I think I ended up with a pretty bare-bones post here. Perhaps we can add some meat in the comments section. Here I go:
People in the one kingdom camp sometimes ask those of us who hold a two kingdoms theology a question that goes something like this: “If there are two kingdoms, and Christ is Lord over one kingdom, then who is lord over the other kingdom?”
When government is the topic of discussion, and we argue that government is of the civil kingdom and not the spiritual, the above question might be asked as a starter to point out what the Bible clearly says concerning the magistrate; his authority comes from God, he is God’s servant, and we are called to pray for him. So then, as the argument goes, it appears government is spiritual. If government, along with everything else, is part of the one spiritual kingdom, then Scripture is the moral standard for government and we as Christians must make sure our government submits to it.
But this question and this argument misunderstand our position. To be clear; God is sovereign over all and He governs both kingdoms. Our position, as David VanDrunen and others have outlined, is that God rules over the two realms in two different ways, one as creator and sustainer, but not as redeemer; the other not only as creator and sustainer, but also as redeemer. We affirm that God has given authority to those who rule over us in civil government, that God carries out his purposes in them, and that we are to pray for them. But government is an institution of the temporal kingdom of man, not the eschatological kingdom of God. Its end is not salvation in Christ.
But do the Reformed confessions support the two kingdoms doctrine on this? Are we outside our confessions when it comes to what they say about government? Let’s take a look:
WCF 23.1: God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.
As I’ve already explained, the doctrine of the two kingdoms affirms that God rules over both the civil and the spiritual kingdoms and that God has given those who rule in the civil government their authority. WCF 23.1 does no harm to our position.
WCF 23.3: Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
This article draws a bright line between the two kingdoms. The Word, sacraments and church discipline are administered and used by the church only. The civil government maintains order in society at large. Some might argue that because the article focuses on the magistrate’s duty to protect the church, a two kingdoms distinction is not there. But you see, when order is maintained and evil doers are punished in the civil kingdom, the spiritual kingdom (the church) benefits from that order and protection, as do all other “religious and ecclesiastical assemblies.” WCF 23.3 is what the church confesses concerning the role of the authorities God has put over us, it does not teach that civil government is an instrument of the church or that the Bible is to be the moral standard for the civil government. The article also tells us where governments do not belong, and in doing this it separates the kingdoms by placing church and state matters in their proper places.
BCF Article 36: We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, has appointed kings, princes, and magistrates; willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose He has invested the magistracy with the sword for the punishment of evil-doers and for the protection of them that do well.
Their office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also to protect the sacred ministry, that the kingdom of Christ may thus be promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshiped by every one, as He commands in His Word.
Moreover, it is the bounded duty of every one, of whatever sate, or condition he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity.
Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order which God has established among men.
I’ll quote some of Daniel Hyde’s comments on this article:
[T]he [Belgic] Confession describes the church in articles 27-35 as a spiritual kingdom that exists in the midst of the kingdoms of this world. In article 36 the Reformers’ doctrine of the two kingdoms is clearly in the background. The Latin term used in the title, magistratus, speaks of the “civil office,” in contrast to the “spiritual polity” of the church described in article 30.4.
Daniel R. Hyde, With Heart and Mouth: An Exposition of the Belgic Confession (Grandville, MI: Reformed Fellowship, 2008), 479
Hyde continues on page 481 to say that God appoints the magistrate according to his “goodness, not his grace” and “in creation, not redemption,” pointing out that the word gracious at the start of this article is a poor translation from the Latin text adopted by the Synod of Dort (some versions of the Confession say “our good God” in the opening sentence). In God’s goodness he has given authority to those who govern for the protection of depraved mankind. As evil is restrained in society by the magistrate, the sacred ministry is protected and the kingdom is promoted so that God may be worshiped.
Conclusion: The Reformed confessions teach that governments are institutions of the civil kingdom, not the spiritual kingdom. Two kingdoms theology is in agreement with the Reformed confessions on the subject of civil governments because they ground them in creation, not redemption. We are confessional when we conclude that the Holy Scriptures of the spiritual kingdom, the Bible, is not the moral code for civil government.
BC A 36
“We believe that because of the depravity of the human race our good God has
ordained kings, princes, and civil officers. He wants the world to be governed
by laws and policies so that human lawlessness may be restrained and that
everything may be conducted in good order among human beings.”
How do we know what actions are to be considered “human lawlessness”? How, are we to know what should be considered “good order among human beings” without the Bible?
BC A 36
“And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society
that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, subject to God’s law, of
removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of
divine worship.”
How could a society be pleasing to God if it disregards his moral code as found in the Bible? Why does the confession state that civil rulers are subject to God’s law?
BC A 36
“And the government’s task is not limited to caring for and watching over the
public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view
to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to
promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the
gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by
everyone, as he requires in his Word.”
Why should the government’s task extend to upholding the sacred ministry? How can it promote the kingdom of Jesus Christ without the Bible as a guide?
“In God’s goodness he has given authority to those who govern for the protection of depraved mankind. As evil is restrained in society by the magistrate, the sacred ministry is protected and the kingdom is promoted so that God may be worshiped.”
How does the magistrate know what is evil and therefore should be restrained?
By: heldveld on July 17, 2008
at 1:55 pm
heldveld,
First, you copied and pasted an older version of the Belgic Confession. this line, “with a view
to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist” was struck in the 1950’s.
And, I think I can answer you in two words; natural law.
By: Rick on July 17, 2008
at 2:03 pm
I recently asked two OH saints, who are both historians, how the older BC 36 stacks up with W2K views. Here are their thumbnail answers:
“Most of the 16th c. confessions read this way. American Presbyterians revised the Westminster Standards in 1787 to reflect the new pattern of government. We changed it the right way. It remains to be seen whether the changes were right. But at least our standards are 2k.
“The 16th c. folks could never have gotten away with 18th c. understandings, even if they had contemplated them. I think it possible to argue that, under the influence of Constantinianism, the Reformers got this one wrong (sort of). (There is actually plenty in Calvin, Luther, and Ursinus to suggest that Christ’s kingdom is spiritual and different from the church [sic], thus, that the civil magistrate has no responsibility for the church.)”
“The short answer is that the American churches decided in the 20th century (I think) that the original BC Art 36 was wrong. It’s theocratic. That was the problem in the 16th and 17th-century churches. They were theoretical 2K folks but practical and sometimes also theoretical theocrats. There was a tension that had to be resolved. In the USA, the Reformed churches resolved it in favor of the 2K.”
By: Zrim on July 17, 2008
at 3:19 pm
Held asked, “How, are we to know what should be considered ‘good order among human beings’ without the Bible?”
Held, how do you account for the ancient far east, a part of the world never exposed to the Bible, having a well-ordered society? And no fair picking out things you think are problematic. After all, societies steeped in the Bible are just as proximate in carrying out good order.
By: Zrim on July 17, 2008
at 3:22 pm
It can’t. Maybe this is the critical presuppositional error of the theonomists, assuming that our goal is to form a civil government which is pleasing to God. But the civil government, by definition, is not up to the task. It’s not the church. It’s not redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice, nor does it benefit from the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.
Of course, the society of the elect (a.k.a. the church) can be pleasing to God, but the wider society never can, until the world is recreated, and the whole of the earth is the society of the elect. And by this point, there will be no further need for a civil government, because there will be no evil to restrain.
And besides, how could the consummation include an institution that can’t be pleasing to God?
By: RubeRad on July 18, 2008
at 8:51 am
Yeah, “Pleasing to God” and “subject to God’s Law” are not found in the revised Confession.
By: Rick on July 18, 2008
at 9:35 am
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate both of your’s willingness to respond to comments. I really don’t have a strong position on these issues but am in the process of developing one. Right now maybe you could call my position ‘theonomy light’, so I’m open to correction.
“And, I think I can answer you in two words; natural law.”
I will give you that as an answer to the first section there are indeed very ‘good ordered’ societies developed without the Bible. I think it gets a bit stickier on the other paragraphs though (I will use the version quoted in your post). Natural law does not tell men they need to ‘protect the sacred ministry’. You (Rick) state that ‘the spiritual kingdom (the church) benefits from that order and protection’. That is true but how many well ordered governments actually attack the sacred ministry? Voice of the Martyrs lists about 52 countries where Christians face persecution. It seems to be that the BCF (and the WCF 23.3) goes beyond what is capable of man in natural law:
Paragraph 1 = God’s common grace in giving men a natural law that provides in most cases protection and order.
Paragraph 2 = Special commands to protect the ministry and promote the kingdom of Christ. This is not natural to humanity suffering from total depravity.
Paragraph 3/4 = A Christian’s response to government, but why should we pray that ‘God may rule and guide them in their ways’? Why not just pray that natural law may enable order?
Now this is not to say there are not two kingdoms, your first three paragraphs are absolutely correct. I guess I don’t see the ‘bright line’ between the kingdoms, but rather two spheres connected- like Van Til’s creator/creature diagram. Christians are citizens of both kingdoms, but the Lordship of Christ cannot be checked at the door when leaving church.
By: heldveld on July 18, 2008
at 11:25 am
Does Natural Law tell men to safeguard liberty of conscience, which would protect the sacred ministry (as well as false religions, as long as they don’t transgress the second table, i.e. sacrifice babies)?
(a) Because we understand that Natural Law is a secondary means of God exercising his providence (preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.)
(b) Because God told us to (1 Tim 2)
By: RubeRad on July 18, 2008
at 11:34 am
“Christians are citizens of both kingdoms, but the Lordship of Christ cannot be checked at the door when leaving church.”
I am never clear as to how this is gotten; how does it follow that a dual citizenship implies a departure from the Lordship of Christ? But that might have to do with the bright lines not being drawn between “that” and “how” in the first place. Just like Rome agrees that God saves sinners but departs with us on how, all that is not 2K agrees that Jesus is Lord but departs with us on how. But to say that the Lordship of Christ is dispensed with seems to be an essential misunderstanding of our position.
So, what do you mean, Held? Do you have any concretes that might show how said “departure” takes place?
“…why should we pray that ‘God may rule and guide them in their ways’? Why not just pray that natural law may enable order?”
God is the Author of natural law. When one prays to a personal God, the former formulation only makes sense. The latter formulation sounds positively pagan. I understand the temptation to make a Christian secularist sound pagan, but every time I count the letters in “secular” I still never come up with four. Just like there are two kinds of this-worldly (good and bad) and otherworldly (good and bad), there are two kinds of secular: one is irreligious, the other religious. The Reformed tradition is nothing if not shot through with these sorts of dualities. But, keep in mind, we are not pagans so we don’t pray like them. We just have lots in common with them is all. I fail royally to see what is wrong with that.
Observation: I find it interesting that a Reformed triadalist like myself can speak rather easily about the blessed and the damned, while those not W2K get kind of antsy about such harsh language. I think that is because my triadalism, which allows for a great big huge common sphere, takes the sting and fear out of what a Fundamentalism and a Liberalism do as they either radically separate the two or radically collapse them. Since most of life is lived in the great big huge common sphere, I can interact with unbelievers without either scandalizing them or groundlessly grandfathering them into the faith, while also maintaining the radical categories of the blessed and damned. Theonomy seems to be a weird concoction of Fundamentalism and Liberalism.
By: Zrim on July 18, 2008
at 12:05 pm
“Does Natural Law tell men to safeguard liberty of conscience, which would protect the sacred ministry (as well as false religions, as long as they don’t transgress the second table, i.e. sacrifice babies)?”
Not sure- I don’t have a list of the natural laws. If it was the case that it did ‘safeguard liberty of conscience’ then it would protect the ministry. However, as we know humans are depraved so what is the Christian’s response when natural law does not produce a government as described in the BCF?
As long as they don’t transgress the 2nd table I would agree here but others think ‘the Bible, is not the moral code for civil government.’
By: heldveld on July 18, 2008
at 4:00 pm
“However, as we know humans are depraved so what is the Christian’s response when natural law does not produce a government as described in the BCF?”
Mind our own business, work with our hands, pray for those in authority over us, and to whatever regard the law allows, invoke our rights, and if living under a persecuting theocratic rule, possibly seek to leave or be willing to suffer hurt, loss and possible martyrdom rather than bend the knee to the emperor’s cult. This is our NT history, right? The early church lived under, and suffered under, a persecuting rule, right? We have a template for what this looks like, right?
Anne Murray’s; “I never promised you a rose garden” comes to mind. Don’t ask.
I think the church can and should speak to power, but primarily we pray for those in power (1tim2:1-5) while respecting the bounds that God has set upon our cultural interaction. We’re promised very little in this life as it regards “success”, we are pilgrim people. We have the “common” wisdom available to us, just as the heathen (see proverbs) and then we have our NT cultural mandate (1 thess 4:11) and then the priviledge of our cultic responsibilities.
I’m not sure what else there is, there’s a health/wealth and prosperity theology lurking behind the scenes here.(maybe for theonomy purposes a “power” theology).
By: sean on July 19, 2008
at 8:25 am
“…there’s a health/wealth and prosperity theology lurking behind the scenes here.(maybe for theonomy purposes a ‘power’ theology).”
Bingo. Propserity gospel comes in various dress, from the crass and uncouth to the well-read and sophisticated. If the Bible is not a handbook for living it certainly can’t be a blueprint for statecraft.
By: Zrim on July 19, 2008
at 1:01 pm
I can’t tell, but does the question presume that the BCF 36 is some sort of formulary for statecraft in the first place? If so, one would assume it would be as long and detailed as the formularies for American government (e.g. the Constitution). But it isn’t, it is quite minimal. Its nature is quite general and actually open to just how the civil magistrate is to be plotted out. This means we can have everything to monarchies to democracies to dictatorships to Caesars. It doesn’t matter. Talk about liberty!
The BCF isn’t telling anyone how to order governmental society, it’s telling Christians how to regard their authortities and why. It’s in keeping with how the Christian life can be summed up in one word: “Submit.”
So if a gov’t is produced that violates the second Table, the Christian response is still to submit before rebelling. I realize that poses complications for those of us in 21st century America who have a Caesar that invites us to rebel. But if we are serious about all this “counter-cultural” stuff I wonder how soon we’d submit before rebelling? It’s easy to invoke the “obey God before men” charge when it comes to our sense of morality, but how often do we do it per the BCF which seems to make the driving category authority and not virtue? It seems to me that even if we think the magistrate gets something wrong, the Christian response is to recognize his authority (which is from God alone) and submit way before protesting what we think he gets wrong. If that stings, it might mean we are more American than Christian.
By: Zrim on July 19, 2008
at 1:45 pm
So, there are two moral codes?
THIS is one of the major flaws in your “W2K” view. It’s not so much the idea that there is a dual citizenship. Fine. That doesn’t by itself make trouble for me. But your modern 2K view (hence, W2K, aka Kline, etc.) goes too far.
There is only ONE moral code. Natural Law doesn’t disagree or conflict with Biblical Law. Biblical Law is just more complete and clear.
You are trying to stuff your modern W2K view into the reformers, yet you quote the changed confessions instead of the reformers confessions. Then, when asked about the original confessions, you say that the reformers were wrong. WHICH ONE IS IT? Do you agree with the reformers? Or NOT?
I say NOT. Yes, they were Theocrats. Today, we call men with the same views “Theonomists.”
Here’s the biblical view of kingdoms:
See, really, There is only ONE Kingdom, or there are MANY kingdoms. Not just two.
And lastly, look at Russia when ruled by Stalin and Lenin’s ideas. Sure is good to have Natural Law only, huh? Even the changed confessions disagree with your modern, so called “reformed” views. I wrote a short post explaining this on my blog.
Blessings to you my brother. May the LORD open up the eyes of whichever one of us has them closed.
kazooless
By: kazooless on July 19, 2008
at 1:56 pm
Kazoo said, “So, there are two moral codes?…There is only ONE moral code. Natural Law doesn’t disagree or conflict with Biblical Law. Biblical Law is just more complete and clear.”
No, there are not two moral codes. There is, as you say, one moral code. But it is understood and applied differently, one by law the other by gospel. One comports under the CoW, the other the CoG.
Re the questions about the reformers, you seem to have a rather wooden and static view of them. But, per their own doctrines of fallibility, they were not inspired. Believe it or not, it is possible to disagree with the reformers; what one finds in W2K theorizing is a better ability to do this. The problem, as I see it, is when folks can’t even own up to that and have the reformers and their formulations saying things they don’t say. While “Reformed and always reforming” ought not be parsed down to “always reforming” and imply that truth is progressively revealed (modernity’s sleight-of-hand), it also doesn’t mean that the reformers were inspired and infallible.
By: Zrim on July 21, 2008
at 8:00 am
Zrim said:
This is just side-stepping the issue, cloaking it in what appears to be sophisticated argumentation. If understanding and applying differently the one moral code results in two conflicting actions, then you have a conflict. And this is exactly what your paradigm creates.
For example, it is just as ludicrous as wet and dry counties sharing the same border. On one side alcohol is legal, on the other it isn’t. But, we’re not talking about what is ‘legal’ and what isn’t, but what is ‘moral.’ So, if it is immoral to allow a justly convicted murderer go free on this side of the border, then it is also immoral on the other side. The same applies to times. In Israel, it was immoral. Cross the border, it was still immoral. Wait a few years, still immoral. A few hundred years later, still immoral. Christ is crucified and risen, guess what? STILL IMMORAL.
So, again, if your understanding and applying differently the ONE moral code results in a change like this (which it does), then you’re just flat out wrong and need to revisit your unbiblical paradigm.
kazoo
By: kazooless on July 21, 2008
at 7:53 pm
Kazoo,
The larger point was really about the CoW and the CoG. These are indeed at odds with each other; that seems like pretty basic theology. There is one moral code, but some of us labor under the CoW and some of us enjoy being hid in Christ in the CoG as he has fulfilled the CoW on our behalf (I know theonomists have a basic blindspot for the whole category of messianic fulfillment, so maybe this isn’t so basic for you). The difference between the two groups is that those of us in the latter group still have a foot, so to speak, in the CoW and must live according to some measure of law in the KoM, while those in the former group enjoy nothing of the CoG. The sacred and the secular spheres are governed by two different applications. Those are the broad categories, subject to some nuance here and there, of course.
Re your legal/moral point, I think you’re showing where your thenomic skirt is fairly seamless (as pious as that may feel, that was for Someone else). Everyone agrees that murder is wrong. The question becomes when is something murder? When is it manslaughter, wrongful death, self-defense, etc.? I realize theonomists have a fairly simple way of figuring out the way the world should shake out, but the rest of us schmucks find things to be pretty complicated and not so easily solved.
Speaking of “murder” and state lines, etc., I’d dispense with my views on reproductive non/rights legislation being handed over to states’ rights, but something tells me I might get a Bible thrown at my head, followed by a copy of The Woman Rebel by Margaret Sanger (if any pro-choicers are listening in). Your Methodist ecclesiologies, folks, can be brutal on a Presbyterian’s head. Theonomists and feminists have more in common than either think. Anyone up for a federal-moralist kumbaya kabuki dance?
By: Zrim on July 22, 2008
at 8:08 am
Kazoo and Zrim,
If the first move is contested, can the subsequent proceedings be very sporting? Nevermind, I’m just feeling schoolmarmish. Carry on, I’m just saying we know how it ends.
As an aside, from my dealings with Roger Wagner, and my theonomy friends I knew in college (they’ve all, thrown me on the heap of nasty, lutheran, antinomians), there is a particular sociological phenomenon going on; some people need all the corners tucked and others don’t or realize some corners bend and bank rather than align along right angles.
I’d agree with the corner-tuckers if that best explained either the realities I experience, or if I found their exegetical conclusions convincing. Unfortunately, it fails on both scores, and I’m left living and ministering in a world that’s far more complicated and much less quaint than my theonomy buddies imagine. It reminds me of my friend who suffered from PTSD and my well-intentioned brothers in Christ thought it prudent to perform an exorcism, to “cure” him.- If only things were really that tidy.
By: sean on July 22, 2008
at 9:11 am
Sean,
Hey, I’m just sitting here minding my own business. He piped up, I responded. Sorry, I’ll try harder next time not to talk to bullies, Ms. Beetle.
I plan on posting on the “sociological” angle you correctly point out.
By: Zrim on July 22, 2008
at 10:27 am
Zrim,
Don’t mind me, I’m still cranky over the heading change.
By: sean on July 22, 2008
at 10:33 am
Wow, I think I just got called a bully. I’ve never been accused of that before! I was always the one bullied.
Anyway, I guess that means you feel that I’m stronger than you (intellectually) and are intimidated as a result.
Just kidding.
I notice that you didn’t really deal with the arguments (how can you, they make sense). But, you did make some comments that I’m not going to let go since I hear this claim way too often and it’s just not true. At least not of the teachers and proponents of theonomy.
You say:
First of all, I don’t think you’re a shmuck.
Secondly, have you even seen how many pages were written by the theonomy group? One look at http://www.freebooks.com and you’ll see that there are thousands upon thousands of them. If it is “so simple” in a theonomists eyes, why the need to write so much?
Bansen’s book, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, is well over 600 pages, and that is just a treatise on the basic underlying “principle” of theonomy. There is no “torah” to go to and look up the easy answer, and I’ve never encountered a theonomy teacher that would say differently. On the contrary, they say it is necessary to do the very hard work of exegisis and study and research, etc., to find the right answers to the many questions of ethics.
So, this idea that theonomy gives it’s followers a very simple look on life, is just not true. I think you’ve probably just run into too many newbies that tend to act this way. But newbie 5 pointers are the same way.
You also say:
Bahnsen has many chapters that discuss Christ’s fulfillment. And, I daresay, you are in agreement of at least 90% of what he’s written/affirmed. He endorsed the Active Obedience of Christ. He loved Murray and most of his works. He dealt with the book of Hebrews quite well.
And, I too, rest in Christ and the fact that He represents me to the Father, and it is only because of His imputed righteousness that I can stand before God.
So, there you go.
But the title of your post speaks of reformed confessions and civil government. I ‘thought’ I was on topic here. I don’t necessarily reject a CoW/CoG view, just your neomodern W2K view of how things should be.
Blessings,
kazoo
By: kazooless on July 22, 2008
at 5:02 pm
Kazoo,
I give, you win. If you draft the confession I’ll sign it. All I ask is that I be provided a lawyer at some point; despite all the antinomian charges, we 2Kers are sticklers for proper jurisprudence.
Seriously, though, this wasn’t my post, it’s Rick’s. If it’s “exposition and argumentation” you want, I’m not your guy. I’m in the “already long since persuaded and doing a lot of assertion and reflection in light of it” department. I leave the other stuff to those with the actual ability (I figure there are already enough yahoo-amateurs flooding cyber-space with their pretense).
By: Zrim on July 23, 2008
at 8:34 am
Zrim,
Cool.
Let’s have a cyber-beer together.
See ya elsewhere!
kazoo
By: kazooless on July 23, 2008
at 1:00 pm
The Bible says that within Israel, it was immoral to capture wives, children, slaves, livestock, and booty from local enemies. Cross the border, and all of a sudden it becomes moral. Hmmm.
By: RubeRad on July 24, 2008
at 2:07 pm
Rube says:
Really? Where? I don’t see it making a class distinction that the particular commands are of moral nature. Please help me out and show me what I’m missing.
kazoo
By: kazooless on July 24, 2008
at 7:55 pm
I’m not sure what you’re quibbling about. Are you saying that there is some obedience to God which is not in the moral/immoral category?
Or did you just miss the link to Deut 20:10-18, which does allow (i.e. declares morally acceptable) capturing of slaves and booty from foreign lands, but does not allow (i.e. declares morally unacceptable) capturing slaves and booty within Israel.
Not to mention exercising “the ban” on Canaanites, which was a moral obligation for Israel before A. D. 70, but on this side of the time boundary would be immoral genocide.
By: RubeRad on July 31, 2008
at 7:05 pm
No, Rube, he is saying that there are particular commands of God that are not part of the moral Law. God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is a perfect example. It would have been immoral for Abraham to disobey God at that point, but that doesn’t mean the command was for all fathers to take their sons up to a mountain and kill them.
And there is nothing in historic Christian just war theory that prevents a nation from plundering her enemies to cover the cost of war. It is only just. It is a heck of a lot better than what we are doing, plundering our own people to fund the war *and* fund the rebuilding of our enemy’s cities. That’s just plain stupid.
By: Ron Smith on August 12, 2008
at 3:49 pm