Despite the modern Reformed churches’ rejection of older confessional views about the responsibility of the magistrate for true religion in the realm, apparently the idea of a ruler who can crack down on idolatry and suppress heresy still appeals, at least if some of the comments at blogs are an indication.
I think I understand the appeal, at least in part, because the idea seems to be part of a desire for the state to impose law and order on a lawless and chaotic society. What I don’t understand is the biblical basis for this appeal. Yes, the Old Testament will supply you with all the theonomic ammunition you need to execute heretics and banish blasphemers. And if you start to use the OT why only the parts about suppression of idolatry and not the bits about goats and bulls? But does the example of Christ and the apostles bear such law-and-order fruit?
When Jesus addressed rulers, did he remind them of their ordained responsibility to suppress unbelief? In Luke 23, for instance, Jesus had a chance to go into an Al Pacino, “no-judge-you’re-out-of orderâ€-like rage but refused the opportunity. He simply responded to Pilate’s questions in such a way that the governor declared Jesus innocent. Did Jesus not care about the slaughter of the innocents or the idolatry and blasphemy that was rampant in the Roman Empire? If he did, he chose another means of expressing that concern other than reminding the magistrate of his duty to enforce the Ten Commandments.
Of course, Jesus had more important work to do than to clean up society so maybe this is not the best example. But when Paul was on trial and he had another chance for a showdown with the tolerant and iniquitous Roman authorities, he followed the example of his Lord. In Acts 24 when Paul appeared before Felix, Paul defended his own actions and words. He did also discourse “on righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come,†but if he spoke on the need to suppress heresy Luke sure had a funny way of reporting it. What is more likely is that Paul addressed Felix about his own spiritual condition, not about his irresponsibility as a magistrate appointed to uphold God’s law.
At the same time, when the New Testament writers addressed the subject of the magistrate, they always told believers to submit. Paul does so obviously in Romans 13 and also in 1 Timothy 2, and Peter echoes Paul in his epistles.
So if the Baylys are right about the duty of Christians to speak out against the atrocities of a corrupt state, the New Testament is of no help. And since Reformed Christians need a biblical warrant to bind believers to certain conduct or words, the silence of Christ and the apostles and the magistrate’s religious duties is deafening.
Old Life 
Well as John Calvin notes in his commentary on John 8 there is a reason why Jesus did not address Pilate in such a manner.
John Calvin on the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:11)
“11. Neither do I condemn thee. We are not told that Christ absolutely acquitted the woman, but that he allowed her to go at liberty. Nor is this wonderful, for he did not wish to undertake any thing that did not belong to his office. He bad been sent by the Father to gather the lost sheep, (Matthew 10:6) and, therefore, mindful of his calling, he exhorts the woman to repentance, and comforts her by a promise of grace. They who infer from this that adultery ought not to be punished with death, must, for the same reason, admit that inheritances ought not to be divided, because Christ refused to arbitrate in that matter between two brothers, (Luke 12:13.) Indeed, there will be no crime whatever that shall not be exempted from the penalties of the law, if adultery be not punished; for then the door will be thrown open for any kind of treachery, and for poisoning, and murder, and robbery. Besides, the adulteress, when she bears an unlawful child, not only robs the name of the family, but violently takes away the right of inheritance from the lawful offspring, and conveys it to strangers. But what is worst of all, the wife not only dishonors the husband to whom she had been united, but prostitutes herself to shameful wickedness, and likewise violates the sacred covenant of God, without which no holiness can continue to exist in the world.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.xiv.i.html
LikeLike
Benjamin,
And Ryan Glomsrud notes in Modern Reformation “why we don’t stone adulterers”:
The Bible is a mysterious book to many people, not least because of the peculiar (and harsh) laws and punishments one finds in the Old Testament. I can recall a discussion of religion and ethics on Larry King Live a number of years ago, when the evangelical guest was asked why he could be so adamant about enforcing the Bible’s morals when the punishments assigned for breaking these rules seemed so outrageous. Obviously we don’t stone people for their sexual activities, so isn’t the sin just as outdated as the punishment? Sadly, the pastor was completely flummoxed as to how to interpret these sections of the Bible.
Calvin and the Reformed offer a few simple guidelines to help you get started solving these alleged conundrums for yourself. Accordingly, there are three different kinds of laws in the Old Testament: ceremonial, civil, and moral. The ceremonial laws regulated the believing community’s life of worship, including the intricate sacrificial system oriented to the temple. The civil laws pertained to the “nation†of Israel as a unique theocratic society. Some scholars describe these temporary arrangements as a kind of martial law phenomenon, a state of “intrusion ethics†in which the normal order of affairs is suspended and God rules his people directly in a way that hints at the final intrusion of the kingdom of God in the age to come. Finally, there were and are moral laws written on every human’s conscience; these are the basics of what is right and wrong. Calvin equated this with “natural law†and insisted it could be accessed via general revelation. In that sense, it was rooted in God’s creation of the world (that is, “naturalâ€), and some relative degree of justice in the world is possible because of “common graceâ€â€“the superintending work of God that restrains evil and lets the rain fall on the just and on the unjust.
As Christians, we rejoice in the fact that Christ has fulfilled all the law (Rom. 10:4). The ceremonial laws are fulfilled because Jesus was the final and perfect sacrifice (Heb. 10:10-12). The civil laws are abrogated because the church, Israel, is made up of a people in exile without any socio-political expression in this phase of redemptive history. We do not, in other words, live in a period of intrusion ethics. We have no need, therefore, of ecclesiastical officials to govern the affairs of state and nation, nor do we need the sacrifices of goats and bulls to atone for our sins. But what of the moral laws?
For Calvin, Christ has redeemed us especially from the consequences of breaking the moral law; he has fulfilled all righteousness and has taken upon himself the curse of the law so that in him we might have abundant life. We then pursue a life of piety out of gratitude. Our adherence to the moral law can profit us nothing in relation to our justification before a holy God, yet it continues to inform all of the interactions between creatures, believer and unbeliever alike. In this sense, the moral law remains in effect such that right is right and wrong is wrong.
What then is the quick answer to the question of stoning adulterers? Our approach flows out of this basic categorization of laws and a Reformed understanding of where we are currently situated in redemptive history. The moral law remains in effect in this qualified way so that adultery is wrong at all times and in all places. But the stoning punishment of Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is no longer in effect because this particular code belonged to the civil law that temporarily governed the nation of Israel but has long since passed away.
Ryan Glomsrud (D.Phil., University of Oxford), “Why We Don’t Stone Adulterers,†Modern Reformation, Issue: “Interpreting Scripture†July/August Vol. 19 No. 4 2010 Page 23.
LikeLike
What does that have to do with Calvin’s words in his commentary on John 8?
How does Dr. Glomsrud gloss over Calvin’s clear words that the State should put adulterer’s to death?
The purpose of that quote was to show that John Calvin had a reason why Jesus did not go all “Al Pacino” on Pilate.
LikeLike
Ben, so you think the state today should execute adulterers? If you’re going to follow Calvin, then I suppose you do.
LikeLike
You would make a good bullfighter Dr. Hart…Ole!
So do you agree or disagree with Calvin on why Jesus did not go all “Al Pacino” on Pilate?
LikeLike
Benjamin, it’s not entirely obvious (at least to me) how Calvin’s words here bear on Jesus disposition toward Pilate. Maybe you could draw it out. It does seem clear, however, that he thinks adulterers should be punished by death. And it’s clear to me how Glomsrud’s words show how bloody Old Covenant punishment by throwing stones gets replaced with unbloodly New Covenant discipline by withholding bread and wine.
LikeLike
Ben, what Zrim said? Plus, why doesn’t Jesus’ example ever occur to the Baylys who hurl (not sticks and stones) but inflammatory words at 2k proponents?
But spelling out the connection would be useful.
LikeLike
1) Calvin notes that it was not Christ’s calling at the time.
“We are not told that Christ absolutely acquitted the woman, but that he allowed her to go at liberty. Nor is this wonderful, for he did not wish to undertake any thing that did not belong to his office. He had been sent by the Father to gather the lost sheep, (Matthew 10:6) and, therefore, mindful of his calling, he exhorts the woman to repentance, and comforts her by a promise of grace. ”
However as Calvin also notes in his commentary on Psalm 2 after Christ has taken His rightful place at the right hand of the Father all Princes and Judges are to “kiss the ring” and submit to his wisdom and knowledge.
Calvin on Psalm 2:10-11:
“Accordingly, however good an opinion the princes of the world may have of their own shrewdness, we may be sure they are arrant fools till they become humble scholars at the feet of Christ. Moreover, he declares the manner in which they were to be wise, by commanding them to serve the Lord with fear. By trusting to their elevated station, they flatter themselves that they are loosed from the laws which bind the rest of mankind; and the pride of this so greatly blinds them as to make them think it beneath them to submit even to God. The Psalmist therefore, tells them, that until they have learned to fear him, they are destitute of all right understanding.”
2) Dr. Glomsrud seems to not know that Calvin advocated the State putting adulterers to death (as well as enforcing both tables of the Law) when he uses Calvin to defend why we should not use the OT penal laws in the NT age.
LikeLike
Ben,
It is not at all clear that Calvin’s commentary on Ps. 2 has any bearing on the question of magistrates punishing adultery with execution.
Plus, if Christ wasn’t supposed to do this during his life, but the rules apply after his ascension, what’s up with the silence of the apostles and hence of the Word inscripturated?
LikeLike
What of the Testimony of Paul to Felix in Acts 24?
LikeLike
Benjamin, sorry, I still don’t see how Calvin’s commentary on John 8 has any bearing on Jesus’ disposition toward Pilate. You seemed to just repeat the commentary. How does it not being Jesus’ calling (to condemn the adulteress, I presume) at the time translate into humility toward Pilate? Maybe you’re saying that humility marks the New Covenant era? But if so, then how does that square with the theonomic impulse to be anything but politically humble?
Psalm 2 does seem more relevant to the question of disposition toward worldly powers. But, again, if one is working with the geo-political hermeneutic of theonomy instead of (or along side of) the personal one of Reformed theology then I can see how one ends up thinking Pslam 2 is about pressing worldly power into heavenly services. But Reformed theology calls for everyone from vagabonds to princes to kiss the Son.
I would bet that Glomsrud is quite aware of Calvin’s theocratic outlook but likely thinks it’s just wrong, and he explains why. Calvin was inspired, but he wasn’t “inspired.”
LikeLike
A few historical questions – and no rhetorical intent.
Can you or anyone direct me to primary sources at the time of the original American revision of WCF 23, giving the arguments for altering the Confession at this point? In a related vein, are there any good contemporary articles treating the same subject?
Shifting to the contemporary 2K – anti-2K arguments. Is this debate going on in British and European Reformed circles? I’m curious as to how this all falls out in contexts where there are still establishments (however deteriorated) and where there are still bodies holding to the ideal, though remaining outside the state church for principial reasons.
LikeLike
Calvin was inspired, but he wasn’t “inspired.â€
Neither was the fellow who first thought to call himself and his progeny, “Glomsrud.” Sounds like a goblin out of Harry Potter (not quite an orcish name, though).
LikeLike
And besides, living quiet lives and praying for the king is just so boring. That doesn’t get near as much radio and TV time.
LikeLike
Ben, do you seriously think you can make a case for the magistrate’s duty to suppress heresy from that vague reference in Acts 24 (to which I referred in the original post)? If so, your exegesis may be as in need of help as Rome’s appeals to Matt. 16 for the primacy of Peter.
LikeLike
Michael,
On the context and sources for the American revisions, it is the biggest hole in the history of American Presbyterianism. I know of someone who is writing a dissertation on those revisions. But so far we have very little to go on. What we do know fairly well is that Presbyterians were big supporters of the American Revolution and that their ideas borrowed freely from Whig political thought which developed during the 1640s in England and pitted tyranny against political liberty. For one gauge of Presbyterian thought at the time, see the memorial of 1776 from the Presbytery of Hanover (Va.). Also, take a look at Mark Noll’s book, Princeton and the Republic, for the convergence of Christian and Enlightenment ideas at the time of the founding. Witherspoon is a big figure in the book and he was, of course, a signer of the Declaration and also partly responsible for the revisions.
As for the European side, I am not so well equipped to answer. In my own experience, though, I have encountered Free Church Scots and Irish Presbyterians who though not part of the state church still uphold what is called the Establishment Principle — the idea that the state has a duty to promote the true religion, and does so through religious instruction in public schools. The advocates of the Establishment Principle usually look askance at the American revisions.
The odd aspect of this is that the Establishment Principle strikes me as a non-covenanter way of holding to the National Covenant. That means that folks who would not maintain the national covenant — only the RP’s do — may regard the original Westminster more favorably than contemporary Covenanters, who reject everything in 23.3 after the colon.
LikeLike
dgh: “Of course, Jesus had more important work to do than to clean up society so maybe this is not the best example.”
You’re right in that it’s not the best example. And yet you give it anyway, and later appeal to it at the end where you say that “the silence of Christ and his apostles and [on?] the magistrates duties is deafening.” This is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the obvious reason – it’s an argument from silence. Second, is Scripture really silent on the conduct that Jesus Christ requires of us? and indeed all people? Or does Paul not speak about why the magistrate has been given the sword?
You write: “What is more likely is that Paul addressed Felix about his own spiritual condition, not about his irresponsibility as a magistrate appointed to uphold God’s law.” But if Felix’s spiritual condition were addressed and he were redeemed, would this not have had an impact on how he conducted himself as ruler? And is the magistrate not required to obey Jesus Christ?
Once again, Darryl, the problem is not that you reject theonomy. The problem is not that you distinguish between two kingdoms. The problem is that what you’re saying has the effect of silencing Scripture and thus God in what it/He says about our conduct outside the sphere/kingdom of the Church.
LikeLike
Jonah, it’s funny how you fault an argument from silence but then make one from hypothetical. But if Scripture doesn’t explicitly say “It is not the commission of the church to clean up society or converted magistrates to enforce true religion” then it also doesn’t speculate that “If a pagan magistrate ever converts then he should use his worldly powers to usher in the Good Society.”
Once again, the problem for the anti-2k side continues to be the failure to distinguish between personal behavior and political activity. In 2k, every person is exhorted to new life in Christ (as in third use) no matter what his worldly vocation, but it isn’t obvious how a new personal life then translates into any particular view on how to order the world.
LikeLike
Jonah, you might have a point if God were indeed silent outside Scripture. But hello, have you ever heard of general revelation or the light of nature? And have you ever heard of Cicero or Aristotle? I sure think they had pretty good views on both the import of restraint and limits for personal character and on the character of a good and just society. Christians and non-Christians have lots of places to turn for social arrangements other than the Bible. So maybe your problem is that you are a biblicist.
And then on this matter of silence, it is at the heart of the Reformed understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture. Where Scripture speaks, the church does enforce. Where Scripture is silent Christians are at liberty, which is why it is okay for Christians to be monarchists or democrats, Republicans or libertarians. Why, we even allow the light of nature to guide our assemblies, unless you think Roberts Rules are part of the canon.
LikeLike
Zrim: “Once again, the problem for the anti-2k side…”
If you read my comment carefully you’d know I’m not “anti-2k.” The distinction is a legitimate one. What I’m disagreeing with is the claim that in the civil/cultural sphere, general revelation is authoritative over and against special revelation.
Zrim: “… the failure to distinguish between personal behavior and political activity.”
A legitimate distinction, yes. But to say there is no overlap is nonsense. (Do you really believe there is no connection whatsoever between the two?) Thus the importance of special revelation.
dgh: “But hello, have you ever heard of general revelation or the light of nature?”
I have indeed (which you know already). My point is that whether you’re talking about this kingdom or that kingdom, whether this sphere or that sphere, it’s not a choice between general revelation and special revelation. False dilemma! It’s BOTH, BOTH, BOTH! This is an important epistemological and ethical (worldview) point to grasp. I hope you’re able to understand. It’s not a matter of special revelation is to the church as general revelation is to the state. Nor vice versa. It’s both for both! It’s not the one versus the other. It’s the two in every area of life, because Jesus Christ reigns over all.
LikeLike
Jonah, ok, “2k critic” then. But 2k doesn’t pit GR against SR, as you seem to think. All it’s saying is that GR corresponds to civil life and SR to ecclesiastical life and to cross those wires is a problem.
I agree that there are complications to the fact that a believer has a foot in both spheres, but when you say there is overlap between personal behavior and political activity it sounds like you might be trying to downplay the distinction. I’m trying to put an accent on the distinction so that the crossed wires don’t spark a flame. But if you want GR to apply to the church (contra sola scriptura), have you considered that this is how you get something like the papacy?
LikeLike
“pc-2k critic”, if you please.
“2k critic” implies that I’m criticizing the idea of two kingdoms or jurisdictions. Nothing of the sort. I’m criticizing the particular formulation found here.
LikeLike
Jeff, you keep trying to lengthen my shorthand. 2k is about making things easier, but ok, so long as “pc” means “post-Constantinian” instead of “politically correct.” After all, it’s hard to tell since some days it sure feels like the particular formulation found here is politically incorrect.
LikeLike
Jonah, it is not both both if the Bible is silent about politics. Where does the Bible talk about constitutionalism, monarchies, republics, citizenship, legislatures? You might be tempted to answer, the OT. But then the question is how much the state of Israel is a norm for the contemporary state (i.e., general equity), or whether the actual embodiment of Israel in this era of redemptive history is the church. So what modern-2k folks are saying is that the Bible is silent about the State. Modern-2k’s critics are all about disproving that either by appealing to Israel or to morality. But beyond Romans 13, the NT just doesn’t say much about politics beyond, “submit.”
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, you keep trying to lengthen my shorthand.
Yes, I do. Oversimplifying to the detriment of one’s neighbor’s good name is not so good.
Casting your critics as “anti-2k” casts an unfair pall over their thoughts — the classic “poisoning the well” fallacy — and is perceived on this end of the keyboard as a rhetorical trick. “My opponents oppose 2k in general” is the message received.
Not saying that’s your intent; just saying that it’s the perception that the shorthand creates.
When your shorthand isn’t prejudicial towards others, I just try to roll with it (as you, no doubt, have to do with mine).
LikeLike
Zrim: “But 2k doesn’t pit GR against SR, as you seem to think. All it’s saying is that GR corresponds to civil life and SR to ecclesiastical life and to cross those wires is a problem.â€
These two sentences contradict one another. Not being permitted to “cross the wires†of GR and SR pits the one against the other.
Zrim: “I agree that there are complications to the fact that a believer has a foot in both spheres…â€
When you have one foot on one wire and another foot on another wire, you’re inevitably going to run into complications, because then you’ve linked the two wires. But when you understand that these two wires will not flare up when connected (since the Triune God is the source of both), then you’ll be able to resolve the “complications.â€
That’s as cute as I’ll be with your analogy. But these “complications” are going to continue to exist in your mind as long as you choose the discontinuity of the two over the continuity of the two, or vice versa. It’s both. Otherwise you’ll get burned.
LikeLike
dgh: “So what modern-2k folks are saying is that the Bible is silent about the State ….. But beyond Romans 13, the NT just doesn’t say much about politics beyond, ‘submit.’â€
So the Bible is silent about politics but the Bible does say a little about politics. *Pauses to scratch head* If the Bible says little about politics then is the Bible not authoritative with respect to politics? Or is the Bible authoritative about politics, but only in what it says directly and explicitly about politics, even if it’s just a little? I wish you’d pick one so I could know where to shoot my arrow.
By the way, Darryl, your disciple Zrim seems to be a bit more radical than you. He says that general revelation is not authoritative in the church, but weren’t you telling me something once about Robert’s Rules?
LikeLike
Jonah: He says that general revelation is not authoritative in the church, but weren’t you telling me something once about Robert’s Rules?
This points to the broader problem of “crossed fingers” — but should probably be more charitably called the problem of “crossed wires.”
Zrim claims that GR corresponds to civil life and SR corresponds to church life.
RL claims that the church has jurisdiction over faith and worship, and the civil magistrate over all else.
But in practice, this rigid structure has bleed-over. Everyone here agrees that GR is employed in church government (e.g.: Robert’s Rules) and worship (e.g.: the tunes to the Genevan psalter). Likewise, everyone here agrees that SR is employed in daily life by the Christian (e.g.: I must use honest weights and measures, whether literally or figuratively).
To an extent, this bleed-over or wire-crossing is not a big deal. Zrim would protest that the rigid structure is “short-hand” and we aren’t really really talking about complete separation of spheres. A Christian has one foot in each world, etc.
The problem is this:
Much of the electronic ink on this website is spilled criticizing others for … wait for it … crossing the wires.
Which raises the question: Why is Tim Keller’s crossing of the wires a “bad” crossing, while Zrim’s crossing of the wires an “acceptable” crossing?
Absent clear principles for wire-crossing, which Zrim and DGH have both been reluctant to provide, it looks like the criticism is based on arbitrary personal preference: My wire-crossing good, your wire-crossing bad.
Is this not so? If not, then what principles guide the permissible crossings of wires?
Why is the Genevan psalter an appropriate use of GR in worship, but (to pick a ridiculous example) U2’s musical setting of Ps. 40 NOT an appropriate use of GR in worship?
LikeLike
Jeff, here’s the problem with your crossing wires, it is not careful. Just because the Bible says you should use honest weights and measures doesn’t mean the Bible requires metric. That is the error over which ink is being spilled here. In case you haven’t noticed, we are living in a time of Christian aerobics, of every member ministry and kingdom work where writing a history book is as redemptively significant as preaching a sermon, where juggling may be acceptable in worship — all because of little wire crossing leads to — well, let’s just go ahead and cross them all.
In other words, Jeff, you consistently want to cross more and more wires, and that seems to explain why you are picking nits about 2k. Granted and thankfully, you do it much more reasonably than some. But do you really want to defend all the wire crossing going on out there? And what happens when such crossing means the lights finally go out? In case you haven’t noticed as well, from the Manhattan Declaration to Evangelicals and Catholics Together to the Christian Reformed Church, wire crossing in the form of cultural engagement has compromised clear defense of the gospel of Jesus Christ (you need to add “of Jesus Christ” these days because the gospel has so many wires attached to it).
LikeLike
Jonah, and what would be the problem with the Bible not being authoritative for politics? Jonah says the Bible must be authoritative for politics, and so that makes it true? Or that makes Jonah God? The Bible doesn’t tell me how to do a host of things in which I engage every day. You’ve just encountered that proposition?
LikeLike
DGH: But do you really want to defend all the wire crossing going on out there?
Definitely not! And of course, I’ve never argued such.
Here’s the thing: You have a fear. Here it is: “a little wire crossing leads to — well, let’s just go ahead and cross them all. ” It’s a slippery-slope argument. Those arguments aren’t logically sound, but they can be inductively strong: Some slippery slopes really are to be feared.
And, I can appreciate that you, the historian, have some precedent to fear your particular slippery slope.
But now: You yourself already admit to a little wire-crossing. And yet, for you, that doesn’t lead to crossing them all. Why not? What’s the guiding principle that halts your descent down the slippery slope?
That is the burden of my nit-picking. Far from trying to make the world safe for promiscuous wire-crossers, I am rather trying to get you to show your cards. What is the basis for your opinion that, say, juggling is not appropriate in worship, but four-part vocal polyphony with 16th century European melodies *is* appropriate?
There is some underlying DGH theory of wire-crossing that goes beyond “No!” What is that theory?
So unlike my snark about capitols and capitals, I really am being careful here.
LikeLike
dgh: “… what would be the problem with the Bible not being authoritative for politics?”
Are you saying that the Bible is not authoritative for politics? Or do you pose the question because this is something you are still trying to work out in your own mind?
You’re still not being clear about your position. You write: “But beyond Romans 13, the NT just doesn’t say much about politics beyond, ‘submit.'” But you also write: “… the silence of Christ and the apostles and the magistrate’s religious duties is deafening.”
So does the Bible say nothing or something about politics? Which is it?
Do you really want to say that the Bible says nothing about it? You yourself mention Romans 13.
My own position is that there is much the Bible does not say about politics (thus the necessity of general revelation, as you stress, and I agree) and yet there is much it does say about politics. In order to prove my position, I would need to go through the whole Bible with you to show you. But let me just pick one verse, the very first verse of Scripture (without even looking at all the other books, chapters and verses), Gen. 1:1 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
What implications does Gen. 1:1 have for how we ought to do politics? What does this verse teach us about the context in which politics is conducted? What is the significance of this verse for the motive and intent of our politics? What does this verse teach us about the effect our politics should have? How does this verse inform our philosophy of politics, Darryl, or does it not inform it?
And what person who considers himself a Christian would tell an unbeliever that he is entitled by God to completely ignore this verse of Scripture when it comes to its implications for our living, including politics?
LikeLike
Jonah, there is authority and there is authority. The authority you claim here for Gen. 1 would not be the kind that would allow the church or another a Christian to bind another’s conscience. Now, hypothetically, a Christian might say, I believe God created all things on Sunday and then say on Monday when writing laws that I don’t believe in God as creator. That would be a problem, but not of application. It would be a problem of unbelief. But your interpretation of Gen. 1:1 is your interpretation. Have at it. It is no more binding or persuasive for anyone else. And simply because you’ve appealed to the Bible to justify your political theory or policy doesn’t make your political theory or policy authoritative.
LikeLike
I’m still waiting for an answer on whether you think the Bible is silent about politics. And if the Bible does say something about politics, is what the Bible says about it authoritative? *Jeopardy game show music plays in background*
Your response to my reference to Gen. 1:1 is telling, because you know I’m on to something with respect to that fact that it informs our worldview, which worldview in turn informs our understanding of politics. But your claim that the Bible means didley squat for politics won’t allow you to admit it. Something tells me you recognize the absurdity (in the logical sense of the term) of your position. In fact, the absurdity of your position results in you going so far as to suggest that truth is relative: “But your interpretation of Gen. 1:1 is your interpretation. Have at it.” What if my interpretation is that the Spaghetti Monster created everything? Should I just “have at it”?!?
Gen. 1:1 does have significant implications for politics. If God created all things, and if it’s God who created us, and if God is God, then this means He gets to call the shots. He’s the one who’s the final authority, which is obviously significant for our epistemology and philosophy of ethics. And these, in turn, are significant for how we reason about politics and for the choices we make in politics.
And if Gen. 1:1 is not true, what does this do to general revelation? If God did not create the heavens and the earth, then what is the nature, content and purpose of general revelation? And if general revelation is important for politics, as you would argue (and I would agree), then wouldn’t the possibility that Gen. 1:1 is false have an impact on how we understand politics since such would alter general revelation, if indeed there even was general revelation?
You see, here is a prime example of how special revelation and general revelation inform and relate to one another, which, in your understanding, you want them to be separate since the church and temporal realms are separate. (But I’m not arguing against the distinction between the two.)
I do not say this to beat you down, but to build you up. And I’m still waiting for an answer on whether you think the Bible is silent about politics, and whether the Bible is authoritative with respect to politics.
LikeLike
Jonah, yes I always feel uplifted by the Jeopardy show theme song.
I did answer your question as clearly as Gen. 1:1 speaks to politics. If you can read federalism into God as creator, you can also read my views on the Bible into what I’ve written. But just so you can take the Jeopardy record off the record player, I do believe Rom. 13, for instance, reveals what God thinks about the duties of the magistrate.
But beyond that, it doesn’t address what form of government we should have. Somehow you think that the implications of the Bible for politics means that the Bible speaks to politics. Your string of logic is fine. But if I were a legislator it wouldn’t resolve a proposal for a federally administered program of health insurance, nor would it tell me how to represent a people that is both Christian and not.
And I thought worldview thinking was supposed to be practical. Turns out its more like Linus’ blankey.
LikeLike
Darryl
I may differ from you on questions of confessionalism etc but in this issue I think you have it absolutely right and I learn a great deal.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I have followed your thoughts on this subject for several years now.
Allow me to attempt a summary of the Post-Constantinian 2K position.
PC2K says:
1) Natural law (apart from special revelation) is a SUFFICIENT guide for establishing earthly justice and peace in the common grace economy.
2) Natural law can ALWAYS be rightly used for its natural end (earthly justice and peace) without reference to its divine origin and ultimate purpose.
3) In the interest of preserving freedom of conscience and ecclesiastical purity you maintain it is ABSOLUTELY ILLEGITIMATE and undesirable for the common grace state to confess the Lordship of either the biblical God or Jesus Christ.
Is this a fair summarization of your position?
If so, then my responses will be:
1) How do you know?
2) How do you know?
3) How do you know?
I doubt you could appeal to general revelation alone to justify these absolute claims. I’d like to see you or any of your fellow travelers try. Perhaps you’ll appeal to the common intuitions of the majoriy of mankind. Those of us who do not have these intuitions are perhaps abnormal–freaks born with a deficiency of noetic content every normal person naturally possesses. Or perhaps, we have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness because we’re trying to achieve justification by works. Either way, we have either lost or never possessed what everybody else “just knows.”
However, you do appeal to special revelation to support your views. I’m still waiting for either…
a) Deductive proofs from Scripture that validly demonstrate the above claims; or
b) A historical demonstration that the consistent, overwhelming, teaching of the Western Christian tradition is distinctively PC2K (and not just 2K).
Darryl, absent the demonstrations, why should anyone take seriously subjective biblical interpretations and historical evaluations inspired by private intution?
LikeLike
You haven’t stated my views. My view is that Geneva was wrong to execute Servetus and the United States established a problem when it asserted the need for a virtuous citizenry and did not specify where the virtue would come from. I am not programmatic about this. I am a historian. I observe what has happened and where states and churches have been right and wrong. Theologically, I do not find biblical warrant for what the 16th and 17th c. Reformed creeds say about the magistrate. Historically, I admire Machen and believe he and fellow Old School Presbyterians were right about the spirituality of the church.
But as far as how I know: I know because I read and study the past. The Greeks and the Romans had their problems but they were a pretty moral lot in their best times — better in fact than the patriarchs in Genesis. So if it was possible for Cato or Aristotle to be more moral than David or Jacob, I need to try to account for that. Natural law and general revelation helps.
LikeLike
Andrew,
It may be helpful to check out David VanDrunen’s works on NL. You might not agree with him, but he is a fine exegete and has built a good case for modern 2k. Suffice to say, none of us would hold 2k if it were just a hunch.
LikeLike
I don’t necessarily have a quarrel with the proposition that a given virtuous pagan may be more “moral” than a given biblical exemplar of faith. I just wouldn’t know how we could ascertain this for sure. How does natural law help us here?
You have read and studied the past more than I. History is your field. So what? Richard Dawkins knows more about biology than I do, but I’m not convinced of his evolutionary theories. I don’t know how “programmatic” Dawkins is, but he certainly has a program.
I can appreciate the moral revulsion one feels at the cruel and unusual sorts of punishments/ executions administered in the good ol’ days of Christendom. One of the first books that had a formative influence on me was Foxe’s Book of Martyrs containing lots of lurid woodcut scenes of man’s inhumanity to man. But is the banishment of intransigent heretics really prohibited? Is capital punishment really wrong for those who year-after-year publicly attack the sacral foundations of government authority?
At some point, emotional reactions need to be checked and positive principles need to be articulated.
For PC2K, these principles have been articulated by the likes of Meredith Kline, Michael Horton, and David Vandrunen. The pattern I’ve been seeing are doctrines very much like the three points I’ve laid out above. I think it can be said that these views depend on the validity of the social contract theory of the state, a theory that actually fails to account for the diversity, order, and hierarchy actually inherent in nature.
Servetus received his due reward, because it is the king’s duty as father of his people to protect his subjects from all deadly harm, physical and spiritual. I don’t know all the ins-and-outs of Servetus’ trial and execution, but I do know the man was an unrepentant soul who would not desist from publicly propagating his heresy and sedition.
I deny that any man has the inherent natural right to disturb the peace of society through heresy and sedition.
Servetus is not some kind of martyr. The redemption of Christ and the peace it brings is not available to those who, like Servetus, persist in error. It is only offered to those who repent and turn from their error. The state has the right to protect itself from errors that threaten its existence. Servetus was a wicked man who received the prescribed penalty established by the lawful authority for defending the commonwealth.
Finally, I don’t know why PC2K secularism deserves preference over the Christendom view, which grounds human government in the divinely established created order as an institution bound to uphold the whole law of God. The Church can still function as an institution that addresses matters of the spirit and maintains a certain autonomy from the temporal power, as you pointed out in your recent post, “Two-Kingdom Tuesday: The Roman Catholic Version.”
LikeLike
Thanks for the recommendation, Jed. I’ll be sure to consider VanDrunen’s case.
LikeLike
Matthew, how do you know that Christianity is or should be the “sacral foundation” of society? It wasn’t in Jesus’ day and he did not insist the emperor kiss the Son. So how about answering your own question?
And what of the implications of your view? Do you think Roman Catholics should be banished from the United States or imprisoned if they continue the idolatry of the mass?
LikeLike
Darryl, here’s where I’m coming from:
“The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc. directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work, but it also tells us about who God is and where the universe about us has come from. It tells us about theism as well as about Christianity. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the word of God that you can separate the so-called religious and moral instruction of the Bible from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe.”
That’s a quote from Cornelius Van Til found on page 36 of Van Til’s Apologetic by Greg Bahnsen. There are other places where Van Til speaks of the relationship between general and special revelation, though I’ll not quote them all but just encourage you to look at them.
My point is that one cannot separate special revelation from general revelation. Van Til even argues that special revelation was necessary before the Fall, e.g., how would they have known not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Thus it is not sin alone that necessitates special revelation. Van Til writes: “The necessity of an authoritative self-revelation of God in supernatural fashion is inherent in the human situation. It is ‘natural’ that there should be supernatural revelation Apart from and prior to the entrance of sin, God actually spoke to man. God identifies one tree among many in order to indicate to man his task on the earth” (p. 204 of Van Til’s Apologetic).
LikeLike
Darryl, did you mean to say that “the United States established a problem when it asserted the need for a virtuous citizenry and did not specify where the virtue would come from”?
Thanks for the clarification.
LikeLike
Darryl, I’m Andrew. Maybe you remember your old sparring partner over at DRC a few years ago.
How do I know Christianity is or should be the “sacral foundation†of the state? Simple (or maybe not). The state pre-existed the Fall. The power of the sword is incidental to the true nature of the state which is to order the collective life of the race toward its telos, to glorify God.
The type finds its fulfillment in the antitype. As the mortal must give way to the immortal, as the earthly must give way to the heavenly, so the State must give way to the Church, the perfection of human society. The state can only be healthful if it acknowledges its limitations in view of the revelation of the mystery of Christ’s ecclesial body.
The sacred character of the state derives from the image of God in Adam, specifically Adam’s fatherhood, which is the fount of all natural authority on earth. Upon the original patria potestas transmitted to posterity, later covenant grants would build to bring about the arrival of the promised Seed.
The plan of redemption was enacted not apart from or despite the cultural process, but through it, and the glory goes ultimately to God, not to man or to any human father’s will.
The glory goes to God. Jesus himself did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped but humbled himself, suffering the indignities poured upon him with noblesse oblige befitting a true–the truest–Royal. It was this dignity along with the filial piety he demonstrated that propitiated the Father’s wrath against sin. It is this dignity that draws all men to him.
To my knowledge, the Son of God did not demand worship from anybody while he was here, let alone Caesar. But, he accepted worship. If Caesar had been disposed to travel with the Magi to Bethlehem to honor the Lord, I’m sure his service would have been accepted.
Maybe you should read Psalm 2 again, Darryl. Just remember, when Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven, he didn’t stop existing as a Jew of the house of Judah. There’s a reason Heaven is called Zion and the “Jerusalem that is above.” There is a real connection, real continuity, between the earthly analog and the heavenly fulfillment. Theocracy has not been utterly spiritualized and pulverized. In fact, national Israel lives forever.
If elect national Israel exists, I see no reason at all that other nations may not be grafted into the covenant tree. Such is directly intimated by the prophets.
In the new covenant economy, marriage is blessed by prayer and transformed into holy matrimony. Similarly, through the Church’s blessing, a king may become a holy king, sanctified to the service of the Lord Jesus Christ,
***
As to your other questions, a) the Mass is not idolatry, and b) the king has an obligation to defend Christ’s little ones against the demonic forces arrayed against them. A true heretic poses a clear and present threat to the ignorant masses. The inevitable result of allowing heresy to run rampant is a divided house that will not stand.
LikeLike
Jonah,
I understand. I’ve read that in Van Til and I would not put it that way. I think we live with lots of people who don’t rely on special revelation to make good (externally) judgments as drivers, members of juries, and magistrates. I also think that VanDrunen’s chapter on Van Till in his book on NL and 2k spots important weaknesses Van Til’s view.
LikeLike
Andrew, I do remember and since our debates then didn’t go anywhere I’m not sure this one will either. Perhaps indicative of our disagreement is that you would apparently exalt a particular theory of the state — sometimes held within the Reformed tradition — over a Reformed consensus on the dangers and error of the Mass. Maybe you don’t mean to let politics get in the way of liturgy, but it sounds that way given your answer.
And yes, I do mean to say that the American order has problems — where does virtue come from — but I think its improvements outweigh its defects.
LikeLike
I’m not here to change your mind, Darryl. No one’s mind is going to change except by divine intervention. Besides, unless we examine the basic principles of our respective approaches, no progress can be made anyway. My goal is to fine tune my case for those who will listen.
I don’t know about this notion of sacrificing liturgy for politics. Orthodox (not Eastern–necessarily) Trinitarianism and Christology trump parochial anxieties over the Mass, in my judgment.
The dual witness of general and special revelation taken together is this: The rejection of the monarchical principle overthrows all true religion, order, and virtue. An entire book of the Bible was written to argue this very point.
The Trinity derives its unity from the Father. Divine government is monarchical. The Messiah is the King of kings. Justice and judgment must be concentrated in one will in order for virtuous rule to be exercised; which means authentic human government is monarchical. Fatherhood is monarchical. The inevitable cultural results of rejecting authority are: lawlessness, disorder, the dissolution of the family, communism, and finally, totalitarianism. The irony is that revolutions engender greater repression, i.e., to prevent further disorder and other revolutions. The wages of apostasy and rebellion are greater servitude and misery.
All these considerations lead me to embrace monarchy as a, perhaps the fundamental principle of government. Once monarchy is seen to be true and liberalism false, it’s much easier to see how the law of God can be administered and applied to civil society.
In short, I don’t much care for the world liberal thought has engendered; a world run by lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats. A world of legal positivism, identity politics, and PC. A world where kings, priests, and fathers have been deprived of their rightful and necessary place.
LikeLike
dgh: “I think we live with lots of people who don’t rely on special revelation to make good (externally) judgments as drivers, members of juries, and magistrates.”
True. But lots don’t make externally good judgments. How do you know which is right and which is wrong? Conscience? Consensus? An appeal to general revelation only? One judge or jury upholds a law against gay marriage. Another strikes down a law against gay marriage. To what standard do you appeal? I know that natural law would indicate that homosexuality is wrong because my understanding of it is informed by Scripture. But people disagree over what natural law is. I understand that people disagree over what Scripture teaches too. But if people disagree over what general revelation teaches and people disagree over what special revelation teaches, then why toss out special revelation but maintain general revelation? Every major Reformed theologian speaks of the insufficiency of general revelation but none speaks of the insufficiency of special revelation. You know, I’m sure, that Calvin speaks of Scripture as the spectacles through which we can rightly understand general revelation.
dgh: “I also think that VanDrunen’s chapter on Van Till in his book on NL and 2k spots important weaknesses [in] Van Til’s view.”
Have you heard that Dr. Kloosterman is doing a review of VanDrunen’s book in the Christian Renewal? He spots important weaknesses in VanDrunen’s view.
LikeLike
I wonder how many of those who argue vociferously that it is a Christian duty to challenge state policy would do so themselves if they lived in North Korea, Iran or perhaps Nazi Germany. Rome was hardly the most virtuous of States but there is simply no hint in the NT that Christians had an obligation to challenge its policies.
Luke 12:13-14 (ESV)
Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.†But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?â€
1Cor 5:12-13 (ESV)
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.â€
LikeLike
Andrew, if the monarchical principle is so consistent with divine sovereignty, why did God disapprove of Israel having a king?
LikeLike
Jonah, I have heard about Kloosterman and I wonder if you’ve heard that he has turned critiquing 2k into a full-time ministry. I will be curious to see what NK comes up with because DVD’s book is not an argument for 2k. It is a historical presentation that actually addresses a number of flaws and inconsistencies.
The reason why we use general revelation without special revelation is that we live in a world where Christians are not the majority. That means that unbelievers have to have some norms. General revelation supplies them. NK loves to quote Dort on this and say how they are insufficient. Of course, they are insufficient for salvation. But they are sufficient for a semblance of public order.
It seems to me that a major flaw of the anti-2k side is thinking that non-Christians can actually read special revelation well enough to let it inform their reading of general revelation. I thought non-believers were opposed to revealed truths. But now they are going to use it as a road map for general revelation? Huh!
Which is why it also strikes me that the anti-2k position, like NK’s, is really theonomic, because the only people who can read special revelation aright (though not perfectly) are those who have the Holy Spirit and that means that only the regenerate should be running things.
LikeLike
Darryl, to answer your question it is necessary to distinguish between the monarchical principle and the motivations or circumstances attending the rise of a given monarch or dynasty.
As argued above, the monarchical principle is inescapable.
Israel was not wrong because they wanted a king per se. The problem was that their desire for a king was a sign of their rejection of God’s royal rule over them. It was a manifestation of unbelief.
The desire for a king can arise from the legitimate desire for a fuller manifestation of God’s rule in the present. As Christians, we pray, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”
After the Davidic dynasty was established, the hope of Israel included the desire for a righteous descendant of David to ascend to David’s throne.
Human monarchy is consistent with God’s sovereignty because God allowed it. And it receives the divine endorsement because it has been incorporated into the redemptive economy. No other form of government enjoys this level of endorsement.
LikeLike
John Thomson: You write, “I wonder how many of those who argue vociferously that it is a Christian duty to challenge state policy would do so themselves if they lived in North Korea, Iran or perhaps Nazi Germany.”
Are you imputing cowardice and/ or inconsistency to those who “argue vociferously” to change policy in a representative democracy, but are silent under a totalitarian regime? Uhh, in a representative democracy, all citizens have been granted the right to participate politically, whereas in the systems you mentioned, they do not.
“Rome was hardly the most virtuous of States but there is simply no hint in the NT that Christians had an obligation to challenge its policies.”
Yeah, that’s right. Christian Roman citizens did not have certain political rights, therefore, they did not exercise those rights. However, certain Christians received an apostolate to go directly before Caesar, kings, and lesser magistrates to proclaim the universal Lordship of Jesus the Christ.
And then you provide verses without explanation:
“Luke 12:13-14 (ESV)
Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.†But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?â€
That’s right, at his first advent Jesus did not come to judge sin; he came to bear sin’s curse. Are you making a WWJD argument now? Are we Christians sent to bear the sin of the world?
“1Cor 5:12-13 (ESV)
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.â€
Yes. “Judgment begins in the House of God.” Jesus came to set his Father’s house in order. The Church continues that work by establishing ecclesiastical courts to arbitrate the affairs of its members. Ecclesial discipline is broader than censure, barring from the table, and excommunication. It also includes prescribing penitential exercises and works of restoration, passing judgment in order to resolve disagreements between Christians, granting divorces and the ability to re-marry, and various degrees of excommunication (e.g., banning vs. shunning).
However, once discipline reaches a level of competence within the Church that exceeds the competence without, the pattern in times past is that rulers will often request the assistance of ecclesiastical authorities to administer justice in the courts. This is at the prerogative of the king, and the Church ought not to offer its aid in these responsibilities. The king must first say, “Come up higher.”
There are rare cases where the Church, much like Queen Esther, humbly comes before the king to intercede concerning a specific matter, but such cases would be quite rare. The king listens to the Church not out of obligation, but out of grace, i.e., because of the grace he has been given. This usually means the king is converted, or at least spiritually enlightened to a degree. When this happens, it won’t be long before Christianity is established as the religion of the land.
Under representative democracy, Christians often feel like they must speak out against evil policy. At times this is wise; at other times it isn’t. However, in a representative democracy, there is never finality to anything. No interest or party will ever gain control for very long. Every action engenders an equal and opposite reaction. If a Christian party forms, then an anti-Christian party (or at least a party opposed to the Christian platform) will form.
The dialectical movement of left and right, action and reaction, inevitably moves leftward; it always has and it always will. The telos of this dialectical process is absolute anarchy, which requires a strong man–a tyrant–for deliverance. The problem with tyranny (dictatorship) is a lot of blood is spilled and its peace is short lived. Tyrants tend to succeed tyrants.
If Christians want society to be converted, they will promote familial and monarchical forms of government. Legitimacy and stability is key.
Over all, I prefer rule by a pagan monarch to rule under a Christian democracy; that of pagan democracy to that of Christian dictatorship; and that of pagan dictatorship to that of Christian anarchy. But all things being equal, I prefer Christian to pagan rule. And, best of all, I prefer a Christian monarchy to a pagan.
LikeLike
dgh: “… DVD’s book is not an argument for 2k.â€
It does argue against neo-Calvinism, which, by the way, does not oppose the 2k distinction, but opposes those who seek to snuff out the Bible and its authority for matters outside the Church, such as our worldview (our origin, anthropology, epistemology, ethics, ontology, teleology, etc.) with respect to all of life.
dgh: “The reason why we use general revelation without special revelation is that we live in a world where Christians are not the majority.â€
But this assumes that special revelation’s authority derives from Christians (which you know is false). I don’t think you actually believe this. Why should our epistemology and philosophy of ethics change simply because Christians might or might not be the majority? God does not answer to man’s desires concerning norms.
dgh: “That means that unbelievers have to have some norms. General revelation supplies them.â€
Do unbelievers need just any norms? Who gets to determine what those norms are? Is it not God? General revelation is insufficient to supply the norms that unbelievers need, because if you deny them special revelation then you deny them salvation in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is what they really need! Is this not the case, Darryl? Part of the problem here that I’m seeing is that you’re using unbelievers’ behavior as the standard for their behavior. They don’t believe in Jesus Christ therefore they’re not required to do so – but is such reasoning logical? (I’m not arguing it’s the job of the state to require this from them; in fact I’d argue the contrary. But Jesus Christ still demands their submission). Are you saying that because unbelievers are reprobate that therefore Christians shouldn’t ask them to submit to the Bible and thus to Christ? Do unbelievers submit to Christ without special revelation?
Dgh: “But they are sufficient for a semblance of public order.â€
Is a semblance of public order required? Or is actual public order required? Or should we reason that because humans aren’t perfect that therefore God doesn’t require perfection, even though He is perfect? And if general revelation is sufficient for a semblance of public order, then why is sin so rampant? Why, then, is public disorder so common throughout the world? Here then is another key flaw in your view, namely, that we can wipe out the antithesis by eliminating special revelation outside of the sphere of Church.
dgh: “It seems to me that a major flaw of the anti-2k side is thinking that non-Christians can actually read special revelation well enough to let it inform their reading of general revelation.â€
I’m not anti-2k. I’m anti-anti-special revelation.
dgh: “I thought non-believers were opposed to revealed truths. But now they are going to use it as a road map for general revelation? Huh!â€
General revelation is revealed truth from God. You’re right, unbelievers are opposed to revealed truths.
dgh: “… NK’s, is really theonomic…â€
False. See here: http://auxesis.net/kloosterman/An_Appraisal_of_Theonomy.pdf
dgh: “… because the only people who can read special revelation aright (though not perfectly) are those who have the Holy Spirit and that means that only the regenerate should be running things.â€
Yes, Darryl. Now you’re beginning to learn. One needs the Holy Spirit. But not all will receive the Holy Spirit. The antithesis is with us until Christ returns, like it or not. One cannot do away with sin by general revelation only. Only Jesus Christ can do away with sin completely, utterly and entirely. And this is a fact that is already and not yet.
LikeLike
And if general revelation is sufficient for a semblance of public order, then why is sin so rampant? Why, then, is public disorder so common throughout the world?
Because sin still abides. Your question is like asking, “If the rule book for tennis is sufficient to govern tennis playing then why are there so many infractions?” But rule books don’t exist to eliminate behavior, they exist to regulate behavior. Big difference. And in case you haven’t noticed or are too mild to admit, sin is also rampant within the church, even those churches normed sola scriptura. The premise of your question seems to be, “How can we we reduce the effects of sin? Oh, use the Bible.” But sinners sin because they are sinners, not because they aren’t using the right book. Once again, this demonstrates how the 2k-critical side has something of an under-realized grasp of just what human sin is.
LikeLike
Jonah, all you needed to do was replace Master for your name and scholar for mine and you’d have the makings of a good (from Jonah’s perspective) catechism. Thanks for schooling me. But the Master is wrong on many levels.
A modicum of order seems to be what hangs you up. You object to general revelation only supplying a modicum of order. Do you actually think it possible in this life, this side of glory, to have actual public order. Have you never heard of the danger of immanentizing the eschaton?
So if we wait for the actual public order that will come when Jesus returns, what kind of order may we have in a fallen world where some suppress the truth in unrighteousness and some repent and believe? I’ll stand with Calvin and take Cicero and Aristotle as guides for the unregenerate in the civil realm.
I assume you won’t. Which means that you are indeed theonomic is you think an actual public order is attainable and should be pursued. Again, your position is that in public life special revelation is supreme, only those who follow special revelation should lead, and those who don’t should not be trusted to contribute to public order. In other words, Christian norms and Christian persons must be dominant for actual public order.
You may not like the theonomic shoe, but it sure seems to fit.
As for DVD’s critique of neo-Calvinism, it stems precisely from the neo-Cal’s failure to use the categories of 2k. And the important aspect of this failure is the neo-Cal’s failure to add consummation to the pattern of creation, fall, and redemption. But leaving off the actual coming of the kingdom with the return of Christ, neo-Cal’s do immanentize the eschaton and so fail to reckon with the realities of living in a fallen world that awaits the actual king.
LikeLike
Jonah, btw, thanks for the link to Kloosterman. Though I’m not sure it contravenes my suspicion about the theonomic soul lurking in neo-Calvinism. Here is an excerpt:
“. . . theonomy forces us to think more carefully about how we apply God’s Word to specific aspects of Christian living. Theonomy contributes to the formation of a world-and-life view that unites and integrates human relationships, ambitions, and motives in service to God and his glory. I admit that using the Bible is more important than thinking about how we use the Bible. The destination is, after all, more important than the route. But without developing communal mapreading skills, our confession of the Bible’s authority will become hollow and individualistic.
“In our lawless age, we must cling to the Law and the Prophets— that is, to all of God’s Word. Let us not reject dispensationalism as a doctrine, only to ignore Old Testament law in practice.
“This symposium is a good example of how we ought to reflect together on the Bible’s teaching about morality. I am worried that some critics of theonomy (in contrast to several OPC and PCA assemblies, which have refused to condemn it) are claiming that it is a very serious error, un-Reformed and inherently divisive.”
None of this suggests that NK is very critical of theonomy. He seems to want to get to know it better.
LikeLike
Grab a coffee, Darryl. Please bear with me …
dgh: “A modicum of order seems to be what hangs you up.â€
What hangs me up is the notion that only a modicum of order is what a perfect and holy God requires.
Major premise: God requires actual order.
Minor premise: Mankind falls short of this.
Conclusion: God does not require actual order.
The conclusion does not follow from the premises.
dgh: “You object to general revelation only supplying a modicum of order.â€
It is actually because of God Himself via common grace that we don’t have complete disorder. Sinful man cannot appropriate general revelation apart from God, even as sinful man cannot appropriate special revelation apart from God.
dgh: “Do you actually think it possible in this life, this side of glory, to have actual public order?â€
You know that I don’t think such is possible. But you should also be realizing by now that God doesn’t remove the demand because of mankind’s disobedience. Nor should you or I reason that we shouldn’t strive for such in our own lives because ‘oh well, no one’s perfect.’ Jesus Christ has met the demand of perfection for us, which righteousness and holiness become ours through union with him by faith alone. Because of this fact we are to respond in thankfulness which we’re to demonstrate by following God’s law even though our sinful natures will be fighting against the new man in us until we die or Christ returns.
dgh: “So if we wait for the actual public order that will come when Jesus returns, what kind of order may we have in a fallen world where some suppress the truth in unrighteousness and some repent and believe?â€
You’re sounding like you think God doesn’t require us to be holy as He is holy. God is a God of order and requires this from us too in our capacity as His image bearers. This is the kind of order you and I ought to want. This is the kind of order that you and I should strive for. But I’m not saying we can expect this to happen before Christ returns. Don’t you see, Darryl? God requires what we can’t offer Him apart from Jesus Christ in his death, resurrection, ascension, intercession and return.
dgh: “I’ll stand with Calvin and take Cicero and Aristotle as guides for the unregenerate in the civil realm.â€
And I’ll stand with Calvin in saying that the unregenerate should submit to Jesus Christ too. Election and predestination do not remove God’s demand on the unregenerate that they repent and believe in His Son. (See Deut. 29:29).
It seems like you’re asking for a double standard, wherein the unbeliever isn’t required to submit to Scripture because he’s going to hell anyway. But God does not apply a double standard to mankind – one that says the unregenerate are not required to obey Jesus Christ, or maybe they are required to but not according to special revelation (which is odd because general revelation doesn’t contain the gospel).
dgh: “Again, your position is that in public life special revelation is supreme …â€
I’m saying it’s both special revelation and general revelation. Both for both kingdoms.
You said I think that: “… only those who follow special revelation should lead, and those who don’t should not be trusted to contribute to public order.†But this is not stating my position correctly. My position is that those who lead should follow special and general revelation. My position is that those who lead should be obedient to Jesus Christ in all things (“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.â€) When I go to vote for a leader, I choose the lesser of two evils, so to speak. Sometimes that politician might be an unbeliever, but that doesn’t mean I accept their evil and unbelief. As a Christian I ask them to believe in Jesus Christ. As the citizen of a country I ask that they do their job well. But as the Christian who’s a citizen of country X, I ask for both. Am I asking too much from them? God requires both from them.
When I said that you’re beginning to learn I was responding to your claim that “… the only people who can read special revelation aright (though not perfectly) are those who have the Holy Spirit…†Then you said: “and that means that only the regenerate should be running things.†This is ideal but not realistic. But why is it unrealistic? Because of mankind’s sin? or because God doesn’t demand that all submit to His Son as Lord and Savior? See the difference? You can’t change God’s demands on people because they can’t meet His demands.
This means that the Church (not the state) is going to have to get busy with the Great Commission. This is the solution to living in a fallen world with unbelievers. The solution is not to remove the requirement on unbelievers to submit to the Bible, but rather to present those Scriptures to them, regardless of what their reaction might be. This is how you press the antithesis and create opportunities for witness.
dgh: “you may not like the theonomic shoe, but it sure seems to fit.â€
Please stop the name calling. I’m living proof that one can appreciate Greg Bahnsen for his work in apologetics but disagree with him in his support for theonomy (which is actually a good word in the simple denotative sense, but Bahnsen adds connotations I don’t like. Even those who disagree with Bahnsen still argue over what “God’s law†really requires of us).
dgh: “And the important aspect of this failure is the neo-Cal’s failure to add consummation to the pattern of creation, fall, and redemption.â€
I had Goheen and Wolters as profs. They didn’t leave off consummation. And where I disagree with you is not over your use of the categories of 2k, but in defining them such that Scripture is not permitted in the civil realm.
LikeLike
Jonah, I am not name calling. The implication of your position is theonomy. God’s redemptive rule over all things is what you expect and want.
So where do non-Christians fit in your scheme? I understand that they don’t fit in Israel. No idolatry was tolerated. They also don’t fit in the church. No idolatry is tolerated. So in a Christian society, the norm, right, not the ideal, because of God’s law, we have no room for non-Christians.
That’s fine if you want to believe that. I just don’t know where you’d live. But more important, I don’t know where non-Christians can live since there is no way for them to submit to Scripture apart from faith.
Is this a double standard? But I always thought that the only way that Christians could be different from the world was if Christians had standards that were different from the world’s.
BTW, Wolters’ book does not include glorification in his scheme. But at least you’re consistent, one standard, no dualism. The problem is that the NT gives you no warrant for this because the apostles and Christ everywhere expect Christians to be living with non-Christians and never do they say that the magistrate must submit to special revelation. But you know who did think the magistrate should submit to special revelation — the Israelites, and especially the ones who expected Christ to reinstitute the Davidic kingdom only to wish him good riddance when he didn’t meet their expectations.
LikeLike
dgh: “The implication of your position is theonomy. God’s redemptive rule over all things is what you expect and want.â€
I don’t believe that the OT judicial and civil laws continue to be binding in the way that Bahnsen does. Though I think their underlying principles, being a description of who God is and a reflection of His character, are abiding. They are as immutable as God is. That’s why I find it weird why you keep wanting to appeal to the NT but not the OT. As for God’s redemptive rule over all things, I guess you’d have to define “redemptive rule.†I want to see all people submit to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, so does God Himself: 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23. Do I expect that to happen before Christ returns? No (because of election). But God doesn’t remove the requirement to submit to Christ because some don’t want to. And God doesn’t maintain that requirement for Christians but remove it for unbelievers, otherwise He wouldn’t have a basis for condemning unbelievers for their unbelief.
dgh: “So where do non-Christians fit in your scheme?â€
The same place they do in your scheme. The difference is that I believe they’re sinning by refusing to submit to Scripture.
dgh: “I understand that they don’t fit in Israel. No idolatry was tolerated. They also don’t fit in the church. No idolatry is tolerated.â€
God doesn’t tolerate idolatry. Period. Just let that sink in, Darryl. This is why Jesus Christ is coming again to judge the living and the dead, and to renew the world. It’s his place to separate the sheep from the goats, not mine, not the state, not Microsoft. But in the meantime mankind has a cultural mandate to undertake and the Church has a Great Commission to carry out.
dgh: “So in a Christian society, the norm, right, not the ideal, because of God’s law, we have no room for non-Christians ….. I don’t know where non-Christians can live since there is no way for them to submit to Scripture apart from faith.â€
We have room for them so that they might repent and believe. Why didn’t God kill Adam and Eve the same day they ate of the fruit? – the answer to this questions is one reason why we have room for unbelievers. Another reason we have room for unbelievers is for the same reason that Christ is “delaying†his return. But Christ is coming again to remove unbelievers.
dgh: “But I always thought that the only way that Christians could be different from the world was if Christians had standards that were different from the world’s.â€
Precisely, so why do you want Christians to adopt the standards of unbelievers in the civil realm?
LikeLike
Jonah, you write: “I don’t believe that the OT judicial and civil laws continue to be binding in the way that Bahnsen does. Though I think their underlying principles, being a description of who God is and a reflection of His character, are abiding. They are as immutable as God is. That’s why I find it weird why you keep wanting to appeal to the NT but not the OT.”
If the judicial and civil laws of the OT are not binding, I wonder why I appeal to the NT. Why do you think they don’t apply? It sure seems like it’s because of the NT. So it’s okay for you to appeal to the NT, but not me.
Maybe the reason I appeal to the NT is that Israel is over in redemptive history and the Christians of the NT are living in that reality, despite Judaizers and Corinthians looking for OT glory. So the message of the NT is important. And what do you find? You find Christ and the apostles telling Christians that one of the worst emperors in human history is a minister of God.
You have no capacity to understand Rom. 13. Your response to Nero is that he’s a sinner. It sounds like you don’t think he is worthy of your obedience. But that’s not what the NT says. Let that sink in Jonah.
How do you explain the rule not only of non-Christians but also of wicked non-Christians? Might it be that a modicum of social order is all you get in this world? And might it be that a modicum of order is what you get from general revelation interpreted by non-believers.
But you only look at unbelievers as law breakers who deserve God’ judgment. I look at them that way too. I don’t deny they are sinners. But I also look at them as neighbors and as people we are to love.
So again, where is your place for non-believers in a world where God has not given us judicial and civil law?
LikeLike
dgh: “If the judicial and civil laws of the OT are not binding, I wonder why I appeal to the NT.â€
I’m not saying you shouldn’t be appealing to the NT. What I’m saying is we both ought to appeal to both testaments. The underlying principles of the OT judicial and civil laws are a reflection or description of God’s character, thus requiring our study, and are also therefore applicable to inform law formation in our modern context.
dgh: “You have no capacity to understand Rom. 13.â€
In a more sober moment you might not have said this. I’ll forgive without an apology. But as you’ll recall, I had previously brought up Romans 13 as an example of where Scripture is authoritative in the civil/cultural/temporal realm, whereas you seem to deny the authority of Scripture in that realm, yet you appeal to it nonetheless.
dgh: “Your response to Nero is that he’s a sinner. It sounds like you don’t think he is worthy of your obedience. But that’s not what the NT says. Let that sink in Jonah.â€
Sinking in. You’re right in that Nero is not worthy of obedience. But his office is worthy of it. That’s different. Let the distinction there sink in. (Ok, I’ll stop doing that). But do you get the point? Nero, as a man, is a sinner who needs Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Nero, as a magistrate, is to be obeyed (in accordance with Matt. 22:21). But even the magistrate must render to God the things that are God’s – as a magistrate and a man.
dgh: “How do you explain the rule not only of non-Christians but also of wicked non-Christians?â€
The short answer is the fall into sin. But yes, I know that God can use non-Christians for His purposes, but that’s no excuse for their sin and unbelief. Nor should we desire such sin and unbelief.
dgh: “Might it be that a modicum of social order is all you get in this world?â€
Might it be that the Triune Creator and Redeemer is worthy of more than a modicum of social order? Might it be that a perfectly righteous and holy God demands more than a modicum of social order? (The answer is yes to both). You are right in that a modicum of social order is all we’ll get in this world until Christ returns (and maybe more but it depends how you define modicum). But I’m saying we should not be content with that because God Himself is not content with that. Once again I refer you to Deut. 29:29, and I’ll come back to it later.
dgh: “And might it be that a modicum of order is what you get from general revelation interpreted by non-believers?â€
The world will not be as it should be because of the fall into sin and total depravity. The world will not be as bad as it could be because of common grace and general revelation – God does not allow mankind to be perfectly consistent in their rejection of Him, otherwise life/society would not be possible. But obviously general revelation is not sufficient, as necessary as it is. Special revelation was needed, the Bible is needed, Jesus Christ is needed. If a modicum of social order is all that God wants or expects, then why did God send His Son in the world? Why should we shield unbelievers from the revelation of Christ in Scripture? Why should we as Christians ignore all that the Scripture says either directly or by implication about the civil realm?
dgh: “I don’t deny they are sinners. But I also look at them as neighbors and as people we are to love.â€
Moi aussi. But if we truly love them, why would we tell them they don’t need Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? If we love them, wouldn’t we tell them they need to listen to, learn from and submit to the Bible?
dgh: “So again, where is your place for non-believers in a world where God has not given us judicial and civil law?â€
Just quickly again, special revelation and general revelation supply us with the principles and norms needed for formulate judicial and civil law.
As for the place of non-believers, I want to get back to Deut. 29:29, and the distinction between God’s hidden and revealed will, between His decretive and perceptive will. How do we reconcile these? How do we reconcile the fact that God wants all to obey Him and none to perish with the fact of election and predestination? Why did God allow the fall into sin and yet hates sin? I say the following for our mutual edification, Darryl, which is that I think the way we answer these questions and deal with these issues will supply the answers as to the place of unbelievers in this world. In terms of God’s hidden will, He has a role for them. In terms of His law, His revealed will, He condemns them (and us too apart from Jesus Christ). And I think neither of us would deny that the Church has an important task to bring the gospel to unbelievers.
Well, I suppose I could say more but I’m running long again.
LikeLike
Darryl, at comment #13228 you write:
“The problem is that the NT gives you no warrant for this because the apostles and Christ everywhere expect Christians to be living with non-Christians and never do they say that the magistrate must submit to special revelation. But you know who did think the magistrate should submit to special revelation — the Israelites, and especially the ones who expected Christ to reinstitute the Davidic kingdom only to wish him good riddance when he didn’t meet their expectations.â€
We grant the NT nowhere explicitly states that kings qua kings are commanded to submit to special revelation, i.e., the Lordship of Jesus Christ, only that “all men everywhere are commanded to repent†(Acts 17:30). I’m sure as a good Calvinist you’ll be able to explain how “everywhere†doesn’t mean everywhere in an unrestricted sense without too much difficulty.
But the most ingenious Calvinist will not find it easy to nullify the word of the Lord through Nathan the prophet spoken to David:
“…your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever†(2 Sam. 7:16)
Or David’s prayer of responsive thankfulness:
“And you established for yourself your people Israel to be your people forever. And you, O LORD, became their God. And now, O LORD God, confirm forever the word that you have spoken concerning your servant and concerning his house, and do as you have spoken. And your name will be magnified forever, saying, ‘The LORD of hosts is God over Israel,’ and the house of your servant David will be established before you. For you, O LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, have made this revelation to your servant, saying, ‘I will build you a house.’ Therefore your servant has found courage to pray this prayer to you. And now, O Lord GOD, you are God, and your words are true, and you have promised this good thing to your servant. Now therefore may it please you to bless the house of your servant, so that it may continue forever before you. For you, O Lord GOD, have spoken, and with your blessing shall the house of your servant be blessed forever” (vv. 24-29).
Or St. Peter’s words:
“Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him [David] that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption†(Acts 2:30-31).
Darryl, how can you say Jesus did not “reinstitute the Davidic kingdom†when you say you believe the New Testament? The NT says that Jesus is King of the Jews and King of kings.
At comment #13246 you write:
“Maybe the reason I appeal to the NT is that Israel is over in redemptive history and the Christians of the NT are living in that reality, despite Judaizers and Corinthians looking for OT glory.â€
Israel is “over in redemptive history�! On the contrary. God established for himself his people Israel to be his people forever (cf. 2 Sam. 7:24).
Darryl, the Christian God is not some Gnostic-Marcionite deity. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This God made some very definite promises to the patriarchs, including the following:
“Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him†(Gen. 17:19).
God’s covenant with national Israel is eternal, Darryl.
Now that Christ has come, has God rejected his people? May it never be! (Cf. Rom. 11:1)
Darryl, the terrible evil of “replacement theology†is that it utterly annihilates the everlasting covenant established with national Israel in Abraham and makes God a liar. How can we trust a “God†who makes promises over and over to the Hebrew people for centuries, promising to establish and preserve them as a nation, and then totally re-defines what “Israel†even means?!
According to a certain modern school of biblical theology, “Israel†has been completely collapsed into Jesus and then re-expanded to mean everyone who exercises saving faith in Jesus.
This is not biblical Christianity. This is virtually the untrustworthy god of Muhammadanism, the gnostic wellspring of anti-Semitism.
The Bible (including the NT) teaches that we Gentiles are saved by being engrafted into Israel. We have been adopted into the family of God and made co-heirs with believing Hebrews who are children of Abraham naturally by blood and spiritually by faith.
“Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee†(Rom. 11:18).
LikeLike
Jonah, you are in an impossible situation. Given all that the OT says about God’s law and character, Paul who knew the OT pretty well told Christians to submit to a ruler who was giving them and God a whole lot less than a modicum of social order. You would not have told the Christians that. All you can derive from Romans 13 is “see, the Bible talks about the magistrate.” But you don’t actually pay attention to what it says or implies about the rule of non-believers and that they are God’s instrument for social order, or that the social order may be exactly all that God has ordained for a specific time.
Have you considered that you may think you know better than God what he wants or deserves?
The other problem for you is how to get non-Christians to give God the social order he deserves. The only way to do that is by faith. When their good works flow from love of him, then their social order will be pleasing in his sight. This side of glory all unbelievers are incapable of this. So they only place for the unbeliever is the one reserved for Servetus. He either goes into exile or dies. Don’t you see that you are using Judgment Day politics for this world?
LikeLike
Real quick, Darryl: Romans 13 says that the king is the instrument of God’s wrath on evil doers. How is that not “Judgment Day politics” as you call it?
LikeLike
Darryl, the reason I bring up Romans 13, and I’m glad you do too, is because it’s a place where Scripture speaks in a direct and explicit fashion about the role of the magistrate (reward good and punish evil) and the role of the citizen with respect to the magistrate (submit). You claim that the Bible is not authoritative in the civil/cultural realm nor with respect to the state, and yet you appeal with such zeal and fervor to Romans 13 in a way that assumes this chapter (from the Bible) has something authoritative to say outside the sphere/kingdom of the Church. So the question is: do you not see the contradiction here? Is the Bible not authoritative in the civil realm? If not, then why do you appeal to Romans 13? And if Romans 13 is authoritative in the civil realm, then why do you say that Scripture is not authoritative in the civil realm?
Do you see the problem here? I mean, if you think that Romans 13 is authoritative in the civil/cultural realm, then we finally agree that Scripture is authoritative in that sphere or kingdom. Then the debate is not whether the Bible is authoritative for it, but rather how much and what the Bible says about it. But if you want to preach and teach that special revelation/Scripture is not authoritative for the state or in the temporal kingdom, then why do you appeal with such force to Romans 13 (which is a passage from Scripture)?
dgh: “The other problem for you is how to get non-Christians to give God the social order he deserves. The only way to do that is by faith. When their good works flow from love of him, then their social order will be pleasing in his sight. This side of glory all unbelievers are incapable of this.â€
Your right, the only way is by faith! This is why is I have twice brought up Deut. 29:29 and the distinction between God’s hidden will and revealed will. Why does God allow unbelievers to hold office or positions of power? Why does God allow people to rebel against authority? The distinction between God’s hidden will and revealed will is important here. Yes, God puts into authority unbelievers and sometimes very bad ones. But should we conclude from this that therefore God, according to His revealed will, is pleased with this? Or wants this? No, certainly not. So even though a modicum of social order is what God has willed with respect to His hidden will before Christ returns, such doesn’t mean that God has willed this with respect to His revealed will: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.†And what does God’s law require of us? Perfection, righteousness, holiness, even as God is holy. So what does God’s law require of rulers and their subjects? That they be image bearers of the divine God-Head. Wherein is sin permitted? It is not. In other words, God’s hidden will does not equal His revealed will. Which will do we have to follow? Deut. 29:29 teaches that we are to follow God’s revealed will. This doesn’t mean that we can just ignore God’s hidden will as it unfolds throughout history, but Scripture clearly teaches us to obey God’s revealed will: Love the Lord your God, be holy as I am holy, offer yourselves as living sacrifices, walk humbly with your God, etc. etc.
Dgh: “So they only place for the unbeliever is the one reserved for Servetus.â€
No, only if you think that the state can usurp place of Jesus Christ, who alone can separate the sheep from the goats (and he will do this because he accepts no sin nor sinner at all). It is the place of Jesus Christ to judge the living and the dead, not the state.
LikeLike
Andrew, the problem with looking at the magistrate’s duties as judgment day politics is that the magistrate has this nasty habit of pulling me over when I speed. I do believe that I will escape the law on judgment day because Christ bore the law for my poor sake. But before judgment day, the magistrate gets to treat me as if I were not a Christian when I break the law.
LikeLike
Jonah, I appeal to Rom. 13 with you because you are a Christian. Rom 13 is authoritative for you. It should tell you what you should expect from a magistrate. The actual magistrate actually has a sense of what is just and unjust. It’s not perfect (as if a believer’s is). But it’s good enough for a modicum of order, even the kind that Paul recommended to Roman Christians under Nero. This is not inconsistency.
As far as the magistrate usurping the role of Jesus Christ regarding unbelievers in civil society, what are you doing here? You do think it possible to distinguish believers from unbelievers. You think the church should do this. You know that Israel did this in excluding pagans, and that the magistrate implemented such judgments. You also know that the Israelite kings sometimes provided the model for Reformed theologians on the Christian magistrate’s duties. But then like so many neo-Cal critics of 2k you back down and refuse to accept the logic and practice of your position. You love to cite Calvin’s view of the Christian magistrate but then adopt a secular model for the contemporary magistrate so that he cannot play Christ.
Well, if you have all of these distinctions between believers and unbelievers, and if you think that only those who have insight from special revelation can interpret general revelation correctly, a position which leads to only Christians holding political office, how can you hold back on punishing unbelief? Where is it ever the case where God’s word is the norm that those in authority do not implement judgment against unbelief? We don’t permit unbelief in the church (even though we do have goats and sheep). And Israel didn’t permit unbelief.
So how can you possibly have the Bible as a norm for the state but have a separation of religion and politics at the level of practice. This is what drives me nuts. You guys constantly complain about 2k’s inconsistency and failure to follow Scripture. But you fail just as much when you refuse to acknowledge that a Bible wielding magistrate will make judgments not unlike those that brought an end to Servetus’ life.
So I guess that leads you to that civil religion position that the American revolution and the disestablishment of Christianity was really a Christian founding of a Christian nation. As long as separation of church and state — and withholding the implementation of religious laws in the civil realm — is done on a biblical basis, then it’s okay. So tolerance for unbelief is fine in America even though biblical politics in Geneva and Boston would not tolerate unbelief.
Man, my head is spinning around the convoluted logic of your position. That’s okay, Kloosterman has the same effect on me.
LikeLike
Darryl, the language of “Avenger,” “ministering God’s wrath,” “punishing evil” and “rewarding the good” sure sounds like judgment day politics to me. It sure sounds like the king does a lot more than act as a social referee to maintain a “modicum of order.”
You write, “the problem with looking at the magistrate’s duties as judgment day politics is that the magistrate has this nasty habit of pulling me over when I speed.”
This appears to be an instance of the folly of overscrupulosity to me. Maybe there’s a disconnect between us here because I don’t think God casts people into eternal damnation because they commit the spiritual equivalent of a traffic violation. There are gradations of sin, and there’s a big difference between a misdemeanor and felony. The Scripture itself draws distinctions between sins of ignorance arising out of human weakness and graver sins (e.g., sinning with a high hand).
“…before judgment day, the magistrate gets to treat me as if I were not a Christian when I break the law.”
I understand that’s the order of things you prefer. I prefer something different: a king who, however imperfectly and provisionally, images Jesus’ lordship and whose judgments anticipate the coming judgment. In a theocratic order of things, people take Law and Gospel more seriously because they have present before them earthly analogies that proportionally represent heavenly realities.
Under theocracy, the people intuitively understand the laws of the spiritual world.
Under the secular system you contend to preserve, Darryl, the people live in complete confusion. There is no analogy between the modern magistrate and Jesus Christ, except that they both exercise power (this is debatable, when power is diffused in the separation of powers). The modern magistrate’s laws and judgments more and more cease to represent divine law and judgment and increasingly take on an arbitrary quality.
Modern Christians have little idea what it means that Jesus is King. They may use the words, but what they largely mean is that they are willing to submit themselves to laws and judgments they already happen to agree with.
Just as it is no surprise when unbaptized and uncatechized children of “believers” grow up to be at best nominal Christians, so it should be no surprise when the citizens of secular societies self-identify less and less as Christian.
The antitheocratic antimonarchical spirit is the spirit of lawlessness.
LikeLike
Darryl, once again I apologize for the length but hope you will bear with me.
dgh: “Jonah, I appeal to Rom. 13 with you because you are a Christian. Rom 13 is authoritative for you. It should tell you what you should expect from a magistrate.â€
I am glad you finally admit that the Bible has authoritative things to say about the state. That’s a big deal to hear you say that. I suppose I could go on now to debate just how much and what the Bible does say about it, whether directly or by implication, but we’ll save that for another time.
But there are a couple of problems with your statement here. First, if Rom. 13 tells me what I should expect from a magistrate, and if the magistrate is an unbeliever who’s not doing what Rom. 13 says he should be doing, can I go to him and tell him that he’s not doing his job because Rom. 13 says so? The magistrate could just tell me that ‘Dr. Hart said Rom. 13 isn’t authoritative for unbelievers and I’m not a Christian so go take a hike.’ Second, what if I’m the magistrate? If the Christian becomes a magistrate, then should he follow Rom. 13? After all, you just said that Rom. 13 is authoritative for Christians. Here then would be a case of Scripture being authoritative for a magistrate. Should we assume that Scripture is authoritative over magistrates but only if the magistrate is a Christian? The problem with this, as you might see, is that you make the Bible’s authority dependent on the one reads or doesn’t read it rather than making the Bible’s authority dependent on the One who authored it. I see that as a gigantic epistemological problem. Just because the unbeliever doesn’t submit to the Bible doesn’t mean he shouldn’t submit to it – I don’t think I’m diverging from Reformed theology to say this.
dgh: “The actual magistrate actually has a sense of what is just and unjust. It’s not perfect (as if a believer’s is). But it’s good enough for a modicum of order, even the kind that Paul recommended to Roman Christians under Nero.â€
Paul told Christians to submit to the magistrate. I’m not so sure that Paul would have endorsed the way the early emperors treated Christians, but hey, Nero wasn’t perfect so who cares? And wouldn’t Paul have wanted the emperor to believe in Jesus Christ?
As for the question of how I reconcile the fact that I believe Scripture is authoritative over believers and nonbelievers alike and the fact that I don’t believe it is the role of the state to punish unbelief – I reconcile the two by, get this, appealing to Scripture. Here goes. We don’t live in an era where God has given His people a particularly defined land mass as the promised land. Our promised land is the new heavens and earth. The coming of Jesus Christ changed the administration of the covenant of grace. Now Christ calls the Church to go out into the world and carry out the Great Commission. The significance this has for the magistrate is that God no longer has one earthly king, because the King of kings has come and He reigns at God’s right hand over heaven and earth. Also, Christ did not give the authority to punish unbelief to the state, he gave it to the Church: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.†Also, Christ did not give the sword to the Church but to the state: “For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.†So Christ did give the sword to the state but not to punish unbelief. Christ did not give the sword the Church but he did give authority to the Church to punish unbelief (ecclesiastical disciple, see 1 Cor. 5:5, Matt. 18:15-17). It is only Christ himself who has reserved the right to use the sword to punish unbelief. He will do this when he returns (though we do see some instances of this kind of eschatological punishment carried out in the OT, e.g., Jericho and the taking over of Canaan, but that’s another story.) Both the state and the Church are called to punish evil, but they must do so within the sphere of jurisdiction and authority God has given them, and to do so via the unique means God has given each one.
And how do we know what evil is? General revelation isn’t sufficient to answer that because of the Fall and the noetic effect of sin. Special revelation is needed also. (In fact, special revelation was needed before the Fall [Gen. 2:16&17]). Special revelation is also needed to understand the proper limits of Church and state authority. Why shouldn’t the imperfect, unbelieving magistrate go and ban Christianity? – Where does general revelation teach not to do that?
LikeLike
Jonah, my mind is still twisting. First, who among the modern 2k ever said that the Bible is silent about the magistrate? But the problem is that even though the Bible speaks of the magistrate, it also says things about what pleases God, less clear is whether the Bible is the law of the state. You may go to the magistrate and tell him what his duties are from Rom. 13. But the magistrates of this country are not bound by religious norms. It’s in our law. So if you think the USA project (Canada included) is illegitimate because it doesn’t recognize God, fine. But then you’re back to the Christian nation idea, akin to OT Israel.
Now, I’m glad to hear that you think the magistrate is not obligated to punish unbelief. And I may actually use your biblical case for this with anti-2k folks. But have you not seen, have you not heard, that Kloosterman still believes in the original Art. 36 of Belgic, which means that the magistrate enforces both tables. Last I checked, unbelief was prohibited by the first table.
And what kind of social order is it — remember you say that we must try to institute a social order that God requires — that allows for unbelief? How can God be pleased with a society that tolerates the desecration of the Sabbath or taking his name in vain? Your secularist slip is showing.
Now here’s the great kicker for you. You think gen. rev. is insufficient for social order. It needs the lift of spec. rev. But do you really mean to say that the unbeliever will be able to interpret gen. rev. correctly by opening the pages of a book he disbelieves? You seem to think that the Bible will make more sense to the unbeliever than gen. rev. Are you kidding?
Which means that if the Bible is the only sufficient lens by which to judge the world and its affairs, then only those who have been illuminated by the Spirit can judge the world and its affairs, because only those illuminated by the Spirit can understand spec. rev. Welcome to Israel and Judah.
LikeLike
Andrew, here’s some confusion coming back at you. You write: “In a theocratic order of things, people take Law and Gospel more seriously because they have present before them earthly analogies that proportionally represent heavenly realities.”
But you don’t take speeding laws seriously. Yes, there are grades of sins. But all sins, slight or grave, deserve eternal punishment. Speeding deserves divine punishment as much as murder because it is a violation of the fifth commandment — not obeying my superiors.
So really, what is it that allows you to pick and choose among the state’s laws and policies and disregard the slighter ones as not on the order of judgment day politics, and then say that in a theocratic order people take the law more seriously. It sounds to me like you’ve been infected with the secular bug. I know, blame it on my, the secular defender. But how about some consistency on your side?
LikeLike
Darryl,
1. Not all sins received the ultimate penalty in Israel; therefore theocracy is compatible with life in the pre-eschatological situation. Now, I grant we are talking “judgment day politics†language here.
What I mean by the phrase is evidently not what you mean by the phrase. I mean by it that earthly judgments anticipate the final judgment. I do not mean earthly judgments replace the final judgment. Earthly judgments are true manifestations of divine mercy and justice in the present, yet are partial and not exhaustive. Additionally, I think it worth considering whether the distribution of rewards and punishments in this life modifies the distribution of rewards and/ or punishments in the next.
2. The kinds of distinctions made between misdemeanors and felonies, between capitally punishable felonies and lesser felonies are universally recognized distinctions in law—in the laws of all societies. Such universality indicates a common basis in general revelation—in the eternal law of God (since human law is analogical to divine law). Why do you refuse the testimony of general revelation on this point, Darryl?
3. You say, “[A]ll sins, slight or grave, deserve eternal punishment. Speeding deserves divine punishment as much as murder because it is a violation of the fifth commandment — not obeying my superiors.â€
I don’t know where you get the information that the sin of driving 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone deserves eternal damnation. On the Westminsterian account, there are only two men who ever lived who were even under a probationary covenant of works: Adam and Jesus. God has not assigned the ultimate reward/ penalty for any other particular situation. Outside of Christ, we all stand condemned already. Therefore, the stakes established for individual temptations are much less.
Personal sins/ good works may modify the intensity of eternal torment/ bliss, but they do not in and of themselves determine future destinies. If every sin required eternal punishment, we would be forced into the absurd position of having to believe God’s justice could never be satisfied in the damnation of the wicked. Since there is no such thing as multiple “eternal life sentences†in Hell, God’s justice would remain eternally frustrated.
4. When St. James says, “[W]hoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles at one point, he has become guilty of all [the Law]†(Jam. 2:10), he is saying that each word of the Decalogue entails the rest. However, the Law was promulgated to aggravate transgression (Rom. 5:20). It was added later after Adam had already transgressed and plunged the entire race into a state of condemnation. The Law of Moses could only aggravate and defer judgment. Now after Calvary, the law of the new covenant, written on the heart, serves to mitigate and expedite judgment.
5. Darryl, you said earlier that now the “magistrate†gets to treat everyone like a non-Christian. By this, I take it you mean that the exercise of justice is properly retributive (including both rewards and punishments) only. I think I would counter that the Christian king gets to treat everyone like a Christian; and that the king’s justice is appropriately tempered with grace and mercy. This sort of justice gives the ungodly the context and an opportunity in which to repent. The pseudo-justice of the secular state grants neither because it requires and advances a pseudo-righteousness to the exclusion of true righteousness–the true righteousness God has ordained for life of man in the entirety of his individuality and collectivity.
LikeLike
Andrew, I believe you are splitting hairs. All sins deserve condemnation. Multiple sentences or no, all sins will be punished, whether they are greater or lesser. And since the magistrate is a type of divine justice, as you admit, my speeding ticket is as much a foretaste of judgment day politics as your wanting to hold the magistrate to some divine standard.
Why is always the case that the critics of 2k are never as conservative as they first appear. I mean, we get criticized for being liberal but then you turn around and talk about the magistrate as merciful. Hello. We don’t want the magistrate to be merciful. We want order and justice in the Aristotelian sense. Plus, the Great Judge can be merciful because his justice and condemnmation have been satisfied. How on earth does a magistrate do that with a murderer?
But because you want earthly politics to resemble divine politics, you end up confusing, law, gospel, and politics.
LikeLike
Darryl, sure, all sins deserve punishment, they just don’t all deserve eternal condemnation as you seem to believe. Only certain sins committed by certain individuals under certain circumstances elicit the ultimate penalty. God assigns rewards and punishments in particular cases based on the sinner’s knowledge, motive, circumstance and other factors. Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?
Kings must also exercise this sort of judgment. The law serves as a basic standard; but the spirit of the law must be served, not merely the letter. Judicial prudence is not some sort of procedural machine that spits out legal decisions based simply on whether someone falls short of the law or not. Laws do not interpret themselves. Difficult disputes must be settled. The kind of prudence required for this exercise of power is actually a divine charism given to kings (cf. Ps. 22:28; 72:1; 99:4; Prov. 8:15; 16:10; 21:1).
I’m not an Enlightenment “conservative”; I’m a traditionalist conservative. I agree with Solomon when he says, “Mercy and truth preserve the king: and his throne is upholden by mercy” (Prov. 20:28), and Daniel when he tells King Nebuchadnezzar, “let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity” (Dan. 4:27).
Darryl, you say you want order and justice in the “Aristotelian†sense. Why do you privilege Aristotle? Why don’t you want order and justice in the Confucian, Platonic, Machiavellian, Hobbesian, Rousseauian, Benthamite, Darwinian, Marxist, Schmittian, Straussian, or Randian senses? Why don’t you want order and justice in the biblical sense?
Have you ever read Les Miserables, Darryl? The kind of pitiless judgment you’re talking about looks to me a lot like Javert’s disordered fixation on punishment. This is not true justice; Javert is not the exemplar of a true judge. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the exemplar. Justice and judgment are the habitation of his throne; mercy and truth go before his face (cf. Ps. 89:14).
There are plenty of ways to show mercy to a condemned murderer within the bounds of what the eternal law allows. There’s giving him the opportunity to have pastoral counsel. There’re the modes of his execution and burial. There’s the matter of how his family will be cared for. And, with non-capital offenses there is more leeway, but I would need time to sort through various groups of offenses.
Finally, there are plenty of ways to expand on a theological defense of mercy in political judgment, Darryl, but I’ll break off for now. Thank you for this opportunity to explore ideas.
LikeLike
Andrew, I privilege Aristotle because I’ve read him. I’m glad for all kinds of order and justice. It’s a provision of God’s care for his creation and his redemption.
I continue to be flummoxed by your notion that not all sins deserve eternal punishment. Somewhere in this thread you argued that an anti-2k view of the magistrate (preferably a monarch) would lead to an elevated view of law and gospel. But here you are saying that not all sins deserve God’s wrath and curse (or at least that’s what you appear to be repeating). In which case, on your view, eating an apple is a minor offense and does not demand judgment day retribution. That’s not what Genesis says.
LikeLike
Darryl, I’ve also read Aristotle. At the beginning of his Politics(I.2), he starts with two basic relationships: male and female; master and slave. According to him, these are the foundational relationships that create the family. This is not my view and I hope it isn’t yours. Aristotle’s account, because it is not informed by Scripture, starts off on the wrong foot. Every political theory relies upon a story of origins to inform it. Scripture provides this for the Christian concerned with politics in Genesis.
I am not Presbyterian, so WCF VI.6. does not bind me. I do not agree with Westminster that every sin “in its own nature†deserves God’s wrath and the curse of the law. For one thing, sin (like evil) doesn’t have a nature because sin is not a created thing. Sin is parasitic on law. For another, liability and culpability aren’t the same thing. God’s judgment declares which punishment shall be applied to which sin under which conditions.
Adam’s eating of an apple was a mortal sin–the mortal sin. My eating of a stolen apple doesn’t rise to the same level of significance, and it may or may not be a mortal sin depending on the circumstances.
God judges acts on the basis of several criteria: the covenant context (especially the covenant head’s performance and the covenant terms of blessing and curse), the actor (including the actor’s status, knowledge, and intention), the act, and the act’s consequences. I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas that not every act of “sin†is a mortal sin. Not every sin is performed “after the likeness of Adam’s transgression†(Rom.5:14); not every “sin†constitutes a fall from grace; and not every sin is a “sin unto death†(1 Jn. 5:17).
Although any particular sin can be the culmination of a chain of sins that leads to perdition, the final (not the first) act of impenitence confirming a person in his state of alienation from God is the sin that damns.
God cursed neither Adam nor Eve after the Fall. He cursed the ground. Sin inevitably leads to death, but it doesn’t immediately cause death. Those who are buried in the ground enter into the cursed realm of death at their burial, not before. This is usually after a lifetime of sinning [premature deaths are an exception, and exceptional cases are handled by God in the way he chooses]. Eventually, the realm of death will be cast into the lake of fire, the furnace of God’s wrath.
The breaking of a Mosaic commandment incurred an especially severe penalty, because formal promulgation increases transgression (Rom. 5:20). “To whom much is given, much is required.†It does not appear to me, even with the movement from liability to culpability, that every Hebrew pre-Christ was guilty of breaking the covenant in a complete sense. Of course, the [Mosaic] covenant itself was broken and abolished only when the Jews crucified the Lord.
The covenant curse associated with hanging a convicted criminal (Deut. 21:23) must also be considered. Not all Hebrews were guilty of such a breach or deserved such a fate. This method of punishment appears to be reserved for especially heinous breaches of the covenant. For some reason, Jesus had to be hung on a tree and not put to death in just any fashion.
There are two ways the eternal law can be distorted in human judgment. Yes, we may think too little of the offense, but it is also possible to falsely attribute too much to it. Evil cannot be as purely evil as good can be purely good. Good and evil are not equally ultimate. While good is metaphysically unlimited, evil has its limits. All evil, and hence, all sin is finite.
Being liable to the curse because of the imputation of Adam’s sin and then sinning is not the same thing as being personally guilty of final impenitence. Our hamartiology must account for original sin, actual sin, and final sin. By placing all sins on the same level, the WCF does a disservice to God and his law by relativising sin (in the sense of imputing every sin with final disobedience regardless of circumstances) and impugning the divine justice (by so exaggerating the sinfulness of sin that no individual sentence in Hell could possibly satisfy it—i.e., I would have to be duplicated the number of my sins in order to suffer the eternal punishment each deserves).
Returning now to our political discussion, it does not lie in the power of earthly kings to condemn sinners to outer darkness. However, the administration of earthly judgment (in both office and act) is an analogical representation of divine judgment. Not all governmental orders are created equal. There are reasons to think Aristotle superior to Hobbes and Thomas to Aristotle. My argument is that some forms of government and some acts of justice more adequately represent the heavenly ideal than others. Earthly justice is just to the degree it approximates divine justice. My concern is that PC2K has no capacity to assess the relative merits of the various forms of earthly justice on offer because it cannot discern how or even that earthly symbols figure heavenly archetypes.
LikeLike
Sorry, the first sentence of paragraph nine should read:
“There are two ways the estimation of sin can be distorted in human judgment.”
LikeLike
Andrew, and I don’t think anti-pc2k views have any capacity to evaluate a presidency like Bill Clinton’s because of the heavenly standard used. If you mean that pc2k folks won’t elevate politics in ways that you do, fair enough. But I’m a big proponent of not immanentizing the eschaton, or as the Psalms put it, putting no trust in princes.
LikeLike