I’m not saying they shouldn’t search the Bible. But I do think they can function well even without special revelation. Think George Washington.

Huh? George Washington never read a Bible? Whether or not Washington searched Scripture to make every decision as president, it’s absurd to suggest he only relied on general revelation in everything he did as president and that he was not influenced by special revelation.

You cannot honestly suggest that the U.S. Constitution was guided completely by general revelation when it was written in one of the most heavily Calvinistic cultures in history. Think George Washington – why not think Joseph Stalin? It seems the latter would be a more appropriate representation of reliance on general revelation apart from Scripture. Or how about the Aztecs?

The truth is that the single most influential idea driving the political philosophy of the U.S. Constitution was the total depravity of man – something no culture will believe apart from Scripture. See Robbins’ “Freedom and Capitalism” for more on this historical point.

Thanks Nick for this great post. I agree there is a middle road. One rhetorical suggestion I might have is not to allow modern proponents of natural law to monopolize the term “two kingdoms.” I think two kingdom theology is biblical, but WSC natural law 2K is not.

As far as a magistrate’s duty to make laws according to God’s revealed will, I believe they do it when they write laws according to a sense of justice that all men have written on their hearts. Do I want the government to enforce the true religion? I don’t think so. Today’s Presbyterian turns into tomorrow’s Quaker. Then what happens?

Do I want magistrates looking in the Bible to justify national health care? Health no!

I think an argument could be made for federalism in the list of options you gave me–at least as a deduction from the principles outlines in Scripture–however, I do not think that is what James Madison would say. As far as a representative form of government is concerned, seems to me that federal theology has a great deal of influence over that particular structure. Why do you think Presbyterianism so influenced the American government? What were men like John Witherspoon out to achieve? Where did they get their principles? Again, I am not a God-and-Country proponent, but I think the Bible is a lot more authoritative and relevant in regard to a philosophy of government than Aristotle. I never asserted that America had a government that was fully built on Christian principles either. I am not seeking that as a pastor. All I am suggesting is that it is the responsibility of all men, whether Kings or senators, to make laws and govern nations according to God’s revealed will. Would you disagree?

I will agree with you again on what you have asserted here. This is why I am not a theonomist or God-and-Country proponent. I am suggesting that the Bible gives the definition of justice as well as mercy. The government exists for justice. Therefore, governments should seek just standards from Scripture. However, I completely agree with you in regard to the nature and mission of the church. I think we constantly need to affirm this. Thank you for taking the time to interact with me on this issue.

The difference between what you and I are saying seems to be grounded in the difference between the way something is, and the way it should be. I can stand back and assess a situation on the basis of the way it works in Gods providence, and even in His economy, however, I can also seek to answer the question of what would most honor God according to His word. So, I think we agree (and I really do mean that) with regard to the way things are, and have functioned accordingly throughout the New Testament era. That being said, I find myself in more disagreement with the idea that the church should not have any influence on the state. But at the end of the day, I love the Gospel and know that only the Gospel will change the hearts of man, and I do not ever want to jeopardize that by focusing improperly on the fruit, or potential fruit, of the Gospel.

From what I can ascertain, the difference was in the way they approached church and state. Melville would have had no problem saying the church should influence the state. The Southern Presbyterians were probably a bit more guarded in their emphasis on influence moving in that direction. They both would agree that the State does not have the right to directly influence the church, except in the role of protecting the freedom of the true church. But, I assume you know more about Melville and the Scotland scene than me. So, what do you have to say my friend?

From what I can ascertain, the difference was in the way they approached church and state. Melville would have had no problem saying the church should influence the state. The Southern Presbyterians were probably a bit ore guarded in their emphasis on influence moving in that direction. They both would agree that the State does not have the right to directly influence the church, except in the role of protecting the freedom of the true church. But, I assume you know more about Melville and the Scotland scene than me. So, what do you have to say my friend?

I’m interested in your comments about Andrew Melville. What would you say distinguished his doctrine of the Two Kingdoms from that of his later Old School Southern, and more contemporary heirs? Clearly his views on religious establishments is inconsistent with the position of most American Christians of whatever stripe. Are there other ways you see a difference?

Thank you for the thoughts. I agree with Machen’s use of the “spirituality doctrine,” as do I agree with your concern about the cultural transformatists. I think there is a great deal of similarity between postmillennialism and neo-Kyperianism. The one sees the Christianization of the world through political activism in the “not yet” of their eschatology. The other sees the Christianization of the world through cultural and social activism in the “already” of their eschatology. I don’t know that all the “Two Kingdom” guys would dismiss theonomy from the picture as quickly as you would. Would you agree?

As far as the special-natural revelation aspect. I am suggesting that magistrates are accountable to God to make and execute righteous laws based on the revelation of God’s will in Scripture. Their failure to do so, is the reality of the world in which we live and is, therefore, no less authoritative. But, if Hitler tells me I have to kill Jews and Christians his authority is null and void in regard to my obligations to obey the Lord. So, I am suggesting that on the one hand, magistrates are “the ministers of God who do not bear the sword in vain”–whether they are making consistently righteous laws, and on the other that they are still obligated before God to rule according to His word. It is God’s world, after all, in which we live. Again, I think that Van Til’s doctrine of Common Grace is the missing ingredient in many explanations of the civil magistrate and moral law. How is it that countries that are completely godless still know that murder is wrong? They have the law of God written on their hearts, and despite their sinful failure to seek to consistently make and execute upright laws (which they can only do by God’s grace as they search the Scriptures), they still get a good bit right by Common Grace. Do you agree?

On your point about special revelation interpreting general revelation, are you suggesting that a magistrate who does not use Scripture to interpret general revelation has less authority? I don’t suppose you are. But that is the rub. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein or Barack Obama, spirituality folks would say this is the guy whom God has ordained. His rule is based on some kind of natural law or creational order — a general sense of justice and order — and so he is fulfilling his calling whether using Scripture or not.

Christian reasoning is definitely not circular, if by that it is meant that everything takes place in my head. The Holy Spirit is real and external to my being; so is Christ; so is Scripture; so is the Father. Blessed is the man who knows that the Holy Spirit is not his own consciousness.

The Witness of the Spirit is not self-affirmation, else Christians have nothing to talk about.