Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Twin Spin … Dr. Van Til vs. The R2K Lads

“If then Christianity as interpreted in the Reformed creeds, as championed by Kuyper, Bavinck, Hodge, Warfield, and Machen, is to be presented to men today, ministers must learn to understand the riches of their own position. Christianity …is the sine qua non of the intelligibility of anything. Why am I so much interested in science? It is a) because with Kuyper I believe that God requires of us that we claim every realm of being for Him, and b) because with Kuyper I believe that unless we press the crown rights of our King in every realm, we shall not long retain them in any realm.”

Cornelius Van Til, “The Defense of the Faith”, pg. 276

1.) Van Til was not R2K and the R2K lads need to give up claiming Van Til.

A.) Van Til says that, “Christianity is the sine qua non of the intelligibility of anything.” R2K says, “No, that is inaccurate. What is the sine qua non of the intelligibility in the common realm is not Christianity but Natural Law.”

B.) Van Til, with Kuyper believed that every realm — including the common realm — must be claimed for God. R2K says to Van Til, “No, ‘Kees,’ don’t you understand that the common realm can’t be captured for God since the common realm is a realm of creation and not redemption?”

C.) Van Til understood that the realms were integrated to some degree so that if the R2K common realm caught a cold the result would be that the R2K spiritual realm would sneeze. R2K would say to Van Til, “No, Kees you don’t realize that the common realm and the spiritual realm are compartmentalized from one another so much so that Scripture is not the moral standard for the common kingdom. The common realm and the spiritual realm are sealed tight from one another Kees.”

“Moreover, in paradise, supernatural revelation, that is, thought-communication on the part of God, accompanied God’s revelation in the created universe. Natural revelation therefore required supernatural revelation as its supplement even apart from the fact of sin. Even in paradise Adam had to regard all the facts of his natural environment in the light of the goal that God set for man in his supernatural revelation.”

Cornelius Van Til, “The Defense of the Faith”, pg. 205

If Van Til is correct here then Natural Law, as a means by which social order can be organized, is not possible. Natural revelation (of which Natural law is a subset) needs supernatural revelation in order to make sense. To state it differently, for natural revelation to gain traction it must presuppose special revelation. Yet, that is precisely what R2K denies. R2K affirms that Natural law can be understood quite fine apart from and without special revelation and insists that a cohesive God honoring social order can be built on Natural law.

Gnostikoi’s Strangeness

Over at Gnostikoi’s life,

http://oldlife.org/2012/05/looks-like-peter-and-paul-were-radical-2kers/#comments

Gnostikos gives a flurry of Scriptures and then concludes with this,

The more some try to read their political opposition into Scripture, the more they resemble political Islam.

Now, the political opposition that Gnostikos Darryl says I read into Scripture was merely the idea that God has ordained Spheres of sovereignty in the Temporal realm (Ecclesiastical, Civil, and Family) and over those spheres He has set Covenant Heads (Elders (I Peter 5:1-4) , Magistrates (Romans 13:1-7), Fathers (Ephesians 5, 6) to rule as His representatives in their ordained spheres. Then I merely mentioned that Marxism is a Sphere sovereignty sucking philosophy that seeks to overturn God’s ordained spheres.

Then I ended with this paragraph that might have hurt Darryl’s feelings,

All of this explains why radical two kingdom theology is such a poison pill for the church because radical two kingdom theology insists that the Church as the Church has no role in declaiming against the Marxist state’s attempt to seize all temporal sovereignty. R2K “theology” would stand silent as the state seeks to absorb all temporal sovereignty so that it becomes the idol state that has raised itself up against the almighty God. In R2K “theology” the only time the Church can protest this seizure of sovereignty is when the state seeks to dictate to the Church about its formal worship patterns. But if the Church is only concerned about its formal worship patterns then why would the state ever have any reason to want to absorb a sovereignty that it views as irrelevant? In point of fact if the R2K church is telling its people that they must obey the state, the state may very well view the R2K church as already effectively one of its agents.

1.) Note the political opposition that Gnostikos Darryl is reading into my quote is the opposition of the Church to declaim against Marxism as a concrete plausibility structure that is seeking to gain all temporal sovereignty for itself so that it can be a god above God. Scripture informs me, as a Pastor, I am to have, “No Other Gods before me,” and so as a Pastor, when the State seeks the kind of Sovereignty that would ensconce it as God, I am compelled by Scripture and conscience to declaim against the God-State. There is no reading into Scripture here.

2.) Note that the Scripture that Gnostikos Darryl quotes in his blog entry does not trump Peter’s, “We must obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29). And the same Paul that wrote some of those Scripture’s that Gnostikos Darryl can refer to is the same Paul who disobeyed a direct order from the Magistrate in Acts 16,

35 Now when day came, the chief magistrates sent their policemen, saying, “Release those men.” 36 And the jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The chief magistrates have sent to release you. Therefore come out now and go in peace.” 37 But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out.”

Here you have the same Paul who wrote I Timothy 2:1-4, and Romans 13, disobeying a direct order from a Civil Magistrate. If St. Paul could defy a Magistrate’s orders for being released — a defiance which was for far more picayune reasons then the kind of defiance I’ve said is warranted as against a Magistrate for flagrant and repeated disobedience to God’s revelation — then how much more is Christ centered defiance warranted when a Magistrate is seeking to suck up all the temporal sovereignty available so they might seek to place themselves in the position of God to God’s people?

3.) Gnostikos Darryl doesn’t believe that there is no time in which a Christian can say “no” to a Magistrate. He believes saying, “no” to a Magistrate is warranted when the Magistrate gets in the way of formalized worship. As such Darryl and I agree that the Magistrate’s authority isn’t absolute. Our only difference is where to draw the line. Darryl draws the line at the point where the Magistrate gets in the way of formalized Church worship whereas I would say lines might well be drawn, as well in matters like,

A.) The Magistrate demanding that I must turn my children over to the pagan state schools
B.) The Magistrate condoning and supporting the wide scale murder of the unborn
C.) The Magistrate condoning and promoting sexual perversion
D.) The Magistrate condoning and legislating oppressively against private property
E.) The Magistrate requiring me to be involved in a office-work process role of a final solution for Radical Two Kingdom officialdom.

In each of those I can envision the necessity of the Church to say, “We must obey God rather than man.” Darryl however, says the Church should be silent on these matters and so by its silence support the agenda of the tyrant.

Flander’s Field Re-told By An Anti-Statist

In Legends told the stories grow
Of noble causes marked by poppy rows
These give us status; and with each lie
The policy for which men laid down to die
Disappears amidst the hallow glow
Of Bard tales spun to gloriously show
The rightness of wars fought long ago
So that Memorial doth the truth belie
In Legends told

So, I take up the quarrel with the foe
Who would sanctify unholy rows
By conflating brave men who die
With wicked policies from on high
For such support of those who’ve lied
Only insures that more sons will die
And become part of Legends told

Murder … It’s vast reach

Text — Exodus 20:13
Subject — Murder
Theme — The broad definition of Murder per the Heidelberg Catechism

Proposition — … will give us insight as to what we are called to as Christians in terms of our neighbor and remind us of the ongoing necessity to look to Christ alone for a 6th commandment keeping righteousness that can stand up to God’s just expectations.

Purpose — … therefore having examined the broad definition of murder let us continue, as those filled with the Spirit of Christ to seek to love our neighbor, and enemy by seeking their good.

Introduction

Inter-relationship between various commandments

At this point we want to talk about the violation of the commandments in terms of action and not just thought. In a few minutes we will talk about the thought end these sins. However, for now I want to spend just a little time talking about how integrated God’s law is in terms of the sin acted and lived out — this as opposed to the thought or contemplation of the sin.

So, in our opening lets spend just a few minutes talking about the inter-relationship that exists among the 10 words.

1.) The 6th commandment as a violation of the 1st commandment.

God says we are to have no other Gods before Him.

If we disobey God and obey other gods we have violated the 1st commandment
In Murder we are disobeying God and so setting ourselves up to be god over God
Hence violation of the 6th commandment is a violation of the 1st commandment

2.) The violation of the 6th commandment as a violation of the 8th commandment.

When murder occurs theft occurs since murder is the (taking) stealing of someones life.

3.) The violation of the 7th commandment as a violation of the 8th commandment

When adultery occurs someone is stealing someones husband and / or wife.

4.) The violation of commandments 6-8 is a violation of commandment #10

We do not murder, commit adultery, or steal unless we are first animated by wanting something that isn’t ours to have.

5.) Violation of commandment #9 is a violation of commandment #3

When we bear false witness in court, we are at that point taking God’s name in vain since testifying is connected to oath taking.

6.) If you had Christian parents the violating of any of the commandment is a violating of the 5th commandment as it is not honoring to Christian Mothers and Fathers to break God’s Law Word.

7.) A breaking of any of the commandments is a breaking of the 3rd commandments since as God’s people we wear God’s name, and so any living inconsistent with God’s Law Word is a taking of God’s name in vain.

8.) A breaking of any of the commandments is a breaking of the 2nd commandment since in the breaking of God’s commandments there is a serving of some other god and his commandments and the 2nd commandment does not allow us to bow down to nor serve false gods.

We could go on like this but you begin to see how it is the case that though we rightly distinguish God’s law into 10 different commandments they are all bound up tightly together. Now having said that it is not as if all the sins committed as crimes are equally grave. Clearly they are not equally grave since Murder is a capital offense while something like theft is adjusted by restitution. So, clearly among the sins as committed as crimes there are levels of severity.

Now let us turn to the thought aspect of the 6th commandment.

Thought of harm

“That neither in thoughts, nor words, nor gestures, much less in deeds, I dishonour, hate, wound, or kill my neighbour, by myself or by another…”

Now, in as much the thought or contemplation of theft, or adultery, or false witness, or covetousness is a thought that dishonors, hates and wounds my neighbor, just as the thought of murder does, in that much my thoughts of theft, adultery, false witness, or covetousness, are thoughts that make me guilty of murder in my thinking since such thinking is a thinking that dishonors, and hates my neighbor. So, even though a person may be only contemplating adultery in his thinking, since that contemplation of adultery is a thinking that reveals dishonor or hate towards my neighbor, which is forbidden in the 6th commandment, that contemplating of adultery is at the same time a murderous contemplation.

Now if a person goes from contemplating theft to acting out theft, as a Magistrate I can not convict him for murder, though as a minister I would counsel him to repent of the kind of thoughts of hatred towards his neighbor that led him to steal from his neighbor, which is the same counsel I would give, as a minister, to someone who was convicted for murder. I would tell the convicted murderer also that he must repent of the kind of thoughts of hatred toward his neighbor that led him to kill his neighbor. So the actions of theft and murder are different and murder is far more grave in terms of criminal activity, and so is visited with a harsher penalty, but the actions of each are born of the same thinking that dishonors or hates my neighbor. This is why when I am guilty of violating the 7th – 10th commandment both in thinking and acting I am also guilty of the 6th commandment in as much as the thinking and acting done in violation of commandments 7 – 10 makes me guilty of the thinking that is forbidden in the 6th commandment — as I am forbidden to think such thoughts that would dishonor or hate my neighbor.

Now, obviously, no one can be, nor did God ever require people to be tried and temporally punished for thought crimes, still the Catechism teaches, as before God, that when we contemplate these matters (murder – hatred, theft – hatred, lust – hatred,) or if we plot them out, or let burn in our thinking hatred towards a fellow Christian we are guilty of murder as before God. In such thinking we will never be charged with a crime but we are charged with sin before God.

Question 106 of the Catechism reinforces even more that our thought life regarding our neighbor must be wholesome and chaste,

Question 106. But this commandment seems only to speak of murder?

Answer: In forbidding murder, God teaches us, that he abhors the causes thereof, such as envy, (a) hatred, (b) anger, (c) and desire of revenge; and that he accounts all these as murder. (d)

Envy — Pain over the good or prosperity of others and joy at the Misery of others. Envy belongs to whoever wishes to lower others so that he may climb over them.

(a) Prov.14:30 A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones.

In our culture we have institutionalized envy via our political process and as such I intend to give envy a whole sermon next week.

Hatred,

(b) 1 John 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 1 John 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

Anger,

But following God’s word, the Catechism isn’t finished with detailing the 6th commandment for we remember that when we consider the Commandments that for every “Thou Shalt Not,” there is a corresponding “Thou Shalt.” And we find the “Thou Shalts” of the 6th commandment in the answer to Question 107.

Question 107. But is it enough that we do not kill any man in the manner mentioned above?

Answer: No: for when God forbids envy, hatred, and anger, he commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves; (a) to show patience, peace, meekness, mercy, and all kindness, towards him, (b) and prevent his hurt as much as in us lies; (c) and that we do good, even to our enemies. (d)

(a) Matt.7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matt.22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Rom.12:10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

(b) Eph.4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Gal.6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Gal.6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. Matt.5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Matt.5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Matt.5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Rom.12:18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Luke 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. 1 Pet.3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Col.3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Rom.12:10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; Rom.12:15 Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.

(c) Exod.23:5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.

(d) Matt.5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Matt.5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Rom.12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Rom.12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Now please understand that what is being taught here is that it is not only the case that we are guilty before God of murder when we actually literally murder someone, it is not only the case that we are guilty before God of murder when we merely think hateful, angry, and envious thoughts against our neighbor, it is also the case that we are guilty before God of the sin of murder when we do not prevent harm against our neighbor and do not love and help our neighbor as we ought.

Now this is the standard for Christians and I hope at this point that you, along with me, are recoiling here and thinking, “who can be cleared of the charge of murder then as before God.” “If this is God’s expectation then how can I have God on my side for, at the very least, I am guilty of not perfectly helping my neighbor at every point wherein they needed help and so I am guilty of Murder.

Well, if you are with me in thinking that then that is where we must once again preach the Gospel to ourselves. We God’s law as a guide to life as Christians. We sincerely seek to walk in our newness of life so that we love God and our neighbor and by the Spirit’s agency working within us we begin to do just that. However, we also see, if we are honest with ourselves that our obedience, that God accepts and is delighted in for the sake of Christ, is never, even after conversion, all that would be necessary to stand before God in the day of Judgment without Christ’s righteousness for us.

When we begin to see the high high standard of God’s expectations we are once again reminded of the necessity of Christ’s righteousness for us as Christians. We must remind ourselves daily that I am right with God not by the excellence of my obedience, nor by the Spirit of Christ working in me but by the excellency of Christ obedience for me.

And as this came up recently in one of our teaching sessions w/ some discussion let us review quickly

Of this righteousness of Christ for me that is called Christ’s Active Obedience

Rushdoony could write,

“Biblical justification is by imputation. Although man is not righteous before God, God the Judge imputes the righteousness of Jesus Christ to the sinner and declares him justified. As Berkhof wrote, ‘Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner.’ From beginning to end, justification is the act of God: He is the lawgiver whose law has been broken. He is the court and Judge before whom all flesh shall appear. He is the Redeemer whose atonement affects man’s justification. And, before all this He is the Creator, who made all things, including man.” (R.J. Rushdoony, “Systematic Theology,” p. 631)

What Rushdoony is saying here is what has been, in the main taught by Biblical Christians throughout the centuries, and that is I can have fellowship w/ God not because of my obedience to the law but because of Christ’s obedience to the law for me. It is not what is worked inside me that gives me standing with God but it is what is worked outside of me that gives me standing with God.

This teaching is contrary to what some have taught in Church history regarding justification. Some have taught,

(Osiander) that justification for a Christian believer resulted by Christ dwelling in a person. Contrary to Luther’s belief that justification was from outside of us and was imputed by God’s grace, Osiander believed that the righteousness of a believer was accomplished by the indwelling of God; thus, God finds one righteous because Christ is in that person.

You see the contrast?

The Scriptures teach that God finds us righteous and so acceptable because God has put the perfect law keeping obedience of Christ on our side of the ledger. Others have wrongly taught that God finds us righteous and acceptable because God finds Christ in a person.

Now throughout history that teaching that Christ outside of us as our righteousness has been charged with encouraging lawlessness on the part of believers.

The accusation has been that if we teach people that what Christ has done for them which is outside of them which is their standing before God then those people will not follow God’s law.

However, as Calvin and the Reformers taught this doth in no way follow.

Calvin,

“For, if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and at the same time, Christ is never where his Spirit is not, it is obvious that free righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration. Therefore, if you would properly understand how inseparable faith and works are, look to Christ, who, as the Apostle teaches, has been given to us for justification and for sanctification (I Cor. 1:30). Wherever, therefore, that righteousness of faith which we maintain to be free is, there too Christ is, and where Christ is there too is the Spirit of holiness, who regenerates the soul to newness of life.”

Calvin, Responsio (found in Ioannis Calvini opera selecta [ed. P. Barth, W. Niesel, and Dora Scheuner; 5 vols.; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1926–1952]

What Calvin is saying here is,

By the Spirit through faith believers are united to Christ who is in himself both (1) righteousness and (2) sanctification (I Corinthians 1:30). Hence these graces of righteousness (right standing w/ God because Christ’s obedience is accounted to them) and Sanctification (ongoing Spirit led obedience to God’s law) are

(1) distinct but inseparable, and entirely out of reach unless we are united to Christ;

(2) simultaneously bestowed, something Calvin is careful to emphasize repeatedly.

Consequently it is impossible to entertain either a salvation without works (works as dispensable for salvation) or a justification through our works (works as instrumental for justification).

If we do not hold with Rushdoony, and the overwhelming majority report of Reformed Christians since the Reformation, that it is Christ’s obedience to the 6th commandment as freely credited to our account that is our 6th commandment keeping righteousness then we are left to seeking to have a 6th commandment keeping obedience that is as complete as what the Catechism requires and so we are left with seeking to become our own Messiah.

Tuininga And The Development Of R2K

At this link,

Why it’s so important to affirm two kingdoms: Calvin on the Lord’s Prayer

We see the most recent effort of the ever moving target that we have affectionately called “R2K.”

Mr. Tuininga has commented on this subject elsewhere recently,

In my view the two kingdoms doctrine is a doctrine in development, and VanDrunen, like myself, is still working through the best formulations.

It may be just me, but it is amazing to me that we have a whole Seminary (Westminster, Ca.) committed to a Theology that is in flux, not to mention several other Seminary’s that have been significantly influenced by this “theology.” Now, keep in mind, that Two Kingdom theology has been embraced by Reformed Christians since the Reformation, so obviously whatever is in “development” (flux) here is a theology that isn’t standard 2K theology.

The reader can access the Mr. Tuininga’s work at the link. I want to list the problems that remain with his latest greatest version of R2K. I imagine that eventually somebody else will step forward with yet another version of R2K once the problems here are seen as problematic as the problems found in Dr. VanDrunen’s 1.0 version of R2K.

1.) Mr. Tuininga notes at the beginning of his piece that “people think of the two kingdoms doctrine as being about two different airtight realms.” Well, let me testify that the reason people have thought that way is because that is precisely the way that the R2K acolytes have been putting forth the R2K flux theology. It is not as if those who have interacted with them have misunderstood them. Quite to the contrary we have understood them precisely. Hence, the current brouhaha.

2.) Mr. Tuininga notes that people have been focusing on the nitty-gritty questions of application as if by doing so such people have missed the forest that is R2K because of the R2K trees. However, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details,” and it has been because of the details of application that R2K has been found and still remains wanting.

3.) Mr. Tuininga offers a understanding that the two Kingdoms should be understood as “the age to come,” and this present age,” as opposed to two airtight realms of Nature (common) and Grace (Church). However the problem I see here is that the work of the “age to come,” is to advance and overcome this present wicked age. The age to come is leavening this present age so that as the leavening work continues the kingdoms of this world shall increasingly be, what they already are in principle, and that is the kingdoms of our Lord. Mr. Tuininga is admirably seeking to get the two Kingdoms in contact with one another, which is certainly an advance on the R2K 1.0 version that has the airtight compartments. However, I wonder if behind Mr. Tuininga’s “two kingdoms as the two ages” lies a amillennial eschatology that refuses to allow the current “age to come” now-ness to go from now-ness unto ever increasing now-ness, such as one finds in postmillennial eschatology. I wonder about this because Mr. Tuininga offers a dichotomy between this created (and cursed) world and the kingdom of God, thus suggesting that this created world will not experience incremental reverse of the curse due to the expansion of the present “age to come” kingdom in space and time.

The point here is that Mr. Tuininga’s offerings don’t really significantly advance the discussion because he seems to retain both an amillennial eschatology and a conviction that the kingdom of God is restricted to the Church. These are two doctrines that are central to the controversy and as long as these aren’t addressed it is difficult to see how a resolution can be found.

4.) Note also in the article that Mr. Tuininga is insisting, along with R2K 1.0, that the “age to come” Kingdom of God breaks into this age without immediately (interesting word) destroying or transforming this age. Mr. Tuininga leaves us wondering whether the Kingdom of God, since it does not “immediately transform this age”, if the kingdom of God will ever eventually incrementally transform this present age prior to Christ’s return?

5.) Mr. Tuininga confesses that “there is an eschatological tension that somehow needs to be sorted out.” Yet, this tension has been spoken to before and spoken to my none less then one of the most pre-eminent amillennialists who has ever lived. I am very comfortable with the way this amillennialist worked out the eschatological tension.

“The kingdom means the renewal of the world through the introduction of supernatural forces.” (page 192)

“The thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belong to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.” (page 194)

Geerhardus Vos
The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church

Dr. Vos obviously believed that the Kingdom of God transforms this present age and I desperately wish we could come to a version of R2K that would take us back to Vos on this matter. Maybe flux R2K 7.0 might finally get us there.

6.) Mr. Tuininga then quotes Calvin.

“We must first attend to the definition of the kingdom of God. He is said to reign among men, when they voluntarily devote and submit themselves to be governed by him, placing their flesh under the yoke, and renouncing their desires. Such is the corruption of the nature, that all our affections are so many soldiers of Satan, who oppose the justice of God, and consequently obstruct or disturb his reign. By this prayer we ask, that he may remove all hindrances, and may bring all men under his dominion, and may lead them to meditate on the heavenly life.

I like quoting Calvin as well,

“But it is questioned whether the law pertains to the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual and distinct from all earthly dominion; and there are some men, not otherwise ill-disposed, to whom it appears that our condition under the Gospel is different from that of the ancient people under the law; not only because the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but because Christ was unwilling that the beginning of His Kingdom should be aided by the sword. But, when human judges consecrate their work to the promotion of Christ’s Kingdom, I deny that on that account its nature is changed. For, although, it was Christ’s will that His Gospel should be proclaimed by His disciples in opposition to the power of the whole world, and He exposed them armed w/ the Word alone like sheep among wolves, He did not impose on Himself an eternal law that He should never bring Kings under his subjection, nor tame their violence, nor change them from being cruel persecutors into the patrons and guardians of His Church.”

John Calvin
Commentaries on the Last four Books of Moses.

Clearly, Calvin here has no problem with human judges consecrating their work to the promotion of Christ’s kingdom, thus revealing that Calvin did not restrict the Kingdom of God to the Church, nor it would seem that he would allow the notion that the Gospel doesn’t transform this present age. Calvin does seem to be teaching that once Kingdoms are won for Christ to the point that the Magistrate is ruling in such a way to promote Christ’s Kingdom then the redemptive work of the Kingdom can be advanced by those Magistrates who are patrons and guardians of His Church. If you read Mr. Tuininga’s article you will see that is a different thrust then what Mr. Tuininga puts on Calvin. Church and State (this present age and this present age as transformed by the “age to come” so that it partakes in the “age to come,”) co-operate together for the Kingdom of Christ.

7.) Mr. Tuininga then does some good work giving his vision of how God’s providential reign interacts with God’s Redemptive reign, though I would still contend that when God is pleased to give people Godly rulers, who rule by God’s revealed Word, that such ruling, while remaining distinct from God’s Redemptive reign, is far more complimentary to that Redemptive reign, as an expression of His providential reign, then when God’s providential reign is exercised by Christ hating magistrates. I cannot accept that the reign of Godly magistrates, in God’s providence, is as unrelated to Christ’s redemptive reign as Mr. Tuininga teaches when he says, referring to the coercive work of the Magistrate, “It does not build up the kingdom of God. Such a statement is born of the conviction that the Kingdom of God is restricted to the Church. Certainly the coercive work of a Christian Magistrate, ruling in subjection to Christ, is not a Redemptive action properly speaking, though we can say that by restoring and maintaining order, the coercive work of the Magistrate creates space where the Kingdom’s redemptive work can go forward. As such, we may say that, God’s providential reign in this scenario is more visibly furthering His redemptive reign.

8.) Mr. Tuininga tips his eschatological hand when he refers to this age as the “age of suffering service.” This idea is a key component of amillennial R2K thinking and in all this flux theology is consistent with R2K 1.0. It is important to note, because in the amillennial mindset, since this is the age of suffering service, we are not to expect such a transformation power by the “age to come” on this “age of suffering,” that this “age of suffering,” might ever become anything other than “an age of suffering.” Amillennial eschatology is self-fulfilling eschatology. It expects suffering and it will not be satisfied unless it develops a theology that guarantees suffering.

9.) After all that Mr. Tuining writes he finishes by saying (paraphrase) since the two kingdoms are jumbled up we can not expect Christians to agree on exactly how application of Natural law (another point of disagreement) goes forth. So, it seems that this flux theology will, in the end, not get us any closer to agreement on the details of application then we already are.