Comments on: The True and Only Theocracy W. H. Chellis America… http://deregnochristi.org/2006/12/08/true-and-only-theocracy-w/ The Reign of Christ Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:16:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Daniel Howe http://deregnochristi.org/2006/12/08/true-and-only-theocracy-w/#comment-296 Daniel Howe Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:30:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=60#comment-296 I feel like Johnny One-Note. O'Donovan separates the role national Israel into prophetic, priestly, and kingly functions. Of these, if I read him correctly, only the prophetic remains similar in form between the Old Covenant and the New. The other two are subsumed under the prophetic heading and therefore drastically altered (and untied from either the monarchy as divinely maintained or the cultus as properly national). Ultimately, all three are subsumed in the person and work of Jesus, but the church maintains a prophetic function. This is because the church is the eternal institution in the world, speaking to passing (=secular in the true sense) institutions such as government. The lines of such secular institutions are blurry, both theologically and practically (e.g. the military-industrial complex).<BR/><BR/>This prophetic function fits well with William Dennison's *Paul's Two-Age Construction and Apologetics* and with amillenial Reformed biblical theology. It does not sit well with Luther's "two kingdoms" approach (I think; I am no Luther scholar, and I hesitate because Calvin picked up at least the language of the two kingdoms) because Luther's approach creates parity between the secular and the eternal (as does, unwittingly I think, the RPCNA's ordination vow concerning church and state under Christ's kingship). <BR/><BR/>By the by, one of the problems with parity is its inherent instability: it tends to pave the way for state dominance (as in Luther's Saxony) or church dominance (as in Catholicism, especially the Salamanca school, some of the extreme Covenanter writings of yesteryear, and 1980s-90s theonomists).<BR/><BR/>What does taking the kingdom in a spiritual sense mean? No disrespect, but when people talk about a "spiritual" version of almost anything Christian I have a feeling they mean that it is non-existent for all intents and purposes. Surely Mr. Hart would agree that even a "spiritual" kingdom is manifest in a visible and physical church. <BR/><BR/>As I see it, we cannot locate the kingdom in the actions of politicians: we can only locate appropriate or inappropriate responses to the coming and now-inbreaking kingdom by those who rule in our many cultures. I feel like Johnny One-Note. O’Donovan separates the role national Israel into prophetic, priestly, and kingly functions. Of these, if I read him correctly, only the prophetic remains similar in form between the Old Covenant and the New. The other two are subsumed under the prophetic heading and therefore drastically altered (and untied from either the monarchy as divinely maintained or the cultus as properly national). Ultimately, all three are subsumed in the person and work of Jesus, but the church maintains a prophetic function. This is because the church is the eternal institution in the world, speaking to passing (=secular in the true sense) institutions such as government. The lines of such secular institutions are blurry, both theologically and practically (e.g. the military-industrial complex).

This prophetic function fits well with William Dennison’s *Paul’s Two-Age Construction and Apologetics* and with amillenial Reformed biblical theology. It does not sit well with Luther’s “two kingdoms” approach (I think; I am no Luther scholar, and I hesitate because Calvin picked up at least the language of the two kingdoms) because Luther’s approach creates parity between the secular and the eternal (as does, unwittingly I think, the RPCNA’s ordination vow concerning church and state under Christ’s kingship).

By the by, one of the problems with parity is its inherent instability: it tends to pave the way for state dominance (as in Luther’s Saxony) or church dominance (as in Catholicism, especially the Salamanca school, some of the extreme Covenanter writings of yesteryear, and 1980s-90s theonomists).

What does taking the kingdom in a spiritual sense mean? No disrespect, but when people talk about a “spiritual” version of almost anything Christian I have a feeling they mean that it is non-existent for all intents and purposes. Surely Mr. Hart would agree that even a “spiritual” kingdom is manifest in a visible and physical church.

As I see it, we cannot locate the kingdom in the actions of politicians: we can only locate appropriate or inappropriate responses to the coming and now-inbreaking kingdom by those who rule in our many cultures.

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2006/12/08/true-and-only-theocracy-w/#comment-297 W.H. Chellis Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:33:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=60#comment-297 Oh boy, the last time my slip was showing, I was almost defrocked... but I thought that was taken care of by the Presbytery in executive session? Oh well.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, when I suggest "the Kingdom is the absolute, dynamic, and sovereign reign of God" I am speaking about the consumation of the kingdom. I have no illusions of such a consummation prior to the 2nd coming of Christ. <BR/><BR/>While I do not want to over-realize my eschatology, I do not want to under-realize it either. <BR/>In fact, I believe that in the current dispensation, the Kingdom is the Church. Yet, the Church looks forward to a perfect union of spiritual and physical in the new heaven and new earth. <BR/><BR/>The Kingdom is already and not yet. In my understanding, Christian cultures and geo-political enterprises are temporary, shadowy, and flawed yet real proleptic experience of the consummation age when Kings will bring their glory into the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:23). <BR/><BR/>I will trust that Dr. Voegelin, great defender of Medieval Christendom that he was, would not charge me with trying to "immanentize the eschaton!" Oh boy, the last time my slip was showing, I was almost defrocked… but I thought that was taken care of by the Presbytery in executive session? Oh well.

Seriously, when I suggest “the Kingdom is the absolute, dynamic, and sovereign reign of God” I am speaking about the consumation of the kingdom. I have no illusions of such a consummation prior to the 2nd coming of Christ.

While I do not want to over-realize my eschatology, I do not want to under-realize it either.
In fact, I believe that in the current dispensation, the Kingdom is the Church. Yet, the Church looks forward to a perfect union of spiritual and physical in the new heaven and new earth.

The Kingdom is already and not yet. In my understanding, Christian cultures and geo-political enterprises are temporary, shadowy, and flawed yet real proleptic experience of the consummation age when Kings will bring their glory into the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:23).

I will trust that Dr. Voegelin, great defender of Medieval Christendom that he was, would not charge me with trying to “immanentize the eschaton!”

]]> By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2006/12/08/true-and-only-theocracy-w/#comment-298 D Hart Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:48:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/?p=60#comment-298 Theoretically, this is the best combination of amillennialism and the National Covenant that I've seen. But the rub is what Christ's rule over the nations means. Bill says the kingdom of Christ is not tied to one geo-political entity. But methinks he means the kindgom is now tied to all geo-political entities. <BR/><BR/>The key for me is to take this kingdom in a spiritual rather than a civil sense. But I'm not sure that is the way Bill sees it.<BR/><BR/>I also wonder about this line: "The Kingdom, anticipated by the Old Testament and established through the work of Jesus Christ, is the absolute, dynamic, and sovereign reign of God over a consummated New Heavens and New Earth." That sounds postmill. So I wonder if under Bill's amill skirt his postmill slip is showing. Theoretically, this is the best combination of amillennialism and the National Covenant that I’ve seen. But the rub is what Christ’s rule over the nations means. Bill says the kingdom of Christ is not tied to one geo-political entity. But methinks he means the kindgom is now tied to all geo-political entities.

The key for me is to take this kingdom in a spiritual rather than a civil sense. But I’m not sure that is the way Bill sees it.

I also wonder about this line: “The Kingdom, anticipated by the Old Testament and established through the work of Jesus Christ, is the absolute, dynamic, and sovereign reign of God over a consummated New Heavens and New Earth.” That sounds postmill. So I wonder if under Bill’s amill skirt his postmill slip is showing.

]]>