Rev. Winzer's Article in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal Vol 5

[MyersReformed]

Greetings All,

I read a great article by Rev. Winzer in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal entitled: "The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law: A Chronological Compilation and Analysis. Part Two: Analysis"

The article argued that the foundation of the office of the civil magistrate is the natural law of God in creation, while the foundation of the government of the Church is Christ as Mediator. The Divines fought against the doctrine that states that the foundation of the civil magistrate is Christ as Mediator, which the Papists and Erastians asserted. Thought provoking...As I was reading the article I was constantly evaluating the premises against what I have been taught in regard to the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ in my Church (RPCNA). I think allowing the foundational vs. functional distinction makes the RP flavor of the doctrine consistent with the intent of the Confession. Those who have read the article, is this an accurate assessment of the article? Or do you believe the RPs are at odds with the Divines at this point? I was intrigued by the nature/grace distinction that Rev. Winzer discussed.

Grace be with you,

Chris

 

[Peairtach]

A very important article re the theonomy debate that should be more widely disseminated. Chris Coldwell of the PB also contributed the survey of the divines' views on the subject of the judicial law of Moses.

The orthodox view is that Christ is Mediator ( King, Priest and Prophet) to His Church, but that He rules the nations unto - or for the sake of - His Church.

The judicial law of Moses was designed for the teaching of the OT Church about God's Kingdom and rule, often through typical mediators, and should not be simplistically applied to modern nation states.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[MyersReformed]

Thank you Richard!

When you say, "The orthodox view is that Christ is Mediator ( King, Priest and Prophet) to His Church, but that He rules the nations unto - or for the sake of - His Church." Could another way of saying this be thus: Christ is mediator as King to His Church, yet also He has been delegated kingship over the nations for the sake of His Church? In this formulation, you would maintain that the foundation of the authority of the civil magistrate comes from God's natural law, however, that Christ as God-man functionally rules over the civil magistrate as King over Nations. Or yet another way of saying it by using the two-fold nature of the Kingdom of Christ: "One kingdom of Christ is natural or essential. He is king over all creatures with glory and majesty equal to that of the Father and the Holy Spirit. This kingdom extends over all creatures and is founded on the decree of providence. This kingship is exercised by Christ inasmuch as he is God and the Logos. This kingship belongs to Christ by nature, which is why this kingdom is his natural kingdom. The other kingdom of Christ is mediatorial and economical. He exercises this kingship in a peculiar manner as God-man; it has everything to do with the church. It is founded upon the decree of election. It is called his mediatorial kingship because it is a dominion peculiar to the Mediator according to grace and salvation. God constituted Christ as King over the church." What do you all think?

 

[MW]

Christopher, Thankyou for your interest in and appreciation for the article. The analysis was written to draw attention to some historical concepts which theonomists tend to overlook in their assessment of the Westminster divines on the judicial law. It doesn't address the traditional RP position on the headship of Christ, but I think it is relevant to it. The RP, David McKay, has contributed an article to "The Faith Once Delivered" for Wayne Spear. This might be worth consulting as it brings out the view of Rutherford and Gillespie and notes the difference in relation to traditional RP thought.

 

[Peairtach]

Thank you Richard!

When you say, "The orthodox view is that Christ is Mediator ( King, Priest and Prophet) to His Church, but that He rules the nations unto - or for the sake of - His Church." Could another way of saying this be thus: Christ is mediator as King to His Church, yet also He has been delegated kingship over the nations for the sake of His Church? In this formulation, you would maintain that the foundation of the authority of the civil magistrate comes from God's natural law, however, that Christ as God-man functionally rules over the civil magistrate as King over Nations. Or yet another way of saying it by using the two-fold nature of the Kingdom of Christ: "One kingdom of Christ is natural or essential. He is king over all creatures with glory and majesty equal to that of the Father and the Holy Spirit. This kingdom extends over all creatures and is founded on the decree of providence. This kingship is exercised by Christ inasmuch as he is God and the Logos. This kingship belongs to Christ by nature, which is why this kingdom is his natural kingdom. The other kingdom of Christ is mediatorial and economical. He exercises this kingship in a peculiar manner as God-man; it has everything to do with the church. It is founded upon the decree of election. It is called his mediatorial kingship because it is a dominion peculiar to the Mediator according to grace and salvation. God constituted Christ as King over the church." What do you all think?

Yes. Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, but He is not Mediatorial King unto e.g. the United States through Obama or any other president.

Obama and other civil ministers are bound to follow the moral law in their capacity as God's civil ministers, as they are bound to follow the moral law in all else, and take proper cognizance of Christ's church in their lands.

 

[MyersReformed]

Thank you Rev. Winzer. I will obtain those resources and read them. Have you interacted at all with the following modern theonomist's rebuttal towards your article? http://www.theonomyresources.com/pdfs/WinzerFallaciesCP_84.pdf

Richard, you say "proper cognizance of Christ's church in their lands." Wouldn't you say that this places an obligation upon magistrates to be Christian or at least willing to serve Christ?

 

[MW]

Have you interacted at all with the following modern theonomist's rebuttal towards your article? http://www.theonomyresources.com/pdfs/WinzerFallaciesCP_84.pdf

No point interacting with an irrelevant rebuttal. I would only reply that this individual would do well to learn the doctrine of justification by faith alone and enjoy the wonderful freedom of being delivered from the full penalty of the law. This means there is "no" condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus even though the obligation remains to obey the moral law as a rule of life.

 

[Peairtach]

Thank you Rev. Winzer. I will obtain those resources and read them. Have you interacted at all with the following modern theonomist's rebuttal towards your article? http://www.theonomyresources.com/pdfs/WinzerFallaciesCP_84.pdf

Richard, you say "proper cognizance of Christ's church in their lands." Wouldn't you say that this places an obligation upon magistrates to be Christian or at least willing to serve Christ?

These things haven't been "strictly" laid down in Scripture. We have to respect and pray for magistrates that aren't Christians.

There are too many variables, especially the spiritual maturity and size of the Church in a particular land. Once the Church is in the ascendent certain desired goals like more Christian magistrates become possible.

Sometimes we are just thankful for competent magistrates.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2