» Site Navigation | | | » Online Users: 111 | | 40 members and 71 guests | | ADKing, alb1, AltogetherLovely, Andres, austinww, Bookmeister, Chaplainintraining, ChristianTrader, coramdeo, dannyhyde, dgordonwood, ericfromcowtown, Fly Caster, fralo4truth, Glenn Ferrell, Hamalas, Hippo, jawyman, JennyG, LawrenceU, louis_jp, MMasztal, Montanablue, Nathan Riese, nicnap, ooguyx, Pastor Mark, Puritan Sailor, SemperEruditio, Simply_Nikki, Skyler, smhbbag, Southern Twang, steadfast7, VictorBravo, Virginia Marine, Von Stroh | | Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM. | |  | 
05-16-2009, 01:24 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 2,058
Thanks: 913
Thanked 535 Times in 330 Posts
| | | Relationship between Church and State
I have read this essay for the first time by Dr David Vandrunen entitled "The Two Kingdoms Doctrine and the relationship of the church and state in the early Reformed tradition" where he focuses on the writings of Calvin, Rutherford and in even more detail Turretin with regard to the relationship between Church and State. I find it a very honest and reasonable assessment. Vandrunen admits that the application of the Two Kingdom Theology by these Reformers with regard to the responsibilities of the Civil Magistrate were not as most advocate today but he also distinguishes it from the Lutheran view with regard to external government and the Church. To me the 4 pages of Bibliography from page 13-17 make this a valuable resource in an of itself.
I would be interested to see if there are those willing to read this article and interact with Vandrunen's argumentation. I'm not interested in a debate on Theonomy or Two Kingdom Theology specifically as there are other threads serving that purpose. I want the article and argumentation of Dr Vandrunen to be the focus of this thread if that's possible.
__________________
Wayne Whitmer
Member, Rio Rancho OPC
Albuquerque, NM
| | The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to whitway For This Useful Post: | | 
05-16-2009, 01:32 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: La Grange Park, IL
Posts: 1,756
Thanks: 281
Thanked 379 Times in 217 Posts
| |
FYI: The same article is available here entirely on one page (easier to print).
__________________
Casey, Chicagoland, OPC
| 
05-16-2009, 01:34 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 2,058
Thanks: 913
Thanked 535 Times in 330 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyBessette FYI: The same article is available here entirely on one page (easier to print). | Thanks but I have to sign up for a temporary library card. If I do is it all on one page Casey?
| 
05-16-2009, 01:40 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: La Grange Park, IL
Posts: 1,756
Thanks: 281
Thanked 379 Times in 217 Posts
| |  That's strange. The first couple times I looked at that page today it displayed the entire article. Now it doesn't. Okay, nevermind! | 
05-16-2009, 01:41 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 2,058
Thanks: 913
Thanked 535 Times in 330 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyBessette  That's strange. The first couple times I looked at that page today it displayed the entire article. Now it doesn't. Okay, nevermind!  | Bait and Switch! | 
05-16-2009, 01:45 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: La Grange Park, IL
Posts: 1,756
Thanks: 281
Thanked 379 Times in 217 Posts
| | |
Wait, it works. Search Google for "The two kingdoms doctrine and the relationship of church and state in the early Reformed tradition" (with the quotes), then click on the fourth link. If you come from Google it displays the whole article.
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Casey For This Useful Post: | | 
05-16-2009, 01:47 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 2,058
Thanks: 913
Thanked 535 Times in 330 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by CaseyBessette Wait, it works. Search Google for "The two kingdoms doctrine and the relationship of church and state in the early Reformed tradition" (with the quotes), then click on the fourth link. If you come from Google it displays the whole article. | Outstanding! Thank You Sir!
| 
05-17-2009, 02:38 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 517
Thanked 533 Times in 279 Posts
| | |
Interesting Article. It seems that the debate comes down to what can be known by natural law/light of nature. The Older 2k folks have the whole moral law/decalogue while the new ones feel uncomfortable having the civil magistrate explicitly exercise the power of the first table.
__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC
Last edited by ChristianTrader; 05-17-2009 at 02:44 AM.
Reason: wording
| 
05-17-2009, 05:15 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Cedar Park, TX
Posts: 1,083
Thanks: 349
Thanked 191 Times in 133 Posts
| | |
If true, then I have a lot of work to do, because I really struggle with the temporal jurisdiction part.
__________________
Rangerus
Southern Baptist
Austin, TX
Teacher and Volunteer
1689 LBCF & BF&M 2000
| 
05-21-2009, 10:16 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Huntingdon, TN
Posts: 381
Thanks: 9
Thanked 42 Times in 20 Posts
| | |
By the end of the article I still was not convinced that the two kingdom idea was really two kingdoms. It seems that if God rules over the civil magistrate in any way then he will rule by His law. I don't see how Christians outside of Govt can help but call the magistrate to maximize his abiding by the law of the One that the Govt power comes from. I understand the author and Turretin et al feel that the distinction of how God rules the Church and the Govt is important; I just can't see operatively how it makes much of a difference. To me it seems simple: God rules Heaven and Earth; the Christian is required to Glorify God; the Christian must do all the scripture allows to bring that glory to the Triune He who redeemed us; therefore the Christian must say sin is sin regardless who/what office is sinning; and further to change that office/officer to bring about more godliness if lawfully possible.
My 2 cents
Chuck
__________________
Chuck
PCA
"Duty is ours, consequences are God's."
Thomas J "Stonewall" Jackson
| 
05-21-2009, 10:57 PM
|  | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: wi
Posts: 6,242
Thanks: 1,471
Thanked 1,813 Times in 1,147 Posts
| | |
I've always been interested in the two kingdom thought when I heard it on White Horse Inn. Thanks for bring it up again.
| 
05-21-2009, 11:03 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Watertown, WI
Posts: 2,258
Thanks: 1,061
Thanked 484 Times in 289 Posts
| | |
Thanks for that link to the whole article. I have been wanting to print this article but didn't want to copy and paste. Whew!
| 
05-22-2009, 11:46 AM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Watertown, WI
Posts: 2,258
Thanks: 1,061
Thanked 484 Times in 289 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader Interesting Article. It seems that the debate comes down to what can be known by natural law/light of nature. The Older 2k folks have the whole moral law/decalogue while the new ones feel uncomfortable having the civil magistrate explicitly exercise the power of the first table. |
Could you elaborate some? | 
05-22-2009, 02:52 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 517
Thanked 533 Times in 279 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth Ellen Nagle Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader Interesting Article. It seems that the debate comes down to what can be known by natural law/light of nature. The Older 2k folks have the whole moral law/decalogue while the new ones feel uncomfortable having the civil magistrate explicitly exercise the power of the first table. |
Could you elaborate some?  | The author talks about "inconsistent attribution of religious responsibilities to civil magistrates" by the Old school 2kers. I do not think it was inconsistent, it was just that if one believes that the light of nature leads to one true God and entire decalogue is found in the natural law, then one is going to be forced into what we now think of as a Theocratic society.
CT
| | The Following User Says Thank You to ChristianTrader For This Useful Post: | | 
05-22-2009, 03:24 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 628
Thanks: 69
Thanked 287 Times in 164 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth Ellen Nagle Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader Interesting Article. It seems that the debate comes down to what can be known by natural law/light of nature. The Older 2k folks have the whole moral law/decalogue while the new ones feel uncomfortable having the civil magistrate explicitly exercise the power of the first table. |
Could you elaborate some?  | The author talks about "inconsistent attribution of religious responsibilities to civil magistrates" by the Old school 2kers. I do not think it was inconsistent, it was just that if one believes that the light of nature leads to one true God and entire decalogue is found in the natural law, then one is going to be forced into what we now think of as a Theocratic society.
CT | I think he's right (if I understand what he's saying) about the inconsistency of the older 2Kers. If one believes that the 10 commandments (or natural law) is the standard by which the civil government should operate, then I don't see how one can avoid theocracy. The 2Kers that I have been reading avoid this inconsistency by their understanding of common grace. A good place to start reading (if you desire) about this alternative would be Lee Irons at www.upper-register.com. Under his papers there is one titled Reformed Theocrats. He lays out this view. It's quite helpful in understanding the common grace alternative to theocracy (at least as understood by Kline and co.).
As a side note, for those of you that automatically dismiss Meredith Kline (as I have for many years), I think he deserves to be read by those interested in Reformed theology.
__________________ Jon Peters
Member, Reformation Fellowship (OPC) (Roseville, CA)
Folsom, CA
| 
05-22-2009, 03:46 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 517
Thanked 533 Times in 279 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Peters Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth Ellen Nagle
Could you elaborate some?  | The author talks about "inconsistent attribution of religious responsibilities to civil magistrates" by the Old school 2kers. I do not think it was inconsistent, it was just that if one believes that the light of nature leads to one true God and entire decalogue is found in the natural law, then one is going to be forced into what we now think of as a Theocratic society.
CT | I think he's right (if I understand what he's saying) about the inconsistency of the older 2Kers. If one believes that the 10 commandments (or natural law) is the standard by which the civil government should operate, then I don't see how one can avoid theocracy. The 2Kers that I have been reading avoid this inconsistency by their understanding of common grace. A good place to start reading (if you desire) about this alternative would be Lee Irons at www.upper-register.com. Under his papers there is one titled Reformed Theocrats. He lays out this view. It's quite helpful in understanding the common grace alternative to theocracy (at least as understood by Kline and co.).
As a side note, for those of you that automatically dismiss Meredith Kline (as I have for many years), I think he deserves to be read by those interested in Reformed theology. | But the older 2kers were not trying to avoid Theocracy, so I am not sure how they are inconsistent.
Also in order to propose an alternative to something, you first need to show what was wrong with the original. I have yet to see the problem with the original 2k that necessitated the new version.
CT
| 
05-22-2009, 04:38 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 628
Thanks: 69
Thanked 287 Times in 164 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Peters Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader
The author talks about "inconsistent attribution of religious responsibilities to civil magistrates" by the Old school 2kers. I do not think it was inconsistent, it was just that if one believes that the light of nature leads to one true God and entire decalogue is found in the natural law, then one is going to be forced into what we now think of as a Theocratic society.
CT | I think he's right (if I understand what he's saying) about the inconsistency of the older 2Kers. If one believes that the 10 commandments (or natural law) is the standard by which the civil government should operate, then I don't see how one can avoid theocracy. The 2Kers that I have been reading avoid this inconsistency by their understanding of common grace. A good place to start reading (if you desire) about this alternative would be Lee Irons at www.upper-register.com. Under his papers there is one titled Reformed Theocrats. He lays out this view. It's quite helpful in understanding the common grace alternative to theocracy (at least as understood by Kline and co.).
As a side note, for those of you that automatically dismiss Meredith Kline (as I have for many years), I think he deserves to be read by those interested in Reformed theology. | But the older 2kers were not trying to avoid Theocracy, so I am not sure how they are inconsistent.
Also in order to propose an alternative to something, you first need to show what was wrong with the original. I have yet to see the problem with the original 2k that necessitated the new version.
CT | Yes, you're correct, if theocracy is what they intended then they are not inconsistant (at least on that point).
I can only speak for myself in terms of what necessitated a new version: the New Testament!
Seriously though, I have had great difficulty squaring my former views (theocracy and, before that, Theonomy) with the NT teaching on our relationship to the state.
| 
05-22-2009, 04:42 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 517
Thanked 533 Times in 279 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Peters Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Peters
I think he's right (if I understand what he's saying) about the inconsistency of the older 2Kers. If one believes that the 10 commandments (or natural law) is the standard by which the civil government should operate, then I don't see how one can avoid theocracy. The 2Kers that I have been reading avoid this inconsistency by their understanding of common grace. A good place to start reading (if you desire) about this alternative would be Lee Irons at www.upper-register.com. Under his papers there is one titled Reformed Theocrats. He lays out this view. It's quite helpful in understanding the common grace alternative to theocracy (at least as understood by Kline and co.).
As a side note, for those of you that automatically dismiss Meredith Kline (as I have for many years), I think he deserves to be read by those interested in Reformed theology. | But the older 2kers were not trying to avoid Theocracy, so I am not sure how they are inconsistent.
Also in order to propose an alternative to something, you first need to show what was wrong with the original. I have yet to see the problem with the original 2k that necessitated the new version.
CT | Yes, you're correct, if theocracy is what they intended then they are not inconsistant (at least on that point).
I can only speak for myself in terms of what necessitated a new version: the New Testament!
Seriously though, I have had great difficulty squaring my former views (theocracy and, before that, Theonomy) with the NT teaching on our relationship to the state. | The inference from "the light of nature teaches that there is one true God", to the state will act as if there is one true God, aka a Theocracy, seems simple and overwhelming. Why is this not overwhelming to you?
CT
| 
05-22-2009, 06:12 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 628
Thanks: 69
Thanked 287 Times in 164 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Peters Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader
But the older 2kers were not trying to avoid Theocracy, so I am not sure how they are inconsistent.
Also in order to propose an alternative to something, you first need to show what was wrong with the original. I have yet to see the problem with the original 2k that necessitated the new version.
CT | Yes, you're correct, if theocracy is what they intended then they are not inconsistant (at least on that point).
I can only speak for myself in terms of what necessitated a new version: the New Testament!
Seriously though, I have had great difficulty squaring my former views (theocracy and, before that, Theonomy) with the NT teaching on our relationship to the state. | The inference from "the light of nature teaches that there is one true God", to the state will act as if there is one true God, aka a Theocracy, seems simple and overwhelming. Why is this not overwhelming to you?
CT | I don't hold (nor do Klineans to my knowledge) that men are not judged for this knowledge. They will be judged when Christ returns. You make a leap, in my estimation, from the fact that there is one God, for which men will be held accountable, and that the state must enforce this notion.
The inference you suggest is clear to someone who has a theocratic predisposition. It is not clear to those of us who do not.
| 
05-22-2009, 08:22 PM
|  | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,664
Thanks: 517
Thanked 533 Times in 279 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Peters Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Peters
Yes, you're correct, if theocracy is what they intended then they are not inconsistant (at least on that point).
I can only speak for myself in terms of what necessitated a new version: the New Testament!
Seriously though, I have had great difficulty squaring my former views (theocracy and, before that, Theonomy) with the NT teaching on our relationship to the state. | The inference from "the light of nature teaches that there is one true God", to the state will act as if there is one true God, aka a Theocracy, seems simple and overwhelming. Why is this not overwhelming to you?
CT | I don't hold (nor do Klineans to my knowledge) that men are not judged for this knowledge. They will be judged when Christ returns. You make a leap, in my estimation, from the fact that there is one God, for which men will be held accountable, and that the state must enforce this notion.
The inference you suggest is clear to someone who has a theocratic predisposition. It is not clear to those of us who do not. | No, I have not made any leap. I just simply said that it is clear to nature that there is one God (no Bible reading is necessary). If this is true, then you are saying that the state should enforce an irrational standard (acting as if there is more than one God or no God). How can you advocate the state behaving irrationally?
CT
| | The Following User Says Thank You to ChristianTrader For This Useful Post: | | 
05-22-2009, 08:27 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,353
Thanks: 916
Thanked 5,342 Times in 1,959 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Peters They will be judged when Christ returns. | Magistrates will be judged also, which is why they should utilise what they know by the light of nature for governing their inferiors.
__________________
Yours sincerely,
"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
| | The Following User Says Thank You to armourbearer For This Useful Post: | | 
05-22-2009, 09:38 PM
|  | Dux Tyrranus | | Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Northern Virgnia
Posts: 17,835
Thanks: 2,454
Thanked 6,035 Times in 2,448 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Peters They will be judged when Christ returns. | Magistrates will be judged also, which is why they should utilise what they know by the light of nature for governing their inferiors. | I agree with this principle but, given the fact that not all governments are ruled by men who know the Law of God, this principle does not "inexorably" lead to a Theocracy as previously noted.
For instance, governments in the Middle East will be judged according to the light of nature but they have no fruition in it to lead them to a proper understanding of God. They, nevertheless, retain enough to prosecute some crimes that the Law condemns as reprehensible and promote others that the Law likewise would judge.
I find the Book of Daniel to be a good example of a proper 2K view where Daniel and his peers uncompromisingly uphold God as the Sovereign of the world but, when faced with unjust laws restricting their worship, continue to worship according to the liberty of their conscience but don't organize a revolt. In both cases their civil disobedience has to be spied upon by those who are intent upon their destruction and they, uncompromisingly, proclaim that God is God of gods and God of kings.
I don't have a problem with the notion that God overrules all but I just don't think that the call of a Christian is necessarily toward open rebellion when the the State is not what the State would be if the magistrates were governing according to the light of nature and the light of nature was not supressed by their rebellion against God in their fallen condition. In other words, I don't think it's reasonable to have a Biblical objection to upholding the first four commandments by a magistrate but it would require that the magistrate be Christian himself and have an understanding of what he was upholding.
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Semper Fidelis For This Useful Post: | | 
05-22-2009, 09:41 PM
|  | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Sarver, PA
Posts: 11,987
Thanks: 5,108
Thanked 2,646 Times in 1,605 Posts
| | |
Is there a difference between "natural law" and Biblical Law?
| 
05-22-2009, 09:43 PM
|  | Dux Tyrranus | | Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Northern Virgnia
Posts: 17,835
Thanks: 2,454
Thanked 6,035 Times in 2,448 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian Is there a difference between "natural law" and Biblical Law? | Depending upon what you mean by Law (moral or ceremonial), I don't believe there is. What I believe they have in common, however, is illumination is required in order to have fruition in either.
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Semper Fidelis For This Useful Post: | | 
05-22-2009, 09:50 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,353
Thanks: 916
Thanked 5,342 Times in 1,959 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis In other words, I don't think it's reasonable to have a Biblical objection to upholding the first four commandments by a magistrate but it would require that the magistrate be Christian himself and have an understanding of what he was upholding. | Certainly the lawful authority of the magistrate does not depend on him being a Christian, but he and the nation he rules will be judged for not being Christian, Isaiah 60:12. Hence it is in the interests of Christians to pray and witness for the Christianising of the nation and its rulers.
| | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to armourbearer For This Useful Post: | | 
05-22-2009, 09:56 PM
|  | Dux Tyrranus | | Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Northern Virgnia
Posts: 17,835
Thanks: 2,454
Thanked 6,035 Times in 2,448 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis In other words, I don't think it's reasonable to have a Biblical objection to upholding the first four commandments by a magistrate but it would require that the magistrate be Christian himself and have an understanding of what he was upholding. | Certainly the lawful authority of the magistrate does not depend on him being a Christian, but he and the nation he rules will be judged for not being Christian, Isaiah 60:12. Hence it is in the interests of Christians to pray and witness for the Christianising of the nation and its rulers. | | 
05-22-2009, 10:02 PM
|  | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 4,878
Thanks: 1,909
Thanked 1,851 Times in 1,097 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis Quote:
Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian Is there a difference between "natural law" and Biblical Law? | Depending upon what you mean by Law (moral or ceremonial), I don't believe there is. What I believe they have in common, however, is illumination is required in order to have fruition in either. | If there are two kinds of God's revelation- natural (through the attributes of His Creation) and special (through Scripture), perhaps there are two kinds of law?
Natural revelation speaks of a kind of revelation that was picked up in the common law (of England) as "crimes against nature."
Special revelation (Scripture alone) speaks of the person and work of Christ, the ordinary means of salvation but also of "the Law" (ceremonial, civil and moral).
Perhaps this is reflected in our own Declaration of Independence: Quote:
Declaration of Independence
United States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
|
__________________ Scott
PCA
North Carolina "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23 |  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | |