“Two Kingdoms at Once” Antinomians Think They can be Loyal to Christ, but Ignore Christ’s Law When they Kill for Their Other Kingdom

Even Protestants who don’t believe in the second coming of Jesus believe in “original sn” and that we all are sinners. Many Reformed writers about politics conclude that this makes even liberals like Niebuhr
Protestant, even though he did not believe in the new birth. Because even if you do happen to believe in the new birth, these Reformed wrtiers assume it very likely thaat you confuse new birth with some revival experience (not the means of grace found in their true church ). Who know for certain if you are born again? But one thing these Reformed writers do know for sure is hat sinners have to kill
sinners or no Christendom or even “the culture” will remain. WHAT WE DO NOW IS SECULAR. Therefore incomplete, therefore we do it as sinners, without distraction from any “perfectionism” about what Jesus

Richard Mouw— Bavinck is one of the few people in the Neo-Calvinistic tradition who actually writes about the imitation of Christ. Christ fulfilled the law and we can’t fulfill the laaw by keeping the law, but to be likeJesus is to obey Christ’s commands.

Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture — “Culture is that total process of human activity and that total result of such activity, therefore we cannot escape culture any more readily that we can escape nature.”

Glen Stassen: “The farther Niebuhrs book goes, the less specific it gets about the ethics of the New Testament Jesus. ..Nowhere does the chapter on transformationism indicate Christ’s practices. The result is that readers may be convinced to call themselves transformationists without committing themselves to any specific ethics. Niebuhr is working with a liberal Protestant notion of Christ, a Christ who provides little more than the ideal of self-sacrificial love (expressed as an intention), along with the concept of theocentrism.


Crawford Gribben— Rutherford’s Free Disputation, set in the context of its times, challenges any idea that the modern, politically passive Presbyterian main- stream can be identified either with the theology of the Westminster Confession. Rutherford’s commitment to shaping an entirely Presbyterian world, where public deviations from orthodox faith or practice should be met with the most severe of legal consequences, is a world away from the political complacency of modern evangelicalism and its self-justifying myth of pluralistic benevolence. Rutherford did believe in “liberty of conscience,” but, as the Confession argued, this was a liberty that provided no license to sin (WCF 20.3-4). The Westminnster Confession is not committed to the separation of church and state in any modern understanding of that idea. The doctrine of the “two kingdoms,” where church and state operated independently but with mutual reliance on the law of God, did not at all favor a religiously neutral state. Thus the Confession charged the state with the highest of responsibilities: “The Civil Magistrate. . . hath Authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that Unity and Peace be preserved in the Church, that the Truth of God be kept pure, and intire; that all Blasphemies and Heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in Worship and Discipline prevented, or reformed; and all the Ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed” (WCF 23.3). (Crawford Gribben, “Samuel Rutherford and Freedom of Conscience,” Westminster Theological Journal, 2009)

By all means, the 2k aantinomians instruct us, let us not use the Christian model when we are working together with non-Christians. Since non-Christians can’t do what we can do (we are more and more sanctified, and more and more united to Christ , so let us Christians agree to do what non-Christians also can do. M aybe we could use a Christian model, but we shouldn’t because if we did that, we woud not be able to participate in our duty to manage the world.. So some other model ( no religious test except willingness to kill for American democracy) is better, even if it doesn’t work either.

Instead of telling anybody what Jesus said about not killing, the “conservative worldview ” answer has always been to kill Servetus . Instead of calling evil evil and attempting to fight evil with good,
” conservatives” always accuse others of denying that evil is part of God’s plan. Their theodicy seems to have not yet considered the possibility that what God has ordained is evil. Yet this does not stop “conservatives” from trying to stop “ordained killing” with more “ordained skilling”. Whaat God has predestined is thus confused with God’s law or command.

Why do “conservatives” keep fighting against “social justice warriors”. Does the continued existence of “pacifits” cause them worries about their own collaboration with evil? Why can’t “conservatives” stop asking God so many questions about God’s having planned a history in which radicals fight against slavery and war?

p 223—The events in Wittenberg reveal what had become a pattern in Luther’s life. Time and again, though Luther might rail against them and insult them with surprising impudence, Luther in the end would always align himself with the authorities. The account first propagated by the Catholic side–that Karlstadt had engaged in subversive preaching, which has caused armed sedition—Luther now adopted as the official
narrative of what had happened in Wittenberg. It was a convenient fiction for all sides, because it minimized the extent to which the council, leading reformers, and others had been actively involved in introducing the Reformation. In fact, until January, Melanchthon had taken a far more radical line than Karlstad, but someone had to be blamed. It is hard to resist the conclusion that Karlstad was made a scapegoat

Mark 14: 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will demolish this sanctuary made by human hands, and in three days I will build another not made by hands.

People who try to change and reform the world are rebels against God’s predestination and should be killed by the authorities, not of course by the church but by the state after the revolutionaries are handed over to the state. And after the discontents are killed, this proves that the world can’t be changed but it doesn’t matter because there is no purgatory and the people killed go right away to different worlds.

Sure, those religious people always use very religious language when they go to war or bury their dead presidents, but separation of church and state only works one way, because it is the duty of good
Christians to defend the rights of Nero and Pilate to do whatever social injustice they want to do, legal or not legal. George Bush asked Billy Graham to come to Washington, D.C., but did not say why. “They put me in the Lincoln Room and all of a sudden there came a knock at the door. They turned on CNN and watched the beginning of the air war against Iraq. “We had prayer together,” Graham says. At dinner they prayed again. And then, Graham says, just before Bush spoke to the nation


Theodore D. Bozeman, “Inductive and Deductive Polities”, Journal of American History, December 1977, p 722–, Old School contributions to social analysis may be viewed as a sustained attempt to defend the nherited social structure…The General Assembly found it necessary to lament the practice of those who ‘question and unsettle practice which have received the enlightened sanction of centuries’… The desire was to draw the ought out of the is…to make facts serve a normative purpose”

Does confessing with the WCF that you are becoming and more sanctified put you in the immanentize-the-eschaton school?

“The spirituality of the church” is the sneaky slogan in defense of killing for the status quo. Supposely those who support the military offense of the American empire are not “political” but those who talk about racism or political are “leaving the gospel for the sake of humanism”

Peter Leithart (p 75. Against Christianity) — The Reformers had a spiritualizing reading of redemptive history. We still see this today. Listen to Terry Johnson: ‘When Jesus removed the special status of
Jerusalem as the place where God was to be worshipped, he abolished all the material forms that constituted the typological OT system.’(157, in With Reverence and Awe, ed Hart and Muether).” Israel’s prophets inveighed against empty formalism, and some Protestants today conclude from this that the prophets condemned ritual as such.. They say that religion is a matter of private ideology, ideas and belief and that those who tie religion to public rituals tempt us to be hypocrites.

Carlos Eirie “As Luther saw it, his interpretation of the Word of God could never be wrong, and no step taken in the proclamation of that Word could ever be false. Luther saw himself as a prophet, and an agent of God’s wrath. Knowing how much he was shaped by St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, it is easy to imagine him identifying personally with this passage: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”

“Luther dismissed all ‘radicals’ in his midst by saying that they had ‘swallowed the Holy Spirit, feathers and all’ and that they were “so stupid that it makes one feel like vomiting.” To the pope he could
say, “You are the head of all the worst scoundrels on earth, a vicar of the devil, an enemy of God, an adversary of Christ, a destroyer of Christ’s churches; a teacher of lies, blasphemies, and idolatries; an
arch-thief and robber.” Belittling the high and mighty became one of his great skills. To the great humanist Erasmus he once said, “Perhaps you want me to die of unrelieved boredom while you keep on talking.”


Explore posts in the same categories: soldiers

Tags: , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

5 Comments on ““Two Kingdoms at Once” Antinomians Think They can be Loyal to Christ, but Ignore Christ’s Law When they Kill for Their Other Kingdom”

  1. Mark Mcculley Says:

    The Doctrine of the Spirituality of the Church in the Ecclesiology of
    Charles Hodge, by Alan D. Strange. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2017

    For Hodge, the spirituality ofthe church meant that:

    The Holy Spirit constitutes the true church—that invisible body of
    believers gathered across the ages and found in a variety of
    particular visible churches.
    The church is a spiritual kingdom, whose power is moral and suasive—as opposed to the state, a physical kingdom whose power is legal and coercive. The state itself is not atheistic, however, and though
    separate from the church, and not over the church, should provide the atmosphere in which the church can thrive (Sabbath observance,
    Christian teaching in schools, etc.). The church, over against the Roman Catholic Church or any other ritualist churches, exercises power in a fashion that is ministerial and declarative as opposed to power that is magisterial and legislative.

    Hodge argued,

    To adopt any theory which would stop the mouth of the church, and
    prevent her bearing her testimony to the kings and rulers, magistrates
    and people, in behalf of the truth and law of God, is like one who
    administers chloroform to a man to prevent his doing mischief. We pray
    God that this poison may be dashed away, before it has reduced the
    church to a state of inanition, and delivered her bound hand and foot
    into the power of the world. (335–36)

    One of the most important issues in the debates among Old School
    Presbyterians was the church’s position on slavery, which, even though
    it was a moral or ethical issue, had become “inextricably intertwined”
    with politics, “especially during the 1840s and following” (79).
    “Hodge was a gradual emancipationist” and thought that slavery would
    eventually “shrivel and vanish, and he wished to help it along in that
    regard, though he was willing enough to tolerate it for the sake of
    the broader social order” (179).

    Hodge refused to condemn slavery as an institution since Scripture, as
    he understood it, did not condemn it; he did, however, insist on
    condemning its abuses that were clearly a violation of the person of
    the slave as someone in the image of God and due all the biblical
    respect due to man as man. (80)

    According to Strange, Hodge arguably “pulled his punches on slavery”
    not only because of “his own complicity with the institution but
    because for him, nothing was as important as the continuation of the
    American union” (336; italics mine).

    The obsession—which Hodge shared in common with many other
    Presbyterians including Thornwell—“to maintain the bond of union
    between North and South at almost any price” unfortunately shaped and guided the actions of the American Presbyterian Church far more than it should have

    Why was such a premium placed on saving the American union by so many parties in these debates? Because Hodge, Thornwell, and almost all those in nineteenth-century America shared certain convictions about American exceptionalism—namely, that God had brought America into existence to bring to the whole world both spiritual and political freedom. All the parties to this dispute saw the American venture as divinely ordained and worth saving at all costs, even if that meant bearing with the continuation of slavery. . . .


  2. Mark Mcculley Says:

    Matthew 6: 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. So if the light within you is darkness—how deep is that darkness! 24 “No one can be a slave of two masters, since either he will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot be slaves of God and of money.

    d g hart (old life) —Whether owing to the legacy of evangelical ideas about conversion, or to the Dutch-Calvinist influence of worldview , lots of Christians believe that their whole lives flow from their faith in Christ Of course, faith for these Christians has to do with the most important part of life such as where a person will be for eternity. But Christians have lots of other identities and responsibilities as human beings that are separate and sometimes seemingly unrelated to being a Christian.

  3. Mark Mcculley Says:

    Too many Germans had replaced their allegiance to the Christ revealed in Scripture with an allegiance to a German god of their own making. And “when a different god is made out of Christ—a Hellenistic or Teutonic or Jerry Falwell-made American god—then the first commandment is being violated.”



  4. Mark Mcculley Says:

    Gary North review of Mark McCulley, “Faith and Freedom: A Fifth View of Christian Economics,” Nomos, II (Winter 1984). McCulley called his anti-Old Testament, anti-civil government position the “economics of Christian exile.” This is well-named. Exile is the essence of the escapist religion. McCulley deliberately ignored the third principle, save all you can, which is the foundation of economic growth and linear development unto dominion. McCulley was hostile to such a view, for he understood the thrift principle well enough to see where it leads in principle, and where it has led in the past: to modern industrial capitalism.  This is why McCulley praised as followers of Jesus’ New Testament ethic “Ballou, the Hopedale community, and a few ‘come-outers’” in the post-Civil War Christian era. “Down on the farm”  has long been the final resting and retreating place for pacifist Anabaptists. The revolutionary Anabaptists have generally headed for the cities, in order to consolidate power. http://www.garynorth.com/AuthorityAndDominion6.pdf

    Click to access ComeOutism.pdf

  5. Mark Mcculley Says:

    There are as many kind of libertarians as there are fascists. Since I am anti-voting, against respecting the flag, against supporting the troops, I could not be “libertarian”, since so many “libertarians” think they have right to kill abortions and socialists. This is the same reason I don’t call myself a Christian. Most “libertarians” I know are antinomians. They talk about their “rights” but they reject the law and example of Jesus Christ. It is not a good thing to be called an antinomian. Being accused of being antinomian (or libertarian ) certainly does not prove that you know the gospel of free grace . Some people’s “natural law” says that it’s not natural for those from different “races” to marry.

    Benjamin Tucker—Every man who casts a ballot necessarily uses that ballot  in offense against liberty, that ballot  being the chief instrument of criminal attempts to control others.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: