I have been kicking around for a while the way that some have kicked around the doctrine of the two kingdoms. (I myself prefer to call it the spirituality of the church, following the Old School Presbyterian tradition, which receives constitutional status, for instance, in the OPC’s Form of Government (3.4), which reads: “All church power is wholly moral or spiritual. No church officers or judicatories possess any civil jurisdiction; they may not inflict any civil penalties nor may they seek the aid of the civil power in the exercise of their jurisdiction further than may be necessary for civil protection and security.â€) What still leaves me strangely intrigued is the Bayly Bros. kvetch that 2k (read: the spirituality of the church) leaves the resurrection without policy implications. Does this mean that states, counties and townships should establish new policies for burial procedures so that mourning visitors to cemeteries will not be injured when headstones suddenly pop out of the earth?
What it seems to mean is that the gospel must have direct bearing on government, particularly on the rule of law, what conservative politicians usually call, law and order. Here is how the Baylys put it:
How does a pastor preach the Law to Christ’s Kingdom without spillover into other kingdoms? How are we to preach God’s Law so that the Christian understands God’s demands without leading the unconverted to think he can keep the Law as well? How do we preach on cultural sins to Christians without addressing any kingdom beyond Christ’s? How do we parse the person, dividing earthly citizenship from citizenship in the Kingdom of Christ? How do we parse the Law, applying it carefully in Christ’s Kingdom yet avoiding its implications for the kingdom of man?
The two-kingdom concept seems simple enough initially. Two kingdoms: the kingdoms of earth and the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ. Two forms of authority: divine and eternal; human and temporal.
In one sense it’s elementary, so basic I doubt any Christian would deny it. There are human kings and the King of Glory, kingdoms of earth and the Kingdom of God.
The problem comes in knowing how to deal with the inevitable collisions between kings and kingdoms.
If Christianity is about law, morality, and uprightness, then this view of the state and its functions, combined with a desire for a faith-based political activism that goes in the public square and takes no prisoners makes perfect sense.
What is baffling about this understanding of the gospel, however, is that it is all law and no forgiveness. And without forgiveness the gospel is not good news – a gospel of law, human righteousness, and condemnation of sin is not a gospel.
I was reminded of this point quite poignantly during a recent worship service where the New Testament lesson came from the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. Matthew 18 reads:
23 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30 He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. 31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. 32 Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.â€
It is hard to listen to this passage and not worry that the world will hear contemporary Christian activists as unforgiving scolds. What is more pressing is whether our heavenly father thinks of such law-and-order believers? Will he look at them as unforgiving servants? Is it not possible that all the faith-based hectoring and finger-pointing in the public square is unbecoming of those who have been forgiven? Isn’t the point of this passage that the Christian’s public face should be one of forgiveness and acceptance?
Does this mean that the state, to be truly Christian, should be like the church, doling out forgiveness for sin? Should the state have mercy on repentant doctors and mothers guilty of abortion? Is that really what faith-based activists want? Isn’t this what the Democrats for the most part give us? In fact, the idea that the state should conform to the church is the way that many evangelicals wind up on the political Left. They believe that the ministry of mercy and compassion will fix the halls of power; the state should be about love, forgiveness, and compassion.
To counter the left, Rightist evangelicals invariably respond with a Christian message of law and order and thereby give the impression that the gospel is one of making people moral (or the world safe for Mormonism – thank you, Ken Myers for that bon mot).
In which case, the Religious Right is right to think that the state should execute justice rather than mercy. But they are wrong to think that the state’s functions are the fundamental building blocks of Christianity.
The problem we face today is that in so wanting the state to uphold standards of law and justice, and in trying to make a Christian case for this, we have turned the church into the state. That is, Americans have generally come to associate the conservative Protestant churches with those believers who advocate law and order (i.e., social conservatism) because the message these Christians invariably promote in public is not one of gospel but of law.
What we are now living through is a crisis of justification, not only within the churches who have members who should know better, but also one within the state, where Christian citizens have disregarded 2k in pursuit of a righteous society. Which came first, the chicken of moralism in the church or righteous activism in the state? It is hard to tell. But in both cases, the opposition to antinomianism has produced the over compensation of neo-nomianism. In both cases as well, sanctification precedes justification, good works and personal righteousness precede forgiveness and imputed righteousness. It is any wonder that justification-priority folks think the sky is falling?
What critics of 2k need to remember is that the doctrine is not about liberal or conservative politics. It is is essentially an effort to preserve the good news that Jesus Christ died to save sinners from the guilt of sin and the penalty of the law.
89 Comments
Craig, the Baylys and you huff that the resurrection or “Ps. 2″ have policy implications. I blow your house down that the resurrection and Ps. 2 don’t have policy implications. I actually suggested one policy implication of the resurrection — regulations for visitors to cemeteries. You haven’t suggested anything. Instead, you think I’m supposed to stay on point and admit there are policy implications — never to be named, of course — about the resurrection and Ps. 2.
If you wanted to prove 2k wrong, all you need to do is point to a specific policy. If you don’t, I can only conclude you are all quote and no policy.
It’s not looking real good for you case.
Ron,
Why do you think only human beings are commanded to be baptized? Might it be that it’s because only human beings are who Jesus lived and died for? But are you now saying that not only did Jesus live and die for non-imago Dei creation (fish and government) but that these same objects of salvation don’t need the sign and seal of salvation? Triple yeow.
Craig,
You’ve asserted that Ps. 2 has political policy implications (we’ve yet to hear what those might be specifically). How does that not presuppose that the Bible is a handbook for political policy? If you want me to stop saying you think the Bible is a handbook for political living then maybe you shouldn’t say the Bible has implications for political policy? I mean, if I said the Bible contains implications for paving roads I think it would be quite fair to say I think the Bible is a handbook for urban dwelling. But I don’t. Clunky as it sounds, I think it’s the handbook for how sinners are reconciled to God.
If Jesus didn’t come to establish an earthly kingdom (and He did NOT…I AGREE), then in WHAT sense could the rulers “break bondsâ€? How would killing the God-Man, the One who didn’t come to establish an earthly kingdom, have bonds which rulers can break?
You’re losing sight of forest for trees, Craig, and asking the wrong question. The whole Psalm is about the redemptive work of the Lord and Creator Jesus. Maybe you don’t understand that 2K is actually the superior system when it comes to the Lordship of Jesus. We hold that he is Lord over every square inch regardless of whether some inhabitants of creation recognize that or not. 2K has no need to make the pagans bow the public square knee because they are his servants already. You seem to think Jesus isn’t quite Lord unless they do bend the knee. But take a breath, Craig, they will. Patience is a virtue, you know.
Hello fellow 2kers….
Help me out here…..
I have been in arguing in person for years and on discussion threads as of late against Theonomy and Constantinianism. I keep interacting with these people, but 99% of the time, they won’t even answer my questions. I’m met by silence, or they just disappear.
Is there something wrong with what I’m saying? I realize not everyone here will agree with everything I say…but I can barely get these people to engage. Are my arguments and points I raise that bad?
It’s like they’re big bullies and when someone stands up to them and actually attacks their position as not just wrong, but guilty of the very things (dishonouring God and profaning His Word) they accuse us of…..what happens? Are they sneering at my lame arguments and walking away, I’m not worthy of an interaction? Or, are they just unable to answer….which is what I’ve always believed. I refuse to accept their terms and paradigm, and so when I change it and hit them with the firehouse so to speak….they seem to just take off.
I’m a little frustrated though, because when I go to their sites…they just won’t post what I write or they, like the guy over on GreenBaggins, try and say I’m making assertions not arguments…which to me is akin to saying I don’t know how to answer you, gotta go. Their work is full of endless assertion.
Not to step on anyone’s toes but I think for too long these people are answered, and then they just ignore it and talk louder and have largely taken over (at least in general thought) the Reformed and even Evangelical world. It’s almost like we’re saying, well, that’s okay we just disagree…..
To my mind, Constantinian/Sacralist/Triumphalist/Theonomic Reconstructionism isn’t just something we can disagree about…..this attacks the very core of Christ’s teaching and ends up overthrowing the gospel. I’m sure folks here have read Kline on this……I agree with him. He was not afraid to call this teaching what it is, and if he’s right, well, you can see why I want to shout from the mountaintops that this isn’t just an erroneous teaching but next to Christological error, this is THE error we’re being warned about on the pages of the New Testament…..I am convinced these people will either lead us into apostasy, or will unnecessarily bring down great wrath upon us as the Culture lashes back….not against the gospel, but against Sacralism.
Can someone offer a little feedback?
John A.
John A.,
I could say precisely the same things about the extreme 2-K version you seem amenable to…though I wouldn’t lump myself into the Theonomist/Recon camp.
Many times, it’s as if differing men pass like ships in the night…from my perspective, what is being brought up by Darryl, and Zrim, are immaterial to the central question. I USED to be in the same camp as Darryl Hart and Zrim. I was in that camp for about 6 years. I read lots of Horton. I subscribed to Modern Reformation. I listened to the White Horse Inn. I participated on the Puritanboard from that 2K perspective and read and applauded others. I think I’m familiar with the lingo.
The fact that Hart and Zrim trot out questions concerning tax policy and street paving are not evidence of understanding a differing view, quite the opposite. The fact Zrim changes what he says concerning my views does not demonstrate his understanding…remember, he thought my stance was that policy implications have equal weight to the revelation of Christ…now he’s simply asserting that my belief that there are implications is tantamount to calling the Bible a handbook for political policy…I’d call it a non-sequitur, but that doesn’t go far enough.
The problem, as I see it, is that the jingoism of 2-K to the extreme is what keeps men from fruitful discussions…and yes, there is jingoism from other sides as well. What sort of jingoisms come from 2-K to the extreme? I’ll give you two:
1. Insisting that any view which entails the Word saying “more” than how sinners get saved somehow makes Christ’s work into a social gospel.
2. Claiming that saying the above also entails trying to make men be good rather than proclaiming the gospel and seeing conversions (strange given that certain influential recons have written to the contrary…that political ordering follows revival).
Before we can even have a discussion, those 2 have to be dispelled. Until they are, there can be no meaningful discussion. Those 2 assertions are just that: empty assertions. Why do those get a wink and pass as valid while mine do not?
We have no point of contact…until then, we’ll keep passing in the night.
John A, I also encourage you to re-read Darryl and Zrim. Neither have engaged with Psalm 2 (though Zrim came the closest). Why avoid the Word? Zrim’s latest assertion about Psalm 2 wasn’t contextually driven, it was eisogetically driven. He said:
“whole Psalm is about the redemptive work of the Lord and Creator Jesus. Maybe you don’t understand that 2K is actually the superior system when it comes to the Lordship of Jesus. We hold that he is Lord over every square inch regardless of whether some inhabitants of creation recognize that or not. 2K has no need to make the pagans bow the public square knee because they are his servants already. You seem to think Jesus isn’t quite Lord unless they do bend the knee. But take a breath, Craig, they will. Patience is a virtue, you know.”
The Psalm is about the redemptive work of Christ. He seems to think Christ’s Lordship only requires theoretical lordship…which makes life easier, right? I just say “Christ is Lord, and badda bing! No serious implications until I’m likely long dead!”.
But the Psalm was talking about Christ’s death but also eschatalogically and in-between. If only eschatalogically, then why the warning? If only about Christ’s death, burial, resurrection…then what of the demand for kings to recognize Him? It is actually self-defeating…if Christ’s Kingdom is reduced to a spiritual 2-K to the extreme version, then why demand kings recognize Him when He didn’t come to establish an earthly kingdom? If it’s only eschatalogical, then again…what are the bonds and why demand kings bow?
The Psalm is about redemption…but it is clear that the redemption spoken of demands more than just men’s souls and a theoretical lordship. We all agree God is sovereign…it’s just that one side seems to prefer a sovereignty where we shrug our shoulders. God hasn’t given us very much to do since the Lord’s Day comes but once a week. Another version sees God’s sovereignty as establishing means where God actually empowers men to do what is rooted in creation: dominion. We rest each Lord’s Day from doing the work God has placed before us, glorifying Him and representing Him. It’s harder work, but we actually believe God is soverein in all things…others may say He is sovereign, but when the rubber hits the road, what really works its way out is that God is removed from our affairs and men are sovereign.
Craig,
Seriously, thanks for your comments.
You’re right about there not being ‘contact’….we are like people shouting across the street at each other. Neither can quite hear what the other is saying. I think I understand you, you think you understand me…and to a certain extent we do (smile)….but in order to have conversation, meaningful interaction we’ve got to hone the discussion down to some key points.
Psalm 2 is certainly glorious……but I think the real question behind much of this is how does the OT relate to the NT? Should we read Psalm 2 as stand-alone, and read the NT in light of it, or read the NT, define Messianic Kingship and things like that and then come to Psalm 2.
What do you think? Feel free to frame the questions differently. I realize you might have a different way to put it.
Anyone else want to jump in? Aren’t these hermeneutical questions the real issue here? For the 2k folks, we see the NT message and the OT makes perfect sense…we understand it spiritually and typologically. But for the 1k, they’re reading the OT and saying it SAYS this….don’t explain it away.
I doubt in the end we will agree, but I think by focusing on the foundational areas of disagreement we can have a more profitable discussion. That way we won’t argue based off of mis-characterizing the other position. I’ve been guilty too. I know you guys are trying to honour God, but with Prof. Hart or any of the other 2kers….it’s not fair to say they only want to live as Christians 1 day a week or something like that. They’re arguing for a different type of Christian life and focus grounded in an understanding of the Kingdom. Hey I’m a rabid 2ker but let me tell you, my whole life, all day at work or wherever…I’m thinking about the Kingdom and that is profoundly shaping what I do and how I think. But if I have a different idea of what the Kingdom is…that’s going to look very different and probably more than a little baffling to you.
I appreciate the exchange….really.
Thanks,
John A.
The fact that Hart and Zrim trot out questions concerning tax policy and street paving are not evidence of understanding a differing view, quite the opposite.
Actually, Craig, it’s to take the 1K thesis seriously, which is essentially that the Bible speaks to all of life. Well, my life includes a fair amount of taxes and (bad Michigan) roads. The point here is that what all-of-lifers of the 1K variety don’t seem to want to own up to is that what they seem to mean is that the Bible applies to all of extraordinary life. Otherwise, why all the huffing about bringing up the concerns of ordinary life, you know, the place where the vast majority of us actually live?
So a lot of this turns on how one understands the spectrum of temporal life, which runs from the trivial (salad making, sports and leisure)to the enduring (education, marriage and statecraft). Everything that falls into the temporal is categorically different from the eternal–none of it makes it into the next, eternal age. The ironic thing about 1K is that it tends to mistake the high-end temporal for eternal, leaving middle- to low-end temporal to fend for itself even as it spouts about every square inch. But 2K actually holds that everything temporal, great and small, matters to God, just not in an eternal sense.
We all agree God is sovereign…it’s just that one side seems to prefer a sovereignty where we shrug our shoulders.
Here is a better example of not understanding the opposing view, or at least not trying to. But unraised fists aren’t the same as shrugging shoulders, Craig, they’re closer to working hands or rubbing shoulders. And that’s the point of triadalism. This charge of apathy is quite baffling to me. Reformed 1Kers like yourself speak about the nature of the kingdoms and their relationship to each other the very same way my funda-evangelicals do. I think what you both share in common is actually an under-realized view of creation and an over-realized eschatology. You both seem to think general revelation is insufficient to govern general tasks and needs help from special revelation and an impressive impatience to wait upon God alone to usher in the new heavens and new earth. I don’t think either of you understand one bit what it means to be wandering pilgrims.
Craig, have you ever heard of Christian liberty? Fundamentalists usually have trouble with that one, which is why they generally flame 2kers with words like cowardice, unfaithful, and even sin. I do appreciate your restraint here, but you liked to sling a lot of jingoism (and worse) when you’re with your buddies over at Baylys’.
Zrim,
I’m not “1-K”, I’m 2-K…just not the kind of 2-K you are. I’ve told you this at least one other time. I even advanced the argument that the version of 2-K you and Darryl promote presupposes 1-K over at the Bayly Blog (contrary to Darryl, I’ve offered more than jingoisms).
You offered absolutely nothing, except to say “boy, you sure sound live a fundie!”
“Sounds like” is just another example of guilt by association…you offer nothing but empty assertions, non-sequiturs, and micharacterizations. Peruse my comments, Zrim. I write with force, and I’m aggressive…but compare it to what you guys say. I ask time and again for you and Darryl to actually discuss issue, but only 1 has stepped up. Darryl likes to say I’m all talk…but I’m in the ring asking him to get in. He is a coward. Is he in sin? I have trouble believing anything good can come from his choice of hobby-horse. We all have errors, but when we parade them about and make them (from all appearances of this blog) a central issue…the component of sin can definitely creep in.
I’ve lived his form of 2-K. I still fight against it. I see it as a threat to my own walk, so I would warn others to beware of it as well.
John A,
I do appreciate your post, though I disagree with you…very much disagree. You said:
“Psalm 2 is certainly glorious……but I think the real question behind much of this is how does the OT relate to the NT? Should we read Psalm 2 as stand-alone, and read the NT in light of it, or read the NT, define Messianic Kingship and things like that and then come to Psalm 2.”
Here’s what I think: Psalm 2 is Messianic. We can’t read it as a “stand alone”. Especially when we have NT passages which offer divine commentary. In fact, this is what makes Psalm 2 all the more compelling for implications extending beyond the “spiritual kingdom”. The Father says to the Son “Today I have begotten you”…according to Acts 13:33 this is referring to His resurrection. In light of His resurrection, His glory, there are implications for kings, judges, and rulers on earth. So we will both agree God is sovereign (I am a Calvinist, after all), but it is clear that Psalm 2′s warning to the rulers on the earth hinges on the Kingly office Christ has secured by virtue of his incarnation, death, and resurrection.
I hope you can see my argument doesn’t hinge on Psalm 2 being a “stand alone” verse…quite the opposite. I hope you can see that we experience another “passing in the night”, so to speak. We are both saying Psalm 2 is Messianic. I’d like to see your take.
Clarification:
I said: “but it is clear that Psalm 2′s warning to the rulers on the earth hinges on the Kingly office Christ has secured by virtue of his incarnation, death, and resurrection.”
What I mean is that Psalm 2 isn’t appealing to God’s sovereignty by virtue of His deity, but of Christ’s office of King, secured by incarnation, death, and resurrection.
Right, but then do we take Psalm 2 and the message of universal Kingship and the bowing down of the other kings…….and say this looks like…
A.
Christ reigning through the church? or literally in person?
over a universal world empire that’s geo-political?
B.
or do we take the NT teaching on the spiritual and eschatological nature Kingdom and now interpret the Psalm in light of that?
Let me put this way…….what NT verses do you see that lead you to understand the Psalm as A.? We’ll start there. I’m sure you know there’s a ton that can be given to understand it as B. But go ahead…..but then you know I will ask about the B verses….because then we have a conflict in vision and Kingdom paradigm. How do we reconcile?
John A.
Nope, it can’t be since the scriptures tell us a different story. All things are made new, not just people. The works of the devil are many, and Jesus came to destroy all of them. The Fall had an effect on all creation, not just man. And we see this curse beginning to be reversed in real-time as early as after the Flood. Which brings me to your next statement:
Well, the whole earth was baptized in the days of Noah, if that makes you happier. But even without that, the scriptures are ripe with passages speaking of the restoration of all things. You just have to believe them.
John,
I don’t agree with A…sorry
I don’t believe that the Church in any way “rules” over political orders. I believe the Church is to prophesy to rulers…yes, even inform them. We no more rule political orders any more than the Levites ruled over Israel. The prophets didn’t rule over nations in their office as prophets, though we see the line blurred in David, but that’s because he was a type of Christ. Do you see a bit more clearly what I’m saying? Part of the prophetic role of the Church is to proclaim the Word against immoral policy…such as the sanctioning, and approval, of infanticide.
I’m also not saying that Jesus gets an office at the Whitehouse saying He’s the President. Authority rests upon the authority of God and His Christ. If authority is to wield the sword of justice, that authority must comply with the standards of God. So the kingdoms of man are NOT *the Kingdom*…but the influence from a prophetic Church is an activity of *the Kingdom*.
Remember, I’m saying there are *implications* for rulers as rulers and the kingdoms they lead.
“or do we take the NT teaching on the spiritual and eschatological nature Kingdom and now interpret the Psalm in light of that?”
We are going to disagree at key points of what the spiritual nature of the Kingdom is (probably eschatalogically, too…but I’m not a stickler on eschatology). Could you interact with the Psalm a bit as I did?
Mr. Paschall,
Thank you for the opportunity to use a link you yourself posted as a refutation against you.
The WCF chapters you mention note:
1. Neglecting baptism is a “great sin”. That puts the *command* to baptize and be baptized in the category of law (I speak in your l/g dichotomous lingo).
2. Unworthy receivers of The Lord’s Supper commit a “great sin against Christ”. They of course cite 1 Cor 11:29 which states that such receivers drink *damnation* upon themselves. Damnation is in the category of law (I speak in your l/g dichotomous lingo). So it is you sir, who are “flatly wrong” (or at least inconsistent) when you say, “Law is not conferred rather grace, as they are signs and seals of the covenant.” Both law and grace are conferred. Even the signs themselves picture judgment as well as promise, as one of your own has noted. That is the nature of covenant. Promise and Threat. Saving faith embraces the promises of the covenant and trembles at the threats of the covenant.
When Jesus said, “Do this” and “Go baptize”, He wasn’t making suggestions. He was giving commands. He even went so far as to claim all authority in heaven and on earth to give those commands some teeth. But these commands are sacred commands, that is, they are directed to His covenant people only. That is why they are called “sacraments”. Aquinas referred to the “sacraments of the old law†and the “sacraments of the new law†when speaking of the Old Covenant administration’s ceremonial or restorative law and their New Covenant counterparts.
John A., you said
The Law of God precedes the Mosaic covenant. It was given to Adam (commonly referred to as “Moral Law”) and thus, given to all men. The Covenant God made with Israel included this Law, but also had a sacramental element to it. So, as it pertained to the sacramental feasts, for instance, “no uncircumcised shall partake of it.” (Ex 12) But as it pertained to principles of civil justice, which is really what this whole thread is about, “There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.” (Lev 24:22) So God’s moral law, summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments (all ten, btw), is the duty which God requires of man. (WCF SC 39-41)
Ron,
I challenge you to find any Reformed theologians who articulate the means of grace as Law. We are absolutely commanded to faithfully receive the sacraments, however, these indicatives still are not properly categorized as Law in the same sense of the Decalogue. The Law does not confer grace, the sacraments do, unless you take a Zwinglian view of sacraments that function as mere memorials and proclamation of faith and obedience. The problem is that the Reformers all departed from Zwingli’s sacramental views, they resurface again with the Arminians where they continue today, but these views are not in line with Scripture or the Confessions.
You are conflating the command to administer/partake with the sacraments themselves, which are truly means of grace conferred on the believer. These are distinct. If your exegesis is this sloppy here, how are we to be persuaded at all by your arguments elsewhere? Last time I checked the Reformers weren’t Thomists on the sacraments. My statements stand.
BTW – I am not asserting that Zwingli held that the Law confers grace. I may not have been clear on that.
Okay, Craig, I’m stepping in. The church has a prophetic role to inform the magistrate on what is God’s norm. Does this extend to abolishing idolatry? If not, why do you, in submission to Lord Christ, get to decide what to inform the magistrate about, as if some of God’s standards apply but others don’t.
I wouldn’t “categorize” them as “Law” because I don’t live in your schizophrenic l/g dichotomy. But a command is a Law. I’m not sure where you learned your grammar, but “Go and baptize” and “Do this” are not indicatives. They are imperatives. Imperatives coming from God are His Law.
I never said the Law confers grace. I said the sacraments confer both grace and judgment, depending on the receiver. It appears you missed that in accusing me of being Zwinglian. As you noted, the Zwinglian view says the sacraments don’t confer anything. Here I am saying the sacraments confer some things. That doesn’t make me a very good Zwinglian.
As far as Aquinas’ sacrament/law terminology is concerned, he got it from Augustine. And Calvin used it to (ICR 5.14.14). Was circumcision a component of Old Covenant Law? If so, then baptism, the New Covenant counterpart as admission into the covenant, is a component of New Covenant Law. I know you don’t like me saying “New Covenant Law”, while you have no problem whatsoever with me saying “Old Covenant Law”. But, as the Confession you keep pointing to notes, *both* the old and new covenants were administrations of the Covenant of Grace. And yet, look at all that law…
er, “Calvin used it too…”
The church has a prophetic role to inform the magistrate on what is God’s norm. Does this extend to abolishing idolatry?Yes and Amen. Unless you think God’s norm includes idolatry…
Look, civil governments already have sanctions against lying under many circumstances. False religions are lies of the most destructive kind. Why shouldn’t the civil magistrate forbid them? That mormon knocking on your door is trying to kill you…
screwed up my blockquotes on that last post. Let’s try that again.
Yes and Amen. Unless you think God’s norm includes idolatry…
Look, civil governments already have sanctions against lying under many circumstances. False religions are lies of the most destructive kind. Why shouldn’t the civil magistrate forbid them? That mormon knocking on your door is trying to kill you…
Craig,
”We no more rule political orders any more than the Levites ruled over Israel. ….”
I really disagree with this statement. This shows a real different understanding of the Theocratic arrangement of the OT order. It seems like you’re thinking in terms of the modern nation state……which Israel was not. It was unique. The same would go for David. He was first and foremost a type of Jesus Christ. He wasn’t a prophet in relation to a secular office or a non-covenantal kingdom.
Now there is certainly the sense in which all kingdom of the earth are subject to the reign of Christ….but that doesn’t mean all fall under His holy realm. I do agree the prophetic witness of the church, the influence as you say, is an activity of the Kingdom. Our very presence, our worshipping, living our lives is a testimony.
As far as the Psalm….
Christ stood before Pilate (or Caesar if you will accept it) and told him my Kingdom is not of this world. He told Nicodemus you must be born again to see it. We’re told it does not come with observation, and it something only experienced by the regenerate…righteousness, peace, and joy.
Taking these concepts and understanding the Kingdom is Already and not yet, THEN I go back to the Psalm and say…ah, when the Messiah comes he breaks the Devil’s power over the nations. The gospel can now go forth, it can’t be restricted. This is a further ‘delay’ a proclamation to the world…this is the end, the end of times, repent and believe for the Christ who now reigns is coming again. As far as kingdoms…..they have no way to sacralize their nation. All they can do is repent and believe as individuals with their children. At the Judgment all the authorities of the world (which is of course more than a mere a political frame)….they will be destroyed (bow down).
I want to ask…what is it about your daily life as a 2ker that you found so troublesome? I’m curious. Then I’ll tell you of something of me and how it plays out if my life and we’ll see if we have the same notions of what 2K living looks like…..
Like I’ve said elsewhere, I think that IronInk McAtee guy is just building strawmen. Do you really think people like me or others here just want to check our faith at the door on Sunday morning and live like pagans the other six days? I can’t believe you would really think that.
So…..why would my reading the OT through the NT lens be wrong? And what is your understanding of the ‘retreatist’ 2k life? I know you don’t agree, but I’m not sure what else you would want me to say about the Psalm? We’re coming at it through different lenses.
John A.
Ron Smith,
Thanks for replying.
Well, I guess we do have a problem here. I find the WCF 3-fold division to be completely unacceptable and I think this formulation has fueled a lot of the debates and frustrated them by framing it all in these wrong categories.
1. There is no Biblical basis for treating the Mosaic Covenant as anything other than a unity. The so-called civil and ceremonial laws are completely intertwined and we have neither the hermeneutical tools, not the Divine authority to parse out segments of it. It all stands or falls together….I’m sorry but I think the book of Hebrews (my favourite) makes it pretty clear.
2. As far as the Decalogue…I also don’t accept that Adam had it in the garden. I think some of Paul’s statements in Roman’s are hard to make sense of if he did. I think the Moral Law is something other than the Decalogue which was given as a form-summary, a preamble for the entire Mosaic law covenant.
As far as the Law being applicable to the stranger…..that still doesn’t mean Moab and Edom, it would apply to the stranger dwelling within the Covenant boundaries, which at that point was geo-political. For us today, the stranger would not fall under the discipline or blessing of the church. Moab and Edom weren’t in the Land, the realm of the covenant.
Show me in the Bible where Paul or someone teaches the 3-fold division and I’ll talk in those terms. Otherwise I will continue to argue the NT militates against it. Westminster erred big time on that one.
Nice try, but I don’t think it works……
John A.
Dr. Ron, if distinguishing between law/gospel makes me a schizophrenic, then we can live with the diagnosis…pass the seroquel please.
You assert that “sacraments are a subclass of law”, but then go on to say “I wouldn’t categorize them as law”, this is highly confusing to us. You fail to distinguish between the command, and in this sense you are right to say that the commands “go baptize” etc. are Law, and the sacrament which is a means of Grace. This is where me, myself, and Jed are getting a bit confused. So are the Sacraments law or not?
So you aren’t Zwingliian, great. My assumption was that if you were holding to Sacraments as Law, then it would be reasonable to infer a memorialistic framework. Mea culpa, I don’t intend to jam you into a box that isn’t your own.
The problem with your assertion of the abolition of idolatry is that you don’t have precedent in the NT, or in the OT when the covenant people lived prior to the theocracy (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), or after the collapse of the theocracy (Babylonian/Persian captivity) where the people were called upon to urge the pagan magistrate to abolish idolatry. Heck, in Jer. 29 the Jews were to seek the good and prosperity of pagan Babylon. Within the boundaries of theocratic Israel, and within the courts of the diaspora, idolatry was to be condemned and punished.
The prophetic mission of the church exposes idolatry, however it is not in our jurisdiction to prosecute it outside of the courts of the church.
False religions are lies of the most destructive kind. Why shouldn’t the civil magistrate forbid them? That mormon knocking on your door is trying to kill you…
Ron,
What happens when the magistrate holds that Christianity is false and should be forbidden? Or is it the case that your theonomy is good because it’s yours but the other guy’s is bad because it’s his? And most observant Mormons I know make fantastic neighbors, as do most observant Muslims and Hindi. What in thee heck are you talking about?
John A.,
You said:
“It seems like you’re thinking in terms of the modern nation state……which Israel was not. It was unique. The same would go for David. He was first and foremost a type of Jesus Christ. He wasn’t a prophet in relation to a secular office or a non-covenantal kingdom.”
I’m not sure I’m actually following you here at all. I was simply pointing out that the Church should not have control over government (which was something you seemed to think I leaned toward)…we are a “holy nation”, a “priesthood” (as Peter says)…yet a priest is not a king, nor a president. That’s all I was saying. Analogies can be taken too far, and I think that’s what you did.
You said:
“Christ stood before Pilate (or Caesar if you will accept it) and told him my Kingdom is not of this world. He told Nicodemus you must be born again to see it. We’re told it does not come with observation, and it something only experienced by the regenerate…righteousness, peace, and joy.”
I’m with you 100%.
“Taking these concepts and understanding the Kingdom is Already and not yet, THEN I go back to the Psalm and say…ah, when the Messiah comes he breaks the Devil’s power over the nations. The gospel can now go forth, it can’t be restricted. This is a further ‘delay’ a proclamation to the world…this is the end, the end of times, repent and believe for the Christ who now reigns is coming again.”
Agreed. He has bound the “strong man”. I’m with you. I would very much emphasize the “it’s here”…that was the message of John the Baptist and Jesus…but it isn’t fully realized.
You said:
“All they can do is repent and believe as individuals with their children. At the Judgment all the authorities of the world (which is of course more than a mere a political frame)….they will be destroyed (bow down).”
This is where we begin parting company. You’ve “spiritualized” the spiritual Kingdom too much. It is all those things you’ve said already, but Christ’s reign as a King, by virtue of His Resurrection, *distinguished* between peoples and kings…nations and rulers…so there are *implications* for rulers and nations. You believe you’re reading Psalm 2 purely through the lens of the NT, but you’ve simply eisogeted your overly spiritualized notion of the kingdom into it. The warnings given are rooted in national disobedience…hence the collective call of groups and their rulers as opposed to a call to individuals that make up all of mankind.
In addressing this Psalm, Calvin states:
As the eternal Word of God, Christ, it is true, has always had in his hands by right sovereign authority and majesty, and as such can receive no accessions thereto; but still he is exalted in human nature, in which he took upon him the form of a servant. This title, therefore, is not applied to him only as God, but is extended to the whole person of the Mediator; for after Christ had emptied himself there was given to him a name which is above every name, that before him every knee should bow, (Philippians 2:9) David, as we know, after having obtained signal victories reigned over a large extent of territory, so that many nations became tributaries to him; but what is here said was not fulfilled in him. If we compare his kingdom with other monarchies it was confined within very narrow boundaries. Unless, therefore, we suppose this prophecy concerning the vast extent of kingdom to have been uttered in vain and falsely, we must apply it to Christ, who alone has subdued the whole world to himself and embraced all lands and nations under his dominion.
Matthew Henry is a bit more explicit with regard to Psalm 2:
“Kings and judges stand upon a level with common persons before God; and it is as necessary for them to be religious as for any others. Those that give law and judgment to others must receive law from Christ, and it will be their wisdom to do so. What is said to them is said to all, and is required of every one of us, only it is directed to kings and judges because of the influence which their example will have upon their inferiors, and because they were men of rank and power that opposed the setting up of Christ’s kingdom”
You asked:
“I want to ask…what is it about your daily life as a 2ker that you found so troublesome?”
Being able to “justify” my silence at work and going about my daily business. “They’re pagans” I would say, “Why expect otherwise?” And to an extent, of course that’s true…but the law/gospel dichotomy prevented me from using such opportunities to share the Word. I became so opposed to moralism that a Christian’s reasonable service became quite unreasonable.
“Do you really think people like me or others here just want to check our faith at the door on Sunday morning and live like pagans the other six days? I can’t believe you would really think that.”
McAtee has his hobby-horse and so does Darryl. I try not to ride either, so I wouldn’t paint with so broad a brush…However, I have lived the reality of 2-K extremism, and knowing that any sin I fall prey to is common to man…I realize it is not likely to be an uncommon occurrence for those who beat the drum perpetually. Am I saying you beat the drum? I have no reason to think so.
“So…..why would my reading the OT through the NT lens be wrong? And what is your understanding of the ‘retreatist’ 2k life? I know you don’t agree, but I’m not sure what else you would want me to say about the Psalm? We’re coming at it through different lenses.”
We’re both claiming to be reading the Psalm through a NT lens, as I’ve already mentioned and believe I’ve adequately explained (though maybe I’m not always clear). What I would like you to say about the Psalm is to acknowledge there is significance to the warning to those who hold offices as rulers, and those who members of nations who participate in national opposition to the Christ. If this is the case (and I believe it is), we are far too silent on issues where our nation opposes Christ most explicitly.
Unlike Darryl’s assertion, there are implications to the Resurrection when it comes to policy…if not, then a Messianic Psalm issuing warning based on Christ’s supreme rule over the nations by virtue of His Resurrection suddenly loses its bite. We are less likely to say, with Matthew Henry, that rulers must submit to Christ the Supreme Law-giver and issue laws as instructed in the school of Christ. They are to “kiss the Son”, a symbol of submission…not merely as fellow believers, but in their capacity as kings.
Craig, why do you think a 2k view would prevent you from giving an account of your faith to co-workers? You wrote: “Being able to “justify†my silence at work and going about my daily business. “They’re pagans†I would say, “Why expect otherwise?†And to an extent, of course that’s true…but the law/gospel dichotomy prevented me from using such opportunities to share the Word. I became so opposed to moralism that a Christian’s reasonable service became quite unreasonable.”
Did you want to share the law or the gospel? And now that you’re not 2k, are you going around the office telling the pagans how to behave? How’s that working out for you?
If you think John A. spiritualizes the kingdom too much, you don’t believe in the powers of the spiritual kingdom. You seem to think that Christ’s rule will mean a godly, holy, moral society. (Have you seen what his rule does to persons whose good works remain filthy rags?) You don’t seem to understand that when Christ rules, he delegates it to all sorts of folks, from Saddam Hussein to your pagan neighbor who has charge over his family. Christ is ruling in both of those situations. He is ordering all things to his purpose. Does that mean we should not seek to win those people to Christ? Of course not. Does it mean we should invade Iraq? Of course not. But why do you think Christ is not in charge when evil men rule?
You are doing exactly what the Jews wanted of Jesus. They wanted a restoration of the Davidic kingdom because anything less would mean God wasn’t in charge.
Craig,
Hey thanks for the great reply.
First, I will apologize if I misunderstood you regarding the analogies related to office.
Second…we’re kind of at an impasse on the Kingdom issue. Of course we’ll all agree the kings will bow and kiss the son at the eschaton when he comes in glory as judge. This Already is the time of the suffering servant and a suffering people…
But for now…I have hard time trying to get myself to think as you are, but I’m trying for the sake of the discussion. What does that look like? What does a nation bowing to Christ look like? Unless the nation is corporately regenerate I fail to see that as something that would be of any consequence. What standard are they bowing to? No nation is in Covenant with God. If it’s some kind of cultural Christianity…where’s the basis for that category in the Bible? Where’s this extra-tier added to the visible church that incorporates a nation/culture and creates a category of person that ‘Christian’ in the sense of belonging to a national cultural legacy of certain broad values? I just don’t find these categories. I understand your point about the kingdom’s bowing down….I don’t agree with how you’re framing it, but I understand your point. But in the big picture…..I struggle with even understanding why the emphasis on this? It seems a whole host of assumptions are driving the question. But if those assumptions are wrong, the whole model is kind of left with its pants down. Please feel free to shoot back a little on some of those points. In the end, yes I am spiritualizing the Kingdom…I think that’s what the NT does.
As far as Henry and Calvin…..well, with respect, they were wrong. That’s the whole point of what I argue everywhere….the Reformation recast Sacralism and set Protestantism down the same road.
What would the church addressing the state look like? I don’t get the impression you’re quite of the same mind as say, American Vision, Chalcedon, and these other groups. Or am I wrong?
What would the church say about Foreign Policy? It’s complex and if it is not carefully divorced from nationalism can lead to terrible very sinful endorsements like the Land Letter.
The Financial Crisis? Considering the majority of Conservative Christians in this country are rather well to do, it would seem they are directly involved in all that has happened and thus have no moral standing on the issue. I realize these are practical arguments and don’t address the theoretical level, but in a fallen world…that’s what we’re going to get. It’s messy.
Here’s what the churches could do. Tell the government….we’ll help. We’ll pay for the disaster relief or soup kitchens in our area for a summer…to help the government get its house in order so we can have a stable and peaceful society. What about the church taking a role like that?…like in the early church by helping people. That’s a powerful policy statement.
I think just the Altar-Oracle presence of the church in the world is proclamation enough but let’s keep going. Abortion. I don’t see any use in the legislative battle. Christians have been duped by it anyway on every turn. Protests? I just don’t see the early church out doing that. They had plenty of social evils in their day too. What about crisis pregnancy centers, ultrasounds, education, adoption options…….fantastic. God bless the people who do that. There’s a positive thing the church can do.
It sounds like maybe….you’ve misunderstood the application of 2k to the Christian life? I don’t think anyone here would say you can’t engage at work. I don’t think we need to be John the Baptist in the workplace, we can engage…..but with wisdom. We’ve all seen really foolish attempts at bringing Christianity into the workplace….it ends up where everyone just despises the guy, and it’s not because of the offense of the gospel, but because he’s a jerk. But is it our calling to protest a company’s gay policy? No, I don’t think so. I think we can speak humbly but confidently on a personal level, and if we get canned…praise the Lord. But I don’t really care if a company has some kind of gay policy. I need to stand for Christian sexual morality no matter what the consequence, but that doesn’t mean I get to dictate to Home Depot or whoever what their policies are. If they fire me because in the break room I told a co-worker that homosexuality is sin… oh, well. I don’t think the answer is to call the ACLJ. I think they need to go away.
Here’s what it looks like for me. I’ve always found a latent prosperity gospel among Kuyperians. I need to go out and conquer so God can be glorified, make good money so I can use it, etc….but in most of the business world my Christian ethic actually prevents me from having that kind of success.
I am to love my neighbour and to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I am a self-employed and do remodeling type work for people. So when I go out and work, remodeling their bathroom or whatever, I want to be very fair with them and reasonable in what I charge and how I treat them. Most of them have no idea how badly they are being fleeced by other contractors. So I try to be fair and decent. And guess what? I have a great reputation. But, I don’t make a lot of money. I’m pretty poor by American standards, but I can sleep at night. That type of ethic doesn’t make one rich. It doesn’t have to make one poor, but if you’re applying this type of thinking to your personal economics and conduct, you’re not going to get ahead and you’re going to have a hard time working for a lot of companies. In a capitalist system the guys who put profits first…they’re on top. They have the appearance of success, but I’m not sure God looks at them as successful.
Consequently to a Kuyperian, I’m not having a lot of impact am I? No extra money to contribute to ministries and causes. I’m not the guy driving around in the big red truck with a christian fish on the back. I haven’t built a business that’s involved in community affairs etc….
Or am I having an impact? How does one measure such things? Does God measure them the same as we would? I’ve got a pretty good reputation with people. I live in a rural area and everybody knows who we are and everyone knows my kids and how they behave. We live in the type of place where everywhere I go, the post office, the grocery store, the hardware store, bank, etc…everyone greets me by first name. Could it be possible that living my quiet life I’m having an impact? By running a simple and honest business I’m affecting the people that come into my path? As Providence brings people into my path….I can talk with them.
I hope you’re not rolling your eyes, but what I mean is….I think this is how the church impacts….not through Focus on the Family Justice Sunday and things like that. I think we can interact as a church with the state, but it should be in terms of helping….not faith based programs!!!!….but rather, saying we’ll help those people….disaster relief or whatever.
Maybe sometimes our interaction is by refusing to help. When the government wants us to support a war, our presence, and our silence (in the public square) might say a lot. Within the church, the leaders better be teaching their people to think and be aware and not be deceived by the propaganda……..2k theology doesn’t mean we ignore the world around us. In fact we should be the most aware, so we’re not being deceived….as the signers of the Land Letter were.
Go ahead and blast away (smile)….I do believe we’re having a healthy conversation. I hope someone finds it interesting……John A.
John A,
I’ll respond later today, Lord willing. Lots to do here.
Darryl,
if you would like to have meaningful exchanges, it would do you well to try to pay better attention. For example, I did not say Christ is sovereign only if society is moral and godly. Earlier I distinguished between Christ’s sovereignty by virtue of His deity, and His glorified role as King by virtue of His resurrection…something also noted by Calvin (but more importantly, attested to in Acts)…I mean, unless you want to mingle the two-natures and then develop some perverted notion of deification for man akin to the Eastern Orthodox.
Christology, Incarnation, and Resurrection…this is the lens I’m looking through. I am 2-K, btw…just not your version…for…how many times have I said this now?
Darryl postulates: “You don’t seem to understand that when Christ rules, he delegates it to all sorts of folks, from Saddam Hussein to your pagan neighbor who has charge over his family. Christ is ruling in both of those situations.”
Again, you’re confusing Christ’s sovereignty by virtue of His deity and confounding it with His Messianic role…or more to the point, removing any notion of Kingship being acquired by virtue of His victory as the God-Man. So I agree on the one hand that Christ is sovereign…from the good ruler to the wicked one…but I also acknowledge He warns the rulers on earth to kiss the Son…He’s not less than a King when they refuse, and He’s not less sovereign…in fact, it proves He is sovereign.
So you and I acknowledge Divine Sovereignty…unfortunately you usher that notion out the back door and make our circumstances sovereign…hence, your form of 2-K presupposes 1-K.
You may continue charging me with being like the Jews seeking an earthly kingdom…but that only shows others patiently following the discussion that you aren’t actually paying attention, or worse, that you’re misconstruing my position.
Craig, sorry but having meaningful exchanges is a bit of a stretch since you have used a scorched earth policy with me over at Baylys. See, I pay attention.
What you don’t seem to pay attention to is that I said it “seems” you only think Christ’s rule is evident when a society is holy, righteous, and just. In other words, I’m trying to get you to pay attention to the implications of your position. And your response results in a similar implication. You say both of us agree with divine sovereignty. But my version won’t let you try to change the circumstances of wickedness and unrighteousness. My version supposedly makes circumstances sovereign. But have you considered that the circumstances are under God’s control? Would you have tried to stop Christ’s death on the cross? The answer for you and me both is obviously yes. And yet that would have meant our undoing.
In other words, you don’t seem to recognize that God uses wicked means to accomplish his purposes. It happened in the crucifixion. It happens daily when rulers and saints disobey God’s revealed will.
Does this mean we cannot stop wickedness when we see it? No, emphatically. But it does mean that we need to attend to the means of opposition. Being a vigilante is illegitimate for a Christian. And using the institutional church to engage in political opposition is also wrong — an abuse of its spiritual power.
So if you believe in two kingdoms, what on earth does that look like?
Zrim said,
Well, that has happened and is even still happening, so I’m sure you know the answer. But as I have said previously, civil magistrates who don’t do their duty aren’t an argument against civil magistrates who do their duty. What happens when the civil magistrate no longer recognizes traditional marriage? We better have the magistrate recognize all perversions of marriage then.
There were wicked kings in the Old Covenant. The solution to this wasn’t to have no king or to diminish his duties. The solution was to the give the people a good King. And that is just what our God did.
I am 2-K, btw…just not your version…You may continue charging me with being like the Jews seeking an earthly kingdom…but that only shows others patiently following the discussion that you aren’t actually paying attention, or worse, that you’re misconstruing my position.
Craig,
It’s not unusual to deny that one’s views are parallel with scriptural antagonists. But it’s ironic for you to claim 2K and deny your 1K sympathies while you are standing on that classic “Kiss the Son†1K platform.
What all forms of 1K have in common is the basic Constantinian premise that the powers of the world and the kingdom of heaven are not so diametrically opposed but can be made friends If that’s the case then Jesus’ work on earth was an utter failure, since it ended so fatally for him (and his disciples). At the very least it assumes that the gospel has some obvious implications for or direct bearing on the cares of this world. But if that’s true then shouldn’t Christianity have bagged a better game after two-thousand years on earth? I mean, it’s had this long now and yet there seems to be nothing new under the sun.
There were wicked kings in the Old Covenant. The solution to this wasn’t to have no king or to diminish his duties. The solution was to the give the people a good King. And that is just what our God did.
Ron,
I’m not sure what makes you think 2K wants to diminish kings or their duties (good or tyrant). What it actually seeks to do is buttress their authority and believers’ sense of submission and obedience to them, something that gets the panties of all 1Kers (especially American ones) into quite a bunch. It seems to me your solution “to fetch a good king†is pious code for civil disobedience, something no where detectable in the New Covenant era (you know, that era we live in now). I mean, I see plenty of NT commands to submit and obey, but where is there any NT command to “fetch a good kingâ€?
But here is where theonomic presuppositions clash with 2K ones: we don’t look to the theocratic dispensations for models on how to live in the inter-advental age, we look to the exilic dispensations. We are pilgrims awaiting the final theocratic triumph, which comes from the hand of God alone.
John A,
I wan to start by agreeing with this statement you made:
“It seems a whole host of assumptions are driving the question. But if those assumptions are wrong, the whole model is kind of left with its pants down.”
There are a whole host of assumptions I’m making (though I’ve been arguing for them). There are a whole host of assumptions you’re making as well. The assumptions are what I’ve tried to get Darryl to discuss. So to clarify, it isn’t merely that I’m making a whole host of assumptions that could leave my model with its pants down, the same goes for your view. Taking your assumptions for granted doesn’t validate them, they simply remain unargued assumptions. It’s as if we’re both approaching the doorway to a locker room…one of us may be walking out fully clothed, the other may still be fumbling for his pants. Of course, I believe my trousers are on, and my fly is secure
You said:
“As far as Henry and Calvin…..well, with respect, they were wrong. That’s the whole point of what I argue everywhere….the Reformation recast Sacralism and set Protestantism down the same road.”
Okay. That’s an assertion in lieu of an argument…followed by what I can only describe as jingoism.
You said:
“I struggle with even understanding why the emphasis on this?”
Well, my emphasis isn’t primarily political…though this seems to always be the direction 2-K extremes go when talking with someone who disagrees. Psalm 2 is not merely talking about socio-political issues the resurrection has implications for (though these are included), it is a jaw-dropping Psalm in light of Acts that you have to ask “What is not included?”.
You asked:
“What would the church addressing the state look like? I don’t get the impression you’re quite of the same mind as say, American Vision, Chalcedon, and these other groups. Or am I wrong?”
1. The Church addressing the state can look different…it could be Paul, after being told he’d die, insisting on his rights as a Roman just so he can address Caesar. It could work out any number of ways. This is just one item, though my concern in opposing Darryl’s 2-K view is a bit bigger. I’d rather not get hung up on the State. I’d rather focus on the plain fact that there are implications for rulers and nations on the basis of Christ’s resurrection…which means there are policy implications, but it isn’t limited to policy. As I mentioned earlier, that Psalm is so expansive it is trifling to simply talk about political issues.
2. I’ve heard of American Vision and Chalcedon…I’m not very familiar with their stuff…but am confident my views would be nuanced differently…for instance, I’m not wholly sold on capitalism. That alone makes me pretty weird.
Again, these things are not very important…you asked a lot of questions…you’ve spent some time interacting with Psalm 2, dismissed my ideas, Calvin’s and Henry’s, but you’ve yet to set a positive case. This is where you simply take your assumptions for granted…as you noted earlier, with these assumptions being un-articulated, one may find a nippy wind for lack of their trousers.
As for your use of the term “Kuyperian”, I’m not sure that’s terribly meaningful…it strikes me a jingo. I’m in no way proposing a wealth-oriented gospel…in fact, the sort of impact Psalm 2 should have our lives may render us penniless and hated. Living a quiet life is by no means opposed to my take of Psalm 2, or a more biblical form of 2-K. On a personal note, I work in a field where my view 2-K view can (and likely will) hurt my prospects of ever becoming wealthy…not that my profession will ever make me rich (middle class, at best)…and I work for an unbeliever. I work hard, am respectful, and try to be profitable for him. This man is also a sodomite, I’ve come to learn. And some of our clients are sodomite activist groups. I have yet to be asked to work on a case for these groups, but Thursday I nearly was asked. The project file came out and was about to be handed to me, but then was taken away. I’m not officially employed, rather, I’m an “independent contractor” with none of the legal safeguards an employee has. When the time comes that I have to refuse to work on those projects, my livelihood could be gone. Word of mouth spreads fast…and my city has a terrible economy…and I have a wife and two kids. Yes, I work hard, live quietly and peacefully…the work I may be asked to do is completely legal…but from conviction from the Word, I will have to refuse to work in any capacity where I benefit a sodomite rights group.
The hand that nearly handed me the sodomite group’s project…an LCMS pastor’s wife.
Craig,
Missouri Synod????
Right— we’re both employing many un-argued assumptions. It’s a web-thread. To fully argue many of these points would require hundreds of pages. That’s not the point of this exercise, but you already know that don’t you?
As far as assumptions underlying the structure of our arguments…..well, I find the Constantinian position to rest on foundations which are proven invalid by the NT. We can talk more about that…we have been to some extent. We could take a vote. I think everyone here would say you’re the one who refuses to engage that point. For this discussion to amount to anything, we have to get back to hermeneutics. I’m arguing you’re reading the Bible inverted. You’re looking through the wrong end of the binoculars……that’s why the NT Kingdom is so far away. Show me an instance where an Apostle treated a Psalm or a prophetic passage the way you are?
As far as Henry and Calvin….usually one trots them out as an authority on the issue. What I’m saying is….I don’t respect their authority. Do we want to talk about why they were wrong on these issues? Well, I thought we were. It’s hermeneutics again. They made the same mistake you’re making. If you feel comfortable saying I’ll stick with Calvin…then by all means man…do so! Then the discussion is over. At that point we’re not talking about the Bible anymore…we’re talking about tradition.
I’m glad to hear you are unfamiliar with American Vision and Chalcedon……because you’re not going to get Biblical arguments there. What you’re going to get is the Constantinian tradition asserted over and over again. Oh, was that an assertion? Do I need to footnote that?
As far as assertive jingos……..Are you trying to argue the Magisterial Reformation didn’t embrace Constantinianism? I know some Anabaptists who would disagree, with just about every other historian…even the revisionist/propagandists at American Vision would agree with me.
Are you going to try and argue Germany didn’t turn Constantinian? England? France? Scotland then? Geneva? Hardly an assertive jingo. It’s called historical fact. Would you argue against it? I’d be more than happy to engage.
Even the most rabid Theonomist doesn’t dispute it…..for them it’s not a matter of whether it occurred, it’s a matter of theology and ethics.
This seems to be the direction 2K’S go when talking with some who disagrees?
It was called being polite. Allow me to re-phrase….
Show me a verse…..even one in the NT that even hints a Cultural Transformation or your policy argument? Show me something….anything in the NT that hints Paul was concerned with socially or politically confronting the infanticide of his day.
I know, I know… Make disciples of all nations………it’s called bringing the gospel to the Gentiles…often referred to as the nations. There’s nothing in the verse to indicate Transformationalism.
Will you accuse me of being a NT Christian instead of a whole Bible Christian? We all know that one. Well, we’re back to hermeneutics. In one sense……NT Christians are the only kind there’s ever been…..Don’t agree? We’re back to hermeneutics. I know why you don’t want to talk about NT Apostolic hermeneutics.
Your interpretation of Psalm 2 is flawed from the beginning because you refuse to submit to once again…the Apostolic hermeneutic. The NT teaches the nature of the Kingdom, the nature of the Messianic kingship, the kingdom principle, and how the kingdom is to be understood eschatologically. It helps us to make the distinction between Rule and Reign.
The Apostles show us how to read OT prophecy.
You are reading Psalm 2 as the Zealots and Pharisees did. Do you dispute that? Show me how you differ from their views of a Messianic Kingdom ruling over the nations of the world?
I would argue we do have a Messianic King who indeed Already REIGNS over the kingdoms of this world. That doesn’t mean those kingdoms are transformed into His REALM. He is the head of the church….not America.
I’m sorry you don’t like the term Kuyperian, but you’re advocating Transformationalism and thus the label is applicable. Tell me then, even in jingo if you want, how it is you’re not a Kuyperian? C’mon a 2K-extreme like me is asking.
I didn’t accuse you personally of promoting a wealth-oriented gospel, but I stand by my statement. There is among the Dominionist camp a latent prosperity gospel. I’ve encountered it time and again. I mentioned it as a backdrop to the view of Kingdom I’m advocating.
The American middle-class is rich. 99% of the world would agree with that statement.
So if you are 2K…then we’re all waiting with baited breath for you to explain what it is you’re talking about…….?
I have to say I’m a little disappointed. I thought we were having a good discussion. You accused me of pulling out the 2K line about ‘why are you even asking these questions?’
I ask it again. Where do you find Transformationalism in the NT? Show me something. That’s how weak your case is. There is virtually nothing in the NT to promote this position.
Instead, I find you’re pulling out the old Theonomy stand-bys. Pull out the assertion/argument card. Nit pick about nomenclature and argument structure. I run into this often….usually it is a means of escape. I could almost guess who you’ve been talking to…..Yes, dismiss me as a sub-Aristotelian amateur not worthy of your consideration……..
The Word of God is not mocked.
We are Christians. We understand the Bible is the Word of God and we’re talking about Spiritual matters. We do so soberly and seeking wisdom. Your tactic remind of Presbyterians who shut down an opponent by playing Roberts Rules games. I thought better of you.
We don’t need to turn to Aristotelian Term Logic, Syllogism, Validity, and Proofs to have a discussion. The Bible is not a math book. Yes, yes I know how can we have discussions that mean anything? Well it Aristotelian Categories are the answer…..let’s all go home. Because we thought we had an Eternal Word given to us. I guess all those things it was talking about…they were just formulae. How profound.
I continually find some who can’t argue their position run and hide behind these curtains rather than engage. And it is all the more ironic because one need only scroll up the page as it were, to find their own words are also full of un-argued assertion.
Be careful you don’t set up a standard for interpretation that in the end trumps the very heart of the Revelatory message God has given us.
John A.
Craig, you wrote: “The Church addressing the state can look different…it could be Paul, after being told he’d die, insisting on his rights as a Roman just so he can address Caesar. It could work out any number of ways. This is just one item, though my concern in opposing Darryl’s 2-K view is a bit bigger. I’d rather not get hung up on the State. I’d rather focus on the plain fact that there are implications for rulers and nations on the basis of Christ’s resurrection…which means there are policy implications, but it isn’t limited to policy.”
Sorry, but it sure looks like your concerns are small and revolve around sex. It’s either abortion or homosexuality. And what started off our less than pleasant exchanges over at the Baylys’ was the notion that Scott Clark and I are somehow unfaithful and cowardly if we don’t picket at abortion clinics.
Which again raises the question of Christian liberty and vocation. Can you concede that someone is faithful who does not approach working for homosexual activists the way that you do? Can you see that the diversity of Christian responses in such a situation relates to the reality that these activities take place in the other kingdom?
So while you say your concerns are bigger, you never specify. And when you finally get specific (still no “policy”), it’s all about how you relate to people who break the seventh commandment. What about idolatry? What does the second commandment do for you? My own sense is that you are not opposed to 2k. You are opposed to people who aren’t as squeamish as you are about the sexual sins of non-Christians.
Darryl,
You are a coward. You have no idea what I’m talking about and you have yet to be the man John A is by trying to engage is a real discussion. Your view is wicked because it removes the usefulness of the law, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the *newness* regeneration brings from any practical use.
You claim you want to talk about particulars, but you have yet to present a positive argument. I have simply stated that there are implications stemming from the Resurrection…yes, that includes policy (as my pastor has mentioned already, which made you squeamish).
When men speak of sanctification, you get squeamish. Why are you squeamish about God’s call but not about blasphemy, homosexualiy, and infanticide?
My concerns are “bigger” in the sense that they are more expansive. You have the “benefit” of not having to worry about the implications of your teachings, though you will be held to account. Had that LCSMS pastor’s wife handed you a file to work on for the benefit of a sodomite rights group, would you have worked on it? Would you see an opportunity for the gospel there? Or would it just be “law”, and a simple believer being “foolish” for not understanding his vocation? The sad thing is that you’d likely have more trouble working for the benefit of a baptist church than a group formed for the sole purpose of reversing what it means to be a man or a woman…you’d see this as law, and not gospel…to ignore the relationship between sex and the gospel means you really have no apprehension of covenant, or federal headship…which means a watered-down notion of the monergistic work of the new birth, justification by faith alone and the unmerited imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.
Your problem, Darryl, is that you’re just not Reformed enough.
Craig, you may be right. I avert my eyes at the sight of blood. I can handle bullying though and your bluster does not scare me. Boo!
But as it so typical of you (and the Baylys), you presume to know my situation and what stakes I may live with. That’s big, bad, and brave, I guess. And it is ignorant. Which proves that zeal does not make up for wisdom.
But, hey, thanks for returning to Bayly Bros. form.
Craig, now that you’ve got that off your chest, maybe you could address the questions I asked:
Can you concede that someone is faithful who does not approach working for homosexual activists the way that you do? Can you see that the diversity of Christian responses in such a situation relates to the reality that these activities take place in the other kingdom?