Our friend R. Scott Clark continues to slay the Federal Vision (and soon he will have an opportunity here at DRC) but he is helping to confirm one of my fears today… that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater. At first I assumed the baby in question would be a high Presbyterian ecclessiology (but that would not be a Scott Clark mistake… but plenty of PCA folk will be tempted in this unfortunate direction). Rather, it is a confessionally Reformed view of the civil magistrate that got shot out the window!
Here is what Scott wrote over at the Heidelblog:
Theonomy, theocracy, Christendom revived are all important elements behind the FV movement. I’m not sure that all the FV proponents are theonomic, but most of them are and all of them support the revival of Christendom and the civil enforcement of the first table of the decalogue.
“As I’ve said many times, Christendom was a mistake. Jesus didn’t institute a civil kingdom. I thought he made the pretty plain to Pilate. He didn’t call down angels. He died. He rose. He poured out his Holy Spirit. He instituted the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments and discipline in a the visible, institutional church.
Where did the apostolic church seek to “take back” the Roman Empire for Christ? Where did the earliest church institute its program of cultural transformation.
That’s what I thought. Didn’t happen. Why not? Because it’s not appropriate to the New Covenant people. The national, temporary covenant was instituted with Israel and expired with the crucifixion. It’s done. Christendom (and priestcraft) is an attempt to revive what’s been fulfilled and discarded.
Back of the whole “transformationalist” agenda is also back of the pietist/mystical agenda: to make the faith really “true” again, as if it isn’t really true if one hasn’t had an immediate encounter with the risen Christ or if it isn’t kicking heinies and taking names. In other words, its a form of unbelief. It’s impiety dressed as piety. It’s seeking a kingdom whose builder and maker is not God. It’s seeking an abiding city in this world. It’s the inverse of Heb 11. It’s Judazing.
Other than that, it’s good fun.”
I am not a transformationalist, I am a conservative. To claim that the last 1800 years of Western History was a mistake is a liberal form millenialism!!! It smacks of Peasent revolts, Jacobin clubs, and starting the world anew.
That said, I have but one question for Professor Clark…. were the members of the Synod of Dort judaizers?