http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/persecution-continues-martyrs-for-prop-8/

Sorry Z, I have to obey my master. 2 Cor 10:5

I don’t see how this quote you’ve provided disagrees with anything Ron said. If I am reading this quote correctly, he is saying that a civil kingdom is distinct from Christ’s kingdom. And Ron agreed with that:

I assume you mean that the Church/Christ’s Kingdom is a spiritual kingdom and different from the State. If that is what you mean, agreed. Of course it is.

And how does being a blogger instead of an apologist mean that you somehow don’t need to support your claims when blogging? I don’t get it. Blogging seems to be a place of exchanging ideas and discussing them along with disagreements. Are you saying that when the argument doesn’t seem to be favoring your ideas that you don’t need to give a rational defense for them?

And Dr. Clark, I’ve printed this article of yours and started “studying” it by marking what I can find as your main points. Instead of just reacting to what I’ve read, I am spending some time with it so I can make sure I am fully understanding your arguments. I plan to interact with this article officially once I’m done. It may just with questions though, we’ll see after I have an even better understanding of your position.

Also, I don’t know if you missed my question above, or ignored it. If the former, would you please respond? Thanks.

“But whoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ’s spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct.”

Looks like Calvin was equally duped by the big, bad guys as well.

I realize that distinctions aren’t the theonomist’s long suit, but you seem to be under the impression that I am an apologist. I’m not, I’m a blogger. I’ll leave the apologizing to apologists (and those yahoos who think of themselves as ones). You might do well to read the About tab again, Ron.

If I understand your point, right, I have no problem aping something when it is right.

Hmm, so when *you* ape something, it is because “it is right”, and when *theonomists* ape something, they are just blindly following “whatever is located in history”. That is a devastating argument. *coughs* (begging the question)…

you’re being much, much too wooden about it

This is just a meaningless catch-all statement I’ve noticed you like to use when one believes what the Bible or someone actually says, rather than reading your presuppositions into what is said. I could just as easily claim that you are being much, much, too liquid about it. This proves nothing.

There is actually plenty in Calvin, Luther, and Ursinus to suggest that Christ’s kingdom is spiritual and different from the church, thus, that the civil magistrate has no responsibility for the church.

I assume you mean that the Church/Christ’s Kingdom is a spiritual kingdom and different from the State. If that is what you mean, agreed. Of course it is. But the Church is also a physical kingdom. What you don’t seem to get is that you are making the reformers say things they most certainly did not, given the pre-enlightenment context in which they operated. If Calvin believed that no one could engage in discourse about the duty of civil magistrates and the enacting of laws without *beginning* with religion and worship, how comes it that so many w2kers like to use his comments on Natural Law to support the claim that one need not appeal to religion or worship when discoursing about the duty of civil magistrates and the enacting of laws? He appeals to Natural Law to support the exact opposite. If you are going to accuse me of “aping” anything, at least admit that I am aping the reformation.

Religion and worship is inescapable. The question you have to answer every day when you engage the public sphere is *which* religious presuppositions will you operate under? The humanists have tricked you into thinking the best religions presuppositions to operate under in the public sphere are humanistic/atheistic presuppositions. The humanists (with some unwitting help from the Church) have deceived you into thinking that the Church’s place in the world is merely personal and spiritual. They just love it when the kingly office of Jesus is removed from the public sphere and reduced to the personal and spiritual.

If I understand your point, right, I have no problem aping something when it is right. I ape my father all the time.

Re your question, you’re being much, much too wooden about it. Let me quote a fellow 2Ker when I asked him about changes to the forms with regard to issues of polity: “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, thus, that the civil magistrate has no responsibility for the church.”

Remember, Ron, the Remonstrant errors came out of the Reformed churches. Reformed people got soteriology wrong and we call any views that are sympathetic to the errors “not Reformed.” When views like yours logically lead to the very Constantinianism inherent in Romanism, it seems to me best to invoke Protestantism against it.

(see if zrim can disagree with this comment. LOL)

This post can certainly be deleted. I am just confused by the time entries. Ron’s post says he posted it more than two hours from now.

We are Protestants, not Romanists who have to ape whatever is located in our history, remember?

Z, think about that statement. Your position is also “located in our history”, but you have no problem “aping” it.

My question is, how can you call your position “Reformed”, and theonomy “not Reformed” when the theonomy, by your own admission (as well as that of Kline, and Clark), is closer to the reformers own position on civil ethics than your own position? Isn’t that a bit like gerrymandering a line between your legs and calling it the “mainstream” (thank you Greg Bahnsen)?

As an institution or as individuals within? or is there a distinction?

“Dominion Theology” is a pejorative that was used to name the reconstruction movement, which includes theonomy. So, yes, sort of. I believe there is a book with that title but it grossly misinforms and misrepresents the positions.

Z, on the point that you stated, and I corrected, it is true. Too much of a threadjack to go into it here though. There are many other reasons that W2K and theonomy don’t agree about things. One such thing is the answer to this question: Does the church have anything to say to the state?

Peace,

kazoo