I thought both tables were part of the Natural Law? and the Covenant of Works? or are you suggesting neo-nomianism? Is the first table the gospel-law that we need to obey for salvation?

Btw, does *classic* covenant theology really have the implications for political theory you suggest? Was there actually a tension if they were never *directly* connected”

No, the government of any nation today is to respond to the offers of grace which are given by Christ to the nations. They are not initiating the covenant, but responding in faith and obedience.
This also leads into a discussion as to just to what degree the Mosaic Covenant was a “Covenant of Works.” The Seed of Israel was at war with the Seed of the serpent. Christ has soverignly redeemed mankind as such (not every individual is saved or elect, obviously). He is Lord of all the earth, and demands that all men, families, nations and kings recognize his authority.

>

Interesting - here is what it says: “10. We deny that simply having a democratic or republican form of government insures God’s approval and blessing.”

Did the RP Testimony call it a covenant of works? I doubt it! I think this is superimposing your own paradigm upon the Testimony. I don’t understand whether a nation, under your view, can ever recieve God’s approval or blessing. Can they? RPs say that they can, in Christ.

>
This section of the Testimony is expanding upon the Westminster Confession’s statement: “2. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so for that end, they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.
Prov. 8:15-16; Rom. 13:1-2, 4; Ps. 2:10-12; 1 Tim. 2:2; Ps. 82:3-4; 2 Sam. 23:3; 1 Pet. 2:13; Luke 3:14; Rom. 13:4; Matt. 8:9-10; Acts 10:1-2; Rev. ”

Life, liberty and religion are things to be maintianed, under piety. They assume a Christian Civil Magistrate as a possibility.

>

Again, the context would indicate that this is no problem for theonomists:
“2. Premarital sex relations or promiscuous sex practices as well as homosexuality and other perversions of the natural order are violations of God’s law and purpose. All should strive to discipline their sexual desires, maintain purity of thought and practice, and avoid situations which lead to sexual temptation.
1 Cor. 6:9, 15-20; 1 Cor. 5:1-5, 9-11; 1 Cor. 7:8-9; Rom. 1:26-28; Phil. 4:8; Prov. 5.”
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
1Co 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.

>

Yep. That’s the issue! But, see previous post on that.

>
And, the pagans do understand some of these things, as per 1Cor 5:1, Rom. 1:18ff. But, that does not go any distance towards proving that there is no such thing as a Christian nation or State.

I don’t get it - the State is a human institution, Right? As such, it is either Adamic, or … Christian? Where is the third way? All men are either in Adam,or Christ, Yes?
In fact, I posted something elsewhere on this site from an old RP about how Christ must be our mediator with respect to the Civil Sphere as well as the Ecclesiastical, for otherwise, they are left under the Covenant of Works.

Your rejection of the term Christian nation as equally absurd as “Christian basketball” is revealing and vexing to me as a Covenanter (as much as most of the RPs on this list, as a new ARp, I’ve not changed my views on National Covenanting). There could certainly be anti-Christian basketball (say, the team who loses by more than 20 points all gets executed). And, there is a christian way to play basketball.
Its ironic that you so insist on the Covenant of Works as a backdrop to justification, but then mock the idea that a non-Christian state is, in fact, under the covenant of works.
Isn’t the confessional view of salvation, that - if a man does not come to Christ, he is under the Covenant of works, and thereby condemned? The Mosaic Covenant is not the only thing running in the background in Jesus’ day - the Noahic, Abrahamic and Adamic as well as Davidic, were all operative. Christ fulfilled them all - taking the sanctions of them all, and fulfilling the obligations of them all. Now, I’d say that the Covenants are supplemental and progressive. But, Moses was added on to Abraham, and the essence of the Abrahamic Covenant is at the heart of the New Covenant.

But, I believe you are ignoring the implications of the Davidic Covenant, which is fulfilled in Messiah Jesus, the King. All nations shall bow to this Davidic king. His Special Kingdom is certainly the Church (BTW, is the Church not a Christocracy/theocracy? - Just wondering). And, all the kings were to bow to this Davidic Monarch. All authority means all authority - all Judgement is given to the Son of Man. The Jews have Moses to judge them, if they reject Jesus; but, the nations are blessed or cursed as they bless or curse the Sucessors of the Abrahamic covenant, which we are as baptized Christians, i.e. the Church (Gal. 3:28-29).

Where do the kingdoms of men exist? Can you put them under Noah without putting them under Adam? Remember, Jesus has the Nohaic Rainbow behind him (Rev. 4:3). Kings are men too. Paul was promised that he would preach to kings. “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.” (Acts 9:15).

You say that the Apostles did not bring covenant lawsuit against the nations. Interesting - Jer 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Now, under the old covenant, when there was a “national” theocratic covenant with Israel, God prophesied to the nations outside of Israel. Under what Covenant did Jeremiah prophesy to them? As Covenanters see it, they had obligations with respect to the Revelation given to Moses and the promises made to Abraham and David. Moses’ people were to obey the law so that the world would say, “Hey, what a great law these folks have - what a great God they have! How can we get in on this deal?” And, there were provisions for the nations beyond Israel. They did NOT have to become Jews (see Jonah in Ninevah). They had to obey the gospel for the nations. That gospel is expressed all throughout the Psalter (Ps. 72; 67). Psalm 76:11 “Make your vows to the LORD your God and perform them; let all around him bring gifts to him who is to be feared, 12 who cuts off the spirit of princes, who is to be feared by the kings of the earth.”

Given the great Commission (Mt 28:19-20) how can there be no GOSPEL for the Nations?
Psa 2:6 “As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” 7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” 10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”

Would these Kings not become subjects of Messiah’s special blessing? Would they not be baptized as kings of nations in the name of the King of kings?

I don’t get it!
Blessings in the King,
Tony

For another project, I’ve been reading the RP Testimony. 23.4 says that “every nation… should enter into covenant with Christ and serve to advance his kingdom on the earth.” It concludes by invoking covenant sanctions upon those who do not: “The negligence of civil government in any of these particulars is sinful, makes the nation liable to the wrath of God, and threatens the continued existence of the government and nation.”

Oops. The Bush administration is to be in a covenant of works with Yahweh, and that covenant is to be initiated not by Yahweh sovereignly redeeming the nation out of Egypt and constituting them a national people at Sinai, but by the government approaching and contracting with God?

23.10 seems to imply that God does bless and approve governments who keep this covenant of works.

23.13, the state may wage war in defense of religion?

I was pleased to see the RPs invoke the “natural order” (24.2) as at least part of the basis of rejecting and regulating sexual immorality. I believe there are theonomists in the RPCNA. That clause, and others, must make them a little nervous, no?

I could not concede the adjective “Christian civil government.” That’s the issue at question. Is such a thing proper?

In my view, there is a Christian church and there is civil government. The adjective Christian may no more be applied to civil government than it may to a basketball game. There is no such thing as “Christian basketball.” Either a player can post up (Darryl can — he has the longest arms in North America; I defy anyone to try to get away from him) he can’t. That’s the nature of the game. It’s a covenant of works: score (and play defense) or lose.

As a historical matter, there’s some distance between Augustine’s two kingdoms theory, the medieval two swords theory, and the Protestant two kingdoms theory.

As to universals, they exist. I’m no nominalist. That’s the point of natural law. It is a moral universal grounded in the nature of God and reflected in the nature of every person and community. The laws are universals.

Indeed, there is much here I find useful and agree with. Here is what I am concerned about… when did the West have a theocracy? When was there a church state? O.k. maybe post-Reformation England where church and state were two sides of on coin. Rather England was a State that dominated the church. Maybe a good example was the papal states. Otherwise, not so much.

For Rome and for the Covenanters the church and state were two very distinct realms governed in very different ways. Even at the height of the the Medieval period the Pope ruled the church and tried to dominate politics (sometimes he could and sometimes could not). His power was in the discipline of the church and her canon law. The Emperor had power over the sword and his authority came from the secular (yet explicitly Christian… the two are not in opposition) law. The popes realm was “grace” and the emperor’s was “justice”. Often neither reflected those realms well.

The Reformation certainly refined the equation. I think the 2nd Book of Discipline by Andrew Melville of is great help in defining how law-gospel translated into a two kingdom theory. The Covenanters died for a robust two-kingdom theory! (But I remember a Pope named Gregory who spilled a good deal of ink defending it also).

Thus, we have much to agree on. Christian civil government is not theocracy.

You are confusing a robust view of communities and national solidarity that existed when the Franks and Saxons were converted and when the Scots covenanted their unity with theocracy. Here the question of realism vs. nominalism and its relationship to the civil kingdom becomes very important. Questions like, what are families, what are communities, what are ethnos and how do they relate to the kingdom have little to do with theocracy. It has much to do with the relationship between universals and particulars (and the modern rejection of universals). Yet, if all that exists is particulars we should all repent and become baptists.