RSSCalvin AND Burke W.H. Chellis Dr. Hart has wisely…
Calvin AND Burke
W.H. Chellis
Dr. Hart has wisely pointed us to John Calvin’s defense of the spirituality of Christ’s Kingdom. We would be fools to ignor Calvin’s profound insights. Indeed, to all that Dr. Hart has quoted, I say a vigerous Amen.
And when Dr. Hart is finished, I continue to say Amen to the genious of Geneva, even as Calvin writes:
“Now, since we have established above that man is under a twofold government, and since we have elsewhere discussed at sufficient length the kind that resides in the soul or inner man and pertains to eternal life, this is the place to say something also about the other kind, which pertains only to the establishment of civil justice and outward morality.
For although this topic seems by nature alien to the spiritual doctrine of faith which I have undertaken to disuss, what follows will show that I am right in joining them, in fact, that necessity compels me to do so.” Calvin’s Institutes Book IV, Chapter XX.
Central to our concern in this endevour will be to correctly distinguish the Christ’s Kingdom of grace from His Kingdom of power. Indeed, Christ rules all things (Kingdom of power) for the sake of His Church (Kingdom of grace) (Ephesians 1:22). Christ’s Kingdom of power includes nations in rebellion… as the Scriptures testify when they declare Christ reigns over the nations with a rod of iron. His rule is founded upon law (justice) tempered by common grace (a benefit flowing from Christ’s cross).
Dr. Hart warns us of the dangers associated with the “immanentization of the eschaton” (to borrow a phrase from Eric Voegelin). I would suggest that we are most indanger of doing so when we confound the sacred and secular aspects of Christ’s Kingdom. In the Garden, these things were united. In the eschaton they will be united again. In between, Christ reigns. He reigns over His Church in grace (sacred) and over the nations in justice (tempered by common grace) (secular). Thus, in this discussion we must defend Christ’s right to reign over our cultus (the worshipping church) as well as our culture without confounding the two.
D Hart
June 5th, 2006 at 10:17 pm
So we seem to be in agreement that the two realms need to be distinguished. Okay, the blog’s over. Well, not really because I’m having trouble knowing what Christ’s kingship means for the culture. In the cult it’s fairly easy to spot, at least on the surface, where knees are bowed and tongues are confessing that Christ is Lord. But since we can’t expect that in the halls of Congress or in the studios of Hollywood (or can we?), what does Christ’s kingship mean for the City of Man?
W.H. Chellis
June 6th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
That is the million dollar question of the blog right?
Like I said, the Devil is in the details and the fun will be fleshing them out.
Yet, I think that the point you bring up raises an issue in need of its own post: does the Bible teach that Jesus Christ is King over the Nations in His mediatorial offices or in His essential being as the second person of the Divine God-head.
Interestingly, even the Covenanters divided on this question. George Gillespie said essential God-head, and Samuel Rutherford heald to the mediatorial Kingship.
I am a mediatorial Kingship man, but I suspect we need to discuss the matter.