Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
You probably knew by the title that this was going to be an interesting thread. I imagine too that in our political climate people are going to start asking questions about topics addressed in this post anyway.
I suppose inevitably this will end with some debate in mediatorial dominion, but I'll put up with it ready enough.
So far as I understand mediatorial dominion, here's what I've got down, and I subscribe to by Scripture: Christ in reward for His obedience was given as the God-man all authority in heaven and in earth, meaning He has become the appointed ruler of all things in heaven and in earth, including nations. According to Mt 28 this was given to Him. So government which is ordained of God in nature is now governed by God through the God-man, and all other things too. Christ rules all things for the good of the church (Ephesians 1), and without this dominion He would not have authority to give eternal life to the elect (Jn 17:2). All nations have a duty to covenant with Christ ("kiss the Son" per Psalm 2), meaning to swear allegiance, and pattern their laws after God's law. I agree.
Been browsing some old threads, and I discover that Rutherford and Gillespie did not hold to the doctrine of mediatorial dominion. First question, what did they hold to instead? I get the impression that perhaps they held a similar view. How is theirs distinct?
Another question has come up in this discussion of the legitimacy of a government that does not acknowledge Christ, or is founded on anti-Christian principles. So that would make, say, Islamic governments to be illegitimate since the very constitution of their government is against Christ. By default the Islamic government is a terror to good, they as inferior magistrates are acting against their supreme magistrate Christ, thus a Sharia government threatens its own ability to claim obedience for conscience sake. This would basically mean the so-called authority of an Islamic government to be null and void, and a Christian obeys for other reasons that do not draw from the authority of the government itself.
For example, a Christian living under Sharia law won't abstain from thievery because there's a civil law against it and because the magistracy enforces it, but because it is God's law he does not steal--but he does not obey the Islamic government for conscience sake. So he gives no countenance at all to the sham authority of an Islamic government. Though, in a lawful government there would be two reasons to abstain: one is because God condemns it, and because he is disobeying a legitimate minister of God who does rule to reward good and terrorize evil, and thus must obey that government for conscience sake. This seems to be the view of William Symington and Samuel Wylie.
There's an advantage to that view: it puts a real, definite border around the authority of a government, and it tells the government that God's law is the strict rule, and that they have no more authority than what they receive from God by His law. Anything beyond is wicked. The enforcement of God's law then becomes the substance of terrorizing evildoers and rewarding the good. Also, in such a view the Christian's conscience is not bound to tyranny, and a Christian should not fear that God judges him a sinner for not submitting to tyrannical laws.
But how does a Christian act in that kind of society? If he lives under an illegitimate government, then no law of the country is binding on him--not even the speed limit. I would imagine a real Christian will consider what he will do in light of maintaining peace with his neighbors, like Christ paying a tax which he was not subject to. So for the speed limit, he might still obey it simply for keeping peace And safety. What ultimately checks such a view from anarchy? Would it be Christ and the temple tax?
One thought I have is of 1 Peter 2. The submission in this passage is "for the Lord's sake", not necessarily the government's; he ropes in the activities of the government by the same qualifications as Paul (terror to evil, rewarder of good), and even when living under an oppressive government, the Christian accounts for what the governors and common people are going to think of his actions. So for example, a Christian might say the tax rates are exorbitant and unjust, and may argue that he is really being robbed, yet for the sake of testimony before governors and neighbors (and not because that government really binds him), he'll calculate and pay his taxes just as the government expects he would. In this way, a Christian "puts to silence the ignorance of foolish men", acts as one who is free in v. 16, acts as a servant of God by keeping a good name for his Lord, and is far from using his freedom as a cloak for maliciousness.
Last question, is the evaluation of the legitimacy of a government part-and-parcel of mediatorial dominion?
Thoughts all welcome.
I suppose inevitably this will end with some debate in mediatorial dominion, but I'll put up with it ready enough.
So far as I understand mediatorial dominion, here's what I've got down, and I subscribe to by Scripture: Christ in reward for His obedience was given as the God-man all authority in heaven and in earth, meaning He has become the appointed ruler of all things in heaven and in earth, including nations. According to Mt 28 this was given to Him. So government which is ordained of God in nature is now governed by God through the God-man, and all other things too. Christ rules all things for the good of the church (Ephesians 1), and without this dominion He would not have authority to give eternal life to the elect (Jn 17:2). All nations have a duty to covenant with Christ ("kiss the Son" per Psalm 2), meaning to swear allegiance, and pattern their laws after God's law. I agree.
Been browsing some old threads, and I discover that Rutherford and Gillespie did not hold to the doctrine of mediatorial dominion. First question, what did they hold to instead? I get the impression that perhaps they held a similar view. How is theirs distinct?
Another question has come up in this discussion of the legitimacy of a government that does not acknowledge Christ, or is founded on anti-Christian principles. So that would make, say, Islamic governments to be illegitimate since the very constitution of their government is against Christ. By default the Islamic government is a terror to good, they as inferior magistrates are acting against their supreme magistrate Christ, thus a Sharia government threatens its own ability to claim obedience for conscience sake. This would basically mean the so-called authority of an Islamic government to be null and void, and a Christian obeys for other reasons that do not draw from the authority of the government itself.
For example, a Christian living under Sharia law won't abstain from thievery because there's a civil law against it and because the magistracy enforces it, but because it is God's law he does not steal--but he does not obey the Islamic government for conscience sake. So he gives no countenance at all to the sham authority of an Islamic government. Though, in a lawful government there would be two reasons to abstain: one is because God condemns it, and because he is disobeying a legitimate minister of God who does rule to reward good and terrorize evil, and thus must obey that government for conscience sake. This seems to be the view of William Symington and Samuel Wylie.
There's an advantage to that view: it puts a real, definite border around the authority of a government, and it tells the government that God's law is the strict rule, and that they have no more authority than what they receive from God by His law. Anything beyond is wicked. The enforcement of God's law then becomes the substance of terrorizing evildoers and rewarding the good. Also, in such a view the Christian's conscience is not bound to tyranny, and a Christian should not fear that God judges him a sinner for not submitting to tyrannical laws.
But how does a Christian act in that kind of society? If he lives under an illegitimate government, then no law of the country is binding on him--not even the speed limit. I would imagine a real Christian will consider what he will do in light of maintaining peace with his neighbors, like Christ paying a tax which he was not subject to. So for the speed limit, he might still obey it simply for keeping peace And safety. What ultimately checks such a view from anarchy? Would it be Christ and the temple tax?
One thought I have is of 1 Peter 2. The submission in this passage is "for the Lord's sake", not necessarily the government's; he ropes in the activities of the government by the same qualifications as Paul (terror to evil, rewarder of good), and even when living under an oppressive government, the Christian accounts for what the governors and common people are going to think of his actions. So for example, a Christian might say the tax rates are exorbitant and unjust, and may argue that he is really being robbed, yet for the sake of testimony before governors and neighbors (and not because that government really binds him), he'll calculate and pay his taxes just as the government expects he would. In this way, a Christian "puts to silence the ignorance of foolish men", acts as one who is free in v. 16, acts as a servant of God by keeping a good name for his Lord, and is far from using his freedom as a cloak for maliciousness.
Last question, is the evaluation of the legitimacy of a government part-and-parcel of mediatorial dominion?
Thoughts all welcome.
