dr. Michael Horton
1 Corinthians 16:1-14; Romans 15:22-29

3
Great Commission & Social Justice Q&A

Dr. Michael Horton
1 Corinthians 16:1-14; Romans 15:22-29

4
The Future of Evangelical Politics

Michael Gerson & Darryl Hart
Romans 13

5
The New Testament on the State: Govern Well or Be Governed?

Brian Lee
Romans 13; Jeremiah 29

6
The New Testament on the State: Govern Well or Be Governed? Q&A

Brian Lee
Romans 13; Jeremiah 29

7
The Primacy of Church in Church & State

Brian Lee
Romans 12; Deuteronomy 32:34-43

8
Natural Law and Christian Politics

David Van Drunen
Romans 1-2; Exodus 20

9
Natural Law and Christian Politics Q&A

David Van Drunen | Christianity & Politics 2011
Romans 1-2; Exodus 20

10
The Biblical Doctrine of the Spirituality of the Church

David Coffin
John 18; Jeremiah 29

11
The Historical Doctrine of the Spirituality of the Church

David Coffin
John 18; Jeremiah 29

12
The Historical Doctrine of the Spirituality of the Church Q&A

David Coffin
 
Last edited:

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I really don't see much diversity of views in the speakers. Are they all R2Ker's?

Here are a few quotes I have seen floating around by Brian Lee?

‎"It causes great confusion when we seek to formulate policies based on the Law of Love... there is in a sense an oil and water contrast between the two principles which govern the Christian life in the church and {in the} state." R2k disciple Brian Lee

‎"One of the great sources of our confusion is using the love and morality of the Heavenly Kingdom--the blessed Beatitudes that are here--as the basis for running a civil society." ~ R2k disciple Brian Lee


I am not sure about the oil and water thing or the confusion. To me Romans 13 spells it out rather nicely.

(Rom 13:1) Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

(Rom 13:2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

(Rom 13:3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

(Rom 13:4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

(Rom 13:5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

(Rom 13:6) For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

(Rom 13:7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

(Rom 13:8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

(Rom 13:9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

(Rom 13:10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

But if they are using their Lutheran hermeneutic that dichotomizes the Law and Gospel I can see why they are confused. Just saying.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
SermonAudio.com - Media Player

At around point 8:45 Horton says Jesus is revoking Mosaic law in Matthew 5. After being questioned if we should consider the decalogue's use as national law, he first diverts the question by turning to a comment on civil punishment of disobedient children. Then he turns into someone sounding like a propagator of New Covenant Theology around point 8:45 concerning Jesus and the law. He does this by quoting Jesus saying, "you've heard it said, but I say." It is so sad how low this is theologically. Even Reformed Baptists aren't this dispensational. This is a sad day in Reformed Circles. Dr. Horton, Please reconsider what you are saying. Jesus isn't revoking Moses. He is correcting their understanding as to what they have heard and what Moses meant. I can't believe a Baptist such as Dr. Welty gets it and a supposedly Reformed Confessional Professor of a supposedly Reformed Seminary doesn't. Dr. Horton please read a Baptist and learn. Dr. Welty surely is more astute in this matter and I recommend him to you.

Eschatological Fulfilment and the Confirmation of Mosaic Law

(A Response to D. A. Carson and Fred Zaspel on Matthew 5:17-48)

by Greg Welty
Response to D. A. Carson
 
Last edited:

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member

R Harris

Puritan Board Sophomore
SermonAudio.com - Media Player

At around point 8:45 Horton says Jesus is revoking Mosaic law in Matthew 5. After being questioned if we should consider the decalogue's use as national law, he first diverts the question by turning to a comment on civil punishment of disobedient children. Then he turns into someone sounding like a propagator of New Covenant Theology around point 8:45 concerning Jesus and the law. He does this by quoting Jesus saying, "you've heard it said, but I say." It is so sad how low this is theologically. Even Reformed Baptists aren't this dispensational. This is a sad day in Reformed Circles. Dr. Horton, Please reconsider what you are saying. Jesus isn't revoking Moses. He is correcting their understanding as to what they have heard and what Moses meant. I can't believe a Baptist such as Dr. Welty gets it and a supposedly Reformed Confessional Professor of a supposedly Reformed Seminary doesn't. Dr. Horton please read a Baptist and learn. Dr. Welty surely is more astute in this matter and I recommend him to you.

Eschatological Fulfilment and the Confirmation of Mosaic Law

(A Response to D. A. Carson and Fred Zaspel on Matthew 5:17-48)

by Greg Welty
Response to D. A. Carson

R. Scott Clark from Westminster was at our church about a month ago and he made a similar statement about Psalm 2, saying that it was a part of the "mosaic covenant" (?????)

Also stated that the Symington book "Messiah the Prince" was "way off" in some sections (he did not elaborate), and also stated that the RPCNA had formally abandoned its position on national covenanting, which I have since found out is simply not true.

Very, very strange.

I would agree that this conference, for the most part, looks like an R2K love fest. (Big sigh)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Scott1

Puritanboard Commissioner
There is a difference between 2 Kingdom and Radical 2 Kingdom.

(I've only heard of 2 Kingdom, not Radical 2 Kingdom.) Pardon my ignorance, what are some of the major difference between the two?

This has been a passionately discussed topic of late.

My understanding is reformed theology is "two kingdom" but not what is called "radical" (R2k).

The "radical" usually is used to mean the church has no place, ever (even under extraordinary cases) to speak to the culture or civil government. This is not the Westminster view.

And, there is not reason to believe Mr. Coffin, for example, who is a greatly esteemed leader in the PCA is "radical," or would describe himself that way- and hope that charity would rule and not apply that kind of characterization toward him.

I like the lineup and would find this a useful and interesting presentation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top