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.
Andrew
Sure, if we lived, or had hope of living, in a Christian society, then yes. However, this is not, nor can be, the case any longer. The dream of transforming culture is just that, a dream. We live in a sinful world. Christ came to seek and save the lost, not culture.
You're just positing false dichotomies in a very unreformed way: Preaching law versus Gospel; preaching the gospel versus addressing culture and civil laws. What if the Lord wants "both/and" ? It's not a very good gospel witness - apart from anything else - to be on the side of history that opposes good civil reform or that supports bad civil reform.
Richard,
So now you're name calling? Saying that I support bad civil reform? In other words you're saying I support e.g., gay marriage. It's not a false dichotomy. You just don't understand what I'm saying (or you don't like it). God didn't give the Law to the other nations. He gave it specifically to His covenant people.
I'm also glad to hear you're an expert in all things reformed.
Calvin's Institutes - 2.It acts "by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice."
Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. (Revelation 13:10)
So are you questioning the existence of a second use of the Law. Believing that the moral law is binding on all is not merely a position of Theonomy but all of reformed theology. The boogie man of theonomy does not work in this discussion because we are talking about morality not civil law. The magistrate is tasked to up hold God's justice. The fact that our constitution does not have a clause in it that states we are a christian nation (whatever that would mean) does not get the magistrate off the hook to uphold justice in the land.I'm not a theonomist... so.. yes I don't believe that divine revelation is to be used to norm civil law. It was given to the covenant people of God. Not the heathen nations.
Andrew
Sure, if we lived, or had hope of living, in a Christian society, then yes. However, this is not, nor can be, the case any longer. The dream of transforming culture is just that, a dream. We live in a sinful world. Christ came to seek and save the lost, not culture.
You're just positing false dichotomies in a very unreformed way: Preaching law versus Gospel; preaching the gospel versus addressing culture and civil laws. What if the Lord wants "both/and" ? It's not a very good gospel witness - apart from anything else - to be on the side of history that opposes good civil reform or that supports bad civil reform.
Richard,
So now you're name calling? Saying that I support bad civil reform? In other words you're saying I support e.g., gay marriage. It's not a false dichotomy. You just don't understand what I'm saying (or you don't like it). God didn't give the Law to the other nations. He gave it specifically to His covenant people.
I'm also glad to hear you're an expert in all things reformed.
Sorry if you think I'm indulging in ad hominems. No offence meant, brother.
I know that the law as contained in special revelation comes to God's people, the OT and NT Church first. But it also has a broader application to the societies in which they dwell, and the revelation of the law in Scripture chimes with the law that is written in the bottom of the hearts of even unbelievers.
The Reformers recognised the importance of this second use of the law, for the good of the unconverted and for society:
Calvin's Institutes - 2.It acts "by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice."
The fact that the USA isn't formally - or informally (?) - a Christian nation doesn't mean that if more of her laws were shaped by biblical standards of morality, it wouldn't be a good and God-glorifying thing for society and the church, and that that should be a desideratum for the church in America.
No-one, not even the theonomists, are talking about putting the whole of God's law/natural law on the statute book, which is impossible and unbiblical.
So there is room for debate - in the light of God's Word - on what should be legislated, and how it should be punished in America in her current condition.
People should still have ideals as to what they would like to see in the light of God's Word, while recognising that politics is the art of the possible, and that those ideals will not be met in the current situation. Having Christian ideals for your nation isn't holding to vain dreams, but faithfully holding forth the way things should be.
None of us meet the standard of God's law in our personal lives, but that doesn't mean that the standard is to be abandoned or neglected in teaching.
Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. (Revelation 13:10)
The magistrate is tasked to up hold God's justice.
CHAP. XXIII. - Of the Civil Magistrate.
1. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.
2. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.
3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in the matter so faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
4. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honour their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less hath the Pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretence whatsoever.
I understand that it's not, but shouldn't the ideal be that the government enforce the 6th commandment because of a conviction that Exodus 20 is true? And shouldn't the same be true of the rest of the 10 commandments?
Here is what I'm seeing (and correct me if I'm wrong, please): certain people are criticizing DVD for his position, however, they go to the other extreme and blur the line between the first and third use of the Law. "The law is a rule of life for believers" not for unbelievers. And it seems that some on this board are promoting such things. The first use is specifically for promoting righteousness and restraining evil (because of the conscience, not duty).
Book of Concord
The Formula of Concord distinguished three uses, or purposes, in the Law in Article VI. It states: "The Law was given to men for three reasons. . .
that thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars
that men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins
that after they are regenerate. . .they might. . .have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life.
The primary concern was to maintain that the Law should continue to be used by Christians after they had been regenerated by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel to counter the doctrine of Johannes Agricola, who taught that the Law was no longer needed by regenerate Christians.
Briefly summarized they are:
curb
mirror
guide
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, the Reformer John Calvin likewise distinguished three uses in the Law. Calvin wrote: "That the whole matter may be made clearer, let us take a succinct view of the office and use of the Moral Law. Now this office and use seems to me to consist of three parts."
By "exhibiting the righteousness of God, — in other words, the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God, — it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him."
It acts "by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice."
"The third use of the Law. . .has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. ... For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge..."
This scheme is the same as the Formula of Concord, with the exception that the first and second uses are transposed.