This exchange from Green Baggins
Firearms, theology, and fantasy
Zrim,
I think I am asking questions that mean to get at just what Jesus meant when he said his kingdom was not of this world. Did he mean his kingdom was mostly not of this world or completely transcendent of it?
Bret
Few verses are more misinterpreted than John 18:36 as Steve reveals. B. F. Wescott wrote on this verse, “yet He (Jesus) did claim a sovereignty, a sovereignty which the spring and the source was not of earth but of heaven.” Later Wescott offers, “My Kingdom is not of this world” means it “does not derive its origin or its support from earthly sources.” So we would say that Christ’s Kingdom is not derived from this world, because it is of God and is over the world.
Hence, the answer to your question, (which I think I’ve answered before in our delightful conversations elsewhere) is that Christ’s Kingdom, because it is heavenly in origin, transforms the Kingdoms of this World into the Kingdoms of Christ. The way you define transcendent Steve is to make Sovereignty mean “sovereign in the transcendent realm where the Kingdom exists.”
We should follow Bavinck here by admitting that grace restores nature.
Zrim,
From what I can tell so far, you agree with the Liberals that Jesus should come down off the Cross and fix things in the here and now. But remember that Herod had all the male children aged two and under killed. While it might scrape 21st century American sensibilities about the preciousness and innocence of youth, as well as notions of human rights and entitlements (it sure does mine), the Bible never casts infanticide so much the problem as keeping Jesus from his task.
Bret
Um … Steve… I hate to be the first to tell you this … but Jesus did come down from the cross and was raised on the third day and then after weeks of post-resurrection ministry He ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of the Father ruling as our mediatorial King over every area of life.
Jesus is one of those guys that can both be about the task of pronouncing reconciliation while at the same time being clearly opposed to the holocaust of the unborn. I know it disappoints you to think that Jesus can both fix problems in the here and now and call in His elect.
Zrim,
I use the term fetus-politics to indicate a form of moralism in the ranks (political to be exact). I don’t have femme-politics, so I don’t use the term the way they do. I get what you mean about inherent human rights for all persons, in- and ex-vitro, and could easily agree to it. But that’s a generally ideological and specifically American argument.
Bret
Oh Baloney!
First, all ideology stems from some theology. Therefore you cannot refer to something as a ideological argument without at the same time realizing that it is a theological argument.
Second, thou shalt not murder is not an American argument. It is a Biblical argument.
Third you would give up the form of moralism for a form of immoralism. But, hey who knows, immoralism for one culture may be moralism for another culture. We can never know for sure since different cultures are going to come to different conclusions about the way they interpret natural law.
Steve,
I want to know what in Calvinism says any particular group of people (unborn or women) has rights that supersede the other. I thought Calvinism said that all deserve death, that no one is righteous, etc.
Bret
That scripture teaches that all deserve death doesn’t mean it advocates that all people die. That scripture teaches that all deserve death doesn’t mean its alright to sit by and watch as some are delivered over to death.
Though, I’m glad to agree with you that we would be better served to speak of having duties and not rights. We have duties to God and our neighbor. One of those duties is to love our neighbor. Love for neighbor, would seem to include, creating a culture of life. That sounds very Calvinistic to me.
Zrim,
Those are hardly encouraging notions for those who think the Bible implies the Bill of Rights. But I guess since plenty believe they can find Franklin-esque colloquialisms like, “cleanliness is next to godliness” in the Bible it should be not so surprising that others find certain politics there as well.
Bret
Actually, Steve, if you were to spend some time reading Witte or Bergman you would discover that much of the Bill of Rights does indeed stem out of Scripture.
But your to busy trying to mock the whole notion of Christian politics, Christian economics, Christian education, Christian family and who knows what else to realize that the Bible does indeed speak to these areas.
Avoid the virus.