Church and State
Filed Under (Antichrist, history, postmillennialism, worldview) by Mike Bull on 13-07-2009
Tagged Under : postmillennialism, theonomy
or Theonomy in the Bible
“…instead of Moses and Aaron challenging the powers that be, we have Herodian preachers crying “Peace, peace” when there is no peace. Nathan is not qualified to confront David because Nathan himself has been sleeping around.”
In his post Christianity as Comprehensive Cultural Tribunal?, timsmartt questions the validity of philosophy’s self-appointed role as an unbiased cultural referee and wonders whether Christianity should take that role:
In this central chapter of his well-known work [Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature], Richard Rorty rejects a dominant conception of philosophy and gestures towards his own vision of what philosophers ought to be doing with their time. Ever since Kant, he claims, philosophy has been wrongheaded as it has been concerned with the comprehensive search for foundations and justifications and consequently has come to see itself as the final adjudicator. Rorty makes much of Kant’s phrase that philosophy is to function as ‘a tribunal of reason’, which gives the impression of a special body — philosophy — sitting in cool, wise judgment over all other areas of life and thought. Rorty famously rejected this conception of philosophy, and urged philosophers not to see themselves as more privileged than practitioners of other disciplines, but rather to consider themselves as one voice in an ongoing cultural conversation with many different contributors, and urged them to keep the topic of the conversation focused on the actual human needs of a society.
My question is, ought Christianity place itself in the position that Rorty is asking philosophy to vacate? That is, should we agree with Rorty that philosophy ought not to have special priority over other disciplines, but insist that Christianity ought to have some sort of priority? Taking the tribunal metaphor a step further, ought Christianity have the warrant to comment upon all areas of life and thought in a non-reciprocal way, the way in which a tribunal is able to pass judgment on an individual whilst the individual is not able to scrutinize the workings of the tribunal?…
What is the unique subject matter which Christianity has privileged access to? And how does this access qualify us to comment upon all other areas of life, culture and thought? Does Christianity even want to be, in Rorty’s words, ‘a metapractise which can be the critique of all possible forms of social practise’, or is Christianity altogether something different, and so ought to remain silent or neutral on some things?
I’m glad Tim explained the Rorty passage he quotes. I had to read it three times!
These are excellent questions, and they got me thinking in a left-field James Jordan kind of way, which means there are events in Bible history that have the answer, although such solutions are overlooked by modern Christians. So, we just think it’s left-field.
I believe the way it works, from Scripture and history, is this:
The church humbly obeys the Bible concerning both worship and morality. If it is faithful in self-judgment, God gives it dominion (judgment) over the surrounding culture.
Abraham
Before Abraham, church and state were separate. There were what Jordan calls “Noahic priests” like Melchizedek and Jethro who oversaw worship and morality. When this was fully developed in a good way, you had a priest-king like Melchizedek. When it developed in a bad way, you ended up with Gilgamesh (Nimrod), and the Lord would begin a new worship, separate from state, in the wilderness.
Joseph
Calling Abraham was such a new beginning. When this new worship was ready, it would return from the wilderness to challenge the state. If the state repented, the prophet would become its new advisor. Joseph was such an advisor, sitting “at the right hand of the power” and replacing Pharaoh’s old advisors, the court magicians. Joseph became a “father” to Pharaoh, and Egypt dominated the world under God.
Moses to Judges
Moses joined Jethro’s worship in the wilderness, and returned to Egypt to challenge Pharaoh. Of course, in this case, Pharaoh hardened his heart. He allowed his court magicians to challenge Moses and Aaron. It was a “showdown of the wise men.” It was the end of Egypt as a world power.
In the wilderness, church and state were one. Israel was a self-contained entity, but prosperity still depended upon obedience. Aaron oversaw worship, and Moses with his judges oversaw morality. When Korah rebelled, it was an attempt to go back to the old ways of the Noahic priests within Israel, but this could not be tolerated. Worship was centralised. [1]
When this worship-state was mature (and we know the first generation failed), God used it to carry out His long-forewarned justice against the Canaanites. The Hebrews were out of boot camp and were now the destroying angels of Passover to Jericho. After this “Atonement” came the Sabbath rest of “Booths” in the Promised Land. But due to the ineptitude of the Levites of this Egypt-to-Canaan process, not only did worship fail, but morality followed right behind. [2] The entire population were supposed to be “wise judges” with church and state as one. As an advisor at the right had of the power (in this case, the throne of God), the church had failed. The Lord had to separate church from state by raising up Judges, and the entire Egypt-to-Canaan process would begin again.
Samuel to Solomon
In Samuel, we see the old Tabernacle of Moses torn apart, carried into the wilderness and returned with greater plunder to challenge the old corrupt worship. Eli the High Priest died when the Ark was taken, and the last High Priest of his family was exiled when Solomon came into government. Solomon is the wise judge of this process.
As king, David had his advisors. When David sinned (failure of state morality), Nathan challenged him (faithful priestly advice). But with Solomon, we see Solomon himself at the right hand of the power. Solomon was church and state combined. We see this in the Kings account of the Temple dedication. Solomon’s house was built within the Temple complex, literally at the right hand of the power. The Lord said the king would be like a son to Him. We are beginning to see how Joseph and Solomon are pictures of Christ the mediator, king and priest combined.
After Solomon’s failure, first in morality (breaking the three kingly laws given by Moses) and then in worship, the old Tabernacle, in this case the Temple, was gradually torn apart, its riches raided by various invasions until it was finally destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. The Lord said He would never again allow the king to have his house next to the Temple.
The Ark was taken again and this time it was never returned.[3] Church and state were separated as the Lord called prophets from the wilderness to challenge the kings. This gives us a head start on understanding the Restoration era.
Daniel to Herod
Like Joseph, Daniel’s obedience led him to the right hand of the power. Daniel usurped and ruled the court magicians. Like Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar was converted and bowed before God’s right hand man. Daniel established a new worship in Babylon, outside Jerusalem, and most likely oversaw the destruction of Jerusalem (for her continued Egyptian oppressions begun under Solomon).
Mordecai initially failed (like Adam) allowing God’s ‘Amalekite’ enemy, Haman (like Satan) to usurp the place of the Mediator and become the Accuser of God’s people at the right hand of the power. Finally, after Mordecai’s obedience, he became the Emperor’s advisor, and Persia was ruled with church and state united for the benefit of all. This was the role that the Lord had given to Israel in this era. Although it was the result of scattering due to disobedience, it was a PROMOTION. This, as we know, didn’t last. The Jews didn’t want to be obedient advisors to Gentiles. They wanted their own Davidic kingdom. (Loss of the power to execute capital punishment should have been a clue!)
The little horn seen by Daniel was another Haman. It was a counterfeit Daniel/Joseph/Mordecai attempting to schmooze up to the right-hand position by coercion instead of obedience. It was Esau on the throne instead of Jacob (the Herods were Edomites). So all the references to anti-Christ fall into place. He was a man at God’s right hand attempting to unite church and state for all the wrong reasons. What did God do? He began worship outside the old city in the wilderness, first with John, then with Christ. They challenged the immorality of the Jewish kings. In this case, the oppression of the helpless and the slaughter of the innocents again brought about the death and resurrection of Jerusalem. And again, it was a promotion. The Jewish mediator was no longer enthroned in Babylon or Persia over a greater ‘Land’, but enthroned in heaven. Revelation describes Christ opening the seven-sealed gospel after His ascension, for the prosperity of the world. Worship was again united in a new Temple, and no other priesthoods would be tolerated. Herod’s “Korah” rebellion was swallowed up.
Christ to the end
I believe the Bible teaches postmillennialism. I believe the gospel will be victorious in history, and by its end, church and state will truly be one. We see the final judicial destruction of the wicked in Revelation 20.
But this dominion isn’t achieved in our strength. As the church is faithful, like Joseph, and like Christ, after obedience, God gives it dominion on a platter.[4]
Initally, the church is a prophet from the wilderness, challenging the powers that be. Then, if the powers capitulate, the church becomes the advisor able to open the mystery of God at the ruler’s right hand. If they refuse, they eventually come tumbling down like the Berlin wall. The church is a separate pillar during this stage, with church and state as Jachin and Boaz united under Solomon’s (Christ’s) rule.
Philosophy or Christianity as Comprehensive Cultural Tribunal?
That’s a long introduction to show how the modern western church misunderstands her role, just as intertestament Israel did.
I think we have moved so far from biblical thinking that the Bible is strange to us. It is not just about salvation, but about growth to maturity for cultural dominance. The early church understood this. The Reformers understood this. But it is dominance through service and sacrifice and most often it is blood-bought. It is dominance given to the church for the same reason that the Father gave all authority to the Son.
All of the wonderful strengths and beauties of our culture flowed out of a church that obeyed, however imperfectly, and dominated. Currently, the humanistic philosophers are Pharaoh’s court magicians, claiming to be unbiased but filled with darkness. And instead of Moses and Aaron challenging the powers that be, we have Herodian preachers crying “Peace, peace” when there is no peace. Nathan is not qualified to confront David because Nathan himself has been sleeping around. Daniel is glutting himself on the king’s food. Mordecai tells Esther to keep hiding her identity. Modern evangelicalism, like Adam, is trying to grasp dominion without obedience. So God is establishing new worship in the wilderness. [5]
If the Bible replaces philosophy in the church, the Bible will replace the philosophy that has usurped its place in the culture. Judgment begins at the house of God. If we are faithful, church and state will be united on earth as they are in heaven. The end is not nigh, because we still have work to do.
____________________________
[1] The reason worship was centralised in Israel as “head” was because human history was up to the point of “Firstfruits.” From the institution of the Levitical priesthood to its end, this stage pictures the ascension of Christ, representing mankind before the Father with shed blood. See the chart below:
Sabbath - Creation to Abraham
Passover - Circumcision divides humanity in two
Firstfruits - Under Moses, a priesthood ascends before God, and draws near over blood sacrifices
Pentecost - In the biblical pattern, this central point is always testing in the wilderness. This is the life of Christ, who is tested in the way all men are, but who does not sin
Trumpets - Christ assembles the New Covenant church, making out of Jew and Gentile one new man in the first century
Atonement - A corrupted Judaism is destroyed as Jericho, vindicating the words of Christ. This is the first conquest of the age in which we now live
Booths - the final coming of Christ and the judgment, after which the saints live with Him in glory
[2] See James Jordan, Judges, God’s War Against Humanism (PDF)
[3] See, The Lost Ark for a theory on why. The Ark was a “Firstfruits”, ascending to God.
[4] I recommend reading a fantastic article, The Dominion Trap by James Jordan.
[5] I love the story of Bishop Spong referring to an African bishop (who voted against Spong’s homosexual agenda) as an “Intercontinental ballistic missile.”
I agree that theocracy is not something we can take, but what the Church will be awarded. That’s where I stand at odds with my theonomist friends.
When the Church uplifts God’s laws - the laws that reveal His Holy and moral character - then the Church will be rewarded.
I do believe our governments are a reflection of how we as a Church are conducting ourselves. When the government starts passing laws that violate the moral laws of the Bible, I hold it’s a shot across the bow of the Church showing that we need to examine ourselves. When we correct, then the civil authorities will follow.
Well said. Those two pillars are the two trees in the garden.
In one sense, all the kingdoms of the world are already ours - in Christ. He has given our enemies into our hand. We just have to be obedient to take the Land.
I haven’t read much on Theonomy, but I think Jordan’s article may have been a manifesto on his reservations about the movement.
And of course, if the church actually has a goal, there is a future judgment and resurrection!
Thanks for your comment, Dorothy.
Mike:
Just for your information. Jim Jordan was a part of the theonomist movement during the 80’s -90’s. He was involved with the split between Tyler Texas branch of the movement over against Greg Bahnsen, R. J. Rushdoony, and David Chilton.
Thanks Dr Talbot
How would you summarise their differences? I have only heard Jordan speak about this. He said that the faithful worship of the church was the way to change the surrounding culture. How different is, for instance, Chilton’s view?
Mike:
Sorry, the way I wrote my statement might have been confusing. At the time of the movement, the theonomists were to a great extent following Rushdoony’s dominion mandate (Jordon’s perspective has changed somewhat over the last 10+ years and I don’t think he holds himself out as a theonomist any longer). As new perspectives were developed by the Tyler branch from what they termed the ‘covenantal hermeneutic,’ those things which held the movement together began to fall apart. The split itself was over ethical issues and alleged violations that took place in Tyler Texas. Chilton at the time was associated with the Tyler branch of the movement, but later publically repented of his involvement in those things which he felt he had played some role at the time.
The main difference between Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and Chilton and the Tyler branch of the theonomic movement, but in particular Jordon is this as you have postulated his theory: “that the faithful worship of the church was the way to change the surrounding culture.” Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and Chilton, would have said that the only to transform culture is by transforming the hearts of the people through the faithful preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Then, and only then, will the Church as the ‘elect people of God’ make a difference in any culture. The balancing act here in historic Reformed theology is to be careful that we do not create a ‘social gospel.’
The Church as the formal institution of God is not called to become involved as a change agent in adopting a social agenda. Rather, the church has three marks that distinguish it as the truth Church of Jesus Christ: (1) The preaching of the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ (Bible); (2) The right administration of the sacraments; (3) Church discipline (government and individual). When these three duties are carried out, then it is the duty of the Christians to implement the doctrines and practices of Scripture into every area of life. The individual Christian carries out the actual work transforming society by applying the Scripture to the whole of society.
Clearly, I agree with Jordon that the right worship of God is important, for worship consists of and is built on the first two marks of the Church. To faithfully worship God we must maintain the purity of doctrine and administer the sacraments correctly. However, let me also point out that the ‘mission’ of the church is again, not cultural renewal or social justice like liberation theology for example, or the social gospel of the liberal movement of the 20’s, it is the evangelization of the world by the faithful preaching of Christ and Him crucified. When the Church (institutional) is doing its duty, then the church members are adequately prepared to carry out their duty in the socio-cultural realm. Therein, they will transform society, as the Apostle Paul states in 2 Corinthians 10:5 by, “bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” Thus, our orthopraxy is determined by our orthodoxy. Bad orthodoxy, or the ignoring of orthodox, will only produce an unbiblical orthopraxy. We need both! But the one must of necessity proceed the other logically.
Mike, I hope this is more clear and precise. Again, this is my take on what I observed as one who was numbered among the movement at that time. Eventually, through hours of study and research of both the Scripture and the literature of the Reformers and Puritans I resigned myself to the view of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) that their three fold view of the law was biblically more accurate that the theonomic perspective of a two fold view of the law and our approach to culture and society in general. If you would like to see certain aspects of this issue, Dr. Kenneth Gentry has written a book entitled, “The Greatness of the Great Commission.” I highly recommend it and believe you will enjoy it thoroughly.
According to my understanding, church and state will never merge until Jesus Christ returns.
The issue really hinges on the definition of the word “church.” Paul clearly states that the church is the “PLEROMA of Him that filleth all in all” — not a visible earthly institution. It is the ‘body’ of which the ‘Head’ is in heaven. Hence it is spiritual (and not earthly) in nature. Its members are ‘not of this world.’ The church is ONE BODY (Eph. 4: 4), which has its administrative center in the heavenlies:
“For our COMMONWEALTH (Gr. politeuma) is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things to Himself (Phil. 3: 20-21).
To me, Paul deals a serious blow to the ‘holy mother church’ concept; for he teaches that our administrative center is heavenly — not earthly. Compare with Eph. 2: 6. According to Phil. 3: 20-21, it must remain in heaven until the resurrection — which most orthodox Christians believe will take place at Christ’s coming. [Note: Since I'm a post-tribulational Dispensationalist, I believe the parousia of Matt. 24 is the same as that mentioned in 1 Cor. 15: 23].
Compare also with Galatians 4: 26, where our “motherhood” is stated as being heavenly in nature. The inference, then, is that both SONSHIP and CITIZENSHIP appertain to the heavenly regions, and are spiritual in nature. Because of the “one baptism” we receive (which is spiritual), we are positionally seated in heavenly places with Christ, and are “complete in Him” (Col. 2: 10).
Therefore, it is questionable whether there will ever be a period of earthly victory for the visible church. The fact that all who are SONS must be conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8: 29-30) by suffering BEFORE they can “reign with Him” (2 Tim. 2: 12) seems to make such a concept impossible.
In my humble and unlearned opinion, history has already proven that the VVC idea can have no realization before the second coming. Romanism tried it once, and look what it got us into! A wholesale reform was needed. Now many Protestants want to do it again. That is not to say, of course, that it is technically impossible to achieve some balance between church and state. But all such efforts must be man-achieved. In order to get it to happen, Christians will have to bow-wow to the world system. The result will be a worldly Christianity, a mere repeat of the administrative mish-mash of Rome. I doubt this is the kind of ‘kingdom’ any of us really want.
Only the awesome power of a returning Savior can enable the awaited kingdom to break into the physical realm. It is this that we are taught to pray for.
“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6: 10).
MillennialSaint
Thanks for your helpful comments, Dr Talbot. I will look up Dr Gentry’s book.
Brian, I understand where you are coming from, but my article makes it clear that our government is in heaven. The question is, do we actually expect the government of Christ to make any difference on earth?
Did God expect the government of Solomon to make any difference on the Land? The governments of Joseph and of Mordecai made a huge difference. When the saints pull out, we end up with Hamans, Herods and Obamas. And instead of wise advisors we get Obama Czars and green magicians.
You raise Holy Rome as an example. Although I disagree with the Reformers’ identification of the Papacy with the antichrist, in application they were right on the mark. It was the same pattern as the first century (about which the apostles speak) and God dealt with it the same way - by establishing new worship in the wilderness.
I believe, based on the biblical pattern, that praying for Christ’s kingdom to come is not praying for the end of the world, although His coming will be the glorious finale. As in Esther, Satan will again be in charge - to bring the real baddies out of hiding - so they, and he, can be finally destroyed. Currently, the baddies are in hiding, pretending their secular religion ins “neutral.” Perhaps Obama, like Haman, was elected for a good reason.
Regarding your comment on suffering, my article shows that it is bowing to the world system that always leads to failure. Miracles happen when the church obeys God humbly, which often means persecution and suffering. I have an article called Postmillennial Suffering at:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/04/08/postmillennial-suffering/
“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6: 10).
Like Adam, God expects us to work “unsupervised” BEFORE He comes to inspect. That means governing the world under the Law of Christ.
I repeat, if we are faithful, God will GIVE us dominion. If we become corrupt, He will take it away again.
This world is not God’s Vietnam.
Kind regards,
Mike
MillennialSaint:
I am sorry that I currently don’t have time to personally respond to your doctrinal position on the Church of Jesus Christ. However, I have a really hard time understanding, according to your view, to whom the Epistles of Paul were written if the Church is only spiritual and its abode is in heaven with Christ and not on earth. I’m just trying to understand why Christ committed His truth to writing if the Church is ‘spiritual’ and abides with Christ in heaven and there is no physical body of believers and officers here on earth to read that book we call the Bible. Why even ordain officers, sacraments, and worship services?
The New Testament word for ‘church’ is the Greek term ‘ekkleesia’ meaning ‘the called out ones.’ In classical Greek, the term was used almost exclusively for political gatherings. Moreover, the etymological understanding of ekkleesia in the context of its usage referred only to the actual meeting or gatherings and not to the citizens themselves. When the people were not assembled, they were not considered to be the ‘ekkleesia.’ The New Testament records three instances of this secular usage of the term. In Acts 19:32-41 you can see the term employed in this manner in a secular setting: “Some therefore cried one thing and some another, for the assembly was confused, and most of them did not know why they had come together. And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander motioned with his hand, and wanted to make his defense to the people. But when they found out that he was a Jew, all with one voice cried out for about two hours, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” And when the city clerk had quieted the crowd, he said: “Men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple guardian of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Zeus? Therefore, since these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rashly. For you have brought these men here who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of your goddess. Therefore, if Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a case against anyone, the courts are open and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another. But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful assembly. For we are in danger of being called in question for today’s uproar, there being no reason which we may give to account for this disorderly gathering.” And when he had said these things, he dismissed the assembly.” The use of the term ‘ekkleesia’ in the New Testament most often is referring to the community of God’s people. This usages is 109 out of 114 occurrences in the New Testament Scripture. The term itself predominantly applies to a local assembly of those who profess faith in Christ. Second, it does designate the universal church.
Because of my time constraints, I will present to you the doctrinal position of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), and some instructions by one of my mentors (though he is dead, he yet speaketh). The attached article is from Dr. John Calvin. Perhaps it will give you something to consider and when I get the time, we shall exegetically consider your thesis more carefully and with greater specificity.
CHAPTER 25
Of the Church
1. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.a
a. Eph 1:10, 22-23; Eph 5:23, 27, 32; Col 1:18.
2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion,a and of their children;b and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,c the house and family of God,d out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.e
a. Psa 2:8; Rom 15:9-12; 1 Cor 1:2; 12:12-13; Rev 7:9. • b. Gen 3:15; 17:7; Ezek 16:20-21; Acts 2:39; Rom 11:16; 1 Cor 7:14. • c. Isa 9:7; Mat 13:47. • d. Eph 2:19; 3:15. • e. Acts 2:47.
3. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.a
a. Isa 59:21; Mat 28:19-20; 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11-13.
4. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.a And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.b
a. Rom 11:3-4; Rev 12:6, 14. • b. 1 Cor 5:6-7; Rev 2-3 throughout.
5. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;a and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.b Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to his will.c
a. Mat 13:24-30, 47; 1 Cor 13:12; Rev 2-3 throughout. • b. Rom 11:18-22; Rev 18:2. • c. Psa 72:17; 102:28; Mat 16:18; 28:19-20.
6. There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ:a nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.b
a. Eph 1:22; Col 1:18. • b. Mat 23:8-10; 2 Thes 2:3-4, 8-9; Rev 13:6.
John Calvin Writes of the Church of Jesus Christ:
“But let us proceed to a full exposition of this view. Paul says that our Saviour “ascended far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:10-13). We see that God, who might perfect his people in a moment, chooses not to bring them to manhood in any other way than by the education of the Church. We see the mode of doing it expressed; the preaching of celestial doctrine is committed to pastors. We see that all without exception are brought into the same order, that they may with meek and docile spirit allow themselves to be governed by teachers appointed for this purpose. Isaiah had long before given this as the characteristic of the kingdom of Christ, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever” (Isaiah 59:21). Hence it follows, that all who reject the spiritual food of the soul divinely offered to them by the hands of the Church, deserve to perish of hunger and famine. God inspires us with faith, but it is by the instrumentality of his gospel, as Paul reminds us, “Faith cometh by hearing” (Romans 10:17). God reserves to himself the power of maintaining it, but it is by the preaching of the gospel, as Paul also declares, that he brings it forth and unfolds it. With this view, it pleased him in ancient times that sacred meetings should be held in the sanctuary, that consent in faith might be nourished by doctrine proceeding from the lips of the priest. Those magnificent titles, as when the temple is called God’s rest, his sanctuary, his habitation, and when he is said to dwell between the cherubims (Psalms 33:13,14; 80:1), are used for no other purpose than to procure respect, love, reverence, and dignity to the ministry of heavenly doctrine, to which otherwise the appearance of an insignificant human being might be in no slight degree derogatory. Therefore, to teach us that the treasure offered to us in earthen vessels is of inestimable value (2 Corinthians 4:7), God himself appears and, as the author of this ordinance, requires his presence to be recognised in his own institution. Accordingly, after forbidding his people to give heed to familiar spirits, wizards, and other superstitions (Leviticus 19:30,31), he adds, that he will give what ought to be sufficient for all — namely, that he will never leave them without prophets. For, as he did not commit his ancient people to angels, but raised up teachers on the earth to perform a truly angelical office, so he is pleased to instruct us in the present day by human means. But as anciently he did not confine himself to the law merely, but added priests as interpreters, from whose lips the people might inquire after his true meaning, so in the present day he would not only have us to be attentive to reading, but has appointed masters to give us their assistance. In this there is a twofold advantage. For, on the one hand, he by an admirable test proves our obedience when we listen to his ministers just as we would to himself; while, on the other hand, he consults our weakness in being pleased to address us after the manner of men by means of interpreters, that he may thus allure us to himself, instead of driving us away by his thunder. How well this familiar mode of teaching is suited to us all the godly are aware, from the dread with which the divine majesty justly inspires them.
Those who think that the authority of the doctrine is impaired by the insignificance of the men who are called to teach, betray their ingratitude; for among the many noble endowments with which God has adorned the human race, one of the most remarkable is, that he deigns to consecrate the mouths and tongues of men to his service, making his own voice to be heard in them. Wherefore, let us not on our part decline obediently to embrace the doctrine of salvation, delivered by his command and mouth; because, although the power of God is not confined to external means, he has, however, confined us to his ordinary method of teaching, which method, when fanatics refuse to observe, they entangle themselves in many fatal snares. Pride, or fastidiousness, or emulation, induces many to persuade themselves that they can profit sufficiently by reading and meditating in private, and thus to despise public meetings, and deem preaching superfluous. But since as much as in them lies they loose or burst the sacred bond of unity, none of them escapes the just punishment of this impious divorce, but become fascinated with pestiferous errors, and the foulest delusions. Wherefore, in order that the pure simplicity of the faith may flourish among us, let us not decline to use this exercise of piety, which God by his institution of it has shown to be necessary, and which he so highly recommends. None, even among the most petulant of men, would venture to say, that we are to shut our ears against God, but in all ages prophets and pious teachers have had a difficult contest to maintain with the ungodly, whose perverseness cannot submit to the yoke of being taught by the lips and ministry of men. This is just the same as if they were to destroy the impress of God as exhibited to us in doctrine. For no other reason were believers anciently enjoined to seek the face of God in the sanctuary (Psalms 105:4) (an injunction so often repeated in the Law), than because the doctrine of the Law, and the exhortations of the prophets, were to them a living image of God. Thus Paul declares, that in his preaching the glory of God shone in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6). The more detestable are the apostates who delight in producing schisms in churches, just as if they wished to drive the sheep from the fold, and throw them into the jaws of wolves. Let us hold, agreeably to the passage we quoted from Paul, that the Church can only be edified by external preaching, and that there is no other bond by which the saints can be kept together than by uniting with one consent to observe the order which God has appointed in his Church for learning and making progress. For this end, especially, as I have observed, believers were anciently enjoined under the Law to flock together to the sanctuary; for when Moses speaks of the habitation of God, he at the same time calls it the place of the name of God, the place where he will record his name (Exodus 20:24); thus plainly teaching that no use could be made of it without the doctrine of godliness. And there can be no doubt that, for the same reason, David complains with great bitterness of soul, that by the tyrannical cruelty of his enemies he was prevented from entering the tabernacle (Psalms 84). To many the complaint seems childish, as if no great loss were sustained, not much pleasure lost, by exclusion from the temple, provided other amusements were enjoyed. David, however, laments this one deprivation, as filling him with anxiety and sadness, tormenting, and almost destroying him. This he does because there is nothing on which believers set a higher value than on this aid, by which God gradually raises his people to heaven. For it is to be observed, that he always exhibited himself to the holy patriarchs in the mirror of his doctrine in such a way as to make their knowledge spiritual. Whence the temple is not only styled his face, but also, for the purpose of removing all superstition, is termed his footstool (Psalms 132:7; 99:5). Herein is the unity of the faith happily realised, when all, from the highest to the lowest, aspire to the head. All the temples which the Gentiles built to God with a different intention were a mere profanation of his worship, — a profanation into which the Jews also fell, though not with equal grossness. With this Stephen upbraids them in the words of Isaiah when he says, “Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the Prophet, Heaven is my throne,” & c. (Acts 7:48). For God only consecrates temples to their legitimate use by his word. And when we rashly attempt anything without his order, immediately setting out from a bad principle, we introduce adventitious fictions, by which evil is propagated without measure. It was inconsiderate in Xerxes when, by the advice of the magians, he burnt or pulled down all the temples of Greece, because he thought it absurd that God, to whom all things ought to be free and open, should be enclosed by walls and roofs, as if it were not in the power of God in a manner to descend to us, that he may be near to us, and yet neither change his place nor affect us by earthly means, but rather, by a kind of vehicles, raise us aloft to his own heavenly glory, which, with its immensity, fills all things, and in height is above the heavens.
Moreover, as at this time there is a great dispute as to the efficacy of the ministry, some extravagantly overrating its dignity, and others erroneously maintaining, that what is peculiar to the Spirit of God is transferred to mortal man, when we suppose that ministers and teachers penetrate to the mind and heart, so as to correct the blindness of the one, and the hardness of the other; it is necessary to place this controversy on its proper footing. The arguments on both sides will be disposed of without trouble, by distinctly attending to the passages in which God, the author of preaching, connects his Spirit with it, and then promises a beneficial result; or, on the other hand, to the passages in which God, separating himself from external means, claims for himself alone both the commencement and the whole course of faith. The office of the second Elias was, as Malachi declares, to “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 4:6). Christ declares that he sent the Apostles to produce fruit from his labours (John 15:16). What this fruit is Peter briefly defines, when he says that we are begotten again of incorruptible seed (1 Peter 1:23). Hence Paul glories, that by means of the Gospel he had begotten the Corinthians, who were the seals of his apostleship (1 Corinthians 4:15); moreover, that his was not a ministry of the letter, which only sounded in the ear, but that the effectual agency of the Spirit was given to him, in order that his doctrine might not be in vain (1 Corinthians 9:2; 2 Corinthians 3:6). In this sense he elsewhere declares that his Gospel was not in word, but in power (1 Thessalonians 1:5). He also affirms that the Galatians received the Spirit by the hearing of faith (Galatians 3:2). In short, in several passages he not only makes himself a fellow-worker with God, but attributes to himself the province of bestowing salvation (1 Corinthians 3:9). All these things he certainly never uttered with the view of attributing to himself one iota apart from God, as he elsewhere briefly explains. “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Again, in another place, “He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles” (Galatians 2:8). And that he allows no more to ministers is obvious from other passages. “So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase” (1 Corinthians 3:7). Again, “I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10). And it is indeed necessary to keep these sentences in view, since God, in ascribing to himself the illumination of the mind and renewal of the heart, reminds us that it is sacrilege for man to claim any part of either to himself. Still every one who listens with docility to the ministers whom God appoints, will know by the beneficial result, that for good reason God is pleased with this method of teaching, and for good reason has laid believers under this modest yoke.
The judgment which ought to be formed concerning the visible Church which comes under our observation, must, I think, be sufficiently clear from what has been said. I have observed that the Scriptures speak of the Church in two ways. Sometimes when they speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God — the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ. In this case it not only comprehends the saints who dwell on the earth, but all the elect who have existed from the beginning of the world. Often, too, by the name of Church is designated the whole body of mankind scattered throughout the world, who profess to worship one God and Christ, who by baptism are initiated into the faith; by partaking of the Lord’s Supper profess unity in true doctrine and charity, agree in holding the word of the Lord, and observe the ministry which Christ has appointed for the preaching of it. In this Church there is a very large mixture of hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance: of ambitious, avaricious, envious, evil-speaking men, some also of impurer lives, who are tolerated for a time, either because their guilt cannot be legally established, or because due strictness of discipline is not always observed. Hence, as it is necessary to believe the invisible Church, which is manifest to the eye of God only, so we are also enjoined to regard this Church which is so called with reference to man, and to cultivate its communion.
Accordingly, inasmuch as it was of importance to us to recognise it, the Lord has distinguished it by certain marks, and as it were symbols. It is, indeed, the special prerogative of God to know those who are his, as Paul declares in the passage already quoted (2 Timothy 2:19). And doubtless it has been so provided as a check on human rashness, the experience of every day reminding us how far his secret judgments surpass our apprehension. For even those who seemed most abandoned, and who had been completely despaired of, are by his goodness recalled to life, while those who seemed most stable often fall. Hence, as Augustine says, “In regard to the secret predestination of God, there are very many sheep without, and very many wolves within” (August. Hom. in Joan. 45 ). For he knows, and has his mark on those who know neither him nor themselves. Of those again who openly bear his badge, his eyes alone see who of them are unfeignedly holy, and will persevere even to the end, which alone is the completion of salvation. On the other hand, foreseeing that it was in some degree expedient for us to know who are to be regarded by us as his sons, he has in this matter accommodated himself to our capacity. But as here full certainty was not necessary, he has in its place substituted the judgment of charity, by which we acknowledge all as members of the Church who by confession of faith, regularity of conduct, and participation in the sacraments, unite with us in acknowledging the same God and Christ. The knowledge of his body, inasmuch as he knew it to be more necessary for our salvation, he has made known to us by surer marks.
Hence the form of the Church appears and stands forth conspicuous to our view. Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). But that we may have a clear summary of this subject, we must proceed by the following steps: — The Church universal is the multitude collected out of all nations, who, though dispersed and far distant from each other, agree in one truth of divine doctrine, and are bound together by the tie of a common religion. In this way it comprehends single churches, which exist in different towns and villages, according to the wants of human society, so that each of them justly obtains the name and authority of the Church; and also comprehends single individuals, who by a religious profession are accounted to belong to such churches, although they are in fact aliens from the Church, but have not been cut off by a public decision. There is, however, a slight difference in the mode of judging of individuals and of churches. For it may happen in practice that those whom we deem not altogether worthy of the fellowship of believers, we yet ought to treat as brethren, and regard as believers, on account of the common consent of the Church in tolerating and bearing with them in the body of Christ. Such persons we do not approve by our suffrage as members of the Church, but we leave them the place which they hold among the people of God, until they are legitimately deprived of it. With regard to the general body we must feel differently; if they have the ministry of the word, and honour the administration of the sacraments, they are undoubtedly entitled to be ranked with the Church, because it is certain that these things are not without a beneficial result. Thus we both maintain the Church universal in its unity, which malignant minds have always been eager to dissever, and deny not due authority to lawful assemblies distributed as circumstances require.
We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments, for these cannot anywhere exist without producing fruit and prospering by the blessing of God. I say not that wherever the word is preached fruit immediately appears; but that in every place where it is received, and has a fixed abode, it uniformly displays its efficacy. Be this as it may, when the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time the face of the Church appears without deception or ambiguity and no man may with impunity spurn her authority, or reject her admonitions, or resist her counsels, or make sport of her censures, far less revolt from her, and violate her unity (see Chap. 2 sec. 1, 10, and Chap. 8 sec. 12 ). For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of his Church, that all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he regards as deserters of religion. So highly does he recommend her authority, that when it is violated he considers that his own authority is impaired. For there is no small weight in the designation given to her, “the house of God,” “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). By these words Paul intimates, that to prevent the truth from perishing in the world. the Church is its faithful guardian, because God has been pleased to preserve the pure preaching of his word by her instrumentality, and to exhibit himself to us as a parent while he feeds us with spiritual nourishment, and provides whatever is conducive to our salvation. Moreover, no mean praise is conferred on the Church when she is said to have been chosen and set apart by Christ as his spouse, “not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Ephesians 5:27), as “his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Ephesians 1:23). Whence it follows, that revolt from the Church is denial of God and Christ. Wherefore there is the more necessity to beware of a dissent so iniquitous; for seeing by it we aim as far as in us lies at the destruction of God’s truth, we deserve to be crushed by the full thunder of his anger. No crime can be imagined more atrocious than that of sacrilegiously and perfidiously violating the sacred marriage which the only begotten Son of God has condescended to contract with us.
Wherefore let these marks be carefully impressed upon our minds, and let us estimate them as in the sight of the Lord. There is nothing on which Satan is more intent than to destroy and efface one or both of them — at one time to delete and abolish these marks, and thereby destroy the true and genuine distinction of the Church; at another, to bring them into contempt, and so hurry us into open revolt from the Church. To his wiles it was owing that for several ages the pure preaching of the word disappeared, and now, with the same dishonest aim, he labours to overthrow the ministry, which, however, Christ has so ordered in his Church, that if it is removed the whole edifice must fall. How perilous, then, nay, how fatal the temptation, when we even entertain a thought of separating ourselves from that assembly in which are beheld the signs and badges which the Lord has deemed sufficient to characterise his Church! We see how great caution should be employed in both respects. That we may not be imposed upon by the name of Church, every congregation which claims the name must be brought to that test as to a Lydian stone. If it holds the order instituted by the Lord in word and sacraments there will be no deception; we may safely pay it the honour due to a church: on the other hand, if it exhibit itself without word and sacraments, we must in this case be no less careful to avoid the imposture than we were to shun pride and presumption in the other.
When we say that the pure ministry of the word and pure celebration of the sacraments is a fit pledge and earnest, so that we may safely recognise a church in every society in which both exist, our meaning is, that we are never to discard it so long as these remain, though it may otherwise teem with numerous faults. Nay, even in the administration of word and sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to alienate us from its communion. For all the heads of true doctrine are not in the same position. Some are so necessary to be known, that all must hold them to be fixed and undoubted as the proper essentials of religion: for instance, that God is one, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation depends on the mercy of God, and the like. Others, again, which are the subject of controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith; for why should it be regarded as a ground of dissension between churches, if one, without any spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatising, hold that the soul on quitting the body flies to heaven, and another, without venturing to speak positively as to the abode, holds it for certain that it lives with the Lord? The words of the Apostle are, “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you” (Philippians 3:15). Does he not sufficiently intimate that a difference of opinion as to these matters which are not absolutely necessary, ought not to be a ground of dissension among Christians? The best thing, indeed, is to be perfectly agreed, but seeing there is no man who is not involved in some mist of ignorance, we must either have no church at all, or pardon delusion in those things of which one may be ignorant, without violating the substance of religion and forfeiting salvation. Here, however, I have no wish to patronise even the minutest errors, as if I thought it right to foster them by flattery or connivance; what I say is, that we are not on account of every minute difference to abandon a church, provided it retain sound and unimpaired that doctrine in which the safety of piety consists, and keep the use of the sacraments instituted by the Lord. Meanwhile, if we strive to reform what is offensive, we act in the discharge of duty. To this effect are the words of Paul, “If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace” (1 Corinthians 14:30). From this it is evident that to each member of the Church, according to his measure of grace, the study of public edification has been assigned, provided it be done decently and in order. In other words, we must neither renounce the communion of the Church, nor, continuing in it, disturb peace and discipline when duly arranged.”
Hi Mike,
Well, thanks for those thoughts. I’m reading your book as we speak, so am learning more of your point of view. I guess my main disagreement with the whole ‘dominion’ idea is that I see Adam’s dominion having been transferred to Noah, and later to Israel. So in my opinion, Israel (not the church) is the channel through which dominion must come.
“And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto THEE shall it come, even the first DOMINION; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem” (Micah 4: 8).
Alot of folks think that just because the Jews rejected the kingdom in the first century, that God is finished with them. I do not believe that is the case! In my understanding, the church occupies a parenthetical interval in God’s dealings with Israel.
That is not to say, though, that I disagree with efforts made to inaugurate social change, reform, etc. But all things must be kept in their proper sphere. One has to wonder, if God really intended the church to have dominion in this age, why hasn’t it come to pass??? The fact that the church has never been able to acquire such dominion would SEEM to imply (to me, at least) that it is no part of the Divine program. That’s just my opinion, though.
*************
Dr. Talbot,
Thanks for the detailed response. Well, without attempting to pose as any kind of ‘expert’ on theology, here’s how I sees it. I agree that the term ekklesia means a “called out company.” My only question would be “called out of what, into what?” The church is called out of this aeon to partake of a heavenly inheritance and Sonship glory in the “aeon to come.” Eonian life is a gift of God (Rom. 6: 23). Therefore, authority must be vested in Him Who sits above. Frankly, I don’t believe Peter handed his ‘keys’ to Linus, or anything like that. When the apostolic commission ceased at the (temporary) setting aside of Israel, all of God’s administrative principles were shifted from earthly to heavenly. Hence, many things connected with the organizational Christianity of the first century are no longer valid. The shift in God’s administrative principles can be seen most notably in Acts 28, when Paul pronounces the sentence of judicial blindness on the nation, affirming that salvation will be SENT (Gr. apostelo) to the Gentiles. This marks the beginning of a secret economy which Paul calls the “administration of the Mystery” (Eph. 3: 9). It is this economy which fills the interval between Israel’s rejection, and their ultimate “renewal.” Because of the administrative shift, Jews and Gentiles “in Christ” are placed on an equal footing — which wouldn’t be the case were the earthly organizational principles still in force. In that case, salvation would still be to “the Jew first.”
Around A.D. 57, Paul wrote to the saints at Corinth: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is THE Christ.” (1 Cor. 12: 12). The Greek contains the definite article (ho Christos).
Later he affirms: “There is ONE BODY, and ONE SPIRIT, even as ye are called in ONE HOPE of your calling; One Lord, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4: 4-6).
I think we should take into account the ‘progressive revelation’ which went on in the first century. According to the above verse, water baptism had already given place to spirit baptism as early as A.D. 63. The administration of the sacraments IS NOT ONCE MENTIONED in any of Paul’s epistles written after Acts 28 [Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy]. Again, this reflects the shift from an earthly to heavenly administration.
Pauline doctrine expresses Christ Himself as the Head of the Body, and individual Christians as members. This is distinct from any mere organizational Christianity. True, the New Testament contains traces of a sort of “corporate Christendom.” However, any visible expression of Christ’s body on earth must necessarily fall short of the true ideal.
In absence of any ‘badges,’ we would do best, I think, to “hold the Head” (Col. 2: 19) “even Christ, FROM Whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love” (Eph. 4: 16).
Although I admire John Calvin, I disagree with his position on the church and the sacraments. So, the true visible church is she who keepeth the sacraments properly?? That sounds like a sectarian war-cry to me. Such statements are generally followed by: “and WE are the true holy catholic and apostolic church!!” As far as I’m aware, nearly every denomination in Christendom claims to be the “TRUE CHURCH.” Some of them use baptism and the ordinances as a litmus test. But how can anyone tell if the sacraments are properly kept? It is open to debate whether we should sprinkle, dip, dunk, or take a nosedive down. Without being irreverent, I find it hard to place much credibility in these things, especially when Paul says:
“Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is CHRIST DIVIDED? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
“For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to PREACH THE GOSPEL: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1 Cor. 1: 12, 13, 17).
If in Ephesians Paul says there is but ONE BAPTISM, we should beware of making it a material one — else we nullify baptism of the Spirit. Not trying to be contentious. I simply disagree with Calvin, that’s all.
MillennialSaint
Dr. Talbot, I am a bit confused. Isn’t Dr. Gentry a theonomist? (not to be equated with reconstructionism)
Dee Dee:
Every Reformed Presbyterian is a theonomist of some sort. Guess you would have to ask, “what do you mean by theonomist.” Theonomy means “God’s Law” or the “Law of God.” Chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith is a statement on the binding validity of the moral law of God. The Divines divided the law into three categories. First is the Moral Law (Ten Commandments), Second was the Ceremonial Law. Third is the Civil and Judicial Laws of Israel.
Dr. R. J. Rushdoony believed that the Moral Law and Civil Laws of Israel were still enforced. It is argued that Dr. Greg Bahnsen originally held to this view. In time it seemed to change to the position of the Westminster Divines. They held that the Moral Law was still binding and that the Ceremonial Law was fulfilled in Christ, no longer binding. They held that the Civil Law was also done away with the destruction of the State of Israel, but that the Moral Law principles upon which they were founded, this they called the ‘general equity of the law’ was still binding. For example. In Israel you had to put a fence around the top of the house so that in the summer when it was hot and the family and friends would go to the top of the house to sleep, if someone got up and was confused, they would not stumble off the roof and kill themselves. This is the positive side of the the negative command, “Thou shalt not kill.” This positive side is called the ‘preservation of life.’ The same equity principle is to be used in any society for the preservation of life. In Florida we have a lot of in ground pools, the principle is this: in order to keep someone from falling in the pool and drowning, there needs to be a fence put around it to protect and preserve life. To this later view of the Divines, Dr. Gentry and I both adhere to. Reconstructionism is a view on how to transform society which, to a great extent, followed the Puritan principles of the establishment of civil society in relationship to God’s Word (Law) and and civil magistrate. There are variations on this view. Primarily have falsely accused Dr. Rushdoony of believing that Christians could force government in legislating morality, forcing people to build a theocracy. First, all legislation is moral. There simply is no law that is legislated that is a moral. Second, Dr. Rushdoony held that the only way to get any society to abide by the Moral Law of God was by transforming their hearts through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which in turn, the Christians will demand that Government conform to God’s standard of righteousness. Third, Some have held to a view that by passes the ‘Gospel Message” and promotes a political salvation through the legislative process. Dr. Rushdoony, Dr. Bahnsen and Dr. Gentry do not hold to this later position. They believe that like the time of the Reformation, when millions were being won to Christ, the result being a transformation of culture and society, in particular the civil magistrate passing biblically based laws for righteous living. This is referred to the ‘creation or cultural mandate’ as found in Genesis where man is command to take dominion over the created order. However, there are variations and extremes in everything.
I have included Chapter Nine for you consideration.
CHAPTER 19
Of the Law of God
1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.a
a. Gen 1:26-27 with 2:17; Job 28:28; Eccl 7:29; Rom 2:14-15; 5:12, 19; 10:5; Gal 3:10, 12.
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables;a the first four commandments containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to man.b
a. Exod 34:1; Deut 5:32; 10:4; Rom 13:8-9; James 1:25; 2:8, 10-12. • b. Mat 22:37-40.
3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;a and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.b All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.c
a. Gal 4:1-3; Col 2:17; Heb 9 throughout; 10:1. • b. 1 Cor 5:7; 2 Cor 6:17; Jude 1:23. • c. Dan 9:27; Eph 2:15-16; Col 2:14, 16-17.
4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.a
a. Gen 49:10 with 1 Pet 2:13-14; Exod 21 throughout; 22:1-29; Mat 5:17 with 5:38-39; 1 Cor 9:8-10.
5. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;a and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it.b Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.c
a. Rom 13:8-10; Eph 6:2; 1 John 2:3-4, 7-8. • b. James 2:10-11. • c. Mat 5:17-19; Rom 3:31; James 2:8.
6. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned;a yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;b discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives;c so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin;d together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience.e It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin;f and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.g The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof;h although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works:i so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.k
a. Acts 13:39; Rom 6:14; 8:1; Gal 2:16; 3:13; 4:4-5. • b. Psa 119:4-6; Rom 7:12, 22, 25; 1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:14, 16, 18-23. • c. Rom 3:20; 7:7. • d. Rom 7:9, 14, 24; James 1:23-25. • e. Rom 7:24-25; 8:3-4; Gal 3:24. • f. Psa 119:101, 104, 128; James 2:11. • g. Ezra 9:13-14; Psa 89:30-34. • h. Lev 26:1, 10; 26:14 with 2 Cor 6:16; Psa 19:11; 37:11 with Mat 5:5; Eph 6:2-3. • i. Luke 17:10; Gal 2:16. • k. Rom 6:12, 14; Heb 12:28-29; 1 Pet 3:8-12 with Psa 34:12-16.
7. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it:a the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.b
a. Gal 3:21. • b. Ezek 36:27; Heb 8:10 with Jer 31:33.
Good topic Mike. I have found that a truism is that no one & nothing is “unbiased”; be it secular approaches or religious. So, the right thing to do is to be as upfront with one’s biases as possible. To understand your own biases & why you hold them.
Whether we are talking about people who are trying to promote a heresy like hyperpreterism, yet trying to hide the fact that their beliefs are nothing like REAL Christianity, or we’re talking about a U.S. Supreme Court nominee who won’t be honest with her real views — dishonesty with one’s true biases is the mark of evil.
The “dominion” should be pressuppositional in that in Christ we are more than conquerors — even now (hence we “presume” victory). Retreatism & Defeatism have long affected the Church since the rise of “Left Behindism”. Hyperpreterism is the over-reaction to “Left Behindism”. Emergent/Postmodernism is the over-reaction to the apathy that has abound within the Church.
I’d say we Christians need to put the dominion concepts into process within Christianity even before we re-apply it to everything else. We need to stop allowing groups like TBN to claim it represents Christianity. We have been too weak to call these folks out. We need to stop pretending it is ok to ordain homosexuals to the pulpit. Christianity has taken on a air of a social club instead of sacred community.
It is no wonder that Muslims who view America as the representation of Christianity in practice think Christianity is a religion of weakness & immorality. We have become a bunch a feminized pansies ready to blush & cry at the most feigned sensitivities. We seem to become offended by the slightest boldness but swoon over platitudes.
I’m not certain if I’d classify myself as a “theonomist”, but I’m certainly with you when it comes to bringing all things under Christ. That is my “bias” & I am not shy to say so.
MillennialSaint:
Thanks for your response. When I have more time we shall exegetically consider your issue. Currently, I have alot of projects and graduate courses to review and grade not to mention 15 new courses underdevelopment. I promise I will get back with you on this issue.
I believe you are dispensational in what you have presented, if I am reading you correctly. I was trained in dispenstational institutions. That ought to make for an interesting exchange. I look forward to future discussions.
Dr. Talbot,
I understand your current schedule won’t permit you to enter into any major discussions. That’s ok. I definitely don’t want to monopolize anyone’s time on these issues, since I’m not a maniacal “attention getting” Hyper-Preterist :-). My faith is enough for me.
Also, yes I am a Pauline Dispensationalist. For the most part, I follow the system laid down by E.W. Bullinger. IMO, he represents the pinnacle of Bible scholarship.
Peace & Health,
Brian