One of the other themes of the Twenty-Seven Propositions describing two-kingdom theology is the notion that the Bible is binding on all people:
7. Scripture is not given as a common moral standard that provides ethical imperatives to all people regardless of their religious standing.
The Reformed confessions testify that the moral imperatives of Scripture are binding on all men everywhere.
This does make the world safe for theonomy and for theocracy, since another common assertion of 2k critics is that special revelation must interpret general revelation, which implies that only those whose souls have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit may interpret general revelation, because only those with the eyes of faith can interpret Scripture aright, the necessary lens for interpreting the light of nature.
Aside from the covenantal implications of Scripture which make havoc of this critique of 2k, Scripture itself confounds this criticism. For if Paul were writing to the Corinthians with this anti-2k outlook, he could never write the following:
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers! Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? (1 Corinthians 6:1-9 ESV)
Notice that this is an imperative that according to the anti-2k outlook applies to all people (even though Paul is writing directly to the saints at Corinth). If Paul believed that Scripture was given for believers and unbelievers alike, then his admonition here would be to tell unbelievers to take their cases to ecclesiastical courts. And if unbelievers take their cases to those who rule outside the church, they are guilty of sinning. Talk about being damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
But Calvin doesn’t fall for this folly.
. . . if any one has a controversy with a brother, it ought to be decided before godly judges, and that it ought not to be before those that are ungodly. If the reason is asked, I have already said, that it is because disgrace is brought upon the gospel, and the name of Christ is held up as it were to the scoffings of the ungodly. For the ungodly, at the instigation of Satan, are always eagerly on the watch for opportunities of finding occasion of calumny against the doctrine of godliness. Now believers, when they make them parties in their disputes, seem as though they did on set purpose furnish them with a handle for reviling. A second reason may be added — that we treat our brethren disdainfully, when we of our own accord subject them to the decisions of unbelievers.
In other words, Calvin, who ministered in a town very much unlike Corinth, where the rulers of Geneva were members of the church, still recognizes that these words Paul apply to Genevan Christians, that is, that they should not look for justice with fellow Christians but should bear each other’s burdens patiently and endure slights and offenses.
I acknowledge, then, that a Christian man is altogether prohibited from revenge, so that he must not exercise it, either by himself, or by means of the magistrate, nor even desire it. If, therefore, a Christian man wishes to prosecute his rights at law, so as not to offend God, he must, above all things, take heed that he does not bring into court any desire of revenge, any corrupt affection of the mind, or anger, or, in fine, any other poison. In this matter love will be the best regulator.
This is moral instruction, in other words, that applies to Christians not to unbelievers. Christians are capable, by the work of the Spirit, of not seeking revenge. Paul concedes that unbelievers are not.
What is also interesting to observe is that Calvin does not believe that Paul is invalidating the rule of ungodly magistrates, as if it were wrong to take certain civil matters to the courts, or as if the ungodliness of rulers invalidates their rule:
Paul does not here condemn those who from necessity have a cause before unbelieving judges, as when a person is summoned to a court; but those who, of their own accord, bring their brethren into this situation, and harass them, as it were, through means of unbelievers, while it is in their power to employ another remedy. It is wrong, therefore, to institute of one’s own accord a law-suit against brethren before unbelieving judges. If, on the other hand, you are summoned to a court, there is no harm in appearing there and maintaining your cause.
Calvin also goes on to distinguish in ways that would send neo-Calvinists, in the worlds of Ralph Kramden, “bang, zoom, to the moon” between the public matters before magistrates and private matters of Christians.
We must always keep in view what causes he is treating of; for public trials are beyond our province, and ought not to be transferred to our disposal; but as to private matters it is allowable to determine without the cognizance of the magistrate. As, then, we do not detract in any degree from the authority of the magistrate by having recourse to arbitration, it is not without good reason that the Apostle enjoins it upon Christians to refrain from resorting to profane, that is, unbelieving judges.
So if anti-2kers want to argue that biblical morality applies to all human beings, they may want to take up their case with the apostle Paul. Or they could reconceive their claims with the same scrupulosity they apply to 2k advocates.
147 Comments
Zrim, I consider you my brother in Christ, therefore you’re clean. I consider this like fighting with my siblings, growing up.
Alexander, are you for real? You sound just like a fundamental baptist!
What are you doing at Old Life?
P.S. I never said I carouse bars, did I?
You mean an anti-Baptist? Absolutely not. Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Which follows the practise of historic Reformed Christianity. Clearly you have fallen prey to the worldliness which has infected the church today. And clearly you only wish to enforce those laws which suit your American fundamentalist mindset.
Doug, I was being mostly facetious, mainly because the point you seem to be trying to make to Sean comes off as a form of withdrawal. There is a place for withdrawal in the 2k scheme, namely the Sabbath. But you make it sound as if withdrawal also comes in our six days. Sorry, but that just doesn’t come through in 1 Cor 5, as in “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.” The implication seems to be that associating with the ungodly is a given. You seem to be pushing back against Paul, and the only room you make for associating with the ungodly is for redemptive purposes, i.e to witness or evangelize. This is a classic fundamentalist trait, to cause redemption to swallow up creation such that there can be no possibility for believers to relate to unbelievers as fellow creatures. And to add insult to injury, fundamentalists don’t really live as stunted as their theory would suggest–they associate with the ungodly. Yet when other Xns put their real lives in harmony with their world-affirming theory, the world-flightists piously hyperventilate.
Zrim, you know the old; “let Scripture interpret Scripture”, no? I’m not pushing back from Paul in 1 Cor 5, I’m letting Paul set the context of that verse with 2nd Cor 6! Paul explicitly commands believers to not have fellowship with unbelievers. This doesnt mean we withdraw from society, or we would have to be out of this world. But this does mean, we need to *choose* our company carefully.
Much of this is just common sense. When I’m at work, I don’t choose who I get to talk with, I’m working, not having fellowship. When I’m off the clock, I need to listen to Paul and not have fellowship with unbelievers. Quite frankly I was taken aback at the wooden, stiff understanding Sean presented of 1 Cor. 5. This is why 2nd Cor. 6 puts an end to any hope of Sean being correct.
Full disclosure: I like Sean, and don’t hold that mistake agaisnt him nearly as much as the (teacher?) who taught him that mistaken slant on Paul’s first letter to Corinth. Whoever drew that application from 1 Cor. 5 needs a vacaton like nobodies bussiness! Please don’t tell Sean learned that silly take from DGH!
Alexander, I wish for society to enforce the basic Godly moorings set forth in his law. Why? Because I love my neighbor, and I desire justice for all men, in the socio political sense. I know our society isnt there yet, but I pray that one day we will embrace God’s holy commands. Until then, I pray the Lord’s prayer!
Alexander, are you aware that our reformed hero’s of the faith were theonomic?
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Doug, nobody over here would disagree with the wisdom of choosing company carefully. But have you considered the possibility that it may be unwise to choose the company of believers? You make it sound like choosing freely to associate with the ungodly is categorically out and the godly is categorically in. How is that not fundamentalist thinking, as in black and white and no middle ground (you know, where wisdom lives)?
Doug – Alexander, are you aware that our reformed hero’s of the faith were theonomic?
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Erik – I nominate Doug as Old Life’s official ambassador to our international commenters. Can I get a second?
Doug,
We’re making progress. You acknowledge God governs the cult differently than He governs those outside. I’m not trying to take a cheap shot, that’s big. The whole keeping bad company etc.., except for evangelical purposes is really fundamentalist, Bob Jones, kind of rhetoric. I’d be interested to know if your reality meets up with that stance. I bet it doesn’t. I hope it doesn’t. Imago dei considerations should blunt most of that fundie bias. If we can marry your acknowledgement of God’s governing the cult distinct from those outside the cult with the idea that the cult doesn’t extend to geographic land masses this side of AD 70 as ‘sanctified to the Lord’, we’d have nothing more to argue about other than a little fundie baggage you may carry around, and my propensity to imbibe of Ale or whiskey in public more than you might be comfortable with, including with people not in the cult.
Sean, what do you think John Cotton meant by sanctifiying New England to Christ? Did Cotton mean the land mass?
Sean, I am an outgoing person by nature, and have had all kinds of friends over the years. And no, I havent always been wise or discriminating. I have the scars to prove it, and I don’t mean physical scars either. We live in an age, where we can hop in our car, and “get around”.
I was raised in a fundamental baptist church, “go figure”. So maybe I’m still tainted by the dreaded fundie desease, whatever that is, so help me out, please.
How do you understand Paul commanding us to not have fellowship with unbelievers?
Sean states We’re making progress. You acknowledge God governs the cult differently than He governs those outside
Sean, are you saying Christ’s church is governed by a different moral standard than an unbeliever?
Erik, thanks for the thought, but I might be a tad too crotchity. Especially when someone starts dogging me on theonomy. So I’ll have to gracefully bow out
“How do you understand Paul commanding us to not have fellowship with unbelievers?”
Doug,
Calvin is helpful here. On this passage he writes:
“The word that Paul makes use of means — to be connected together in drawing the same yoke. It is a metaphor taken from oxen or horses, which require to walk at the same pace, and to act together in the same work, when fastened under one yoke. When, therefore, he prohibits us from having partnership with unbelievers in drawing the same yoke, he means simply this, that we should have no fellowship with them in their pollutions. For one sun shines upon us, we eat of the same bread, we breathe the same air, and we cannot altogether refrain from intercourse with them; but Paul speaks of the yoke of impiety, that is, of participation in works, in which Christians cannot lawfully have fellowship.”
The verse is not about friendships with unbelievers, but participation in their sins. You should read this (below) to see a good example of a Reformed pastor befriending a lesbian:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/january-february/my-train-wreck-conversion.html
Sean, drink your Ale and Wiskey to your hearts content, just don’t drink yourself into a drunken stupor. I’ve been known to enjoy a fine single malt in my day. And who doesnt enjoy a good ale? My concern was the company you keep, just gaurd your heart, bro.
Doug, you might chase Calvin with a shot of Hart when it comes to the admixture of friendship and fellowship:
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/02/when-friendship-and-fellowship-collide/
Zrim (and D.G.),
Good piece.
Zrim, stop reading me in such a black/white manner. I concur that, hanging out with “christians” who aren’t sold out for God, (on fire for Christ) or (walking by faith) can be just as dangerous as hanging out with an unbeliever. The point is, *whomever* you hang with, you naturally tend to “like” and grow “fond” of them. Once you grow fond of someone, you give them the benefit of the doubt. Love covers a multitude of sins, no?
“Birds of a feather flock together”. “Water seeks it’s own level”. The last two aren’t Scripture, yet they are true none the less. You see Steve, the Bible calls us sheep, meaning we’re easily led astray. We already battle the flesh not to mention Satan, the last thing we need, is to have continued fellowship with someone living in high defiance to God, which is *every* unbeliever.
This is why many God fearing men, compromised in the old testament, take King Solomon as a case in point. Finally, I am not saying that going out with an unbeliever is a sin per se, (I may in the future!) but I am saying that we *should* be careful, and don’t make a habit out of it. And I think that’s what Paul is saying in 2nd Cor the sixth chapter. To make a habit out of hanging out with unbelievers is begging for trouble.
Zrim, stop reading me in a black/white manner. I concur that, hanging out with “christians” who aren’t sold out for God, (walking by faith) can be just as dangerous as hanging out with an unbeliever. Maybe even more dangerous! My point is, *whomever* you hang with, you naturally tend to “like” and grow “fond” of unless they’re a complete jerk. Once you grow fond of someone, you give them the benefit of the doubt. Love covers a multitude of sins, no?
“Birds of a feather flock together”. “Water seeks it’s own level”. The last two aren’t Scripture, yet remain right as rain. You see Steve, the Bible calls us sheep, meaning we’re easily led astray. We already battle the flesh not to mention Satan, the pressures the world brings on, last thing we need, is to have continued fellowship with someone living in high defiance to God, which is *every* unbeliever.
This is why many God fearing men fell, in the old testament, take King Solomon as a case in point. Finally, I am not saying that going out with an unbeliever is a sin per se, (I may in the future!), see, I”m it’s not a black and white issue with me, but I am saying that we *should* be careful, and don’t make a habit out of it! And I think that’s precisely what Paul is saying in 2nd Cor the sixth chapter. To make a habit out of hanging out with unbelievers will cause fellowship, and that is begging for trouble.
Doug, it’s the enthusiasts I actually have in mind that prudence might advise more caution for the believer. To take a page from your play book, revivalist company could corrupt confessionalist morals. In fact, that seems to be a premise of OldLifery, which is to say that P&R are anymore at least as shaped by revivalism as Reformation.
Still, while you concede some wisdom, I still wonder about your point about habit. Are you suggesting that my regular time spent with unbelieving friends and family from childhood is ill advised? Not only does that suggest more categorical thinking but a poor understanding of the nature of human relationships.
Doug,
Sorry I’m being delinquent in responding, between work and family I’m running. I think Cotton is with all zeal and good intention desiring to champion the cause of God. He wants a nation that reflects the glory of God, purposefully from tip to toe. The problem with the intention, is that it doesn’t appear to be the manner in which God is manifesting his Kingdom. Jesus talks about his kingdom being not of this world. He tells Peter to sheath his sword, should he(Jesus) desire it He could command twelve legions of angels to rescue him. The apostles are considered as sheep to be slaughtered. The way of the cross reads as a way of persecution, trial, suffering. There is lots of ‘laying down’ and not out of cowardice but out of ethos. Are we greater than our teacher? Living quiet lives, praying for the peace of the city, working with your hands, minding our own business, worry about keeping our own house(church) in order-1cor. 5- Paul exhorting; “what do I have to do with judging outsiders?!” let God judge them. IOW, that’s God’s business. God’s ruling the world outside the cult just fine. The church isn’t being called on to render verdict on the outside or administer discipline. God has established the state and is ruling it just fine through that channel. The ethos of the church is one of being a minister of reconciliation-even our discipline is intended to be restorative not punitive-the state’s IS intended to be punitive. The rub, is the matter of coercion. The state’s character is one of coercion. They bear the sword for a reason. The church’s character is one of sheathing the sword in favor of mercy, and abiding the rule of the state in matters pertaining to the ruling of this temporal world. For the church militant to engage in the administration of the state is to NECESSARILY bear the sword. It’s an act of power and coercion, even considered just on the level of a christian political party, and there’s been more than a few of those, it’s a game of power and rule. Which while appropriate for the state and political factions sans abuse, is not the role and purpose of the church in this age. We are waiting on a better city and we are called to pursue it according to this christian ethos, of even suffering loss for the sake of the kingdom. Even to the degree of forsaking family- the absolute primary institution of any culture for the sake of the Kingdom, should God require it.
Sean & Zrim,
As long as you guys are still willing to argue with Doug, how about coming over to my house and cutting down the tree in my front yard with a butter knife?
Erik, would that be Xn pruning or pruning done by Xns? I’ll only come if you say the latter.
Sean: Here is Bahnsen on John 18:36
“‘My kingdom is not of [ek: out from] this world,’” is a statement about the source – not the nature – of His reign, as the epexegetical ending of the verse makes obvious: ‘My kingdom is not from here [enteuthen].’ The teaching is not that Christ’s kingdom is wholly otherworldly, but rather that it originates with God Himself (not any power or authority found in creation.)”
Sean opines “I think Cotton is with all zeal and good intention desiring to champion the cause of God. He wants a nation that reflects the glory of God, (you don’t?) purposefully from tip to toe. (You don’t?) The problem with the intention, is that it doesn’t appear (appear to who?) to be the manner in which God is manifesting his Kingdom.”
Earth to Sean! They were all Christian!!! What’s wrong with wanting God’s law for justice in the socio political realm? That was the Old School Presbyterian perspective of New England! Will you admit the population was made up of over 90% confessing Christians? What does that do to your “theory” that the church is in perpetual exile?
Do you realize how preposterous your perspective, of perpetual pilgrimage in exile, is? Even a cursory view of history should disabuse you of that notion. The church IS in exile as we speak within certain nations; I think of parts in China and the Islamic countries. But in the last 500 years especially in the West, the church has been given positions of reverence, and even prominence. Look at Geneva! Think of New England. Think Old School Presbyterians like John Cotton!
P.S. I’d be willing to bet you haven’t read anything on John Cotton other than stuff your R2K buddies have written, like VanDrunnen.
John Cotton would not have agreed with Doug’s optimistic view of “Christian” New England in his day. Here is how Cotton described his own times:
“Did we ever have more reason to stand trembling before God under fearful apprehensions of impending vengeance when we consider the many scandalous, provoking evils abounding among us including oppression, injustice, fraud, deceit, falsehood, evil speaking, pride contention, intemperance, drunkenness, unchastity, excessive and inordinate love of the world, and may I add, the rudeness and profaneness of young people? God Himself, and our duty to Him, is evidently neglected and forgotten by many, and a form of godliness is maintained and kept up without the life and power of it. The sacred and dreadful name of God is dishonored and blasphemed by profane cursing and swearing. His holy Sabbaths, instead of being strictly observed and sanctified, are very much profaned by idle, vain, trifling and unsuitable conduct. Some forsake the house of the Lord, frequently neglecting and needlessly staying away from the public worship of God. Has not manifold contempt been put upon the Lord’s holy ordinances and institutions? Are there not many who disregard coming to them in a serious and worthy manner? Must we not acknowledge that mutual Christian love and charity grow cold? Are not both the love of men to God and the love of men to their neighbors treated with a visible coldness and indifference that clearly mark the lack of the power of godliness? Alas, for this people!”
A Holy Fear of God and His Judgments
by John Cotton
Todd, You’re making MY point! I have been saying for some month, that *we* (the body of Christ) should walk in the fear of the Lord, personally, in family, the church corporately, and nationally! You know Paul’s admonition, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”? That was true for John Cotton personally for the church and state! All men have been commanded to repent and bend the knee to the King of Kings.
Todd, do you have any idea what the crime rate was in New England when John Cotton wrote that article? When I said, “Christian New England” I meant confessing Christians, not necessarily the elect. That’s just a historical fact. Nevertheless, Christians still sin, yes even commit crimes. So I fail to see how Cottons words disagreed with mine.
Do you still sin Todd? Does that mean, you have no reason to be optimistic? Remember, John Cottons opinion was relative to what he could see, what do you think Cotton would say regarding America today? I have a hunch; he would be appalled that his state has legalized abortion on demand.
Quick question Todd, where did you get that quote from Cotton?
Doug,
The point is that the good old days when American society was under God’s law is a myth. Cotton could be describing our day, we just have more people, thus more unbelievers. Barely a generation after Cotton; this is how preachers described religion in America:
“But what a dead and barren time has it now been, nor a great while, with all the churches of the Reformation. The golden showers have been restrained; the influences of the Spirit suspended; and the consequence has been, that the gospel has not had any eminent success. Conversions have been rare and dubious; few sons and daughters have been born to God and the hearts of Christians not so quickened, warmed and refreshed under the ordinances, as they have been. That this has been the sad state of religion among us in this land, for many years…” (Rev W. Cooper)
You can read some of Cotton’s sermons here: http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Puritans/Misc-Puritans/John-Cotton/
Todd, you have never heard of me refer to the good old days! I do think its a myth! What you seem to be missing is that this site is called “Old life reformed Presbyterianism”. They thought a lot more like Bahnsen, than Hart! Moreover, “when” did John Cotton make that statement, if history is any gauge, Cotton was probably spot on!
And to draw an even finer point, some churches founded by Paul, didn’t all last one generation! Did they receive good instruction from Paul? Yes they did, so we can’t indict Paul, but things never stay the same, we are either growing in blessings, or we will be cursed for disobedience, see Revelations the second and third chapters. Jesus said some very harsh things to come of those churches, much harsher than anything Cotton said.
We are in a war, Todd, Jesus has already won the battle, and we are in mop up mode. But the way to victory in Christ, is to lay down our lives, daily as a living sacrifice. When we do, its Christ who lifts us up. And that is true for every realm in life, in my humble opinion. This doens’t mean I’m saying if we’re good for a year, everything will get better. I’m just saying God knows how to judge his people, as he does the nations.
Doug,
I have read many of your comments about how we as a nation have strayed from God’s laws, how we once were a nation of godly people, now you are agreeing it is a myth. I can’t keep up.
This is one of my favorite Post Mill passages.
Ecclesiastes 7:10
“Say not, why are the former days better than these. For it is not from wisdom that you ask this.”
Todd, America *has* drifted from our Godly moorings established in New England, of that there can be no doubt. Even an idiot can see that. (Legalized abortion, and the legalizing of sodomite marriages are devastating for any nation. But I am unable to appraise one culture against another like Christ the King, who sees the thoughts and intentions of mans heart. I can’t judge the heart of one man, let alone appraise a church, or a city, or a state, or nation; and neither could John Cotton. I think the older we get, the more we see the evil of man, and tend to think things are worse than they have ever been. I’ll leave that evaluation to God.
Moreover I have never said, living in the 1700th century New England was a panacea. I’m thankful God caused me to be born in 57. I lean Post Mill in my eschatology (although I’m teachable) and believe in the general progress of the world through the obedience of the gospel. I see ups and downs throughout church history with various leaders, churches, states and nations. Didn’t Jesus tell us that’s how his kingdom will grow, like leaven? How does leaven grow? Just like Christ’s kingdom grows *slowly*, through the faithfulness and his sheep. Yes we pick up our cross daily, but when we do, it’s not in vain; God will lift us up, and moves with power, through our suffering.
But none of that precludes me from seeing obvious sins that our culture has embraced. Sin/crimes like (sodomy and abortion) have caused God to destroy nations in days gone by. Since God gave us Scripture for our instruction and correction, I think it’s my Christian duty to point this out.
Sean, yes Jesus sacrificed, but to what end? His death of all things broke the power of sin and purchased a people for himself! You see, God advances his kingdom through obedience and covenant faithfulness. *Jesus* is our example of how we are to live, and he learned obedience by what he suffered, becoming King in exaltation! Jesus is now the King of Kings!
Do we have a different standard? Since Jesus was faithful, can we slack off? God forbid! So how will God’s kingdom advance? The exact way Jesus procured salvation, “through covenant faithfulness and obedience. Jesus was our example on how we are to walk, doing the will of the Father!
Jesus said his kingdom would be like the tiniest seed that falls to the ground and dies, but then grows into a giant tree that allows the birds to roost in its branches! How does a tree grow? SLOWLY, that’s how. With branches being removed when God sees fit. That would be unfaithful church branches.
Who planted the 7 churches in Asia Minor? Was it not Paul? Yet, within a generation 5 out of the 7 churches were in were being warned by the leader of the church the Lord Jesus, (not the Pope, sorry Bryan) with Ephesus being in danger of having Jesus remove her Lampstand.
Notice, that no church authority was needed to correct the 7 churches. The council at Jerusalem wasn’t notified; moreover Jesus didn’t fault Ephesus for confusing the salvation ordos. They had lost their first love! And if they didn’t repent, Jesus was going to give them the death penalty, by his own means!
That has ramifications for everything! Since all men have been commanded to repent and bend their knee that has implications for the Magistrate. He is called a minister of God, by Paul! Once the Magistrate obeys the Gospel, who’s law *should* he obey if not the law of God?
When we humble ourselves, God lifts us up! It’s the same for your personal life, as it is for the churches corporate life, as well as a nation’s life. Each in there own order. Christ purchased eternal salvation for his people, but he also inherited the world, which has ramification for EVERYTHING! Even the way a nation punishes crime!
How Old School Presbyterians felt about God’s law! This is good stuff!
The attitude of the Puritans in founding the new land was governed by the model set by Calvin in Geneva. They were convinced of the dire need for godly politics and determined to let God’s infallible word guide their endeavors. The renewed emphasis we see in this day on the application of Christianity to every area of life and human activity is the heritage of Reformed theology; much can be learned from the New England Puritans in this regard. Their goal was to see the kingdom of Jesus Christ come to expression in society as well as the private, inner heart of man. Due to their zeal for a righteous political structure they “preferred a wilderness governed by Puritans to a civilized land governed by Charles I….Here in truth, was a self-governing commonwealth, a Puritan Republic… The New England Puritans agreed on a great deal….The wanted a government that would take seriously its obligation to enforce God’s commandments.
The Puritans were foremost men of the word of God written. They acknowledged the authority of Scripture for all things and this naturally led to their affirmation of the full validity of God’s law. A dispensational antagonism between law and grace was abhorrent to them. Hence Samuel Bolton wrote in the Epistle Dedicatory for this 1645 masterpiece, The True bounds of Christian Freedom, that his purpose was to hold up the Law, as not to in trench upon the liberties of Grace, and so to establish Grace, as not to make void the Law, nor to discharge believers of any duties they owe to God or man.” The law was integral to every area of theology. Sin is the transgression of God’s law, for the law itself reveals the holiness of God. Christ’s death was the satisfaction of the law; justification is the verdict of the law, and sanctification is the believers’ obedience to the law.
Since God’s law reflects His immutable character it was impossible that the law should be abrogated; so speak of the law’s abrogation, said the Puritans, was to dishonor god himself. Thus in Regula Vitae, The Rule of the Law under the Gospel (1631) Thomas Taylor said “A man may break the Princes Law, and not violate his Person; but not God’s: for God and his image in the Law, are so straightly united, as one cannot wrong the one, and not the other.” The moral law was viewed as “consonant to that eternal justice and goodness in (God) himself” so that God could turn it back only if He would “deny his own justice and goodness”
Theonomy in Christian Ethics page 525-526
Doug, does your awareness of historical developments come from any source other than Theonomy in Christian Ethics? Does the book tell the history of Federal Vision or N.T. Wright? I ask because the notion that the kingdom comes through obedience and covenant faithfulness is straight from the Visionaries and Wright. It does not jive with the Westminster Standards either. Remember, the keys of the kingdom.
Doug,
No offense, and I’m too busy to try to keep up with your multiple posts, but you’re going off in rhetorical flourishes again. God is ruling the world, He’s established the institutions to govern it. What I can’t find in any of what you’ve said is where is the scriptural warrant for ascribing to nations titles of cultic status , like Godly nation, Christian nation. Then after agreeing that God governs the church differently from those outside the church, you slip back into statements like; “They wanted a government that would take seriously its obligation to enforce God’s commandments.” “That has ramifications for everything! Since all men have been commanded to repent and bend their knee that has implications for the Magistrate. He is called a minister of God, by Paul! Once the Magistrate obeys the Gospel, who’s law *should* he obey if not the law of God?” So, now we’re back into establishmentarianism at the very least, if not a complete conflation of the role of the church with the state. I’m with Todd, I’m lost. And more so, no longer bears any resemblance to Paul’s admonitions and distinctions in 1 Cor. 5, we spoke of earlier.
Sean, what are the factors that cause the kingdom of God to increase in your opinion?
Sean, it’s not really hard to understand, Jesus has inherited the whole world, and has commanded all men to repent and bend the knee to his Lordship in all areas of life, which encompasses how a society punishes its evil doers! Jesus is Lord, and we aren’t to rest until all things have come into conformity to the obedience of Christ, which won’t happen in perfection until the resurrection. But until then, we seek more and more light until the final day.
We are ambassadors of God reconciling this world back to Christ the King. The field is the world, and Jesus taught that his kingdom would grow like leaven, until it’s all leavened. So we pray that the Triune name of God (Jesus Christ) would be hallowed, and that his kingdom would come more and more each passing day, by the power of the Holy Spirit
Doug, there you go expanding the kingdom and blurring the spiritual and the temporal. Look at the Catechism on “thy kingdom, come.” You don’t see criminal laws as part of how the kingdom grows. Then again, you are transfixed by law.
DGH, I don’t believe criminal laws expand the kingdom, and I have never made such an ridiculous statement. But laws with their penal sanctions keep the maintenance of society. Law’s that reflect justice discourage wicked behavior. Wicked laws (like legal abortion) encourage evil to expand. Can you deny the obvious? If you love your neighbor, shouldn’t you yearn for our nation to esteem God law?
Doug, can you speak clearly? Here is what you said:
You may understand why I thought you identified the magistrate’s work with the coming of the kingdom. I’m just the messenger.
DGH, when we say, that Jesus is Lord, that has ramifications for everything! Jesus is the leader of his Church, and amen! But Jesus is also the ruler of the kings on earth, (King of Kings) so it follows, that once enough believers are placed in areas of influence, they would want to exercise justice according to God’s precepts, not Nero’s. As I pointed out, the first settlers who came to America, were majority Christian, yet they saw a separation of church and state, even in New England, where they implemented theonomic laws.
Doug, so New England is your model. Fine. They wouldn’t tolerate Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams. Fine. And you think your application of God’s laws is going to make room for theists like Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and Muslims. Think again (and read something other than Bahnsen).
So, Doug, once believers are in place and ruling by God’s precepts will we have all children being baptized or not?
DGH, New England is not my model, but it’s clearly heading in the right direction. My model is the revealed word of God, when it comes to the basic Godly moorings which must found any nation that will last and not fall into God’s displeasure. See, the Bible.
Zrim, once the church comes into agreement, then she will baptize her children. There are men with more training in God’s word than you or me, who don’t believe the Bible teaches padeo baptisim. Until then, *we* that’s the both of us, need to pray that Christ’s body will come into agreement on this issue.