Kurt A. Scharping posed a couple of propositions to one member of the radical two kingdoms group (I'm hesitant to name him, lest I embarass him). The propositions were these:
1. The Scripture says things that bind the civil magistrate.
2. The Church can proclaim those things that bind the civil magistrate.
He then asked one of the proponents of a strain of R2K to indicate whether he affirms or denies these propositions. The proponent appears to have answered in the negative, which (if it were really the case) would leave that proponent outside the confessional boundaries.
Even the American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith teach that the Scripture says things that bind the civil magistrate, and the inclusion of these in the public document of the standards shows that the standards believe it is proper for churches to proclaim those things that bind the civil magistrate.
My point in raising this issue is not to tar everyone who calls themselves "two kingdoms" with a broad brush. My point is that even those who call themselves "two kingdoms" eventually have to moderate their tendency to separate church and state. The Bible may not say what form of government is the best, but it does provide teachings that bind the civil magistrate.
We would hope that even the most radical R2K proponent would think that the wall of separation between church and state is something that Scripture itself mandates. As such, it does not seem that any proponent of R2k, even the most radical, could deny the two propositions that Kurt has identified.
-TurretinFan
Monday, September 13, 2010
6 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
I added myself to follow your blog. You are more than welcome to visit mine and become a follower if you want to.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless You ~Ron
TF,
ReplyDeleteWhat, if anything, do you think the church has to say prophetically to, which is binding upon, the civil magistrate with respect to what actions, if any, the state should take with respect to the ongoing incursion of the religio-political system of world domination known as Islam into post-Christian Europe, and the United States (e.g. Dearborn, MI)?
In Christ,
CD
Thanks, Ron!
ReplyDelete"What, if anything, do you think the church has to say prophetically to, which is binding upon, the civil magistrate with respect to what actions, if any, the state should take with respect to the ongoing incursion of the religio-political system of world domination known as Islam into post-Christian Europe, and the United States (e.g. Dearborn, MI)?"
ReplyDeleteWell, the church cannot go beyond the Bible. I'm not sure whether you mean something special by "prophetically," but rulers should be promoting and protecting the true religion and should be holding down false religions. Obviously, the U.S. Constitution (especially as it has been interpreted after the 14th amendment) does not leave a lot of room for following Scripture's requirements in this regard.
I think the churches, however, should feel fine in condemning the injustices and persecutions that are taking place in Dearborn, MI.
-TurretinFan
The Bible may not say what form of government is the best, but it does provide teachings that bind the civil magistrate in toto.
ReplyDeleteI find it is impossible that any magistrate would pass a law that says kill away, it's not illegal!
But, of course, for some, for the most vulnerable and for the civility of their rights, the U.S. Magistrates of the Constitution have affirmed it so!
"Kill away!"
What one observed about this law is the fact that those magistrates were all living so that there was no fate that awaited them when they declared it was constitutional for them among us to kill away!
The insanity of it and the madness!
It makes this prophecy so much more apropos:::>
Luk 16:14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him.
Luk 16:15 And he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Rev 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues;
Rev 18:5 for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.
Rev 18:6 Pay her back as she herself has paid back others, and repay her double for her deeds; mix a double portion for her in the cup she mixed.
Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, for God has given judgment for you against her!"
ooops!
ReplyDeleteplease edit yours in italics removing the two words [in toto]. Those two words were meant for my paragraph:
But, of course, for some, for the most vulnerable and for the civility of their rights, the U.S. Magistrates of the Constitution have affirmed it so in toto
Sorry for my sloppy editing. I should have checked and double checked my words before posting, TF!
Thank God for mercy, huh? :)