But here is a point I would want to emphasize, does the advent of Christianity — does the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ — does it fundamentally change what civil government is supposed to do in this world? And I would say “no.” And I think Kuyper would say “no” as well. And Romans 13 looks very similar to the Noahic covenant for example. That governments have always and continued to be responsible for doing justice, for punishing the wrong doer and praising the good. Now of course this needs lots of working out. But I would say that basic functioning of civil government is not fundamentally changed by Christianity. And that is why I say it shouldn’t be “redeemed.” Christians … ought to be better at promoting justice within civil government but civil government remains a creation / common grace ordinance from God… it doesn’t mean we are fundamentally changing the nature of the institutions themselves or that the institutions remain something other than penultimate or provisional.
Dr. David Van Drunnen
Conversation / Interview with Dr. Robert Godfrey
(1. & 2.) DVD is correct here that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ does not fundamentally changed what civil government is supposed to do in this world. Where DVD is incorrect is assuming that unbelievers who serve in civil government give two shakes about what civil government is supposed to do in this world. Has the man never read Machiavelli so as to know what the typical pagan magistrate understands his role as magistrate to be? DVD is just a tad younger than me. Where has he been for the 20th-21st century when considering pagan magistrates? So while the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ does not fundamentally change what civil government is supposed to do those realities fundamentally change magistrates who bow the knee to Christ so that they care about doing what they are supposed to do as magistrates.
(3.) DVD keeps banging that Noahic covenant drum. It is the lynch pin for his whole R2K program. If his interpretation of the Noahic covenant fails his whole innovative “theology” goes in the muck pile. I have dealt with DVD’s Biblical-theological error before. That analysis can be accessed here.
https://ironink.org/?p=8213&
(4.) Again, DVD is correct in describing that which governments are responsible. However, when is the last time DVD knows when Christ-hating magistrates actually brought forth justice as defined by God’s character as found in God’s Law? I can offer up 10,000’s of words giving instances where the government, instead of punishing the wrong doer and praising the good, punished the good and praised the wrong-doer. I suppose it is too much to hope that DVD has ever heard of anarcho-tyranny? And why do governments so typically act this way? It is simply because the magistrates who run them are Christ haters and care nothing for justice, or punishing the wrong doer, or praising the good. So, the problem with DVD’s construct is that the man seems to honestly believe that in his make-believe world the Christian magistrate and the non-Christian magistrate will act in the same fashion.
(6.) DVD seems to have a problem with “is” and “ought.” While we can agree that it ought to be the case that the basic functioning of civil government would not be fundamentally changed by Christianity we seem to be stuck over what actually is the case. The wicked magistrate ought to follow God’s law in adjudicating, but precisely because the wicked magistrate is wicked he does not nor even cares to follow God’s law in adjudicating. Only redemption can change the man so that he cares once again to rule as a Christian. Only when the pagan magistrate is converted he can then bring the “ought” and “is” together. However, this is not acceptable for DVD because he has it stuck in his head that the Christ-hating magistrate can rule in the same manner of the Christ-loving magistrate.
The irony here is the DVD is appealing to a time when unbelieving magistrates may well have come closer to ruling in a Christian manner precisely because that was the cultural ethos that was informing them. Because the implications of their Christ-hating was muted by living and ruling in CHRISTENDOM unbelieving magistrates were not as consistent in their Christ-hating as they might otherwise have been. Yet, DVD, both horrifyingly and amusingly enough, seems to think that the way to have Christ-hating magistrates who rule like Christ-loving magistrates is to tear down the notion of Christendom. This R2K thinking tends to make a sane man edge towards complete exasperation.
(7.) Of course “It” can’t be redeemed. However, men can be redeemed and when men are redeemed that Institutions wherein they handle the levers changes along with them. This isn’t rocket science.
(8.) DVD seems to think that these institutions are comprised as inanimate objects. Civil Governments are run by flesh and blood men, so while the institution as institution might not be redeemed the men and women who run the institutions and make them what they are certainly can be redeemed and when they are redeemed the institution is redeemed since the institution is nothing but the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs. It is true that the civil government does not handle the keys, and is not involved in Word and Sacrament and so in that sense it is a common grace Institution. However, where does scripture teach that common grace institutions can’t be Christian in their orientation, nature, and direction?
(9.) The Church is ultimate when as it pertains to the Keys and Word and Sacrament. The civil-social government is ultimate as it pertains to the sword and dispensing justice. The family is ultimate as it pertains to the rod and the catechizing and educating of the children. Each are ultimate is their own sphere but each and all are only penultimate as operating under the ultimate of God and His Kingdom.
But that is the problems isn’t it DVD? You with your R2K theology do not believe that the Kingdom can be found anywhere except in your ultimate institution of the Church. You identify the Church and the Kingdom as exactly synonymous and therefore everything else is only penultimate and can’t be brought over into the Kingdom of God and the new Jerusalem.
And while we are at it, we better say again for the person who is being exposed to your (R2K) problems for the first time. You have the theology you have because you hold the conviction that Christ won’t have victory in this world in time and space. Your R2K theology is all based upon that premise. You believe Christ can’t have victory in the political realm, the legal realm, the educational realm, the Arts realm, the family realm, the political realm, and so you have developed a theology where it is literally impossible for Christ to have victory in those jurisdictions.
I can only say to you what Luther said to Zwingli at Marburg.
“Your spirit and our spirit cannot go together. Indeed, it is quite obvious that we do not have the same spirit.”
