God of the Mundane, my Heidelblog review

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
I think we need a recovery of previous reformations. Ones in which the law was preached without apology. Holiness of life was emphasized. Psalms were sung with grace in the heart. The magistrate was told they were accountable to God and that "Same-sex unions" weren't dandy.

Clark and I are on the same page on politics. Telling the magistrate he is accountable to God is ambiguous. What I think you are saying is that the magistrate should enforce the first table of the law. I think that is problematic, but that's for another thread. Both Clark and I reject same sex unions. Not sure why that even entered the discussion.
 

MChase

Puritan Board Freshman
Clark and I are on the same page on politics. Telling the magistrate he is accountable to God is ambiguous. What I think you are saying is that the magistrate should enforce the first table of the law. I think that is problematic, but that's for another thread. Both Clark and I reject same sex unions. Not sure why that even entered the discussion.

Horton was arguing for same-sex unions before it was on the democratic platform. It is not entirely out of left field.

Fair enough to say that the magistrate shouldn't enforce the first table. But in that case not even the American revisions can save the "recover the reformed confession" line.
 

PuritanCovenanter

The Joyful Curmudgeon
Staff member
Logically the second table is nothing without the first. There is no basis for the second if isn't attached to the first. Natural Law is another problem. I am not looking for Eutopia on earth. I am just praying what the Lord said to pray, "Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven." I don't understand what God is doing but I am sure it will be good.
 

MChase

Puritan Board Freshman
Logically the second table is nothing without the first. There is no basis for the second if isn't attached to the first. Natural Law is another problem. I am not looking for Eutopia on earth. I am just praying what the Lord said to pray, "Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven." I don't understand what God is doing but I am sure it will be good.

The push for the recovery for natural law is ironic. I’m all for natural law. Natural law teaches that blasphemers and idolators are to be restrained and punished.

Anyway, I know another thread…
 

PuritanCovenanter

The Joyful Curmudgeon
Staff member
I find it amazing how polarizing some of these issues are. Historically Recovering the Reformed Confessions won't look the same for each generation as our Standards are attacked. The Standards do a good job teaching and influencing us in our regeneration. Little foxes.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Horton was arguing for same-sex unions before it was on the democratic platform. It is not entirely out of left field.

Fair enough to say that the magistrate shouldn't enforce the first table. But in that case not even the American revisions can save the "recover the reformed confession" line.

And Horton is wrong on that. And Clark has come out repeatedly against homosexuality. I don't really know what else to say.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
Matthew 11:12: "the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."

Watson: "The earth is inherited by the meek, Matt. 5:5. Heaven is inherited by the violent. Our life is military, Christ is our captain, the gospel is the banner, the graces are our spiritual artillery, and Heaven is only taken in a forcible way."
Thomas Watson, The Christian Soldier, or Heaven Taken by Storm, ed. Armstrong, Second American Edition. (New York: Robert Moore, 1816), 12–13.

I think some modern Reformed men would have a heart-attack to hear that. But this is how the Puritans wrote. They saw Christian spirituality as all-consuming. Going to war with your sin and seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, preaching to you that without holiness no man can expect to see the Lord, etc.

But all by the grace of God. They would call us to be spiritually exercised and to have vital religion.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Matthew 11:12: "the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."

Watson: "The earth is inherited by the meek, Matt. 5:5. Heaven is inherited by the violent. Our life is military, Christ is our captain, the gospel is the banner, the graces are our spiritual artillery, and Heaven is only taken in a forcible way."
Thomas Watson, The Christian Soldier, or Heaven Taken by Storm, ed. Armstrong, Second American Edition. (New York: Robert Moore, 1816), 12–13.

I think some modern Reformed men would have a heart-attack to hear that. But this is how the Puritans wrote. They saw Christian spirituality as all-consuming. Going to war with your sin and seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, preaching to you that without holiness no man can expect to see the Lord, etc.

But all by the grace of God. They would call us to be spiritually exercised and to have vital religion.

All of that I agree with. That's not what the "radical" camp within evangelicalism is saying. They, not having good Reformed categories, are often adding to God's word.
 

darrellmaurina

Puritan Board Freshman
I find it amazing how polarizing some of these issues are. Historically Recovering the Reformed Confessions won't look the same for each generation as our Standards are attacked. The Standards do a good job teaching and influencing us in our regeneration. Little foxes.
Nice to see your comments again, Randy. I haven't been on the Puritan Board for many years but saw this link on Dr. Clark's Heidelblog and decided to click it.

I read Piper's sermon long ago and didn't have a serious problem with it. I've since read Dr. Clark's repeated criticisms of the sermon, not only this one but earlier ones, and I think he may have something of a point. However, we do have a serious problem in the American church world with lukewarmness, and I think the Puritans had better solutions for the problem than Piper.

I also think Piper would be among the very first to say he is a tiny candle flickering in the wind compared to the fiery wrath of the Puritans against the half-hearted Christian.

Perhaps Piper has the wrong approach to the problem in the modern church of backsliding and half-heartedness. Perhaps he's more Baptist than Reformed when it comes to how we should live our lives. Grant all the criticisms against Piper.

The problems of lukewarmness, half-heartedness, and backsliding remain. If Piper is the wrong medicine, fine.

But let's not pretend the problems don't exist.
 

bookish_Basset

Puritan Board Freshman
I wonder if some are reacting to different things when they hear the Piper sermon (which admittedly shocked me, though I admit I didn't hear the entire thing, just clips) and language like it. I think I might be, at any rate.

I don't hear the criticisms of the Piper sermon, etc., as being criticisms of a Puritan view of holiness and the soul's warfare at all. If only more preached like the Puritans.

I think I'm reacting against an attitude in broader evangelicalism that talks about such warfare in what sounds like almost worldly terms to my ears -- that the outward things of a Christian's life necessarily indicate how sold out they are. That what's going on in their heart is obvious almost at a glance. To me, the daily fight for holiness is so often subtle and quiet amid the ordinary things of life. That doesn't mean it isn't warfare, and the outward ordinariness of life shouldn't be equated with lukewarmness -- something I've always taken to be key to a Reformed view of these things.

I'm also not a church officer, of course, and I'm very limited in what I actually see week by week.
 

LilyG

Puritan Board Freshman
Horton was arguing for same-sex unions before it was on the democratic platform. It is not entirely out of left field.

Fair enough to say that the magistrate shouldn't enforce the first table. But in that case not even the American revisions can save the "recover the reformed confession" line.

You mean Michael Horton?
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
Yes. He wrote, "I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security."

It might have been scrubbed off of the current WH Inn / Modern Reformation site (at least, I could not find it again). But it is preserved on archive.org:

Yeah, he wrote that. I was a palled when he did, but it was strangely consistent with his lutheran two kingdoms perspective.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
A point of clarification: so-called Lutheran twokingdoms is not the same as the Reformed twofold kingdom.

Both Dr Clark and I endorse, albeit with some qualification, Althusius's model in Politica.

I outlined Althusius here.
 

Scottish Presbyterian

Puritan Board Freshman
Andrew Sandlin at the Ezra Institute.
Almost every Gary North book on eschatology.
Most of Gary Demar's stuff at American Vision.
Thanks, I'm not overly familiar with present day postmillennialism in the US - seems to be rooted in different theology to the postmillennialism of the Scottish Reformation, the Puritans and their successors.
 

danekristjan

Puritan Board Freshman
A point of clarification: so-called Lutheran twokingdoms is not the same as the Reformed twofold kingdom.

Both Dr Clark and I endorse, albeit with some qualification, Althusius's model in Politica.

I outlined Althusius here.
The language of two kingdoms is certainly not unique in the reformed tradition. The issue I think people are pointing to is the modern interpretation and application of that language. The reformed spoke of two kingdoms, both ruled by and subject to the same Christ, and therefore saw the church and the magistrate as partners in the same goal, bringing all things into subjection of Christ Jesus. Some modern men appear to see a radical distinction and separation between church and state that the reformed did not see.

"God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good; and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."
WCF 22.1 & 3
 

danekristjan

Puritan Board Freshman
Notice, in 22.3, the magistrate may not rule the church (just as the church does not rule the magistrate), but nonetheless, the magistrate is subject to the same Christ as the church and it is it's duty to uphold and support the propagation of the gospel through the church.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Thanks, I'm not overly familiar with present day postmillennialism in the US - seems to be rooted in different theology to the postmillennialism of the Scottish Reformation, the Puritans and their successors.

That is correct. They are almost entirely preterist and if not theonomic, close to it.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
This quote from AA Hodge's lecture on the kingdom of Christ sums up the classically reformed view well.

View attachment 9115

I'm generally okay with that. My question, and this might be for another thread, is will be prosecute Lutherans and Baptists? I haven't gotten a straight answer in the past. Our Reformed forebears did have a very specific answer (yes) to that question.
 

danekristjan

Puritan Board Freshman
It is therefore the duty of the church to speak "prophetically" to the magistrate, calling them to repentance when necessary, and reminding them of their duty to uphold the law of God, who is their rightful King. I.e., the quote Clark gives in that blog post, "James, you are the subject of Christ's kingdom."
 

MChase

Puritan Board Freshman
A point of clarification: so-called Lutheran twokingdoms is not the same as the Reformed twofold kingdom.

Both Dr Clark and I endorse, albeit with some qualification, Althusius's model in Politica.

I outlined Althusius here.

Hardly anyone denies that there is a twofold kingdom, so the quotes here aren't really helpful. Even if you grant that the extent of Christ's mediatorial reign is only over the church, you end up with Gillespie and Boston not Van Drunen and Horton. Contra the NCTers, the Law of Christ and the Law of God are coextensive - first table and all. Recovering the language of 'two kingdoms' as some sort of reformed shell without the substance of what they taught was the magistrate's duty circa sacra is almost entirely pointless.
 

MChase

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm generally okay with that. My question, and this might be for another thread, is will be prosecute Lutherans and Baptists? I haven't gotten a straight answer in the past. Our Reformed forebears did have a very specific answer (yes) to that question.

The free church upheld the establishment principle and disavowed persecution principles. So you're gonna get different answers on that. All agreed that some sort of all encompassing religious free for all was not it though.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Hardly anyone denies that there is a twofold kingdom, so the quotes here aren't really helpful. Even if you grant that the extent of Christ's mediatorial reign is only over the church, you end up with Gillespie and Boston not Van Drunen and Horton. Contra the NCTers, the Law of Christ and the Law of God are coextensive - first table and all. Recovering the language of 'two kingdoms' as some sort of reformed shell without the substance of what they taught was the magistrate's duty circa sacra is almost entirely pointless.

We're putting a bunch of issues into one. I'm not NCT, so I don't know why that was brought up. Yes, I know Gillespie upheld the establishment principle. But I don't see how you can have the establishment principle without some form of religious proscribing, if not outright persecuting.

I'm not on the same page as Horton on this point.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
It is therefore the duty of the church to speak "prophetically" to the magistrate, calling them to repentance when necessary, and reminding them of their duty to uphold the law of God, who is their rightful King. I.e., the quote Clark gives in that blog post, "James, you are the subject of Christ's kingdom."

I agree. The only problem with ambiguous phrases like "uphold the law of God" is that it can mean anything from Christian Reconstructionism to only upholding the second table.
 

danekristjan

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm generally okay with that. My question, and this might be for another thread, is will be prosecute Lutherans and Baptists? I haven't gotten a straight answer in the past. Our Reformed forebears did have a very specific answer (yes) to that question.
That's a great question, which as was pointed out, you will get many different answers to.
 

MChase

Puritan Board Freshman
I agree. The only problem with ambiguous phrases like "uphold the law of God" is that it can mean anything from Christian Reconstructionism to only upholding the second table.

Not really. It's a rather strange idea to suggest that you can have all out idolatry and expect to preserve marriage and the family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top