Around 35, on general equity theonomy's relation to 2 Kingdoms, is really helpful. Joe's point is great- which is, we need to be more clear and self-conscious in overtly rejecting a past consensus as something more carefully shown as an inconsistency in past political thought, if we're going to reject it and move in a different direction. Valuable talk. Thank you.
Joe, I think a similar deep dive on Protestant epistemologies would be helpful- it might clarify a bit more on what the perspicuity of natural law is, in its dialectic with postiive law structures.
So I would say I’ve been mostly in the R2K camp for the last decade or so but find myself thinking I’m actually probably more in alignment with Rigney’s Classical 2 Kingdom approach. I’m curious if anyone has any reading recommendations for that view? Thanks.
I'm a Reformed Baptist who subscribes to covenantal Baptist theology. This lecture didn't express any Baptist view except a fundamentalist Baptist position.
Unfortunately it truly does express the views of the majority of mainstream Baptists as well as independent/non-denoms who almost exclusively teach and practice Baptist theology.
16:02 oof, he needs to read more kuyper. Wasn’t badly wrong everywhere, but even in the stone lectures, Kuyper saw a space for the state to combat blasphemy for example. In Our Program (his political writings) the texture of his thought was quite a bit closer to the vision of John Calvin’s Geneva, even carving out a space for the state to distinctly hear the voice of the church on various issues.
Excerpt from Kuyper’s “Our Program”, chapter titled “No Secular State” “STATE AND CHURCH INTERRELATE, EACH ROOTED IN ITS OWN PRINCIPLE The state is intended for the present dispensation and has at most preparatory significance for the eternal household of humankind. The kingdom of God, on the other hand, derives its purpose and character from the coming dispensation and at most uses earthly things for the things eternal. This gives rise to two different sets of ideas that increasingly follow their separate ways and therefore ought not to be confused in our minds. Government is directly rooted in the natural life and as such has no other than a natural knowledge of God. The kingdom of God is a supernatural realm where supernatural knowledge of God shines undimmed. Thanks to its natural knowledge of God, government knows (1) that there is a God; (2) that this living God governs the fate of everything cre-ated, hence also of the state; (3) that this all-governing providence desires state comes to honor God in its public actions; to invoke Gods holy name in state documents; to respect the oath; to dedicate a day of rest to him; to proclaim national days of prayer during disasters; to practice justice even with the sword; and to allow free course to the gospel. Three systems therefore: (1) There is the God-less state of the liberals, who reject both the natural and the revealed knowledge of God and whose motto is "leave God out of it." (2) There is the theocratic state of Roman Catholics and inconsistent Protestants, who base the state qua state directly on both the natural and the revealed knowledge of God and consequently make the state function as the active promoter of the kingdom of God, as for example in the Middle Ages and still partly in Prussia. And finally (3) there is the political and yet God-honoring state of the Reformed or Puritan nations, who base the state directly on the natural knowledge of God and accordingly have government proceed actively as a servant of God in the sphere of the natural knowledge of God but passively in the sphere of the revealed knowledge of God. An example here is the United States of America, where on the one hand government prays, proclaims days of prayer, and honors the seventh day, while on the other hand it conducts itself in a more neutral fashion vis-à-vis the churches than any country in Europe.'”
Lectures on Calvinism, 3rd lecture section 3. “As regards the first point, the magistrates are and remain-“God’s servants.” They have to recognize God as Supreme Ruler, from Whom they derive their power. They have to serve God, by ruling the people according to His ordinances. They have to restrain blasphemy, where it directly assumes the character of an affront to the Divine Majesty. And God’s supremacy is to be recognized, by confessing His name in the Constitution as the Source of all political power, by maintaining the Sabbath, by proclaiming days of prayer and thanksgiving, and by invoking His Divine blessing. Therefore in order that they may govern, according to His holy ordinances, every magistrate is in duty bound to investigate the rights of God, both in the natural life and in His Word. Not to subject himself to the decision of any church, but in order that he himself may catch the light which he needs for the knowledge of the Divine will. And as regards blasphemy, the right of the magistrate to restrain it rests in the God-consciousness innate in every man; and the duty to exercise this right flows from the fact that God is the Supreme and Sovereign Ruler over every State and over every Nation. But for this very reason the fact of blasphemy is only then to be deemed established, when the intention is apparent contumaciously to affront this majesty of God as Supreme Ruler of the State. What is then punished is not the religious offence, nor the impious sentiment, but the attack upon the foundation of public law, upon which both the State and its government are resting.” There’s a whole lot more in this section!
@@D.E.Metcalf Thanks for those quotes. I've read Kuyper, especially his "Lectures On Calvinism" but I haven't yet read "Our Program". Is it still in print? If so, I'd like to get my hands on it.
What do you think about John Piper’s assertion that life and freedom are not as important as opposing Donald Trump? He called us spreaders of falsehoods, naive, presumptuous, and damaging the church if we supported Trump. Can I assume you left Minneapolis because of such foolishness?
John Piper, Oct 22, 2020. This was under two weeks from the election that saw Biden/Harris elevated into office. Piper has 3 million followers. Trump lost by 40,000 votes. Piper has never apologized.
Piper's mild, "winsome" approach resulted in his son being a raging Atheist trashing God on the Internet everyday. Wilson's jovial mix of graciousness and combativeness has resulted in all his kids and grands still not only claiming Christ as Lord but continuing to build His Kingdom. I know who's opinion I respect more.
@@ArcherWarhound, given our ignorance of how their theologies (which are very similar on family matters) were applied in their personal relationships and the fact that no parent is guaranteed to have saved children, and most importantly, outcomes alone are not the biblical measure for right theology. I’d be cautious on your line of thinking here. It’s better to test the teaching against scripture-results can be considered, but ignorance of the particulars deeply limits its usefulness in right judgment.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/n.gif)
Very helpful breakdown. I have enjoyed listening to and reading Dr. Rigney's content lately and I think he's fantastic!
This was soooo helpful. Thank you.
PS: would love a book length treatment of this.
Greg Bahnsen, not Gary. The Gary's were North and DeMar.
I am neither an intellectual nor an academic. But this I found to be incredibly interesting! And the speaker is communicating masterfully.
This was very good.
Around 35, on general equity theonomy's relation to 2 Kingdoms, is really helpful.
Joe's point is great- which is, we need to be more clear and self-conscious in overtly rejecting a past consensus as something more carefully shown as an inconsistency in past political thought, if we're going to reject it and move in a different direction.
Valuable talk. Thank you.
Joe, I think a similar deep dive on Protestant epistemologies would be helpful- it might clarify a bit more on what the perspicuity of natural law is, in its dialectic with postiive law structures.
So I would say I’ve been mostly in the R2K camp for the last decade or so but find myself thinking I’m actually probably more in alignment with Rigney’s Classical 2 Kingdom approach.
I’m curious if anyone has any reading recommendations for that view?
Thanks.
I'm a Reformed Baptist who subscribes to covenantal Baptist theology. This lecture didn't express any Baptist view except a fundamentalist Baptist position.
Unfortunately it truly does express the views of the majority of mainstream Baptists as well as independent/non-denoms who almost exclusively teach and practice Baptist theology.
What other Baptist views are there?
This will really help me minister to the villages of Malawi.
16:02 oof, he needs to read more kuyper. Wasn’t badly wrong everywhere, but even in the stone lectures, Kuyper saw a space for the state to combat blasphemy for example. In Our Program (his political writings) the texture of his thought was quite a bit closer to the vision of John Calvin’s Geneva, even carving out a space for the state to distinctly hear the voice of the church on various issues.
There is simply too much Kuyper to summarize as neatly as Joe tried to.
Excerpt from Kuyper’s “Our Program”, chapter titled “No Secular State”
“STATE AND CHURCH INTERRELATE, EACH ROOTED IN ITS OWN PRINCIPLE The state is intended for the present dispensation and has at most preparatory significance for the eternal household of humankind. The kingdom of God, on the other hand, derives its purpose and character from the coming dispensation and at most uses earthly things for the things eternal.
This gives rise to two different sets of ideas that increasingly follow their separate ways and therefore ought not to be confused in our minds.
Government is directly rooted in the natural life and as such has no other than a natural knowledge of God. The kingdom of God is a supernatural realm where supernatural knowledge of God shines undimmed.
Thanks to its natural knowledge of God, government knows (1) that there is a God; (2) that this living God governs the fate of everything cre-ated, hence also of the state; (3) that this all-governing providence desires state comes to honor God in its public actions; to invoke Gods holy name in state documents; to respect the oath; to dedicate a day of rest to him; to proclaim national days of prayer during disasters; to practice justice even with the sword; and to allow free course to the gospel.
Three systems therefore:
(1) There is the God-less state of the liberals, who reject both the natural and the revealed knowledge of God and whose motto is "leave God out of it." (2) There is the theocratic state of Roman Catholics and inconsistent Protestants, who base the state qua state directly on both the natural and the revealed knowledge of God and consequently make the state function as the active promoter of the kingdom of God, as for example in the Middle Ages and still partly in Prussia.
And finally (3) there is the political and yet God-honoring state of the Reformed or Puritan nations, who base the state directly on the natural knowledge of God and accordingly have government proceed actively as a servant of God in the sphere of the natural knowledge of God but passively in the sphere of the revealed knowledge of God. An example here is the United States of America, where on the one hand government prays, proclaims days of prayer, and honors the seventh day, while on the other hand it conducts itself in a more neutral fashion vis-à-vis the churches than any country in Europe.'”
Lectures on Calvinism, 3rd lecture section 3.
“As regards the first point, the magistrates are and remain-“God’s servants.” They have to recognize God as Supreme Ruler, from Whom they derive their power. They have to serve God, by ruling the people according to His ordinances. They have to restrain blasphemy, where it directly assumes the character of an affront to the Divine Majesty. And God’s supremacy is to be recognized, by confessing His name in the Constitution as the Source of all political power, by maintaining the Sabbath, by proclaiming days of prayer and thanksgiving, and by invoking His Divine blessing.
Therefore in order that they may govern, according to His holy ordinances, every magistrate is in duty bound to investigate the rights of God, both in the natural life and in His Word. Not to subject himself to the decision of any church, but in order that he himself may catch the light which he needs for the knowledge of the Divine will. And as regards blasphemy, the right of the magistrate to restrain it rests in the God-consciousness innate in every man; and the duty to exercise this right flows from the fact that God is the Supreme and Sovereign Ruler over every State and over every Nation. But for this very reason the fact of blasphemy is only then to be deemed established, when the intention is apparent contumaciously to affront this majesty of God as Supreme Ruler of the State. What is then punished is not the religious offence, nor the impious sentiment, but the attack upon the foundation of public law, upon which both the State and its government are resting.”
There’s a whole lot more in this section!
Look at you bringing the receipts!
@@D.E.Metcalf Thanks for those quotes. I've read Kuyper, especially his "Lectures On Calvinism" but I haven't yet read "Our Program". Is it still in print? If so, I'd like to get my hands on it.
My pronouns are Kuyperian General Equity Theonomist
What do you think about John Piper’s assertion that life and freedom are not as important as opposing Donald Trump? He called us spreaders of falsehoods, naive, presumptuous, and damaging the church if we supported Trump. Can I assume you left Minneapolis because of such foolishness?
Where is this?
John Piper, Oct 22, 2020. This was under two weeks from the election that saw Biden/Harris elevated into office. Piper has 3 million followers. Trump lost by 40,000 votes. Piper has never apologized.
Piper's mild, "winsome" approach resulted in his son being a raging Atheist trashing God on the Internet everyday. Wilson's jovial mix of graciousness and combativeness has resulted in all his kids and grands still not only claiming Christ as Lord but continuing to build His Kingdom. I know who's opinion I respect more.
@@ArcherWarhound Amen!!
@@ArcherWarhound, given our ignorance of how their theologies (which are very similar on family matters) were applied in their personal relationships and the fact that no parent is guaranteed to have saved children, and most importantly, outcomes alone are not the biblical measure for right theology.
I’d be cautious on your line of thinking here. It’s better to test the teaching against scripture-results can be considered, but ignorance of the particulars deeply limits its usefulness in right judgment.