-

Status
Not open for further replies.
"So if I may flesh out this R2k "liberty" a bit more, are professing Christians free to advocate Gay Marriage Laws or Pro-Abortion Laws-- even if the R2k fellow thinks those ideas arise from a "faulty view" of the Bible?"

It depends what you mean by freely advocate. We have members who still struggle with infant baptism; they are allowed to express their struggle or position. But if their goal is to cause division or contention by advocating their positions the session would step in. Same for these other areas.

Do you agree with what the OPC did to Lee Irons because his wife advocated gay marriage in the civil realm and he supported her? And could you explain why or why not?
 
Tbordow
The motivation, at least for me, is to protect the gospel; that it not be identified with the politics or cultures of this present age, and to protect Christian liberty, that in matters relating to the role of government in the new covenant age, there is freedom among believers to form their own opinions and even disagree.

Sounds like an over-realised eschatology with regard to government. We not yet in an age where we can be unconcerned about civil government. We have also to remember that the future age has "invaded" this age, and is able to influence civic ethics for the good, depending on the level of development of the church within a nation.

Also there may be some disagreement among Christians on these matters - depending on the developmental stage of the church within a nation only certain things are possible - but shouldn't reformed scholars be working on the proper and biblical approach to these things. E.g. Do you believe a la the Confession that there is a general moral equity in the law of Moses which can inform regenerate and Reformed thinking on civic ethics or is this whole area just a free-for-all with no Christian rhyme nor reason?

Are there no basic biblical or natural law parameters of civic ethics in R2K thinking, or is it just an abandonment of thinking on civic ethics?

To be clear, a much shorter book which really should be the primer before reading VanDrunen's Two Kingdoms, is his book on the Natural Law which covers your final question in detail.

Now explained in regular Joe Speak - The premise is all men have the Natural Law (point of emphasis: natural law in this case is biblical law. Not some John Locke or Hobbesian type of concept on natural law) on their hearts. Examples such as the Abraham saying Sarah was his sister instead of wife to pagans - and them being aghast at the wickedness of it, the Hammurabi code being similar in some areas to the ten commandments, even examples from Job (who many scholars believe lived pre-Moses) are used. Basically God is right to convict us all by the Law because everyone one of us (not just the believer) has it written on their heart.

So that's the groundwork. Now if you can accept that. The question for me now becomes what to do with the larger unbelieving society. There are a few broadly described options we could all become monks and completely remove ourselves from "evil" society (but make fantastic beer), we can try and redeem the unbeliever by laws in BOTH the civil and religious forms, or what I believe - have an understanding that it's folly to goto into the civil space and try and make that religious minded and make religious space more civil minded. They have the Law on their hearts already when they vote to allow for gay marriage, they have the Law on their hearts when they start another war, etc. Not that Christ won't eventually redeem it, or usher it in. Not that if they ask me a question directly on matters of the civil, I skate around it by being "politically correct". I firmly believe the Theonomists have it right when looking at the heavenly kingdom. I fully believe I worship in that Kingdom every Lord's day, and that sustains me, but the rest of the week I'm an alien and a wanderer in this other kingdom - with the knowledge it pales to the religious Kingdom God graciously welcomes me to visit with my brothers and sisters in Christ every Lord's Day.

What's the first thing Cain does after he's banished? He builds a fantastic city. By all standards of that era it was cutting edge and first rate. He focuses on improving and perfecting his worldly 'kingdom'. We're blessed enough to already visit the perfect Heavenly Kingdom every Lord's Day.

One final illustration: My daughter wants to draw a picture of a cypress tree seemingly jetting out of rock surrounded by the ocean. She can't draw as well as I can so in certain aspects of the picture she enlists my help, which I provide. But ultimately I know only God can draw this to perfection and I don't get too consumed with the idea of getting it perfect - because I can't in myself. My daughter and I could work on that picture for the rest of our lives. Make it a focal pursuit, an issue which consumes us, etc. The second option is to remind ourselves if it becomes too consuming - this is becoming a distraction from God - and once again rest on his promises and his work.

View attachment 2114
 
Last edited:
"So theonomists, economic Marxists, and R2k folk can freely advocate their positions under R2k's "liberty principle", even if R2k folk believe those others have a "faulty view" of the Bible. "

Unless your churches only allow theonomists as members, this is true of all sides of the debate.

"So if I may flesh out this R2k "liberty" a bit more, are professing Christians free to advocate Gay Marriage Laws or Pro-Abortion Laws-- even if the R2k fellow thinks those ideas arise from a "faulty view" of the Bible?"

It depends what you mean by freely advocate. We have members who still struggle with infant baptism; they are allowed to express their struggle or position. But if their goal is to cause division or contention by advocating their positions the session would step in. Same for these other areas.

So the session does not step in to stop bad/immoral activities, they step in to stop thought crimes?
 
"Are there no basic biblical or natural law parameters of civic ethics in R2K thinking, or is it just an abandonment of thinking on civic ethics?"

There is plenty of thinking to do on civic ethics, medical ethics, how to discipline a teenager in the home, etc... that the Bible doesn't give specific answers to. I was asked on what a session would allow versus discipline.


"Do you agree with what the OPC did to Lee Irons because his wife advocated gay marriage in the civil realm and he supported her? And could you explain why or why not?"

That is not why Lee was censured.


"So the session does not step in to stop bad/immoral activities, they step in to stop thought crimes?"

Not sure where you get this. I have administered church discipline against unrepentant immorality for more years than I care to remember. Wow - amazed what some of you think about this. Is this what people think when you reject theonomic principles?
 
"Are there no basic biblical or natural law parameters of civic ethics in R2K thinking, or is it just an abandonment of thinking on civic ethics?"

There is plenty of thinking to do on civic ethics, medical ethics, how to discipline a teenager in the home, etc... that the Bible doesn't give specific answers to. I was asked on what a session would allow versus discipline.


"Do you agree with what the OPC did to Lee Irons because his wife advocated gay marriage in the civil realm and he supported her? And could you explain why or why not?"

That is not why Lee was censured.


"So the session does not step in to stop bad/immoral activities, they step in to stop thought crimes?"

Not sure where you get this. I have administered church discipline against unrepentant immorality for more years than I care to remember. Wow - amazed what some of you think about this. Is this what people think when you reject theonomic principles?

To act against natural law is sin, right? Just like acting against any specific command from the Bible. If it is open and unrepentant sin, then why would the session sit on its hands? There is no even semi-legit reading of natural law that allows for homosexuality, let alone same sex marriage, or abortion.

Personally, I am all about natural law, but unlike you, I believe that natural law says a bunch of specific things and not just overly vague stuff.

My comment about thought crimes concerned your point that session only acts when a person is trying to be divisive. Whether they are trying to be divisive or not is irrelevant.

CT
 
Now explained in regular Joe Speak - The premise is all men have the Natural Law (point of emphasis: natural law in this case is biblical law. Not some John Locke or Hobbesian type of concept on natural law) on their hearts. Examples such as the Abraham saying Sarah was his sister instead of wife to pagans - and them being aghast at the wickedness of it, the Hammurabi code being similar in some areas to the ten commandments, even examples from Job (who many scholars believe lived pre-Moses) are used. Basically God is right to convict us all by the Law because everyone one of us (not just the believer) has it written on their heart.

Yes all unbelievers have God's law written on their hearts, but the regenerate and Reformed have two advantages - at least. They are regenerate and so less likely to suppress the truth. They have God's Word and its principles to clarify and augment what is written on their hearts.

Therefore it is part of their function to be salt and light in preserving and building a godly society. Reformed regenerate scholarship should be at the forefront of showing the way towards a better society.

What's the first thing Cain does after he's banished? He builds a fantastic city. By all standards of that era it was cutting edge and first rate. He focuses on improving and perfecting his worldly 'kingdom'. We're blessed enough to already visit the perfect Heavenly Kingdom every Lord's Day.

There are two senses in which the Bible uses the word "world" - the created world which is good along with its divinely mandated or permitted human institutions like the state, and the world that lies in the wicked one.

We shouldn't get into the habit of thinking of the world beyond the church as being of the irremediably bad variety, under Satan, and that the state is part of that world.

The state is a divine institution like the family and church and is capable of being Christianised without the persecution of non-Christian minorities.

Tbordow
There is plenty of thinking to do on civic ethics, medical ethics, how to discipline a teenager in the home, etc... that the Bible doesn't give specific answers to.

Sometimes the Bible is quite specific, at other times less so. E.g. is it God's will that the state should sanction abortion? Is it God's will that the state should make provision for homosexual "marriages"? Specifically, No. Is it God's will that the death penalty be mandated for murder by the state? Specifically, Yes.

What sanctions should be imposed for adultery, homosexual behaviour, beastialism, incest, cursing one's parents and certain types of Sabbath-breaking? More room for debate because the death penalty for these offences was related to the sacrificial system and cannot/should not be followed merely because it was part of the Mosaic administration. In fact because it was typological to the Israelites of God's wrath against sin on those who do not have an animal sacrifice it shouldn't be followed.

The penal law had a dual function as Israel's criminal penal law, and also as a typological revelation of God's wrath to the Israelites, just as the Promised Land was both their land and also a type of Heaven.

But in a well-ordered Christian society such things would be unlawful but not punished with the death penalty. They'd be less frequent anyway because the Gospel would have done its work and the Christian civil law would have less to do.
 
Last edited:
"To act against natural law is sin, right? Just like acting against any specific command from the Bible. If it is open and unrepentant sin, then why would the session sit on its hands? There is no even semi-legit reading of natural law that allows for homosexuality, let alone same sex marriage, or abortion."

Who said the session would sit on its hands? The question was asked if a Christian held, for example, a marxist economic view in our church, would he be allowed to. My response is that they are free under Christian liberty to hold that view. How many people in your churches have been disciplined for what you consider errant or non-Biblical political views? If none then why all the accusations against us? Since we do not believe the Bible or natural answers specific questions on statecraft - then there is freedom -it doesn't mean some views are not wiser and better than others, just that Christians are allowed to hold them and remain in good standing in the church. In other words, what you actually practice in your churches we state out loud.
 
Therefore it is part of their function to be salt and light in preserving and building a godly society. Reformed regenerate scholarship should be at the forefront of showing the way towards a better society.

This is really where we disagree. I don't think the call of salt and light is an individuals call into society. I don't think the concept of making society godly (within society) is apart of it either or realistically practical. I believe it's a corporate call to not be consumed by society - to be distinguished from the world in large part because it doesn't consume us. So singing Psalms over calls to sing Chris Tomlin (or someone else popular) with a praise band, adding another worship service over adding another time during the week for weekly 'fellowship' chitchats, preaching heavy doctrine over heavy application even though the latter is much more palatable to the world are some ways a church corporately maintains itself as the salt of the earth.
 
I don't think the concept of making society godly (within society) is apart of it either or realistically practical.

It becomes more practical depending on the percentage of godly people you have in society living out the Christian life. It's what we're told to do and be rather than retreating into modern monasticism.

I agree that there could be a wrong emphasis on it at the expense of more basic things like evangelism, but there could be a wrong underemphasis of it too.
 
"To act against natural law is sin, right? Just like acting against any specific command from the Bible. If it is open and unrepentant sin, then why would the session sit on its hands? There is no even semi-legit reading of natural law that allows for homosexuality, let alone same sex marriage, or abortion."

Who said the session would sit on its hands? The question was asked if a Christian held, for example, a marxist economic view in our church, would he be allowed to. My response is that they are free under Christian liberty to hold that view. How many people in your churches have been disciplined for what you consider errant or non-Biblical political views? If none then why all the accusations against us? Since we do not believe the Bible or natural answers specific questions on statecraft - then there is freedom -it doesn't mean some views are not wiser and better than others, just that Christians are allowed to hold them and remain in good standing in the church. In other words, what you actually practice in your churches we state out loud.

Natural law binds on everyone everywhere, correct? That means people acting against such are no longer in good standing anywhere on the planet. They are to be opposed inside and outside of the church by everyone.
Lastly, since you don't believe that natural law has anything to say about specific questions of statescraft, does not make it so. The implication of such a position is that all argument for or against something are equal. If they are not necessarily equal, that implies that at least at some points, some things are better than others and are in fact the "right" thing to do.

CT
 
"If we assume the church member's intent is not to divide the church, but rather to pass laws in the civil sphere to sanction homosexual marriage and abort as many babies as women may see fit, the session could not step in under the R2k "liberty" principle?"

If a member confessed with the Bible that homosexual behavior and lust is sinful, and himself did not practice such things, but decided to vote to allow homosexuals thr right to marry, we would not discipline him. These are always opportunities to teach if necessary, but we wouldn't have the Bible's authority to cast them out of the kingdom for such political views.

In reality it is none of our business as clergy to know the voting practices of our members ( I know one could come up with some extreme or absurd example where this might not be true - fine - it is generally true).
 
I don't think the concept of making society godly (within society) is apart of it either or realistically practical.

It becomes more practical depending on the percentage of godly people you have in society living out the Christian life. It's what we're told to do and be rather than retreating into modern monasticism.

I agree that there could be a wrong emphasis on it at the expense of more basic things like evangelism, but there could be a wrong underemphasis of it too.

Honestly, I receive a similar vein of criticism from my still Roman Catholic family members who believe Semi-Pelagianism. The Church provides the keys to heaven not by the ballot box. Not by soup kitchens. Not by hospitals. The Church only provides the keys to heaven in the Gospel - the good news.

With the truth of the Gospel, that doesn't mean you can't be called to open a soup kitchen, vote for a candidate who is against the genocide known as abortion, be a great employee. But none of that is done out of some call of christian "social" justice, making the civil godly, etc. If we are to adopt the world as our pet project, then why are we told we'll be an alien, a stranger, even an enemy to the world in this walk?

James 4:4 "You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

I whole heartedly believe God will knit this deprave world back together ultimately for good (Romans 8:28), I just don't think I can, but I do believe I can be continually shaped by the Gospel and sanctified - and in that process not only will I be blessed - but so will my pagan neighbors, friends, family, etc - naturally and organically.
 
Kevin,
If one fights for the enforcing of natural law (which is binding on everyone everywhere), should one call it something other than a fight for social justice and making the civil godly? If so, what should it be called?
 
Kevin,
If one fights for the enforcing of natural law (which is binding on everyone everywhere), should one call it something other than a fight for social justice and making the civil godly? If so, what should it be called?

The law is not fulfilled in enforcement. It never is or was in fallen man, Christ's death on the cross is the only fulfillment. I believe the "fighter" in the example would be far better off remembering the uniqueness of the Christian life - which led for the early opponents of the faith to actually call it Atheism (read Justin Martyr who talks about this in around 120 A.D.) The uniqueness of the Gospel isn't that we reach out to God in actions and doing - but He reached out to us because we couldn't.

I don't think it's coincidence that religions such as Mormonism, Islam, and Roman Catholicism have such a huge call to be politically active and involved in the civil sphere. I think it's brought about by a lack of understanding on what really changes the world. Only the Gospel changes the world. All other changes are fleeting distractions to it.

Do you really think the early saints had a comprehension or concern of a time where this Christian sect would be wrestling with what are we going to do now that a state of 25+ million people (New York) allowed Gay Marriage? Paul's lack of commentary in his epistles about the worldly kingdom's politics isn't coincidence in my mind, and Rome had horrible civil practices. He does however really take an issue when those pagan beliefs make their way into churches as obstacles to the Gospel. Once again a reminder the Salt and Light call is not a worldly call.

Two quotes from Calvin to conclude:
1. There are two governments: the one religious, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bound to perform. To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the religious, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. Let us now return to human laws. If they are imposed for the purpose of forming a religious obligation, as if the observance of them was in itself necessary, we say that the restraint thus laid on the conscience is unlawful. Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only. Hence the common distinction between the earthly forum and the forum of conscience.

2. But whoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ's spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct.
 
Kevin,
If one fights for the enforcing of natural law (which is binding on everyone everywhere), should one call it something other than a fight for social justice and making the civil godly? If so, what should it be called?

The law is not fulfilled in enforcement. It never is or was in fallen man, Christ's death on the cross is the only fulfillment. I believe the "fighter" in the example would be far better off remembering the uniqueness of the Christian life - which led for the early opponents of the faith to actually call it Atheism (read Justin Martyr who talks about this in around 120 A.D.) The uniqueness of the Gospel isn't that we reach out to God in actions and doing - but He reached out to us because we couldn't.

I don't think it's coincidence that religions such as Mormonism, Islam, and Roman Catholicism have such a huge call to be politically active and involved in the civil sphere. I think it's brought about by a lack of understanding on what really changes the world. Only the Gospel changes the world. All other changes are fleeting distractions to it.

Do you really think the early saints had a comprehension or concern of a time where this Christian sect would be wrestling with what are we going to do now that a state of 25+ million people (New York) allowed Gay Marriage? Paul's lack of commentary in his epistles about the worldly kingdom's politics isn't coincidence in my mind, and Rome had horrible civil practices. He does however really take an issue when those pagan beliefs make their way into churches as obstacles to the Gospel. Once again a reminder the Salt and Light call is not a worldly call.

Two quotes from Calvin to conclude:
1. There are two governments: the one religious, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bound to perform. To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the religious, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. Let us now return to human laws. If they are imposed for the purpose of forming a religious obligation, as if the observance of them was in itself necessary, we say that the restraint thus laid on the conscience is unlawful. Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only. Hence the common distinction between the earthly forum and the forum of conscience.

2. But whoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ's spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct.

Where did I say anything about the gospel, mosaic law, the Bible, the spiritual kingdom etc.? Where in my statement did I confuse the two kingdoms etc.? I spoke completely about natural law. Natural law has nothing to do with the Church because it is binding on everyone at all times.

It seems that you keep moving the goalposts. First you say don't use the Bible and the church on temporal things. Okay, we will just use natural law and put our Bible aside. Now your complaining about the Cross, the Churcand somehow downplaying the Gospel. The way you write, it seems the civil sphere has no rules whatsoever.

If I act as a citizen of a country and make a argument based on natural law that X should or should not be done, while organizing people to act with me; you have no place to argue without going headlong into Antinomianism.

CT
 
Kevin,
If one fights for the enforcing of natural law (which is binding on everyone everywhere), should one call it something other than a fight for social justice and making the civil godly? If so, what should it be called?

The law is not fulfilled in enforcement. It never is or was in fallen man, Christ's death on the cross is the only fulfillment. I believe the "fighter" in the example would be far better off remembering the uniqueness of the Christian life - which led for the early opponents of the faith to actually call it Atheism (read Justin Martyr who talks about this in around 120 A.D.) The uniqueness of the Gospel isn't that we reach out to God in actions and doing - but He reached out to us because we couldn't.

I don't think it's coincidence that religions such as Mormonism, Islam, and Roman Catholicism have such a huge call to be politically active and involved in the civil sphere. I think it's brought about by a lack of understanding on what really changes the world. Only the Gospel changes the world. All other changes are fleeting distractions to it.

Do you really think the early saints had a comprehension or concern of a time where this Christian sect would be wrestling with what are we going to do now that a state of 25+ million people (New York) allowed Gay Marriage? Paul's lack of commentary in his epistles about the worldly kingdom's politics isn't coincidence in my mind, and Rome had horrible civil practices. He does however really take an issue when those pagan beliefs make their way into churches as obstacles to the Gospel. Once again a reminder the Salt and Light call is not a worldly call.

Two quotes from Calvin to conclude:
1. There are two governments: the one religious, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bound to perform. To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the religious, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. Let us now return to human laws. If they are imposed for the purpose of forming a religious obligation, as if the observance of them was in itself necessary, we say that the restraint thus laid on the conscience is unlawful. Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only. Hence the common distinction between the earthly forum and the forum of conscience.

2. But whoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ's spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct.

Where did I say anything about the gospel, mosaic law, the Bible, the spiritual kingdom etc.? Where in my statement did I confuse the two kingdoms etc.? I spoke completely about natural law. Natural law has nothing to do with the Church because it is binding on everyone at all times.

It seems that you keep moving the goalposts. First you say don't use the Bible and the church on temporal things. Okay, we will just use natural law and put our Bible aside. Now your complaining about the Cross, the Churcand somehow downplaying the Gospel. The way you write, it seems the civil sphere has no rules whatsoever.

If I act as a citizen of a country and make a argument based on natural law that X should or should not be done, while organizing people to act with me; you have no place to argue without going headlong into Antinomianism.

CT

I was basing the Natural Law definition on the one David VanDrunen supports. Which states the Mosiac Law is known to all men. So that's why you probably are getting tripped up and think I'm moving the goal posts on you.

I'm also not saying you can't act in the civil sphere. If you feel called in that pursuit. I'm just saying remember it's the other kingdom. Attempts to make it godly, will always fail until God ushers in the new heavens and new earth. So enter into civil pursuits with that understanding and the implications and expectations you should have in that reality. That's why worship truly is the most important thing we can do (Calvin). We goto Zion. We bask in the Lord's Kingdom, and he blesses us before another week of wandering the desert as an alien in an alien land.
 
Hermonta, you said what I wish I had said.

remember it's the other kingdom. Attempts to make it godly, will always fail

That's just silly. If, say, those who steal are immediately punished in a just way, that particular civil kingdom will be more godly since there will be less theft. A child of 12 could understand that. Less theft = More godly, since sin is defined as transgression of God's law.
 
I don't think it's coincidence that religions such as Mormonism, Islam, and Roman Catholicism have such a huge call to be politically active and involved in the civil sphere. I think it's brought about by a lack of understanding on what really changes the world. Only the Gospel changes the world. All other changes are fleeting distractions to it.
No objections to part of your conclusion, but I don't believe you are very careful in how you lead this off. The implications seem to be very harsh. Let's just say this, none of your Christian brothers have the same motivation or the depraved political ambitions of any of those you list.

Do you really think the early saints had a comprehension or concern of a time where this Christian sect would be wrestling with what are we going to do now that a state of 25+ million people (New York) allowed Gay Marriage? Paul's lack of commentary in his epistles about the worldly kingdom's politics isn't coincidence in my mind, and Rome had horrible civil practices. He does however really take an issue when those pagan beliefs make their way into churches as obstacles to the Gospel. Once again a reminder the Salt and Light call is not a worldly call.
I have to say that our Free Church friend earlier cautioned your use of "worldly." If civil governments are "worldly" [in the sense that it is fallen and of the fallen world] and their function and authority is "worldly" then we Christians ought never have a second thought about serving, voting, or advising our government officials in any matter. Note Darius under the influence of Daniel- only Jehovah is recognized by decree of the King: Daniel 6:26-28 (also note Daniel's lack of objection when Darius instituted this very 1st table of the Decalogue type law as the rex mundus.) Likewise, what was John the Baptist doing rebuking a secular ruler for a "Lawful" (Decalogue) matter? Mark 6:17-19? The King in Jonah declaring a decree for the people under his care to repent of sin and follow the living God? Jonah 3:5 and following Likewise, when Paul was being persecuted and brought to trial before Roman and Jewish courts, he never answered, "All religions deserve equal protection by the government!" It was always, 'I am telling the truth' and this deserves defense. He is telling the Roman government to hand down a judgment in his favor on the grounds that he is promoting the truth. See Acts 24, 25, 26.

Two quotes from Calvin to conclude...
Quote Calvin if you will, but in practice, Geneva during his ministry and advisory role to the civil rulers could never be called a "principled pluralism."
 
Last edited:
Wow, I appreciate this thread. If the R2Kers are really advocating some of the stuff in this thread that I think I am reading and understanding, I know why it scares me. The lines of discussion keep getting moved and law and Society are disjointed. Kind of like law and the gospel in modern reformed thought. It even seems I can join a church and be a rabid Marxist, homosexual. and abortion on demand supporter and not have to worry about being disciplined. Something just isn't adding up here. As noted many times on this board, it just seems that dichotomies are being made instead of where distinctions should be recognized. Law is being disjointed where it should be recognized and loved and understood as something that goes hand in hand with grace. Common grace even works with and understands law as it's guide. But some just want to cut it off completely. Is this really where confessionalism is headed? Is this really what Reformed Confessionalism is?
 
Wow, I appreciate this thread. If the R2Kers are really advocating some of the stuff in this thread that I think I am reading and understanding, I know why it scares me. The lines of discussion keep getting moved and law and Society are disjointed. Kind of like law and the gospel in modern reformed thought. It even seems I can join a church and be a rabid Marxist, homosexual. and abortion on demand supporter and not have to worry about being disciplined. Something just isn't adding up here. As noted many times on this board, it just seems that dichotomies are being made instead of where distinctions should be recognized. Law is being disjointed where it should be recognized and loved and understood as something that goes hand in hand with grace. Common grace even works with and understands law as it's guide. But some just want to cut it off completely. Is this really where confessionalism is headed? Is this really what Reformed Confessionalism is?

Once again a complete miss representation. One in the vein of what I often get from my Roman Catholic family members since I left the works+grace model. You maybe should speak with them. They wonder why I'm not busy embracing orgies. As to the others they were more grounded - I'll respond to those momentarily (after I put the kiddos to bed).
 
Mark,

If a member confessed with the Bible that homosexual lust and practice is sinful, and himself was not living in such sin, how he votes on the matter of gay marriage is not a matter of church discipline.

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------

Sorry, didn't see my original post answering Mark made it
 
Mark,

If a member confessed with the Bible that homosexual lust and practice is sinful, and himself was not living in such sin, how he votes on the matter of gay marriage is not a matter of church discipline.

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------

Sorry, didn't see my original post answering Mark made it

Would you consider such a open sin that just didn't need church discipline or not a sin at all? Since such is a complete and total disregard for natural law (that which binds on everyone at all times) it is clearly a sin. Why would this open and unrepentant sin get a free pass?

CT

---------- Post added at 11:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ----------

Kevin,
If one fights for the enforcing of natural law (which is binding on everyone everywhere), should one call it something other than a fight for social justice and making the civil godly? If so, what should it be called?

The law is not fulfilled in enforcement. It never is or was in fallen man, Christ's death on the cross is the only fulfillment. I believe the "fighter" in the example would be far better off remembering the uniqueness of the Christian life - which led for the early opponents of the faith to actually call it Atheism (read Justin Martyr who talks about this in around 120 A.D.) The uniqueness of the Gospel isn't that we reach out to God in actions and doing - but He reached out to us because we couldn't.

I don't think it's coincidence that religions such as Mormonism, Islam, and Roman Catholicism have such a huge call to be politically active and involved in the civil sphere. I think it's brought about by a lack of understanding on what really changes the world. Only the Gospel changes the world. All other changes are fleeting distractions to it.

Do you really think the early saints had a comprehension or concern of a time where this Christian sect would be wrestling with what are we going to do now that a state of 25+ million people (New York) allowed Gay Marriage? Paul's lack of commentary in his epistles about the worldly kingdom's politics isn't coincidence in my mind, and Rome had horrible civil practices. He does however really take an issue when those pagan beliefs make their way into churches as obstacles to the Gospel. Once again a reminder the Salt and Light call is not a worldly call.

Two quotes from Calvin to conclude:
1. There are two governments: the one religious, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bound to perform. To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the religious, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. Let us now return to human laws. If they are imposed for the purpose of forming a religious obligation, as if the observance of them was in itself necessary, we say that the restraint thus laid on the conscience is unlawful. Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only. Hence the common distinction between the earthly forum and the forum of conscience.

2. But whoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ's spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct.

Where did I say anything about the gospel, mosaic law, the Bible, the spiritual kingdom etc.? Where in my statement did I confuse the two kingdoms etc.? I spoke completely about natural law. Natural law has nothing to do with the Church because it is binding on everyone at all times.

It seems that you keep moving the goalposts. First you say don't use the Bible and the church on temporal things. Okay, we will just use natural law and put our Bible aside. Now your complaining about the Cross, the Churcand somehow downplaying the Gospel. The way you write, it seems the civil sphere has no rules whatsoever.

If I act as a citizen of a country and make a argument based on natural law that X should or should not be done, while organizing people to act with me; you have no place to argue without going headlong into Antinomianism.

CT

I was basing the Natural Law definition on the one David VanDrunen supports. Which states the Mosiac Law is known to all men. So that's why you probably are getting tripped up and think I'm moving the goal posts on you.

I'm also not saying you can't act in the civil sphere. If you feel called in that pursuit. I'm just saying remember it's the other kingdom. Attempts to make it godly, will always fail until God ushers in the new heavens and new earth. So enter into civil pursuits with that understanding and the implications and expectations you should have in that reality. That's why worship truly is the most important thing we can do (Calvin). We goto Zion. We bask in the Lord's Kingdom, and he blesses us before another week of wandering the desert as an alien in an alien land.

The Mosaic Law is known to all men? So all men know that one offers a certain sacrifice on a certain day every year and that one is supposed to have a certain feast on a particular day? If the Mosaic law was equivalent to natural law, then we would be still required to do all of it and to do otherwise would be an attack on the created order. No one in Reformed History has ever attempted to a make a move like that! The standard view is that the moral law/natural law/Ten commandments are synonyms.

CT

---------- Post added at 11:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 PM ----------

Wow, I appreciate this thread. If the R2Kers are really advocating some of the stuff in this thread that I think I am reading and understanding, I know why it scares me. The lines of discussion keep getting moved and law and Society are disjointed. Kind of like law and the gospel in modern reformed thought. It even seems I can join a church and be a rabid Marxist, homosexual. and abortion on demand supporter and not have to worry about being disciplined. Something just isn't adding up here. As noted many times on this board, it just seems that dichotomies are being made instead of where distinctions should be recognized. Law is being disjointed where it should be recognized and loved and understood as something that goes hand in hand with grace. Common grace even works with and understands law as it's guide. But some just want to cut it off completely. Is this really where confessionalism is headed? Is this really what Reformed Confessionalism is?

Once again a complete miss representation. One in the vein of what I often get from my Roman Catholic family members since I left the works+grace model. You maybe should speak with them. They wonder why I'm not busy embracing orgies. As to the others they were more grounded - I'll respond to those momentarily (after I put the kiddos to bed).

So someone who attacks/fights against abortion/homosexuality etc is only doing it because they wish to earn their salvation with good works? Doing such because it is the right things to do, is not an option?

CT
 
If it is a sin to engage in and a sin to perform an unlawful marriage (according to God's law), surely it is a sin to approve of and facilitate such with our vote (i.e. granting power to superiors with our vote to command things unlawful, LC 130) rather than oppose with our vote?:think:
Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

...prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with [i.e. granting of] unlawful marriages*....
*Leviticus 18:1-21. Mark 6:18. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife. Malachi 2:11-12. Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
 
Hermonta, you said what I wish I had said.

remember it's the other kingdom. Attempts to make it godly, will always fail

That's just silly. If, say, those who steal are immediately punished in a just way, that particular civil kingdom will be more godly since there will be less theft. A child of 12 could understand that. Less theft = More godly, since sin is defined as transgression of God's law.

First off you are quoting two fractional sentences. Not my full statements in either sentence - but the blend of two fractional ones which combined ignore my larger point. But lets run with your response either way: How does a two Kingdom theology thwart justice and promote theft? Muslim countries have far less theft then "christian" ones. Does it make them more Godly by your math equation. Singapore has I believe one of the lowest crime rates in the world, once again because of your premise Less theft = more godly. I guess they are on the right track.

I think it's foolish to pull civil/unbeliever matters/stastics/crime rates/etc into the religious kingdom.

6:1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers! [1]

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous [2] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [3] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


Paul doesn't have much trust at all for justice on the civil realm there.

Now to the common concern of great now what? The Brother/the believer has a different standard. I am called to submit to the authority of my church. My church body should have a reasonable expectation of seeing the process of sanctification being reflected in my life. If I'm busy working at Planned Parenthood, while running a meth lab, and going to brothels - I sure as heck should be rebuked by my session - and without renewal and repentance denied access to the body. Two Kingdoms doesn't ignore the fact that we have to be on the lookout for wolves amongst the sheep. Two Kingdoms essentially says don't expect anyone without the Gospel to be anything but a wolf.

That doesn't mean they aren't image bearers. That doesn't mean they are without worthwhile qualities. But if they don't ultimately answer to the Heavenly Kingdom, who do they serve? Should they be held to our standard here on earth? Is it right for me as a believer to expect an unbeliever to be equally yoked? Does Paul promote common yoking between the believer and unbeliever (His writings in Corinthians seem to state otherwise to me).

I don't think it's coincidence that religions such as Mormonism, Islam, and Roman Catholicism have such a huge call to be politically active and involved in the civil sphere. I think it's brought about by a lack of understanding on what really changes the world. Only the Gospel changes the world. All other changes are fleeting distractions to it.
No objections to part of your conclusion, but I don't believe you are very careful in how you lead this off. The implications seem to be very harsh. Let's just say this, none of your Christian brothers have the same motivation or the depraved political ambitions of any of those you list.

Fair point. I can see how that can be drawn from my statement - but it seems like you understood the main point I was trying to convey.

Do you really think the early saints had a comprehension or concern of a time where this Christian sect would be wrestling with what are we going to do now that a state of 25+ million people (New York) allowed Gay Marriage? Paul's lack of commentary in his epistles about the worldly kingdom's politics isn't coincidence in my mind, and Rome had horrible civil practices. He does however really take an issue when those pagan beliefs make their way into churches as obstacles to the Gospel. Once again a reminder the Salt and Light call is not a worldly call.
I have to say that our Free Church friend earlier cautioned your use of "worldly." If civil governments are "worldly" [in the sense that it is fallen and of the fallen world] and their function and authority is "worldly" then we Christians ought never have a second thought about serving, voting, or advising our government officials in any matter. Note Darius under the influence of Daniel- only Jehovah is recognized by decree of the King: Daniel 6:26-28 (also note Daniel's lack of objection when Darius instituted this very 1st table of the Decalogue type law as the rex mundus.) Likewise, what was John the Baptist doing rebuking a secular ruler for a "Lawful" (Decalogue) matter? Mark 6:17-19? The King in Jonah declaring a decree for the people under his care to repent of sin and follow the living God? Jonah 3:5 and following Likewise, when Paul was being persecuted and brought to trial before Roman and Jewish courts, he never answered, "All religions deserve equal protection by the government!" It was always, 'I am telling the truth' and this deserves defense. He is telling the Roman government to hand down a judgment in his favor on the grounds that he is promoting the truth. See Acts 24, 25, 26.

Okay, but what was Paul's charge? What did the Romans really want from him, once charged? What did the Jews want from him? They didn't want Paul to preach - to share the Gospel. I'm not sure the relevance in this instance to this discussion. If the wolves circle the church and mean to thwart its ability to preach - I'm all for defending the kingdom. But I don't see how gay marriage in New York is hampering Tim Keller preaching this weekend. I would say it's far more likely those worshipping in Redeemer Church this weekend are even more joyous to worship the Lord in Zion next week because another example of how fallen this world is - then are deflated and defeated by the obvious embrace of sin by the governing body.

Two quotes from Calvin to conclude...
Quote Calvin if you will, but in practice, Geneva during his ministry and advisory role to the civil rulers could never be called a "principled pluralism."[/QUOTE]

Which has more weight and value to us 500 years later Calvin's teachings or all of Calvin's actions during his life? Calvin would be the first, I believe, to tell you often he caved to social pressures in Geneva, and that was wrong. There was a delicate balance being toed by Calvin in the sphere. We know for example he wanted more communion then he practiced in his church, etc.
 
Last edited:
Tbordow - In case I missed it, is there an article that you could link that best summarizes your position here?
I have read some here and there on R2K, but I am wondering if there is an article that you know of.

Thanks
 
Mark,

If a member confessed with the Bible that homosexual lust and practice is sinful, and himself was not living in such sin, how he votes on the matter of gay marriage is not a matter of church discipline.

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------

Sorry, didn't see my original post answering Mark made it

Would you consider such a open sin that just didn't need church discipline or not a sin at all? Since such is a complete and total disregard for natural law (that which binds on everyone at all times) it is clearly a sin. Why would this open and unrepentant sin get a free pass?

CT

---------- Post added at 11:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ----------

Kevin,
If one fights for the enforcing of natural law (which is binding on everyone everywhere), should one call it something other than a fight for social justice and making the civil godly? If so, what should it be called?

The law is not fulfilled in enforcement. It never is or was in fallen man, Christ's death on the cross is the only fulfillment. I believe the "fighter" in the example would be far better off remembering the uniqueness of the Christian life - which led for the early opponents of the faith to actually call it Atheism (read Justin Martyr who talks about this in around 120 A.D.) The uniqueness of the Gospel isn't that we reach out to God in actions and doing - but He reached out to us because we couldn't.

I don't think it's coincidence that religions such as Mormonism, Islam, and Roman Catholicism have such a huge call to be politically active and involved in the civil sphere. I think it's brought about by a lack of understanding on what really changes the world. Only the Gospel changes the world. All other changes are fleeting distractions to it.

Do you really think the early saints had a comprehension or concern of a time where this Christian sect would be wrestling with what are we going to do now that a state of 25+ million people (New York) allowed Gay Marriage? Paul's lack of commentary in his epistles about the worldly kingdom's politics isn't coincidence in my mind, and Rome had horrible civil practices. He does however really take an issue when those pagan beliefs make their way into churches as obstacles to the Gospel. Once again a reminder the Salt and Light call is not a worldly call.

Two quotes from Calvin to conclude:
1. There are two governments: the one religious, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bound to perform. To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the religious, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. Let us now return to human laws. If they are imposed for the purpose of forming a religious obligation, as if the observance of them was in itself necessary, we say that the restraint thus laid on the conscience is unlawful. Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only. Hence the common distinction between the earthly forum and the forum of conscience.

2. But whoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ's spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct.

Where did I say anything about the gospel, mosaic law, the Bible, the spiritual kingdom etc.? Where in my statement did I confuse the two kingdoms etc.? I spoke completely about natural law. Natural law has nothing to do with the Church because it is binding on everyone at all times.

It seems that you keep moving the goalposts. First you say don't use the Bible and the church on temporal things. Okay, we will just use natural law and put our Bible aside. Now your complaining about the Cross, the Churcand somehow downplaying the Gospel. The way you write, it seems the civil sphere has no rules whatsoever.

If I act as a citizen of a country and make a argument based on natural law that X should or should not be done, while organizing people to act with me; you have no place to argue without going headlong into Antinomianism.

CT

I was basing the Natural Law definition on the one David VanDrunen supports. Which states the Mosiac Law is known to all men. So that's why you probably are getting tripped up and think I'm moving the goal posts on you.

I'm also not saying you can't act in the civil sphere. If you feel called in that pursuit. I'm just saying remember it's the other kingdom. Attempts to make it godly, will always fail until God ushers in the new heavens and new earth. So enter into civil pursuits with that understanding and the implications and expectations you should have in that reality. That's why worship truly is the most important thing we can do (Calvin). We goto Zion. We bask in the Lord's Kingdom, and he blesses us before another week of wandering the desert as an alien in an alien land.

The Mosaic Law is known to all men? So all men know that one offers a certain sacrifice on a certain day every year and that one is supposed to have a certain feast on a particular day? If the Mosaic law was equivalent to natural law, then we would be still required to do all of it and to do otherwise would be an attack on the created order. No one in Reformed History has ever attempted to a make a move like that! The standard view is that the moral law/natural law/Ten commandments are synonyms.

CT

---------- Post added at 11:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 PM ----------

Wow, I appreciate this thread. If the R2Kers are really advocating some of the stuff in this thread that I think I am reading and understanding, I know why it scares me. The lines of discussion keep getting moved and law and Society are disjointed. Kind of like law and the gospel in modern reformed thought. It even seems I can join a church and be a rabid Marxist, homosexual. and abortion on demand supporter and not have to worry about being disciplined. Something just isn't adding up here. As noted many times on this board, it just seems that dichotomies are being made instead of where distinctions should be recognized. Law is being disjointed where it should be recognized and loved and understood as something that goes hand in hand with grace. Common grace even works with and understands law as it's guide. But some just want to cut it off completely. Is this really where confessionalism is headed? Is this really what Reformed Confessionalism is?

Once again a complete miss representation. One in the vein of what I often get from my Roman Catholic family members since I left the works+grace model. You maybe should speak with them. They wonder why I'm not busy embracing orgies. As to the others they were more grounded - I'll respond to those momentarily (after I put the kiddos to bed).

So someone who attacks/fights against abortion/homosexuality etc is only doing it because they wish to earn their salvation with good works? Doing such because it is the right things to do, is not an option?

CT

quick reply... CT the deeper point of Mosaic Law in blood atonement is we need to be reconciled with a Holy all perfect God. Not that a really white sheep or really spotless goat was permanent pardon. It's the understanding that we need one - to be able to reside within God's Kingdom at all. God can not allow unholiness to reside within his Kingdom in heaven. So yes. All know this deep down. Most try to make it up to God in the way Cain did in scripture... working really hard to make something "great".

As to your abortion point: My comparison with Roman Catholicism is not in the sense that I'm saying he's advocating for good works. My point in that is he's simplifying grace and sanctification to a dangerous territory where if you are under grace and the process of sanctification obviously you would not find rest in advocating for baby genocide, marxism, homosexuality, etc. Those are contrary to God's Kingdom. I touched on this more in my above reply. But wanted to offer this to you personally.

---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 PM ----------

Tbordow - In case I missed it, is there an article that you could link that best summarizes your position here?
I have read some here and there on R2K, but I am wondering if there is an article that you know of.

Thanks

Pretty much anything David VanDrunen addresses it. He has shorter summaries on it. The Natural Law book of his is only like 67 pages. It's a quick read and touches on two kingdoms and most of the stuff talked about here. However the main book isn't very long either.
 
How does a two Kingdom theology thwart justice and promote theft? Muslim countries have far less theft then "christian" ones. Does it make them more Godly by your math equation. Singapore has I believe one of the lowest crime rates in the world, once again because of your premise Less theft = more godly. I guess they are on the right track
.

Again, a child could understand this. Yes, of course they are on the right track in that area, otherwise more theft would be the right track. Or theft is neutral.

More theft: Less godliness. Less theft: More godliness. Sin is any lack of conformity to or transgression of the law of God.
 
Do you really think the early saints had a comprehension or concern of a time where this Christian sect would be wrestling with what are we going to do now that a state of 25+ million people (New York) allowed Gay Marriage? Paul's lack of commentary in his epistles about the worldly kingdom's politics isn't coincidence in my mind, and Rome had horrible civil practices. He does however really take an issue when those pagan beliefs make their way into churches as obstacles to the Gospel. Once again a reminder the Salt and Light call is not a worldly call.
I have to say that our Free Church friend earlier cautioned your use of "worldly." If civil governments are "worldly" [in the sense that it is fallen and of the fallen world] and their function and authority is "worldly" then we Christians ought never have a second thought about serving, voting, or advising our government officials in any matter. Note Darius under the influence of Daniel- only Jehovah is recognized by decree of the King: Daniel 6:26-28 (also note Daniel's lack of objection when Darius instituted this very 1st table of the Decalogue type law as the rex mundus.) Likewise, what was John the Baptist doing rebuking a secular ruler for a "Lawful" (Decalogue) matter? Mark 6:17-19? The King in Jonah declaring a decree for the people under his care to repent of sin and follow the living God? Jonah 3:5 and following Likewise, when Paul was being persecuted and brought to trial before Roman and Jewish courts, he never answered, "All religions deserve equal protection by the government!" It was always, 'I am telling the truth' and this deserves defense. He is telling the Roman government to hand down a judgment in his favor on the grounds that he is promoting the truth. See Acts 24, 25, 26.

Okay, but what was Paul's charge? What did the Romans really want from him, once charged? What did the Jews want from him? They didn't want Paul to preach - to share the Gospel. I'm not sure the relevance in this instance to this discussion...
I'd say it is relevant. Follow me and let me know if this makes sense. Since you picked out Paul, tell me, on what grounds should the Christian appeal to the worldly magistrate? Given the r2k it seems quite bizarre to say that a Christian would appeal on the grounds that they are right and God is the Lord. They would make a more "general" appeal to "natural law" our nonspiritual commonalities instead of such explicit references to the truth of Scripture as his case and an appeal for the government to recognize that truth. I don't see that the R2K would remotely be interested in such an appeal as Paul made.

Two quotes from Calvin to conclude...
Quote Calvin if you will, but in practice, Geneva during his ministry and advisory role to the civil rulers could never be called a "principled pluralism."[/QUOTE]

...Calvin would be the first, I believe, to tell you often he caved to social pressures in Geneva, and that was wrong. There was a delicate balance being toed by Calvin in the sphere. We know for example he wanted more communion then he practiced in his church, etc.

Speculation. I can't see how Calvin would back off of his decisions- not one word in his writings have I read that suggests he regretted the decisions he made in serving as an adviser to the civil government of Geneva. Have you any quotes? Likewise, I have similar doubts for his contemporaries. Nor do I think that the rest of Reformed history (up until 19th century America) "caved" and I doubt they would recognize their positions and actions as "wrong."
 
Matthew,

DVD often suggest these works as a start:

Martin Luther, “Temporal Authority,” vol.45 in Luther’s Works ($15 used at Amazon)
John Calvin, Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 2 12&13 and Book 4, Chapter 20 (Especially sections 1 and 2)
Church of Scotland, Second Book of Discipline, Chapter 1
Francis Turretin, Institutes, 2.486–90; 3.278–81
George Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, Book 2, Chapter 5
Wilhelmus a Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1.561–66
Stuart Robinson, The Church of God, (Epecially pp. 84–86)
Darryl Hart, A Secular Faith, ($18 at Amazon)
David VanDrunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law, Chapter 3 ($6 at the Acton Institute)
David VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms: A Reassessment of the Transformationist Calvin,” Calvin Theological Journal 40 (Nov 2005): 248–66.
David VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms Doctrine and the Relationship of Church and State in the Early Reformed Tradition,” Journal of Church and State 49 (Autumn 2007): 743–63.

For me, I would begin with Robinson. I think you can still get it from the OPC website.

I would also recommend PCA pastor Preston Graham's "A Kingdom Not of This World" about the life of Stuart Robinson. Here is a snippet of Graham on Robinson:

“Whereas individuals are encouraged to invest themselves in ‘things civil,’ the church, as a visible and constitutional organization, ought to be exclusively concerned for ‘things spiritual.’ This apolitical church resists the marginalization of theology and its subsequent realignment around a cultural agenda. The modern apolitical church serves to proclaim a gospel that transcends social restructuring, macroeconomics and political theory…even by Robinson’s own admission and practice, the line distinguishing things sacred from things secular is not always easy to discern, especially in the messiness associated with congregational life in general, especially when her people are called to participate in the world without being of the world. And yet this didn’t eliminate the responsibility of the church to draw the line all the same as from where scripture speaks and where it is left to human wisdom…His polemic was against the church confusing a political agenda after a reading of one or another political or social theory rather than agenda that still holds to things pertaining to God and faith as important in their own right. For example, such a church might preach justice, albeit to congregates who perhaps endorse opposing theories for the accomplishment of justice as derived from the social, economic, legal, and political sciences. Such a church may foster in its people works of mercy directed toward those who are needy, as an expression of true Christian love and witness, and yet be silent as to which particular program for accomplishing mercy is necessarily preferable given one or another reading of city planning….Robinson’s Scoto-American idea of the church would be distinguished as the ‘mediatorial body of Christ’ acting as an agent of special grace for God the Redeemer, in contrast with acting as an agent of common grace along with the state for God as creator.”

Also, Calvin's Institutes 4:20.14 "As I have undertaken to describe the laws by which Christian polity is to be governed, there is no reason to expect from me a long discussion on the best kind of laws. The subject is of vast extent, and belongs not to this place. I will only briefly observe, in passing, what the laws are which may be piously used with reference to God, and duly administered among men. This I would rather have passed in silence, were I not aware that many dangerous errors are here committed. For there are some who deny that any commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations. How perilous and seditious these views are, let others see: for me it is enough to demonstrate that they are stupid and false."

Calvin cannot fit into a theonomist or R2k position. All sides can find things they agree and disagree in Calvin on these matters, so any attempt to claim him completely on one side or another is misguided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top