The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum King of Kings

Pilgrim

I have to admit I am a bit shocked at your response. Not because you disagree so much.
Rather, that some of what you said I have never heard before coming from any sermons or Commentaries I have heard/read before.

For example:
Context (1 Corinthians 10:31)

It is my understanding that saying: “whether you eat or drink… do all to the glory of God” applies only to believers and therefore cannot be extended to the world.
Problem:
• While the immediate audience is the church, the principle expresses a universal purpose for creation (cf. Ps. 19:1; Isa. 43:7; Rom. 11:36; Col. 1:16).
• God’s glory is the chief end of all things, not merely the duty of believers. The verse reveals the believer’s conscious aim but does not limit God’s design to them alone.

Saying that, because I have a lot of respect for you, I think I need to review some commentaries.

I think I know how I would respond as far as who can do things that are pleasing to God and how He is glorified…. Nevertheless… ????

I will add that I think the amount of light and truth influences how outwardly depraved a nation may be, but I don’t think paying lip service to the True Lord & True Religion registers with God (Matthew 7:23). It’s like an empty Bible Belt - some cultural good may come along with very depraved and hypocritical behavior and atrocity (typically in secret but eventually revealed).

Pilgrim

A little more research and I found the following.

Here’s what your theology seems to align with. (Note I am not saying this is your position.)

Two-Kingdoms Theology (R2K / Radical Two Kingdoms)
It is most consistent with Radical Two-Kingdoms theology, particularly as taught by figures like David VanDrunen or Michael Horton (Westminster California tradition).

Key Features they Reflect
* Strict separation of “sacred” and “secular” realms:
Limiting God’s revealed will and the obligation to glorify God to the church and individual believers, while the civil realm is ruled only by “natural law” and providence.
——————-

My own position, is that regardless of secular/Christian Government or Church.
They are both accountable to God, although only the Church will obey God.
Total obedience will not happen until the New Heaven and New Earth.

One nation under God!

Tom

I’ll chime in here… I asked you before.

Explain how America’s government was aligned with your position. When did it stop aligning with your position? How did the GOVERNMENT change? I’m just hearing a lot of platitudes from your end. I think you are elevating your “belief” to a political reality that doesn’t exist. The reason the political reality appeared to exist is cause the country wasn’t as outwardly insane as it is now. I kind of find the tact you’re taking with pilgrim as stubborn (mostly cause you’re being hardened to what he’s said repeatedly on this board). I’m sure he will set you straight. I think you’re a little seduced by the CN guys.

You realize that Thomas Jefferson was a universalist, right? He was a Unitarian. He was not a Trinitarian. So our founding principle of freedom of religion was founded on natural law (which has served us pretty well in our freedom to practice without obstructions, Thanks Be to God’s Restraining Hand thus far), not true religion or Jesus Christ. We were outwardly more aligned with true religion but we’ve never been biblically and theologically faithful and our government was never Christian (in a proper sense). So what is this high ground that you seem to claim. Some of the most influential men in our government’s infancy would be considered heretics in a truly biblical/theological sense.

In GOD We Trust is not Trinitarian - it’s a slogan that in many cases has no part with the Name & Work of Jesus Christ. It’s as much referring to the Unitarian free mason god of Thomas Jefferson and the like (have you ever looked at the symbols on the American one dollar bill)

The R2Kers are a kind of flip side error of yours - they think the public square is neutral, you think the public square WAS faithful - it never was.

I have tried to be more than respectful of you and Pilgrim.
In fact, if you think I am being disrespectful to Pilgrim. You
are reading too much into what I am trying to say.
Pilgrim is someone that God used to cut my teeth in Calvinism.

It is because of that, when I have disagreement with him. That I am reluctant
to even mention it.

To your question, the following by Voddie Baucham I believe
answers your question.



Tom

So where do you think anyone here is in error? Justice is a biblical principle. All judges and public officials are accountable to God in a certain sense as relating to their vocation (obviously that doesn’t mean that they’re spiritually right before God - and every person is ultimately spiritually accountable before God and will be judged accordingly). I think your biggest problem is corruption and the perversion of laws and government. Unfortunately, there are many pastors who violate their calling and are damned - just a sobering parallel example. The problem is the human condition of the public at large. If God removes his restraining hand all the Christian platitudes in the world won’t make a difference.

Natural law foundations of justice and order (and standard morality) are completely Christian (and relevantly derived). So those foundations are inherent in civil society. What will the Christian nationalists do that has not already been established in our long-standing history? I acknowledge Christianity’s (and its principles) positive and long-standing influence - that should continue, but why would we promote the politicization of True Religion?

I agree with Voddie that kings and rulers are accountable to God, absolutely. Should they be consulting faithful church leaders - absolutely (but again, ethics, morality & righteous judgements are based on Christianity & scripture - it’s the foundation for all natural law, so consultation with True Religion is inherently advantageous for those that want good for the people). Should we be trying to groom magistrates, presidents and leaders to promote true religion and govern accordingly? Well, you’d probably have to blow up the leviathan that our bloated government has become and then I think you would need to keep the spheres separate. (You’d also have to blowup the culture and the media cause a kingdom divided can’t stand). So, Voddie is not saying anything would need to change but we would need to be more vocal. I’m ok with that. But what this guy Baird was saying was not consistent with what Voddie is saying. The main principle is that the government must be small (and not a nanny or police/military state) for true religion to not become politicized.

Hmmm, I have argued against the 2 Kingdom view made popular by Meredith Kline which is most objected to due its "Republication of the 'Covenant of Works'" whereby works gain God's favor and blessing(s). That there are two distinct "kingdoms" cannot be denied; the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the Devil on this world. The Kingdom of God exists on this earth which is expressed visibly in the Church Visible and invisibly as Christ rules from heaven to bring all things to its fullness and culmination when Christ returns and then the Judgment. God restrains the works of the Evil One and all who are enemies of God so that the Church may continue in its task to call out from this world whose whom God has predestined to be saved in Christ. And doubtless, God's providence restrains much wickedness of men so that true believers and even unbelievers can live a relatively peaceful life. Of course, the philanthropy of God toward all men, even the reprobate will be used against them in judgment for their obstinance and rebellion of God.

Thus, your copy/pasting some quips and key words with a wide brush are irrelevant to what I believe and have stated as much many times here and also in many of the articles and sermons I have chosen to put on The Highway website.

Again... CONTEXT!! I clarified, at least it was my intent to expand on the blanket application of 1Cor 10:31 as did the "author" in the podcast where he jumped from logic to personal opinion, stating that since "all men" are to glorify God, the governments are bound to adopt and enforce the moral law of God and thus "glorify God", etc. My response was:

Anthony,
What Voddie said and what Baird said do not conflict each other. At least from I can see.
Although Voddie is with the Lord now. He and Tom Ascol, are very much united on this subject.
You basically called Baird a NAZi Nationalist. We are not talking about forced conversion.
Voddie actually spoke on this aspect. Voddie was asked if he was a Christian Nationalist. He answered “Maybe, depending on your definition of a Christian Nationalist.” Tom Ascol, Voddie Baucham and Baird are very much in agreement with each other.
He is well aware, of how the term is being used.

We are talking about Christian ethos, where Christian and non Christian can live side by side. As long as the Christian ethos are not violated.

Again, as Voddie mentioned, these things are already imbedded in the founding documents. Even more so I may individual states documents. Yet at present (Although President Trump is trying to change that), this generation are making a mockery of those documents. Making them read like living documents, rather than how the people who wrote them meant.

This is happening in both the USA and Canada.

Pilgrim, I tried to make it very clear I am not saying you are in agreement with Horton and his 2K.
Rather, I was trying to say what you said is something I found with Horton and others I mentioned.

Perhaps, I should have just left that part out?

Tom

That’s how he will be depicted (a fascist, nationalist, etc.). What is his goal and what is his plan - give me specifics. Sure, I can say God will damn every pagan official to hell - does that make me a better Christian? Should that make me feel better about my own sin?

I’m glad you are excited about these guys and your position, but what is the spiritual benefit to a non-workable (and/or poorly defined) political theory in our day? It has to be very precise in goal, mission and exercise.

I feel I’ve wasted too much time even talking about it.

Maybe do like Voddie said and communicate to your officials and magistrates - write them letters and phone their office, pray to and for them. Even remind them the gravity of their position and that they are accountable to God to perform good, just, righteous acts of governance.

Personally, I fear that politics can become my faith. I’ve been down that road before. But that’s just where I’m at…

If you are familiar with ‘The Sword & the Trowel Podcast’, which is a part of Founders Ministries. Voddie was actually part of Founders ministries as the President of their Seminary.
Neither Voddie, Tom or James Baird advocates for a non-workable political theory in our day.

You even mentioned what Voddie said to do.



That is a great start.

The podcast, with James Baird was only meant to answer a few questions for the listener, on what his book is about.
They did not go into a lot of detail, but I am sure the book itself does.
I have not yet read it, but a friend of mine just received it and is starting to read it.

For Tom Ascol and Graham Gunden to have invited him onto their program. You can bet, the book struck a cord with them.
A cord that I am pretty sure is in keeping with their beliefs on the subject.

I have long stopped worrying about being called “a Fascist, Nationalist, etc..
In fact, in the past few months, I have been called a “hateful bigot”, because I made it very clear that I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman.

As a friend said, when people call him those things. “Wear it like a badge of honour.”

I don’t like being called by those terms. However the truth spoken in love is more important than the reply I get.
Unfortunately, people like that use these derogatory terms, because they make people think twice about even speaking up at all. This is the fear of man.

Voddie wrote another book called ‘Expository Apologetics’, in which he says that the goal in talking about the issues, is not just to win arguments. It is to win the person to Christ. It is important to get around to proclaiming the Gospel, in any discussion like this.
It has been quite some time since I read that book. I think it is time I read it again.

Tom

Ok, he was a little better here…



I don’t really want to discuss it anymore but I’m a little more open to what he has to say at least. He’s definitely more nuanced and consistent than a Wilson or Wolfe type. So on a local level especially he can probably be more faithful, focused and effective…

On a national level, a house divided can’t stand. So we would have to extinguish all the dirt as we attempt to shine a greater light.

So Tom, I guess I owe you a semi apology. I like Pilgrims more spiritual focus but I don’t think Baired’s level of engagement is objectionable, especially on a local level.

Watching ‘The Sword & The Trowel Podcast’ as often as I do. I know they have a very spiritual focus. In fact, they on occasion focus on the 1689 LBCF quite a bit.
I have also seen them have podcast on Reformed Catechisms.

This is just one particular podcast.

Tom