If you read the New Testament through the right "pair of glasses," i.e. *without* all the accumulated filtering barnacles of centuries of tradition and prejudicial English translations, it becomes apparent that the ecclesia (church) itself is the answer to statism:
https://peakd.com/politics/@creatr/a-sola-the-reformers-missed-sola-ecclesia
The ecclesia (a Greek word meaning "assembly") is quite literally God's intended replacement for local city government.
I don't agree with you on this, but we've already been over that. We are pilgirms and exiles, in the world but not of it, not in the world and taking over the world. Here we have no continuing city, etc. 🤙🏼🤙🏼🤙🏼
I don't think I've ever heard Duncan advocate for "taking over" the world. He's more about making the local church so good that the ecclesia and then the surrounding community no longer need the state. A better alternative for community care and the things that ail individuals and communities comes instead. It's a model I strive for while knowing it's pointless.
Thanks for helping "interpret" me.🙏😄😆
But despite our feelings, this is not pointless; rather, it is inevitable. God uses the weak things (myself absolutely included) to confound the strong. He uses the assembly of his own design to prevail against the gates of hell itself.😆
For the church to replace the civil powers even at the local level is effectively to take over its function, and that's not for us to do. That's all I mean. We're meant to be 'not of' the world (on this we agree) but also 'in the world' (on this perhaps we do not). Duncan's an online bud so there's no real beef here :-)
Good, because Duncan is me mate 😊 and anyone who has serious beefs with him also has beefs with me. I don't have a beef with you but can I ask a question without it being taken that way?
I'm still trying to figure out the role of the ecclesia myself. I can see the case from Duncan's perspective, but how does the church live in the truth of Jesus being enthroned with all authority if not being a Christ focused alternative to the state. All this in the world, not of it, already but not yet confuses me.
Understood! Both of you are interesting interlocuters. 🤝🏻
It means we don't live in a theocracy and neither should we try to establish one--Christ will come bearing that sword. Now, the kingdom is ethical (in our hearts), then it will be geopolitical. Until then, the church, as church, should not take up or decide civil matters. As a great introduction, I'd suggest David VanDrunen, Living in God's Two Kingdoms.
Interesting interlocutor... I don't think I've been called that before 😃
I couldn't find that book on my audio book app but found a few podcasts the author has been on so I will have a listen soon.
The Israelites had a system of law and property rights and judges but were probably left alone to live out the ten commandments and ritual temple themed get togethers for the most part. That's closer to what I imagine life should be in the church. Something closer to what libertarian philosophy points to, if people were raised with the belief that it is wrong to hurt people and touch their stuff the that is all the law we need.. I would never advocate for church people attempting to weild what we have now, which is oppressive and run by a parasitic elite class of politicians.
As for Jesus coming back with a sword? In that passage in Revelation it indicates His robes were stained with blood as he rode in so it's probably His own blood, not those He's apparently slaughtered before coming to earth.. And the sword comes from His mouth. That seems to indicate to me that it is the sword of the word.. How does Jesus return? With His word.
See 2 Thessalonians 1:5ff
It's not his blood in Rev 14:20, though I grant that's apocalyptic literature.
When he returns it will be a day of deliverance for his people, and a day of terrifying vengeance against his enemies...
That's an interesting passage. 😊🤔 I'll have to ponder that a bit. Thanks
Ever notice what was left out in Lk 4:18,19 when Jesus quoted Isa. 61:1-2?
Out like a Lamb
In like a Lion
I always believed He left it out because He is the Lamb and will come back peacefully again.
I'm with Aron on this one. Peace for his own, destruction for the remaining belligerants when he appears...
For whatever this is worth. After fully rejecting theonomy/theocracy as a ground for the current political order, I spent many years trying to answer the question "on what basis, then, can we make any laws?" I've come to the place where I believe the Reformers (in general) and the Classical Liberals (in general) were correct. There is a Divine Lawgiver who has revealed through Natural Law and through conscience what is generally required of people--that these requirements flow from the "second table" of the moral law, and that he has revealed this law sufficiently enough even for unbelievers to recognize it. I found further support for this in the "two kindgoms" model, specifically in God's ordaining retributive justice as the norm for the common kingdom (Genesis 9:6). This is also why I am a libertarian--the non-aggression principle aligns rather nicely with the prohibitions of the 6th through 9th commandments (don't murder, don't steal, honesty in contracts, etc.). For a deeper study on this stuff, I'd highly recommend VanDrunen's three book series as well as Stephen Graybill's on the Natural Law tradition in the Reformed tradition. Let me know if you want the full titles. Well worth the time if you're interested in how Christians ought to think about, and to what end we ought to work, in the political order...
Yes please for the titles... I am super curious.
VanDrunen, [Living in God's Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture](https://amzn.to/49CW28u) - written at a popular level
Grabill, [Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics](https://amzn.to/3uqNEsN) - academic
VanDrunen,
[Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought](https://amzn.to/49KH6VW) - academic
VanDrunen, [Divine Covenants and Moral Order: A Biblical Theology of Natural Law](https://amzn.to/47k2rE7) - academic
VanDrunen, [Politics after Christendom: Political Theology in a Fractured World](https://amzn.to/3GakdO2) - academic
Note, these are best read in the above order, as the later books build on arguments made in prior books. Start with the first one which is shorter and written at a more popular level (and note the year published--he says some things about public education in the latter chapters that I no longer think he would say), then if you want to go deeper, tackle the much more academic latter four. VanDrunen's last two were especially eye-opening for me.
Happy reading...
Just finding this now. Thank you kindly for the bookreferences. :D
No, in his first advent he came to seek and to save the lost. He came offering salvation during the age of grace. But that day will end, and he will come again to execute vengeance on all his and our enemies. We now live in that comma after "to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor" and before "and the day of vengeance of our God..."
We are Rahabs in a Cosmic Jericho, and Joshua is coming...🤙🏼
Peacefully? Lightning and a double edged sword conquering is not my idea of peacefully...
The lightning, sword, and judgement are reserved for those who adamantly reject the offer of peace, grace, and permanent blessing and well being. This is the good news (gospel) that has been on offer for more than two millenia now, that has been heralded worldwide by followers of King Jesus.😃
Yes: it is both a plea and a warning.
Precisely.
Our task is to offer the nations our King's olive branch during the present period of his gracious patience. The deal is "Repent and submit now, and receive my mercy and eternal favor, or persist in your rebellion and suffer my wrath upon my return."
This in no wise alters or diminishes the fact that he is presently ruling, having been elevated above all and seated (enthroned) at the Father's right hand until he makes all his enemies a footstool.
Right. The point of difference between most post-mils and a-mils is how he makes his enemies his footstool. The former tend to think it's by the church taking dominion over the institutions of the world thus preparing a way for him; the latter tend to think that he will come to do that himself.
I personally seem to have a foot in each camp. I see the Kingdom as a present, peacefully implemented process (think parable of the leaven) ultimately completed (once the leavening reaches fullness and the last sheep is safely in the fold). This to be followed by the indisputable appearance of the King in all his glory and might, when "every eye" will witness his lightning-like presence and face judgement.
"A Song of Ascents. Of David.
Behold, how good and pleasant it is
when brothers dwell in unity!
It is like the precious oil on the head,
running down on the beard,
on the beard of Aaron,
running down on the collar of his robes!"
Psalm 133:1-2
No "beef" ever intended or implied, but I'm always keen to encourage good, meaty discussion. 😆
My contention is that "civil powers" as a neutral "sphere" ala Kuyper is an unbiblical categorization that has led the church down two erroneous paths; either complete disengagement with the state (i.e. with the kingdom of Satan) OR attempts to "reform" the state by political means (e.g. Christian nationalism).
Amen!
Not a 'neutral' sphere, but a 'common' sphere, ruled by *God's* Lex Talionis (retributive law, i.e., justice) per the Noachic covenant and or natural law...
I believe it likely that we may be in closer agreement than is apparent. We are pilgrims and exiles certainly in that the satanic world system is utterly foreign and repugnant to us. However, at the same time, we *are* the embassy of Heaven. We are ambassadors of the King (Greek 'Cristos'), the "Blessed and *only* Sovereign" who as our Creator is the only human with a legitimate right to rule us.
All authority in heaven and on earth belongs to Jesus. The government is upon his shoulders, and his kingdom expands endlessly as the nations (Greek 'ethnos' often translated 'Gentiles') hear this good news and exit (exodus) out of worldly kingdoms, flowing into the Kingdom of God (the ecclesia).
My only disagreement is that the kingdom of God is primarily in our hearts, and in that voluntary association called the church--it is not to take up nor decide civil matters. Its powers are spiritual and declarative, not civil. There will come a day, after Christ's bodily return, when the kingdoms of the world will become the kingdom of Christ -- in a very real, geopolitical sense -- that until he returns, that is not a goal of the church. But as I've said...we've already been on about this one before. No harm, no foul, we're still bros either way. Probably just another post-mil / a-mil thing.
