Category: Apologetics

Touching Penal sanctions

”But since no one can describe an approach more equitable and wholesome to the commonwealth than that which God describes in his law, it is certainly the duty of all kings and princes who recognize that God has put them over his people that they follow most studiously his own method of punishing evildoers. For inasmuch as we have been freed from the teaching of Moses through Christ the Lord so that it is no longer necessary for us to observe the civil decrees of the law of Moses, namely, in terms of the way and the circumstances in which they described, nevertheless, insofar as the substance and proper end of these commandments are concerned, and especially those which enjoin the discipline that is necessary for the whole commonwealth, whoever does not reckon that such commandments are to be conscientiously observed is certainly not attributing to God either supreme wisdom or a righteous care for our salvation.

Accordingly, in every state sanctified to God capital punishment must be ordered for all who have dared to injure religion, either by introducing a false and impious doctrine about the worship of God or by calling people away from the true worship of God (Deut 13:6-10 and 17:2-5); for all who blaspheme the name of God and his solemn services (Lev.24:15-16); who violate the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-15, and 35:2; Num. 15: 32-36); who rebelliously despise the authority of parents and live their own life wickedly (Deut.21:18-21); who are unwilling to submit to the sentence of a supreme tribunal (Deut.17: 8-12); who have committed bloodshed (Ex.21:12; Lev. 24:17; Deut. 19:11-13), adultery (Lev. 20:10), rape (Deut.22:20-25), kidnapping (Deut. 24:7); who have given false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:16-21).”

Martin Bucer 1491-1551
” The Fourteenth Law: The Modification of Penalties” in Pauck ibid. pp.378-9

Note here that what Bucer does is he retains the general equity of the law as the Westminster confession speaks of in 19:4. In doing this he makes the same exact move that the Westminster divines made. On one hand Bucer admits that the Mosaic civil law as designed for the particular circumstances in which Israel existed has been done away with in Christ, on the other had he insists that the end, goal or purpose of the Mosaic civil law must be maintained.

Clarity on this distinction might be found in someone like Samuel Willard (1640-1707), pastor at Boston’s Old South Church, in his Compleat Body of Divinity (posthumous, 1726). There we find Willard writing,

“With respect to the Judicial Laws, we must observe, that these were Appendices, partly of the Moral, partly of the Ceremonial Law: Now such as, or so far as they are related to the Ceremonial, they are doubtless Abolished with it. As, and as far as they bear respect to the Moral Law, they do, eo Nomine, require Obedience perpetual, and are therefore reducible to Moral Precepts.”

I will still be posting quotes daily for quite some time on the difference between historical Reformed thought on the Two Kingdoms, but it ought to be increasingly evident already that Escondidoism is not Reformed in the slightest on this issue. Indeed, some would even contend that it is antinomian.

If the reader would like to see that R2Kt is considered virus by others besides me and who see it as antinomian they can read today’s entry at,

http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/the-westminster-confusion-of-r-scott-clark/

Psalm 2

“…without a doubt he is speaking of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus. He admonishes all kings and authorities to be wise and to take heed to themselves. What is this wisdom? What is the lesson He gives them? To abdicate it all? Hardly! But to fear God and give homage to His Son…Furthermore, Isaiah prophesies that the kings will become the foster fathers of the Christian church and that queens will nurse it with their breasts (Isa. 49:23).I beg of you, how do you reconcile the fact that kings will be protectors of the Christian Church if their vocation is inconsistent with Christianity?”

Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 79

” Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. It is not in vain that he commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost deprives men of their nature in order that nothing may hinder their holy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity exacted but that we may know that God is defrauded of his honour, unless the piety that is due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is to be asserted, humanity must be almost obliterated from our memories.”

John Calvin
Tract Defending Action Against Severtus

Quoted in P.Schaff; History of the Christian Church vol 8 :791f.(Eerdmans 1981). The context is the defence of the execution of Servetus

John Calvin 1509-1564

“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

Note in this quote that Calvin would have found it quite strange to contend that there could be a theocratic arrangement that was not at the same time theonomic in some sense. I mention this because I have read some “smart” people try to make the case that while Theocracy was a part of Reformed tradition Theonomy never has been. This quote makes shreds of that proposition. Still, it must be admitted that the kind of theonomy that was advocated by the Theocratic Reformers would have been an altered form from what was developed in the 20th century. BUT not so altered that there are not touchstones of commonality.

Secondly, note that this was a sermon which means it was preached in a Church. Calvin, speaking as the voice of God in the pulpit, was clearly violating Escondido notions of radical two kingdom theology. In this sermon he is instructing the State how it should operate.

Could Calvin be ordained by R2Kt virus men?

At this link

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/flash-reformed-writers-uses-two-kingdoms-categories/#comments

Dr. R. Scott Clark had a bit of conversation on two Kingdom theology. If you want to see the whole context of this conversation I am repeating in an edited form I encourage you to read it there.

Bret,

Of course, as I’ve said many times, the two kingdoms theology was worked out in a theocratic context and yes, some of us are trying to put that theology to use in a post-theocratic context. Why is that wrong?

Dr. R. Scott Clark

Dr. Clark,

The answer is because we don’t live in a post-theocratic context and that it is impossible to live in a post-theocratic context. All cultures or peoples or socieities are organized theocratically, whether in a dejure or defacto sense. Theocracy is an inescapable category and all that.

Lutheran Theology and Reformed Theology are similar only in the sense that Lutheranism partakes of felicitous inconsistency. We may use the same words or phrases but because the systems are different we are using them equivocally when the systems are compared as a whole. This is no different than the similarity one finds between Reformed theology and any other branch you’d like to name. In all branches you can find surface similarities but when you burrow down you realize that you’re not saying the same thing at all.

Thanks for being gentlemanly,

Bret

Bret,

You’ve set up a definition that is inherently circular. It’s one thing to do this with ultimate questions. It’s another to do it with penultimate questions. You’ve rigged the game!

I did not respond to Dr. Clark at his site because I could foresee that this was a conversation where I would be cut off at some point. Therefore I am bringing my response to my site.

Dr. Clark,

Think about it. In your proposed and supposed non-theocratic context there exists a plurality of Gods contending in the marketplace of the culture of society. Now, who will referee how far the competing gods can go? Who will determine in your supposed and proposed non-theocratic context how vigorously the competing gods can walk in the public square? Wherever you locate that institution or person who is setting boundaries on the competing gods in the cultural market place there you find the God of the gods. In our culture, which is the culture that you would contend is “non-theocratic” that referee is the State. Therefore the State is the God in your non-theocratic culture. Another way of saying this is that if in democracy the voice of the people is the voice of God the theocratic arrangement in a democracy is the religion that animates the people which for Americans is a humanism that animates the State.

I therefore, as you can plainly see, most certainly have not “rigged the game” but rather simply recognized the nature of reality. I invite you to join me in embracing reality. It can be quite refreshing.

This is why R2Kt virus theology cannot work. It can not work because there is no such thing as a non-theocratic culture. When the Church refuses to speak to the God State in your putative “non-theocratic” setting what you accomplish is an institutionalizing of the violation of the first commandment.

Finally, because the methodology can be used on ultimate questions it can be used on penultimate questions that depend on the answer given in ultimate question. Because God is an inescapable category, everything that relies on God is likewise inescapable. For example since God is inescapable likewise religion is inescapable. Since some God is inescapable for an individual, God is inescapable for a people. Indeed, it is this shared sense of the Theo in the theocracy that alone makes cohesive culture possible.

By your creation of a non-theocratic realm, you have stated that it is possible to have some realm that isn’t derivative of theology.

I know you think I’ve rigged the game, but I think you’ve not realized what game is being played.

Bret