This came in the further discussion between PCA and URC ministers about a footnote in the revised Belgic 36 (June 17, 11:50pm):
But in the end, I agree with all “sides” (I hate to use that term regarding brothers who agree on far, far more than they disagree) that this particular issue will not solve the Two Kingdoms-Neo Calvinist discussion one way or another. I found what Herman Kuiper said in his minority report to the CRC Synod in 1946 very helpful on this issue: “it must be said that there is no communisitic [one agreed upon] opinion in Reformed circles as to what the precise duty of the State with reference to the first table of the law may be, nor as to what the reciprocal obligations of Church and State are, and that is reason enough why it is unwise at this time to try to incorporate any deliverance touching these matters in our confession which should be the expression of our common faith.”
Old Life 
I’m anxiously awaiting the outcome of this debate so that someone can tell me exactly what it is that I am subscribing to. Good grief.
LikeLike
I could have sworn when they put me up to it that they said it had something to do with the church and not voter registration, though…
LikeLike
With all due respect to Mark & Dr. K (who isn’t even in the URC anymore), what is the reaction of the average officer in the URC going to be when they take this debate to a wider audience, other than eyes becoming glazed over? Some of our elders are by no means attorneys or scriveners. They’re farmers, truck drivers, backhoe operators, etc. And then you go down another level to those in the pews like my wife who couldn’t give a hoot about the whole debate. Where is all this headed?
LikeLike
Clearly this another way the old confessions aren’t cutting it. They don’t represent modern scholarship favoring transformationalism. We need confessions that spell out the church’s cultural task!
LikeLike
Brandon,
I only needed to scan one or two of your blog posts to conclude you’re being snarky. Carry on, my friend.
LikeLike