Seeking Clarification: Theonomy vs. Two-Kingdom Theology Within Reformed Thought

[darrellmaurina]

Hey, not trying to hide, but I don’t know which box I fit in or the definitions of the categories. If what I described fits a label, then I guess I’m in the label. I think I’m a theonomist (based on my beliefs in my first post), but idk that I fully align with what is said of that camp at times. Although, the idea of paying back what you stole x4 makes me happy.

I don’t believe the US is the modern Israel or anything like that. I’ve been told that I would be more in line with the original WCF, but will admit that I hadn’t gone back to read the chapter on the magistrate there again. So idk.

I think the core of the concern with where the PCA's study of "Christian Nationalism" may be going is that there are different groups who use the same words but have significantly different meanings.

Some people use the term "Christian Nationalism" to mean simply that as voters we need to advocate for Christian political and economic and social principles. The vast majority of evangelical Christians would support some version of "Christian Nationalism" if defined that way.

Others say every nation should be explicitly Christian. How that works itself out varies, but it's a significant difference in "end goal" though practically speaking it's not much different in practical politics from how the first group works.

The problem is that there are people, some of them in Reformed circles, who define "nation" quite differently.

We routinely use the word "nation" in the United States to refer to a top-level sovereign government of a "country," as opposed to its subordinate entities, which in the US are usually termed states, counties, cities and townships (with some variations). That's not historically how the words have been used, even in English.

Traditionally, most Europeans spoke of a "nation" being an ethnic, cultural, and linguistic group, which may or may not have been represented by a single government. "Germany" and "Italy" were both viewed as "nations" but in an ethnic and cultural sense, and were collections of many sovereign entities until well into the mid-to-late 1800s. Conversely, Poland for an extended period of time was viewed as a nation but was divided between territory governed by Prussia, Austria, and Russia. Hungary was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. To be "Greek" meant to be an ethnic group within the Ottoman Empire, and even after the re-founding of Greece as a separate nation, most Greeks did not live under Greek rule.

We could, and did, speak of the "Italian Nation" long before Garibaldi. There was shared culture and language, with major regional difference in dialects, and a shared ethnic heritage going back to the ancient Romans, though with many other ethnic groups added over the centuries.

"Nationalism," in a secular European sense, means not just that people are loyal to their government but that they are loyal to their ethnic group which may or may not mean loyalty to their government. Most people today would agree that Polish Nationalism and Greek Nationalism were good things, with persecuted and harassed ethnic minority groups fighting to have their own sovereign nation. Most people today would say that German Nationalism, while not inherently problematic, turned into something absolutely horrific.

Does "Christian nationalism" mean a blood-and-soil loyalty, almost of a tribal nature, to a historic "country" (i.e., geographical territory) and ethnic group which needs to be unified by traditional Christian values of that nation? That's what it means for Viktor Orban in Hungary. It is what it meant for the Polish anti-Communists. It is what it meant for the Greek Orthodox who rose up in revolt against the Ottoman Turks.

By citing the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox view that being a "good Pole" or being a "good Greek" means adherence to a certain denomination -- well, I think you can see the problem. And before we assume that this has never been a problem for Calvinists, go look at the history of the Netherlands, which exists in its current form separate from Belgium mostly for religious reasons. Or look at the history of Scotland, or Northern Ireland, or South Africa.

"Christian Nationalism" turns into something horrible when the nation is defined primarily by "ethnos," i.e., ethnicity, and not by "Christos."

At Hazelgreen, we have people in attendance who are Korean, Italian, and Native American. In the past, we have had people in attendance who are Hispanic, Japanese, and "Heinz-57" Americans, i.e., not particularly identified with any ethnicity. Surprisingly we've never yet had a Dutch person attend though I have a lot of Dutch people who watch online. We sing from the Genevan Psalter each Sunday in English and Korean, and if there were a reason to do so, we have people who could sing from it in Spanish or Italian. There are numerous other languages for which I could get a translation of the Genevan Psalter if there were a need.

I care very little whether an American is from my ethnic group. We're supposed to care about being red white and blue in America, not about the color of our skin.

Likewise in the church, I care very little about ethnicity. I care a great deal about Christianity, and specifically about sovereign grace.

Some "Christian Nationalists" have a very different view about whether the priority should be on ethnicity or Christian commitments.

My response is that they may be nationalists, and they may advocate traditional Western cultural values, but without putting the priority on personal conversion, i.e. grace rather than race, their form of nationalism is not Christian and shouldn't be called that when it's not.

 

[NReiber]

I think the core of the concern with where the PCA's study of "Christian Nationalism" may be going is that there are different groups who use the same words but have significantly different meanings.

Some people use the term "Christian Nationalism" to mean simply that as voters we need to advocate for Christian political and economic and social principles. The vast majority of evangelical Christians would support some version of "Christian Nationalism" if defined that way.

Others say every nation should be explicitly Christian. How that works itself out varies, but it's a significant difference in "end goal" though practically speaking it's not much different in practical politics from how the first group works.

The problem is that there are people, some of them in Reformed circles, who define "nation" quite differently.

We routinely use the word "nation" in the United States to refer to a top-level sovereign government of a "country," as opposed to its subordinate entities, which in the US are usually termed states, counties, cities and townships (with some variations). That's not historically how the words have been used, even in English.

Traditionally, most Europeans spoke of a "nation" being an ethnic, cultural, and linguistic group, which may or may not have been represented by a single government. "Germany" and "Italy" were both viewed as "nations" but in an ethnic and cultural sense, and were collections of many sovereign entities until well into the mid-to-late 1800s. Conversely, Poland for an extended period of time was viewed as a nation but was divided between territory governed by Prussia, Austria, and Russia. Hungary was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. To be "Greek" meant to be an ethnic group within the Ottoman Empire, and even after the re-founding of Greece as a separate nation, most Greeks did not live under Greek rule.

We could, and did, speak of the "Italian Nation" long before Garibaldi. There was shared culture and language, with major regional difference in dialects, and a shared ethnic heritage going back to the ancient Romans, though with many other ethnic groups added over the centuries.

"Nationalism," in a secular European sense, means not just that people are loyal to their government but that they are loyal to their ethnic group which may or may not mean loyalty to their government. Most people today would agree that Polish Nationalism and Greek Nationalism were good things, with persecuted and harassed ethnic minority groups fighting to have their own sovereign nation. Most people today would say that German Nationalism, while not inherently problematic, turned into something absolutely horrific.

Does "Christian nationalism" mean a blood-and-soil loyalty, almost of a tribal nature, to a historic "country" (i.e., geographical territory) and ethnic group which needs to be unified by traditional Christian values of that nation? That's what it means for Viktor Orban in Hungary. It is what it meant for the Polish anti-Communists. It is what it meant for the Greek Orthodox who rose up in revolt against the Ottoman Turks.

By citing the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox view that being a "good Pole" or being a "good Greek" means adherence to a certain denomination -- well, I think you can see the problem. And before we assume that this has never been a problem for Calvinists, go look at the history of the Netherlands, which exists in its current form separate from Belgium mostly for religious reasons. Or look at the history of Scotland, or Northern Ireland, or South Africa.

"Christian Nationalism" turns into something horrible when the nation is defined primarily by "ethnos," i.e., ethnicity, and not by "Christos."

At Hazelgreen, we have people in attendance who are Korean, Italian, and Native American. In the past, we have had people in attendance who are Hispanic, Japanese, and "Heinz-57" Americans, i.e., not particularly identified with any ethnicity. Surprisingly we've never yet had a Dutch person attend though I have a lot of Dutch people who watch online. We sing from the Genevan Psalter each Sunday in English and Korean, and if there were a reason to do so, we have people who could sing from it in Spanish or Italian. There are numerous other languages for which I could get a translation of the Genevan Psalter if there were a need.

I care very little whether an American is from my ethnic group. We're supposed to care about being red white and blue in America, not about the color of our skin.

Likewise in the church, I care very little about ethnicity. I care a great deal about Christianity, and specifically about sovereign grace.

Some "Christian Nationalists" have a very different view about whether the priority should be on ethnicity or Christian commitments.

My response is that they may be nationalists, and they may advocate traditional Western cultural values, but without putting the priority on personal conversion, i.e. grace rather than race, their form of nationalism is not Christian and shouldn't be called that when it's not.

Thank you for this. Because, most of my concern about the study is that we will get something that basically says Christians should stay in their own corner and out of government. Maybe I’m paranoid.

Thank you for sharing about your church. It is very encouraging to hear this.

I probably made it clear in my previous message, but my hope is for a more Christian world top to bottom - including those in authority.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I’ve been told that I would be more in line with the original WCF, but will admit that I hadn’t gone back to read the chapter on the magistrate there again. So idk.

Go back and read it. It's short. I think you'll like it.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I’ve been studying the ongoing debate within Reformed circles between Theonomy/Christian Reconstruction and Two-Kingdom (2K)/Natural Law theology, and I’m trying to get a clearer, more balanced understanding of the major differences and the biblical reasoning behind each side.

From what I understand:

Theonomy/Christian Reconstruction

Argues that the Mosaic civil laws (not ceremonial) remain morally binding on all nations today.

Believes civil governments should enforce these laws as part of obedience to Christ’s lordship.

Sees continuity between Old Covenant civil law and modern civil ethics.

Two-Kingdom (2K) / Natural Law

Argues that church and state occupy distinct God-ordained spheres (“two kingdoms”).

Holds that Mosaic civil law was given uniquely to Old Covenant Israel and is not binding on modern governments.

Civil governments are instead guided by natural law, while the church is governed by Scripture.

My Questions:

1. What are the strongest biblical and theological arguments each side uses to support their position?

2. How do theonomists respond to claims that Mosaic civil law was particular to Israel and not intended for modern nations?

3. How do Two-Kingdom advocates address passages where Old Testament civil laws seem to be grounded in universal moral principles (e.g., justice, equity, image of God)?

4. Historically, which position do the major Reformed confessions align more closely with?

5. Is it fair to say that both groups consider themselves “truly Reformed,” or does one side better represent classical Reformed teaching?

6. Practically speaking, how would society look under each model? What changes would be expected?

I’m not looking to spark a fight—just hoping for solid, charitable, and well-reasoned explanations. If you hold to one view or the other, I’d love to hear why you find your position more faithful to Scripture and the Reformed confessions.

Thanks in advance!

Would see the biblical mandate of the Law governing a particular people, OT Israel, as an expression of their OT covenant relationship between them and Him, but not mandated to other nations though, and the Kingdom is now here in part through the people of Jesus, but hen He comes back, He shall establish it in full.

 

[timmopussycat]

I’ve been studying the ongoing debate within Reformed circles between Theonomy/Christian Reconstruction and Two-Kingdom (2K)/Natural Law theology, and I’m trying to get a clearer, more balanced understanding of the major differences and the biblical reasoning behind each side.

From what I understand:

Theonomy/Christian Reconstruction

Argues that the Mosaic civil laws (not ceremonial) remain morally binding on all nations today.

Believes civil governments should enforce these laws as part of obedience to Christ’s lordship.

Sees continuity between Old Covenant civil law and modern civil ethics.

Two-Kingdom (2K) / Natural Law

Argues that church and state occupy distinct God-ordained spheres (“two kingdoms”).

Holds that Mosaic civil law was given uniquely to Old Covenant Israel and is not binding on modern governments.

Civil governments are instead guided by natural law, while the church is governed by Scripture.

My Questions:

1. What are the strongest biblical and theological arguments each side uses to support their position?

2. How do theonomists respond to claims that Mosaic civil law was particular to Israel and not intended for modern nations?

3. How do Two-Kingdom advocates address passages where Old Testament civil laws seem to be grounded in universal moral principles (e.g., justice, equity, image of God)?

4. Historically, which position do the major Reformed confessions align more closely with?

5. Is it fair to say that both groups consider themselves “truly Reformed,” or does one side better represent classical Reformed teaching?

6. Practically speaking, how would society look under each model? What changes would be expected?

I’m not looking to spark a fight—just hoping for solid, charitable, and well-reasoned explanations. If you hold to one view or the other, I’d love to hear why you find your position more faithful to Scripture and the Reformed confessions.

Thanks in advance!

"3. How do Two-Kingdom advocates address passages where Old Testament civil laws seem to be grounded in universal moral principles (e.g., justice, equity, image of God)?"

The Reformed, following Calvin and the WCF, have historically recognized that OT laws that are grounded in universal moral principles remain just today. This is what is meant by "general equity" in WCF 19:4.

 

[YeshuaFan]

"3. How do Two-Kingdom advocates address passages where Old Testament civil laws seem to be grounded in universal moral principles (e.g., justice, equity, image of God)?"

The Reformed, following Calvin and the WCF, have historically recognized that OT laws that are grounded in universal moral principles remain just today. This is what is meant by "general equity" in WCF 19:4.

Would both positions be affirming that the Moral aspect and principles of the OT Law would still be in effect today, but they would be disagreeing on enforcing it based upon either the Old or new testament Covenant?

 

[EvanF]

Would both positions be affirming that the Moral aspect and principles of the OT Law would still be in effect today, but they would be disagreeing on enforcing it based upon either the Old or new testament Covenant?

Take for example the Israelite law of five-fold restitution for theft of oxen and four-fold restitution for theft of sheep. The moral principles of restitution and of penalty are matters of general equity, but the precise nature of the restitution and penalty should be weighed by legislators, judges, and magistrates so as to ensure that punishments fit crimes. In a time where oxen are not used for plowing, there is presumably not much sense in a greater penalty for theft of oxen than for theft of sheep.

A theonomist, at least a thorough-going one, would insist on the continuing applicability of the original 5:1/4:1 distinction.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Take for example the Israelite law of five-fold restitution for theft of oxen and four-fold restitution for theft of sheep. The moral principles of restitution and of penalty are matters of general equity, the precise nature of the restitution and penalty is to be weighed by legislators, judges, and magistrates. In a time where oxen are not used for plowing, there is presumably not much sense in a greater penalty for theft of oxen than for theft of sheep.

A theonomist, at least a thorough-going one, would insist on the continuing applicability of the original 5:1/4:1 distinction.

Couldn't it be argued by a non-theonomist that one application of general equity (in regards to moral principles of restitution and of penalty) is that the applicability of the original 5:1/4:1 distinction does in fact continue in the sense of the-greater-the-value, the-greater-the-penalty/restitution? In other words, yes, most of us don't keep oxen or sheep, but the penalty/restitution for stealing a bicycle should be less than for theft of a car - because the intent behind five-fold restitution for theft of oxen and four-fold restitution for theft of sheep would seem to be the wisdom of having progressively greater consequences in order to discourage progressively grosser sins.

 

[EvanF]

Couldn't it be argued by a non-theonomist that one application of general equity (in regards to moral principles of restitution and of penalty) is that the applicability of the original 5:1/4:1 distinction does in fact continue in the sense of the-greater-the-value, the-greater-the-penalty/restitution? In other words, yes, most of us don't keep oxen or sheep, but the penalty/restitution for stealing a bicycle should be less than for theft of a car - because the intent behind five-fold restitution for theft of oxen and four-fold restitution for theft of sheep would seem to be the wisdom of having progressively greater consequences in order to discourage progressively grosser sins.

Certainly.

 

[darrellmaurina]

One of the key problems in debating theonomy, two-kingdoms theology, and many (not all) of the rest of these discussions is that almost none of the people talking have very much practical experience in trying to put their principles into effect. One of the prominent proponents of "two kingdoms" theology has accused his opponents -- in many cases, I think fairly so -- of doing "cosplay." Putting on costumes and playing superheroes or historical re-enactors of Civil War or Revolutionary War battles can be fun, and in the case of re-enactments of Puritan life in New England, I think it can serve a helpful purpose.

But that wasn't what John Calvin was doing when he wrote the sections of the Institutes addressing biblical principles of civil government. He understood from decades of practical experience dealing with the Genevan city council, and foreign relations that included negotiations with the King of France, likely the most powerful civil ruler of his era, that, to use a modern phrase, "politics ain't beanbag." Calvin was formally exiled from Geneva once and repeatedly lost battles to various factions of the Genevan city council. He knew that his life was at very real risk if some of the political battles in which he was fighting had gone the wrong way. Many graduates of the Genevan Academy paid with their lives for their beliefs, and there are reasons why the Academy at Sedan (once a center of the Reformed faith) was known not only for its professors of theology but also for its training in military tactics and military engineering.

It also wasn't what John Knox or Abraham Kuyper were doing. Yes, Kuyper was a theologian and the key leader of the 1886 Doleantie secession that became the Gerefomeerde Kerken in Nederland. But he was also the head of a major political party, founder of a university and seminary, and the key figure behind starting a daily newspaper and a weekly church magazine, which laid the foundation for him to become prime minister of the Netherlands.

Kuyper didn't get to be prime minister out of nowhere. He laid the foundation for that with decades of practical experience in political as well as ecclesiastical circles.

Look, I don't come anywhere close to that, but my experience in church circles and theological debates, in other words, what people see of me on the Puritan Board, is only part of my life.

When I was growing up, my father was head of the Kent County Republican Party (basically metro Grand Rapids) when Congressman Gerald Ford was the House Minority Leader and then vice president. After Ford became President following Nixon's resignation and Grand Rapids no longer was as important in national Republican politics as it had been, my father went to work for the Michigan Republicans on the state level, where his work included, among other things, doing the type of "gerrymandering" in Michigan that has now hit the national level with Texas and California politics. I wrote the computer program that my father used, following the 1980 census, to gerrymander the Democrats out of four of their seven seats on what was, back then, a 21-member Kent County Commission. My mother had been trained as a reporter back in the 1950s, and I followed her career path, not my father's, with the last four decades of my life reporting mostly on local government.

I think I know a thing or two about what works and what doesn't work in politics, and how to get from "Point A" to "Point B."

I think many of the people talking about Christian principles of politics do not understand the most basic principles of how to get things done.

Barring a mass conversion of not just tens of millions of people, but well over a hundred million, not only to basic evangelical Christianity but to a specifically Reformed (or at least Augustinian) concept of sovereign grace, most of the discussions we have in conservative Reformed circles are simply impossible. Most people in the United States simply have no idea what we are talking about when it comes to these internal discussions in Reformed circles about principles of Christian action on politics. The explanation and education process, given that all the NAPARC denominations together, even including "Reformed-adjacent" groups like the EPC, ECO, and CRC, total less than a million people -- less than one third of one percent of the total US population -- is massive.

If someone wants to argue that several tens of thousands of confessionally Reformed people should move to some small island somewhere and begin a Christian commonwealth, I'll grant that there are precedents in Reformed history, among them being Plymouth Plantation and the later New England colonies. But I doubt there are even that many people willing to undertake that sort of project.

Unless someone wants to explain how they plan to get the resources to start a brand-new civil polity somewhere, or how they plan to move en masse to a small low-population country and bring in the necessary infrastructure, business, commerce, and financial resources to make it economically self-sustaining, we have to deal with the practicalities of American, or Canadian, or Dutch, or some other pre-existing national political system.

That means the Francis Schaeffer and D. James Kennedy model.

Perhaps we'd be better off spending our time trying to convince Baptists and charismatics and other evangelicals of a Reformed (i.e., biblical) view of family life and civil government than dreaming about some theonomic state in never-never land. Oh, I forgot. That's kind of what a lot of people in the Christian school movement and homeschooling movement have been doing for the last four to five decades.

The modern Reformed Baptist resurgence has a number of roots, but one of them is people who became convinced of the need for Christian education and started reading Reformed books on how education should be done, and that had effects on family life and church life and political action. In other words, Kuyper's three spheres.

If God wants to raise up a few million Reformed Baptists through widespread promotion of Christian education and homeschooling in Baptist and broadly evangelical circles, I'm fine with that. When I agree with people on the basics of how God saves us and we don't save ourselves, I'm going to praise God rather than complain about our differences. Give me a hundred MacArthurs or Pipers and I'll be far happier than I was with the liberal heresy under which I studied at Calvin College and Calvin Seminary, with sons of the covenant rejecting the faith of their fathers. I disagree with Piper on many issues, and with MacArthur on even more, but at least they're doing something to promote the Reformed faith outside traditional Reformed circles, and too many of us are not, or like too many of the people under whom I studied at Calvin, are actively seeking to destroy the most basic principles of biblical fidelity.

A Christian worldview will take generations to accomplish. Not years and not just a few decades.

I think many people on the hard right of Reformed Christian political discussions fail to understand the massive amount of work that is necessary because they have rarely if ever even attended a city council or school board meeting, let alone ran for office.

Winning political battles in today's America means getting Baptists, charismatics and broad evangelicals to go to the polls and vote. There aren't enough Reformed people to do that in all but a few American counties and cities, even if all or most of them voted the way their doctrine says they should, and that's a simple fact of life.

As I said, "politics ain't beanbag." As Calvinists we understand depravity is total, and politics is not one of the nicer fields of endeavor.

This isn't easy, and people who think it is are naive.

 

[Northern Crofter]

A Christian worldview will take generations to accomplish. Not years and not just a few decades.

Several Reformation era nations beg to differ. Look what happened during the lifespan of Calvin and Knox (or the many examples in Scripture). When God's Spirit moves, nothing can stop the repentance and reform He wills. We must be ready, yes, but your position sounds defeatist.

But that wasn't what John Calvin was doing when he wrote the sections of the Institutes addressing biblical principles of civil government. He understood from decades of practical experience dealing with the Genevan city council, and foreign relations that included negotiations with the King of France, likely the most powerful civil ruler of his era...

Calvin wrote his Institutes long before these decades of practical experience of which you speak.

Winning political battles in today's America means getting Baptists, charismatics and broad evangelicals to go to the polls and vote.

Maybe. But we are called to focus on the spiritual battle first. Does the witness of Scripture and history not show that political change follows repentance and reform, not the other way around?

 

[darrellmaurina]

Calvin wrote his Institutes long before these decades of practical experience of which you speak.

I'm guessing you know that the Institutes went through numerous editions. The final edition included much material, especially on his views of the civil magistrate, that was not in the first edition.

I would need to defer to scholars of Calvin who can read French and Latin, which I cannot, and who have studied in great detail the development of Calvin's thought over decades between his first edition and final edition. At least in the 1980s and 1990s when I was studying under such men, the scholarly consensus was that Calvin's views of the civil magistrate didn't fundamentally change over time but were "fleshed out," as it were, with practical experience dealing with real live civil magistrates.

Those men (and in the context of the 1500s, yes, "men" is the right word, with a few rare exceptions of female rulers and female "powers behind the throne") ranged from open enemies of the gospel, to flatterers who wanted to placate Calvin or to get his support for some item of their own agenda, to people who claimed to be on the side of the gospel but either feared to take a stand for the Reformation or who used Reformed theology as a cover for political rebellion against rulers, to sincerely converted men who made foolish mistakes, were fundamentally unwise, or were (like David) caught in some sort of major sin, to men who were firmly committed to the cause of sovereign grace and used their civil magistracy for such purposes.

The history of Christian commonwealths shows that the last category is both precious and rare among those who aspire to civil magistracy.

Calvin found that out the hard way. But it does appear he also knew that right from the start.

Remember, he was a law student, not an "ivory tower" theologian unwise in the ways of the world.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Several Reformation era nations beg to differ. Look what happened during the lifespan of Calvin and Knox (or the many examples in Scripture). When God's Spirit moves, nothing can stop the repentance and reform He wills. We must be ready, yes, but your position sounds defeatist.... Maybe. But we are called to focus on the spiritual battle first. Does the witness of Scripture and history not show that political change follows repentance and reform, not the other way around?

I think you missed what I wrote here:

Barring a mass conversion of not just tens of millions of people, but well over a hundred million, not only to basic evangelical Christianity but to a specifically Reformed (or at least Augustinian) concept of sovereign grace, most of the discussions we have in conservative Reformed circles are simply impossible. Most people in the United States simply have no idea what we are talking about when it comes to these internal discussions in Reformed circles about principles of Christian action on politics. The explanation and education process, given that all the NAPARC denominations together, even including "Reformed-adjacent" groups like the EPC, ECO, and CRC, total less than a million people -- less than one third of one percent of the total US population -- is massive.

Winning political battles in today's America means getting Baptists, charismatics and broad evangelicals to go to the polls and vote. There aren't enough Reformed people to do that in all but a few American counties and cities, even if all or most of them voted the way their doctrine says they should, and that's a simple fact of life.

As I said, "politics ain't beanbag." As Calvinists we understand depravity is total, and politics is not one of the nicer fields of endeavor.

This isn't easy, and people who think it is are naive.

My whole point was that apart from mass conversion of not just tens of millions but well in excess of a hundred million people, the theonomist project and related projects for a Reformed Christian commonwealth in America are simply impossible.

Without that happening, we have to work with what we've got.

What we've got is lots of Baptists and charismatics and broad evangelicals who are frustrated with political leadership that is anti-Christian and hates them, but they don't have the theological and historical categories to understand how and why we got to modern American liberalism.

Start there.

It's sort of what the Christian school and homeschool movement has been doing for several decades now.

 

[83r17h]

I think many of the people talking about Christian principles of politics do not understand the most basic principles of how to get things done.

This is something that I have noticed as well. Many of the loud voices take an "all or nothing" approach, where every minor (and precise) point must be perfect right now. And this is not realistic in political realms, nor is it the calling of political offices. The very existence of political office is a mercy and a compromise, which is contrary to such ideas of perfection. The civil law is a limit upon sin, not the elimination of sin.

 

[darrellmaurina]

This is something that I have noticed as well. Many of the loud voices take an "all or nothing" approach, where every minor (and precise) point must be perfect right now. And this is not realistic in political realms, nor is it the calling of political offices. The very existence of political office is a mercy and a compromise, which is contrary to such ideas of perfection. The civil law is a limit upon sin, not the elimination of sin.

Spot on.

God's standard for civil magistrates (or better put, God's job description for what they are for, and what they are supposed to do) is found in Romans 13. Not I Timothy and Titus.

There are men who are biblically disqualified for church office (adultery and unbiblical divorce are obvious current examples, as well as a biblical example with King David) who have served effectively today and in biblical times. In biblical times, some men who we would never accept into the pastorate served in civil office with explicit divine blessing following repentance and acceptance of divine punishment.

Let's bring this from abstract theoreticals to practical applications of principles.

It's likely that most of us on the Puritan Board who are United States citizens voted for Trump. Most who were old enough probably voted for Reagan. Most of us would agree that both men would be disqualified from church office. I would probably admit Reagan to communion despite his ecclesiastical irregularities; I cannot see a realistic situation in which I would admit Trump to communion without public repentance for many issues that are well known. I would, however, say that no Christian who understood the issues in 1984, 2016, 2020, or 2024 should have voted for their Democratic opponents. (The Carter/Reagan situation in 1980 is messier and the political parties were so different way back then that I will be patient with Southern Democrats who were adamant opponents of Reagan, though I still think Reagan was the right choice. I campaigned for him, and I fought my own father who opposed Reagan in the 1980 Republican primary believing he would be another 1964 Goldwater debacle, handing a winnable election to Carter.)

This is not a new problem. We should not romanticize the past.

I can give a long list of civil magistrates who were, humanly speaking, responsible for the survival of the Protestant Reformation who would be under formal church discipline in most of our churches. And before we throw stones at the Lutherans and Anglicans for their low view of church discipline -- let's be honest, the much-married King Henry VIII was the main human reason why we in the English-speaking world are Protestants and not Catholics -- one of the key Huguenot warriors in the French Alps was openly and publicly living with his mistress while fighting with his sword for the victory of the Protestant party in France. We may never know this side of eternity whether he was more interested in being Reformed or more interested in preserving the ancient liberties of the nobles of the French Alps against the incursions of the French monarchy, whose hold on the provinces far outside of Paris was still tenuous in the 1400s and 1500s. The Dutch were better than most in their moral standards during the Reformation era -- successful small businessmen and self-made merchants tend not to have the vices of the idle rich in the nobility -- but even there, the Dutch Reformed had to put up with serious immorality in their political leaders fighting for freedom against the Duke of Alva and his murderous Spanish soldiers.

If we look to how the Reformation actually happened -- and why Peter Waldo and Jan Hus failed in earlier centuries -- the key difference was the support rather than opposition of the lower nobility in rural areas and the rising mercantile classes in urban areas. In other words, the support of civil magistrates.

Many of those civil magistrates had, at best, mixed motives for their backing of the Reformers.

We shouldn't expect the level of theological competence and personal life from our civil magistrates that we correctly expect from our pastors, elders and deacons. What we can and SHOULD expect is that our civil magistrates use the sword to punish evildoers. That's what Romans 13 requires.

And as a historical anecdote, it's one of the main reasons why I believe Christians needed to vote for Reagan in 1980 and not Carter. We know today that Carter, while professing to be an evangelical Southern Baptist, was far more liberal than we knew back then. That wasn't yet known and there were people presenting the 1980 election as a case of an evangelical Southern Baptist, faithful to his wife and his church, being challenged by a divorced Hollywood actor with spotty church attendance and open admission that he married Nancy after she was pregnant. Today that sounds laughable based on what we know about Reagan and Carter, but it wasn't laughable at all in 1980 and a lot of people who today would be committed Republicans were still voting Democrat by default. What we knew for sure in 1980 was that Carter had proven himself incompetent in wielding the sword of the civil magistrate to protect the United States from its enemies, even third-rate powers like Iran.

Say what you want about Reagan, but the Iranian leaders knew what they were facing after he was elected. I was attending Reagan's inauguration when word came that the Iranians had agreed to release the hostages.

They knew what Reagan was and correctly feared his sword.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Start there.

So you are proposing we focus on banding together politically with the frustrated baptists and charismatics and broad evangelicals to do what? Shouldn't we start by focusing on:

conversion of not just tens of millions but well in excess of a hundred million people

How can we do that uniting with folks who are in many cases preaching another Gospel?

Most baptists and charismatics and broad evangelicals and Reformed folk probably voted for Reagan (and Trump). Where has that gotten the US? Did it advance the Gospel?

What is the point of focusing on uniting politically when the majority of our citizens are spiritually dead? Can you point to a Reformer or Puritan who advocated such an approach?

 

[darrellmaurina]

If you believe that Baptists, charismatics and broad evangelicals are "preaching another gospel," we have a fundamental difference on how Reformed people should interact with evangelicals and that explains a lot to me about why you object to Kuyper's approach in the Netherlands.

I'm not lukewarm on the need to be Reformed. I live in the Bible Belt where it would be tremendously easier in many ways in my life to just join a Southern Baptist church. Rather than doing that, I've spent virtually all of my adult life arguing on the need for distinctively Reformed faith and worship, with a strong emphasis on sovereign grace.

What I haven't done has been to argue that evangelicals preach another gospel. What I have said was that they misunderstand important things. The old phrase that "all true Christians are Calvinists on their knees" applies here.

If you instead regard evangelicals as unconverted people preaching another gospel, we're not going to be on the same page on many other issues as well. Since you are an RPCNA member, I would point out that it's not the way the RPCNA operated during the 1800s when the RPCNA was among the leaders in the abolitionist movement, working with people who were far more theologically problematic than the average run-of-the-mill Baptist today.

So you are proposing we focus on banding together polotically with the frustrated baptists and charismatics and broad evangelicals to do what? Shouldn't we start by focusing on:

How can we do that uniting with folks who are in many cases preaching another Gospel?

Most baptists and charismatics and broad evangelicals and Reformed folk probably voted for Reagan (and Trump). Where has that gotten the US? Did it advance the Gospel?

What is the point of focusing on uniting politically when the majority of our citizens are spiritually dead? Can you point to a Reformer or Puritan who advocated such an approach?

 

[Northern Crofter]

If you believe that Baptists, charismatics and broad evangelicals are "preaching another gospel," we have a fundamental difference on how Reformed people should interact with evangelicals and that explains a lot to me about why you object to Kuyper's approach in the Netherlands.

What I actually wrote:

How can we do that uniting with folks who are in many cases preaching another Gospel?

As you keep returning to Kuyper, I could only imagine that you would not limit your political allies to just "lots of Baptists and charismatics and broad evangelicals who are frustrated with political leadership that is anti-Christian" but would also be comfortable bringing in Roman catholics - after all Kuyper viewed them as sharing Christian foundations and what he called "common grace" (which I do not think is the same thing we mean by that phrase in Reformed circles today). And, in the US, that could just as easily mean bringing Mormons and False Witnesses into the big tent of Judeo-Christian morality.

If we are going to look to the example of the Dutch, I would prefer Kuyper's close contemporary, Bavinck. Yes, Bavinck was also an elected official, but he was first and foremost a Gospel minister, and that is the primary way to reform a society - preach the Gospel. Without that, and a following wave of repentance unto life granted by the Holy Ghost, there is no example in history where a nation righted the ship morally.

So, yes, you are correct - I do not support Kuyper's approach in the Netherlands. Not only do I think it is not supported Biblically, but consider the eventual outcome - is Dutch society any better off morally than the US? Is it in better shape than it was before Kuyper? I will let our Dutch brethren make that judgment should they wish to do so.

I would point out that it's not the way the RPCNA operated during the 1800s when the RPCNA was among the leaders in the abolitionist movement, working with people who were far more theologically problematic than the average run-of-the-mill Baptist today.

Sure, but as I've pointed out in the past in our back-and-forth, the Covenanters advocated abolition while also maintaining their position of political dissent. One can be both "in the world and not in it" while maintaining the position of not being yoked with the unrighteous - in and outside of the visible Church: "Wherefore come out from among them, and separate yourselves, saith the Lord, and touch none unclean thing, and I will receive you." (2 Corinthians 6.17).

What you seem to be advocating for in so many words is that we (Reformed folk) need to work to reform society by uniting with other (socially/morally) conservatives who profess to be Christians and then the Gospel will follow. I would hope you would agree with me that such a position is (and always has been) backwards.

 

[darrellmaurina]

@Northern Crofter : Many of the criticisms I see you making here seem to apply not only to me and to Kuyper, but also to Francis Schaeffer and D. James Kennedy.

I am reading you correctly?

 

[Northern Crofter]

@Northern Crofter : Many of the criticisms I see you making here seem to apply not only to me and to Kuyper, but also to Francis Schaeffer and D. James Kennedy.

I am reading you correctly?

Yes. Schaeffer was a big influence on me after my conversion

But I would not put Schaeffer in the same category as Kennedy with regard to politics. I see a rough parallel of Schaeffer/Kennedy // Bavinck/Kuyper.

 

[darrellmaurina]

Yes. Schaeffer was a big influence on me after my conversion

But I would not put Schaeffer in the same category as Kennedy with regard to politics. I see a rough parallel of Schaeffer/Kennedy // Bavinck/Kuyper.

That is helpful.

To be clear, I agree with Kuyper that in the civil realm, in today's ecclesiastical and political situation, we should be working with Roman Catholics in issues like the pro-life movement. It is a matter of public record that I supported Rick Santorum's 2012 Republican primary campaign, and would have been willing to do so in 2016 before Ted Cruz became the only viable alternative to Donald Trump in the Republican primary.

Obviously I would disagree with Santorum on a whole list of religious issues. Ironically, his family and mine are from the same part of Italy. I had the opportunity to meet with him once, years after his presidential campaign was over when he was far less busy and had time to talk with small-town reporters, not on presidential issues but on the importance of building strong local pro-life movements and crisis pregnancy centers. I suspect that if we'd spent more time talking about our respective extended families we would have found mutual ties. Rural northern Italy, and especially the high mountain passes and valleys of the Alps, are not places with lots of people. Many families have lived there for centuries -- my own family can be traced back about a thousand years in their mountain valley -- and given the correct emphasis of the church on avoiding marriage of close relatives, it wasn't unusual for people from valleys that are some distance away, but not that far away, to encourage their sons and daughters to meet and marry via events like regional fairs or trade and commerce.

Think West Virginia and Appalachia in the 1700s and early 1800s and you have a pretty good idea what the Italian mountain villages of the Alps look like, socially and culturally speaking.

Of course, once families leave the "old country," they sometimes do things like me of marrying someone from the opposite side of the planet!

 

[Northern Crofter]

...in today's ecclesiastical and political situation, we should be working with Roman Catholics...

How do you reconcile this position with teachings such as 2 Corinthians 6.14-17?

And before you again bring up the American RP efforts to end slavery, it's also a matter of record that, while they were staunchly opposed to slavery as far back as the 1700s (and eventually officially condemning slaveholding as sinful on Biblical grounds, refusing communion to slaveholders and in some cases even their defenders, openly preaching against it from the pulpit, and encouraging members to aid escapees), joining interdenominational anti-slavery societies (I don't know of any in that era that were purely secular), political abolition parties, and other “voluntary societies” was largely discouraged. This did create tension within the RPs as many of its leaders were resistant to joining such organizations because of longstanding Covenanter principles, but many ordinary members were drawn to them. This led to a wider division over political action (forcing a general revisiting of the issue of political dissent) - a civil war amongst RPs if you will: “Old Lights” (maintained opposition to voting or holding office under the U.S. Constitution, preferred testimony and separation rather than political reform, generally wary of associating with abolitionist political movements) vs. “New Lights” (believed Christians should engage politically to end slavery, supported abolitionist parties like the Liberty and Republican Parties, encouraged cooperation with broader anti-slavery efforts). This led to a formal split in 1833, with the New Light group eventually becoming more politically active in abolition. None of that stopped many Old Lights from being active abolitionists - including involvement in the Underground Railroad - while refusing to join external movements. My point in all of this is to show that one does need to join with the unrighteous to promote righteousness (does joining with the unrighteous to promote righteousness even sound right?). And in the case of the RPs, uniting with the unrighteous divided the righteous.

 

[darrellmaurina]

While I do not claim to be an expert on RP history, yes, I was aware of the RP split since it was part of the early history of what became the RPC(ES). I've often found it interesting that the small remnant of the "New Light" side of the RPs merged with the Schaeffer side of the Bible Presbyterian split. Their ecclesiastical histories have little in common. Their approach to political and cultural engagement may have been much closer -- but that's an area on which I would need to do a level of research that I have not done.

With regard to alliance with Roman Catholics, I think that question is more complicated than some of the more conservative Reformed people realize, and the actual practice in the Reformation era was less strict than a fair number of their successors.

Ask where Erasmus lived when he fled the Netherlands. Ask who produced much of the Genevan Psalter. The answer to those questions will indicate that not all Catholics were treated the same way and much depended upon the individual involved.

Now your response may be that Trent fundamentally changed things, and I'm not going to disagree with you. Eight and a half centuries ago, Peter Waldo appealed to the Pope against harassment by his local bishop in Lyon, and the response of the Pope, after examining him, was to kiss him on the head and say, in essence, "I don't have a problem with you but you can't be preaching without approval by your local bishop." That shows just how much the Catholic Church has changed -- in the era of the 1100s, a form of Augustinianism quite close to what we believe, while uncommon, was still acceptable at the highest levels of the Roman Catholic Church, and conversely, the Pope had much less authority over local bishops than is the case today. Even as late as the mid-1500s there were still voices of reform in the Roman Catholic Church, and several places of Europe where Protestantism is now rare or nearly unknown could have become Protestant countries if only a few things had gone differently. Even at Trent, at least one bishop was attacked for advocating a view of justification that was essentially Lutheran and others were likely in agreement based on their published writings.

I would argue that our situation today is that all doors to ecclesiastical cooperation have been closed by Trent's anathemas on us. That is where the II Corinthians 6.14-17 passage you cite on being improperly yoked applies.

Look at how the generation following the Reformers acted. It is a matter of political fact that even after Trent, Protestant countries routinely worked with Roman Catholic rulers in military and economic alliances. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy, while not my friend, may be useful.

As for cooperation outside the ecclesiastical sphere, I think there are better arguments for voting for a homeschooling pro-life Roman Catholic than there are for voting for Donald Trump.

If we're willing to work with men in politics who share few of our moral values and are members of no church (and seem to like heretical preachers) but want to accomplish things on which we do agree, I think refusal to work with Roman Catholics with whom we share far more than we share with Trump makes little sense.

Again, the key is what being unequally yoked means.

I'm not going to receive the elements at a Catholic Mass. Period. And no priest who knows what I believe, and who himself believes what he's supposed to believe, should let me do so.

I do not see a problem with working with that priest, or his parishioners, to keep a left-wing civil magistrate from destroying both of our churches, or killing babies, or similar things.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Take for example the Israelite law of five-fold restitution for theft of oxen and four-fold restitution for theft of sheep. The moral principles of restitution and of penalty are matters of general equity, but the precise nature of the restitution and penalty should be weighed by legislators, judges, and magistrates so as to ensure that punishments fit crimes. In a time where oxen are not used for plowing, there is presumably not much sense in a greater penalty for theft of oxen than for theft of sheep.

A theonomist, at least a thorough-going one, would insist on the continuing applicability of the original 5:1/4:1 distinction.

It would seem that the general principle of restitution should still apply, but not specifically as under the Mosaic OT Law
[automerge]1766420086[/automerge]

So you are proposing we focus on banding together politically with the frustrated baptists and charismatics and broad evangelicals to do what? Shouldn't we start by focusing on:

How can we do that uniting with folks who are in many cases preaching another Gospel?

Most baptists and charismatics and broad evangelicals and Reformed folk probably voted for Reagan (and Trump). Where has that gotten the US? Did it advance the Gospel?

What is the point of focusing on uniting politically when the majority of our citizens are spiritually dead? Can you point to a Reformer or Puritan who advocated such an approach?

I do not think that Calvinistic Baptists nor reformed ones though would be teaching and holding to another gospel, and that we can and should be involved in the work of the Kingdom with other evangelicals also

 

[YeshuaFan]

How do you reconcile this position with teachings such as 2 Corinthians 6.14-17?

And before you again bring up the American RP efforts to end slavery, it's also a matter of record that, while they were staunchly opposed to slavery as far back as the 1700s (and eventually officially condemning slaveholding as sinful on Biblical grounds, refusing communion to slaveholders and in some cases even their defenders, openly preaching against it from the pulpit, and encouraging members to aid escapees), joining interdenominational anti-slavery societies (I don't know of any in that era that were purely secular), political abolition parties, and other “voluntary societies” was largely discouraged. This did create tension within the RPs as many of its leaders were resistant to joining such organizations because of longstanding Covenanter principles, but many ordinary members were drawn to them. This led to a wider division over political action (forcing a general revisiting of the issue of political dissent) - a civil war amongst RPs if you will: “Old Lights” (maintained opposition to voting or holding office under the U.S. Constitution, preferred testimony and separation rather than political reform, generally wary of associating with abolitionist political movements) vs. “New Lights” (believed Christians should engage politically to end slavery, supported abolitionist parties like the Liberty and Republican Parties, encouraged cooperation with broader anti-slavery efforts). This led to a formal split in 1833, with the New Light group eventually becoming more politically active in abolition. None of that stopped many Old Lights from being active abolitionists - including involvement in the Underground Railroad - while refusing to join external movements. My point in all of this is to show that one does need to join with the unrighteous to promote righteousness (does joining with the unrighteous to promote righteousness even sound right?). And in the case of the RPs, uniting with the unrighteous divided the righteous.

We can and should be involved with Catholics with social causes such as sanctity of human life, and making sure to keep marriage as God intended, but we dare not associate and get involved with them on any areas of theology, as the Lutheran church decided to in order to try to come to an agreement of garce and theology before

 

[Northern Crofter]

I do not think that Calvinistic Baptists nor reformed ones though would be teaching and holding to another gospel...

Agreed.

...we can and should be involved in the work of the Kingdom with other evangelicals also

Of course - but is the work of the kingdom first spiritual or political? Furthermore, what is being argued by some above above is a much broader tent than evangelicals (I do not, for example, accept the theory that there are "Evangelical Catholics," a title of a Chuck Colson-endorsed book some might be familiar with from a few decades back).

 

[Northern Crofter]

We can and should be involved with Catholics with social causes...

What do you base this determination on? Mormons and Mohammedans also hold these moral values. Why do we need to be involved with them? Can't we do it on our own?

 

[YeshuaFan]

What do you base this determination on? Mormons and Mohammedans also hold these moral values. Why do we need to be involved with them? Can't we do it on our own?

yes we can, but we can cooperate on non theologicasl and doctrinal issues, as in the social agenda

 

[Northern Crofter]

yes we can, but we can cooperate on non theologicasl and doctrinal issues, as in the social agenda

What does it look like to "cooperate" without yoking ourselves to them? When has this worked in the past? Is there such a thing as a social agenda that is not based on doctrine and theology?

 

[darrellmaurina]

What do you base this determination on? Mormons and Mohammedans also hold these moral values. Why do we need to be involved with them? Can't we do it on our own?

No, we CANNOT do it on our own.

The number of Reformed people is far too small in virtually all parts of the United States to win elections. If we don't work with traditional Roman Catholics and various types of evangelical Protestants, we have no chance of winning elections. None. Zero. Not a small chance, but not at all.

That's not opinion. It's demographic basics.

I haven't checked the numbers for many years, but back in the 1990s, there were eight counties in the United States -- eight out of over three thousand -- in which Reformed people were the plurality. Note that just means the largest religious group, NOT a majority, and with some exceptions, most were well under 50 percent Reformed. Most were small-population counties where you would expect, i.e., the Dutch Reformed centers of Northwest Iowa and certain parts of Michigan. The numbers are likely lower now than they were back then, and just because a person attends a church with "Reformed" on the church sign doesn't tell us everything we need to know. As we've seen from Congressional elections in Grand Rapids, just because the person is a member of a Dutch Reformed church, or a Calvin graduate (or in two cases, former Calvin professors) doesn't mean the person will be conservative. Congressman Paul Henry was a friend of my father and bucked the Republican leadership to write letters of recommendation for my father when he got crosswise with party leadership back in the mid-to-late 1980s, and while I like many things about Dr. Henry, I know, from direct interactions with him when others (not me) pressured him on issues of a Christian worldview, that he was more like his father, Carl F.H. Henry, than like most people on the Puritan Board. As for Congressman Vern Ehlers, he was a member of Eastern Avenue CRC, one of the denomination's leading liberal churches. Those following have generally been more problematic.

Take every confessionally Reformed member of NAPARC and get them all to move to Wyoming, which is our smallest state with a population of 576,851, and is also one of our most conservative states. The total membership of NAPARC is about the size of Wyoming's population. You now will have about half of the population of a state which now has about a million people after all of the NAPARC members move there. Now maybe -- MAYBE -- Reformed people will control a working majority of the Wyoming legislature depending on how the local Baptists and charismatics and other evangelicals react to "those newcomers who brought their strange churches with them."

There is no other state in the entire USA where, even if every confessionally Reformed person in the entire USA were to move there, there would be any possibility of taking control of the state government without working with other people to do so.

Frankly, to even talk this way is silly. It's not going to happen. And if we have any Puritan Board members from Wyoming, they'll likely tell you the state is very conservative but not very Reformed.

In my county of about 55,000 people, which is the largest third-class county (i.e., rural county) in Missouri, I am pretty sure I can personally name nearly all of the adults in our county who identify as Reformed. The numbers are not even in the three digits, and a number of those people are YRRs or MacArthur supporters who are not members of churches that identify as Reformed in any way whatsoever. We have one elected official I know of in any county, city, or school elected position who is in any way soteriologically Reformed, and that person downplays being Reformed, is not a member of a church that identifies itself as Reformed, and would disagree with most of this discussion about Christian politics.

That means our county has a Reformed population of LESS THAN one fifth of one percent.

We have one small Reformed Baptist church, led by two ruling elders who share the preaching duties. I love my brothers there, but they are a small group of a few dozen people who will probably never even be able to afford to call a paid pastor. I'm trying to start a "preaching station" for Reformed people who can't join that church because they, quite correctly since they are Baptists, require believer's baptism following profession for membership. While I routinely get hundreds of people watching online, our in-person attendance has never been over a dozen. There is a Korean PCA here which I don't want to criticize publicly other than to say the attendance is smaller than the Reformed Baptists and I know that when confessionally Reformed military personnel visit there, I'm often the next person they call.

Candidly, I don't expect that either of us will ever see more than a hundred people in worship. The same would apply to anyone who tries to start a Reformed church in this county that is actually Reformed in any serious sense of the word. Maybe the PCA could get something started that is "happy-clappy" and "Reformed-lite," but I doubt even that would work. People who want that kind of church can get it from the non-Reformed churches in the Southern Baptist Convention which provide plenty of programs for children and families, and they aren't going to be interested in a watered-down PCA.

These are hard facts of life in the rural South.

Show me how I'm supposed to "do it on our own" with virtually nobody else in our county who is Reformed, even by the loosest definition of the term.