Mediatorial Dominion, Rutherford, Gillespie, Legitimacy of Gov't

[Jeri Tanner]

The Westminster STandards specifically condemn the idea that kings lose their legitimacy by being of the wrong faith/bad morals.

Yes I know and I agree. I’m asking whether holding to the Mediatorial kingship view tends to work itself out contrary to the spirit of the standards, in practice at least, amongst those who hold to it. Regarding voting, running for public office, etc. (Gillespie would never have envisioned our Republic/democratic form of government.)

 

[RamistThomist]

I’m asking whether holding to the Mediatorial kingship view tends to work itself out contrary to the spirit of the standards, in practice at least, amongst those who hold to it.

It doesn't have to. I don't see any logical connection. Among some young puppy bloggers, though, it probably does.

 

[earl40]

The Westminster STandards specifically condemn the idea that kings lose their legitimacy by being of the wrong faith/bad morals.

That is true, and why I still call President Trump and former President Obama our Presidents....even though I would never vote for either.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Among some young puppy bloggers.

No, I’m talking about the long-standing history and position of my own denomination, for instance. Which I respect. I am just trying to trace out certain necessary consequences of views of government by those holding to the Mediatorial kingship of Christ.

 

[Solparvus]

Yes I know and I agree. I’m asking whether holding to the Mediatorial kingship view tends to work itself out contrary to the spirit of the standards, in practice at least, amongst those who hold to it. Regarding voting, running for public office, etc. (Gillespie would never have envisioned our Republic/democratic form of government.)

No, I’m talking about the long-standing history and position of my own denomination, for instance. Which I respect. I am just trying to trace out certain necessary consequences of views of government by those holding to the Mediatorial kingship of Christ.

This is probably more an issue of a sinful oath. Can you rightly take an oath to uphold a constitution which essentially says that God is not going to be our God, or we don't have a duty to uphold the moral law of Scripture, or is not founded upon the authority of God but rather "we the people"? And does a Christian sin by voting for someone who will take such an oath? I would think that if you hold to a view like in the original (not revised) WCF, whether MD or nor, you'd have to seriously face the question. It doesn't mean you don't obey the government--only whether you can appoint someone to power who is going to run the show in an anti-Biblical fashion. It's a separate issue though.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Can you rightly take an oath to uphold a constitution which essentially says that God is not going to be our God, or we don't have a duty to uphold the moral law of Scripture, or is not founded upon the authority of God but rather "we the people"? And does a Christian sin by voting for someone who will take such an oath? I would think that if you hold to a view like in the original (not revised) WCF, whether MD or nor, you'd have to seriously face the question. It doesn't mean you don't obey the government--only whether you can appoint someone to power who is going to run the show in an anti-Biblical fashion. It's a separate issue though.

But if a government is seen as legitimate, wouldn’t that open the way to participate as much as one could through voting (where and when one could) and running for public office? I think all this was addressed not so long ago in another thread but mainly here I’m talking about ideas. I don’t see how the legitimacy of a government can then square with a refusal to vote, for instance, even for a non-Christian candidate who might yet do some good in the public arena.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I understand about not taking sinful oaths and vows but after all the RPCNA now allows its members to vote, run for public office, serve in the military, etc.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Reverend Winzer speaks a bit to this issue in a thread with a few posts.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/symingtons-messiah-the-prince-wcf.79041/

Dr. David McKay wrote a piece in a book that is beneficial also. I purchased an audio session that is available at Reformed Resources you can get for a dollar.
From Popery to Principle: Covenanters and the Kingship of Christ David McKay

https://reformedresources.org/from-...ters-and-the-kingship-of-Christ-mp3-download/

 

[Solparvus]

But if a government is seen as legitimate, wouldn’t that open the way to participate as much as one could through voting (where and when one could) and running for public office? I think all this was addressed not so long ago in another thread but mainly here I’m talking about ideas. I don’t see how the legitimacy of a government can then square with a refusal to vote, for instance, even for a non-Christian candidate who might yet do some good in the public arena.

Just one thought, but we might rabbit trail. A government can be legitimate and do sinful things, though it doesn't necessitate that a Christian can participate in any sinful activities the government does. I still have a responsibility to honor and pray for whatever President is in office, though still refuse any activity that is sinful.

I wouldn't know why the RPCNA changed its membership requirements, though I'm not sure the basic stance on voting has changed.

From the Testimony--and it seems the stance of the RPCNA is to discourage voting that favors a sinfully-based constitution, yet participation as far as a good conscience towards God allows:

"The only submission which a Christian may promise to any civil government is due submission in the Lord. Any promise of submission or oath of allegiance beyond this is sin- ful. If and when the civil government of a nation requires, as a condition of civil service or of holding office, an oath which implies that civil alle- giance transcends the swearer’s con- victions of conscience and obedience to God, it is the Christian’s duty to refuse such an oath. It is within the corporate power of the Church, acting through its courts, to declare that facts or circumstances which may exist in a specific situation render the taking of a civil oath sinful."

And...

"29. When participating in political elections, the Christian should sup- port and vote only for such men as are publicly committed to scriptural principles of civil government. Should the Christian seek civil office by politi- cal election, he must openly inform those whose support he seeks of his adherence to Christian principles of civil government."

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Reverend Winzer speaks a bit to this issue in a thread with a few posts.
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/symingtons-messiah-the-prince-wcf.79041/

Dr. David McKay wrote a piece in a book that is beneficial also. I purchased an audio session that is available at Reformed Resources you can get for a dollar.
From Popery to Principle: Covenanters and the Kingship of Christ David McKay

https://reformedresources.org/from-...ters-and-the-kingship-of-Christ-mp3-download/

Yes, some of Rev. Winzer’s writings on it in various threads were helpful (helped me [dimly] see some of the issues at stake). Still struggling to fully comprehend.

 

[Solparvus]

Just a note, with highest respect, I'm kind of hoping not to rabbit trail on voting. It's a good discussion to have, though I'm hoping to keep on the subject of Mediatorial Dominion. I'm up for a separate thread though on it.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Here are a few other resources that might be helpful. Dr. Blackwood first.

The King and His Kingdom (Part 1)
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-king-and-his-kingdom-part-1/

The King and His Kingdom (parts 2-4)

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/the-king-and-his-kingdom-parts-2-4/

This has been very helpful to some of my friends....
Christ the King of All

By Philip H. Pockras, minister
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/Christ-the-king-of-all/



Dr Blackwood speaking on the topic at an Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals Conference, God's Kingdom at War.

I have used both phraseologies One Kingdom and Two Kingdom. They refer to two different sides of a coin as I understand things.

Dr. Jack Kinneer speaks on Two Kingdom theology here.

Dr. Kinneer reveals 3 various views. The Transformationalist view which is one Kingdom, the most recent West Coast view, and then the historical view.
http://www.viewcrestchurch.org/ompodcast/om1002.mp3

 

[Solparvus]

I am late replying because I only just noticed that I was tagged in the post. To be honest, I think the whole argument is largely a storm in a teacup, but, to be fair, George Gillespie's arguments against the potential abuse of mediatorial kingship are useful if only to serve as a reminder not to go too far in a certain direction.

The problem that I have always had with Gillespie's position is that it does not sit well with a disinterested exegesis of scripture. Hence, most contemporary arguments that I have read in defence of his views on this issue seem to be traditionalist, rather than biblical in nature.

Would you be willing to elaborate on the emboldened parts?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Last question, is the evaluation of the legitimacy of a government part-and-parcel of mediatorial dominion?

This is the last sentence of your OP, and I think it does come down to this (and that questions of participation through voting and holding elected office seem connected to the answer of the question but I understand not going down that trail). If I understand church history correctly, your question here was the very issue that kept the Society People (Cameronians, remnants of which later became the RP Church) from joining with the established Church after the Revolution Settlement. I would like a very definitive answer to your question also!

 

[Solparvus]

This is the last sentence of your OP, and I think it does come down to this (and that questions of participation through voting and holding elected office seem connected to the answer of the question but I understand not going down that trail). If I understand church history correctly, your question here was the very issue that kept the Society People (Cameronians, remnants of which later became the RP Church) from joining with the established Church after the Revolution Settlement. I would like a very definitive answer to your question also!

My concern was more along the lines of, when does a government become illegitimate, so that the laws are no longer binding? Symington indicates quite clearly there are circumstances when governments lose their authority, and you only have duty only so far as the laws themselves are moral, or adjoining you to do what God has already commanded you. Like a thief who takes over your house and commands you to fear God.

Whether MD or not, many seem to have conceded that there are cases in which the government has so dreadfully abused its power and done such terrible harm in opposite of the true intent of their office, that citizens have the right to revolution (addressed in another thread). Samuel Rutherford (a Westminster divine, no less), from what little I understand of Lex Rex, seems to have believed such cases existed. If there is a right of revolution, there is a right to disobedience. Knox clearly believed this was the case in Scotland. But I'd like to know too if this is a real extent of the doctrine of MD.

From my own look at Scripture, and some other reading, it must be in the extreme before a government loses its just and legal authority.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Would you be willing to elaborate on the emboldened parts?

Both parties confess that Christ is Lord over the state, so, in practical terms, it makes or should make very little difference. It is only when mediatorial kingship is taken to illogical extremes, which I mentioned in an earlier post, that it becomes problematic. But as I said in an earlier post, seeing mediatorial kingship as an example of grace perfecting nature corrects these excesses.

As for exegesis, what I mean is that I have rarely seen apologists for George Gillespie's position seriously grapple with the exegetical arguments that the likes of William Symington made in support of his view. Instead, all too often, mediatorial kingship is rejected on the basis of Erastian appropriations of the concept, rather than because the specific appropriation of MK advocated by Symington and others is exegetically mistaken.

 

[Solparvus]

Thanks all for the links and resources provided. Been doing some more reading, and doing some comparison.

In the end, I see little difference between Gillespie and what I understand to be Mediatorial Dominion. It seems like there's really one key difference: Does Christ rule the kingdom of power only as essential God, or as God-Man Mediator? I have to think that Gillespie and Symington would agree on much more than they disagree in reference to Christ's rulership over the kingdom of power. In the end, both say that Christ rules the kingdom of power not in order to give the benefits of redemption to the unconverted/non-elect or to rule the nations as a church-state of some kind, but that all things may work together for the good the church. I don't get the impression from anyone that I've read who espouses MD that Christ has essentially changed the function of civil governments from external enforcement of God's law by reward and punishment to a more church-state model.

So far, the thing that tips me in favor of the MD view saying that the God-man--and not just Christ as essential God--is king over the kingdom of power is 1) it seems to be the natural reading of the supporting texts since the giving is to Christ as He is God-man and not God essential, and 2) (I have some fear my language and conceptions might fall short) it feels like you must somehow divide up the person of Christ to say that as God essential He rules one kingdom, but as God-man Mediator he rules another--or, it seems to split up His personhood.

WLC 41, His God nature and man nature are in one person so that the works done according to each nature might be counted as that of the whole and singular person. Ruling as only essential God in NT times seems like it would bifurcate His person between two realms. That, and though He is fully God, it doesn't seem we are ever meant to conceive of Christ in His God nature only since the incarnation. The God-Man is forever His identity to us, all revelation in the NT ties His personhood to it, and all Christ does is in His tri-fold Mediatorial office. It doesn't seem the rulership over the nations is an exception.

Does Christ have all knowledge as essential God? Yes. But what answer would a glorified saint get from The Second Person if he asked about the date of the Second Coming? "Only the Father knows". Will anyone--man or angel--ever hear Christ say, "I as God am essentially equal to my Father", or will He always say, "My Father is greater than I"? There seems to be no manner in the New Testament where Christ as person acts apart from His work as God-Man and all that it entails. Why then rule the nations as essential God only?

But also, would we rather that Christ ruled the nations only as essential God, or as God-man? I would rather the latter anyway. As God-Man He took on our condition, that according to WLC 39 the Mediator must be man so that He "might have a fellow feeling of our infirmities." All His human experience goes into His rule as Priest-King. Wouldn't it be all the more to the advantage of the church He purchased if He rules the nations for our sakes as that same compassionate and sympathetic God-man? Edit: Not only that, but as one to whom we are united, and whose seed we are?

(Edit addition): But if He does it apart from His God-Man Mediatorial office, And yet He rules all things for the sake of the church (Eph 1:21-23), then you have a situation where He seeks to bless His church yet apart from the God-Man Mediatorial office that was initially appointed for that end. If He rules the nations for the sake of His church apart from God-Man nature and related offices, wouldn't that lead to ruling His church (WLC 45 on kingship "restraining and overcoming all their enemies") in some capacity apart from the Covenant of Grace as well? Why do it apart from the office and the union of natures meant for the good of the church?

Fully open to corrections. These are high ideas, and I fear going into speculations, though I think I am still talking in reference to things that are revealed, or inferring from revealed things. But neither am I an expert-trained or seasoned theologian.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Here’s another short little thread with some good comments including from Rev Winzer. It highlights some of the agreement between these men. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/symingtons-messiah-the-prince-wcf.79041/

 

[jwright82]

Thanks all for the links and resources provided. Been doing some more reading, and doing some comparison.

In the end, I see little difference between Gillespie and what I understand to be Mediatorial Dominion. It seems like there's really one key difference: Does Christ rule the kingdom of power only as essential God, or as God-Man Mediator? I have to think that Gillespie and Symington would agree on much more than they disagree in reference to Christ's rulership over the kingdom of power. In the end, both say that Christ rules the kingdom of power not in order to give the benefits of redemption to the unconverted/non-elect or to rule the nations as a church-state of some kind, but that all things may work together for the good the church. I don't get the impression from anyone that I've read who espouses MD that Christ has essentially changed the function of civil governments from external enforcement of God's law by reward and punishment to a more church-state model.

So far, the thing that tips me in favor of the MD view saying that the God-man--and not just Christ as essential God--is king over the kingdom of power is 1) it seems to be the natural reading of the supporting texts since the giving is to Christ as He is God-man and not God essential, and 2) (I have some fear my language and conceptions might fall short) it feels like you must somehow divide up the person of Christ to say that as God essential He rules one kingdom, but as God-man Mediator he rules another--or, it seems to split up His personhood.

WLC 41, His God nature and man nature are in one person so that the works done according to each nature might be counted as that of the whole and singular person. Ruling as only essential God in NT times seems like it would bifurcate His person between two realms. That, and though He is fully God, it doesn't seem we are ever meant to conceive of Christ in His God nature only since the incarnation. The God-Man is forever His identity to us, all revelation in the NT ties His personhood to it, and all Christ does is in His tri-fold Mediatorial office. It doesn't seem the rulership over the nations is an exception.

Does Christ have all knowledge as essential God? Yes. But what answer would a glorified saint get from The Second Person if he asked about the date of the Second Coming? "Only the Father knows". Will anyone--man or angel--ever hear Christ say, "I as God am essentially equal to my Father", or will He always say, "My Father is greater than I"? There seems to be no manner in the New Testament where Christ as person acts apart from His work as God-Man and all that it entails. Why then rule the nations as essential God only?

But also, would we rather that Christ ruled the nations only as essential God, or as God-man? I would rather the latter anyway. As God-Man He took on our condition, that according to WLC 39 the Mediator must be man so that He "might have a fellow feeling of our infirmities." All His human experience goes into His rule as Priest-King. Wouldn't it be all the more to the advantage of the church He purchased if He rules the nations for our sakes as that same compassionate and sympathetic God-man? Edit: Not only that, but as one to whom we are united, and whose seed we are?

(Edit addition): But if He does it apart from His God-Man Mediatorial office, And yet He rules all things for the sake of the church (Eph 1:21-23), then you have a situation where He seeks to bless His church yet apart from the God-Man Mediatorial office that was initially appointed for that end. If He rules the nations for the sake of His church apart from God-Man nature and related offices, wouldn't that lead to ruling His church (WLC 45 on kingship "restraining and overcoming all their enemies") in some capacity apart from the Covenant of Grace as well? Why do it apart from the office and the union of natures meant for the good of the church?

Fully open to corrections. These are high ideas, and I fear going into speculations, though I think I am still talking in reference to things that are revealed, or inferring from revealed things. But neither am I an expert-trained or seasoned theologian.

What exactly is the practical difference between the two views? Can I say that Christ rules both kingdoms in whatever fashion or does one way of ruling commit me to certian practical expectation of what the state does? In other words does a view of him ruling as God/man or God only make me a theonomist or a R2K guy practically speaking?

 

[RamistThomist]

What exactly is the practical difference between the two views? Can I say that Christ rules both kingdoms in whatever fashion or does one way of ruling commit me to certian practical expectation of what the state does? In other words does a view of him ruling as God/man or God only make me a theonomist or a R2K guy practically speaking?

Neither one is R2K, and as R2K guys admit, natural law was always seen as fairly theocratic. The tendency for the mediatorial view is to remove any natural law element and see non-Christian rulers are almost not legitimate. I say tendency.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The tendency for the mediatorial view is to remove any natural law element and see non-Christian rulers are almost not legitimate. I say tendency.

I am going to start a thread on a related subject soon (DV). More along the lines of how different people adhering to MK come to different conclusions about what the position entails. Bear with me in the meantime, as I am struggling to figure out how to frame the question.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

“See Matthew Hutchison's Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, 206-208, where he gives the difference between the Secession and the Reformed Presbytery. The issue basically comes down to the being and well-being distinction.

‘Both held that the civil authorities in Christian states are bound to have respect to the Word of God and the interest of the Kingdom of Christ in all their laws and administration, and that God had laid down in His Word certain qualifications that magistrates ruling over a Christian people should possess: but they differed as to the place to be assigned to these qualifications. Seceders maintained that a “due measure of those qualifications was essential not to the being and validity of the magistratical office, but to its well-being and usefulness:” while the Presbytery maintained that these qualifications were essential to the being of a lawful Christian magistracy.’ “

https://puritanboard.com/threads/mediatorial-kingship-mediator.92064/#post-1125324

(Only posting this because I’m also trying to get a firm grasp of the issues.)

 

[jwright82]

Neither one is R2K, and as R2K guys admit, natural law was always seen as fairly theocratic. The tendency for the mediatorial view is to remove any natural law element and see non-Christian rulers are almost not legitimate. I say tendency.

Yeah I've always known that about the two kingdom view but at least there willing to admit that they are reworking the ideas for our current socio-political claimant. I've always loved Luther's quip about "rather living under a just Turk over a tyrannical christian".

 

[Solparvus]

What exactly is the practical difference between the two views? Can I say that Christ rules both kingdoms in whatever fashion or does one way of ruling commit me to certian practical expectation of what the state does? In other words does a view of him ruling as God/man or God only make me a theonomist or a R2K guy practically speaking?

Talking with my Pr, Gillespie would probably agree with a good deal of what MD's believe. I think too they would have similar ramifications. Both believe the Decalogue to be the proper basis of national law. Gillespie was debating a breed of MD which bordered on Erastianism, that I don't think most hold to today. I don't.

“See Matthew Hutchison's Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, 206-208, where he gives the difference between the Secession and the Reformed Presbytery. The issue basically comes down to the being and well-being distinction.

‘Both held that the civil authorities in Christian states are bound to have respect to the Word of God and the interest of the Kingdom of Christ in all their laws and administration, and that God had laid down in His Word certain qualifications that magistrates ruling over a Christian people should possess: but they differed as to the place to be assigned to these qualifications. Seceders maintained that a “due measure of those qualifications was essential not to the being and validity of the magistratical office, but to its well-being and usefulness:” while the Presbytery maintained that these qualifications were essential to the being of a lawful Christian magistracy.’ “

https://puritanboard.com/threads/mediatorial-kingship-mediator.92064/#post-1125324

(Only posting this because I’m also trying to get a firm grasp of the issues.)

Have you read Symington's Messiah the Prince? Great help to me.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Have you read Symington's Messiah the Prince? Great help to me.

I have not, remiss of me! I need to do so.

 

[Solparvus]

I have not, remiss of me! I need to do so.

Highly recommended. Excellent explanation of the position. Certain book salesman like @Reformed Bookworm might know exactly where to buy from

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Highly recommended. Excellent explanation of the position. Certain book salesman like @Reformed Bookworm might know exactly where to buy from

A standard on the topic.
https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...orial-dominion-of-Jesus-Christ-symington.html

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Have you read Symington's Messiah the Prince?

Highly recommended. Excellent explanation of the position.

A standard on the topic.

I have not heard of this book before but it has sparked my interest Just a couple of questions:

1. Does this book promote Christ's Mediatorial Dominion and Kingship with a similar emphasis to the Scottish Covenanters?
2. I notice the edition sold by RHB has 242 pages whereas the older editions have over 460 pages. Has the new edition been abridged? If so in what way?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Does this book promote Christ's Mediatorial Dominion and Kingship with a similar emphasis to the Scottish Covenanters?

William Symington was a minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland, so he is writing as someone within the Covenanter tradition. Various earlier Covenanters such as George Gillespie and Alexander Henderson took a different view of the subject of mediatorial kingship. Hence, the later Reformed Presbyterian view should not be identified as the Covenanter position on the subject.

I notice the edition sold by RHB has 242 pages whereas the older editions have over 460 pages. Has the new edition been abridged? If so in what way?

If that edition is the one that I am thinking of (published by Christian Statesman Press or something like that), then it is not an abridged version but one with smaller print to the earlier editions.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

William Symington was a minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland, so he is writing as someone within the Covenanter tradition. Various earlier Covenanters such as George Gillespie and Alexander Henderson took a different view of the subject of mediatorial kingship. Hence, the later Reformed Presbyterian view should not be identified as the Covenanter position on the subject.

Thank you. That is informative. You said Symington is writing within the Covenanter tradition then later mentioned the later Reformed view and that "the later Reformed Presbyterian view should not be identified as the Covenanter position ..." Are you saying there are legitimate positions on this within the broader Covenanter position?

If that edition is the one that I am thinking of (published by Christian Statesman Press or something like that), then it is not an abridged version but one with smaller print to the earlier editions.

The edition mentioned above at the Reformation Heritage Books is the edition published by Crown & Covenant Publications.