As to the concepts related to neutrality in regard to the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine of the two-kingdoms, the issue is whether the Christian’s essential nature with the kingdom of Christ is of equal connection to the kingdom of this world. If one understands Col. 1.13 as well as 1Cor. 7.31b, a redemptive-historical in union transfer has taken place for the believer in Christ. Also, if one looks at The Canons of Dordt, article 4 under the Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, It states, “There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.” The unbeliever then according to Dordt does not practice civil governance correctly and is restrained in their sin by common grace.
I agree entirely with the Canons of Dort!
The question is what is meant by “aright.” We can’t define “aright” to mean “nothing.” Everyone is fallen and all we do is tainted and corrupted by sin. Apart from grace we don’t use anything rightly. The concern of the language is to preclude the Remonstrants from carving out some area where sin doesn’t really affect life.
The old Reformed never said, however, that only Christian magistrates are proper magistrates. Calvin said the opposite explicitly. We can’t set up a situation where there’s no such thing as common or civil life. Those were Anabaptist, not Reformed, positions.
As to the concepts related to neutrality in regard to the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine of the two-kingdoms, the issue is whether the Christian’s essential nature with the kingdom of Christ is of equal connection to the kingdom of this world. If one understands Col. 1.13 as well as 1Cor. 7.31b, a redemptive-historical in union transfer has taken place for the believer in Christ. Also, if one looks at The Canons of Dordt, article 4 under the Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, It states, “There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.” The unbeliever then according to Dordt does not practice civil governance correctly and is restrained in their sin by common grace.
I agree entirely with the Canons of Dort!
The question is what is meant by “aright.” We can’t define “aright” to mean “nothing.” Everyone is fallen and all we do is tainted and corrupted by sin. Apart from grace we don’t use anything rightly. The concern of the language is to preclude the Remonstrants from carving out some area where sin doesn’t really affect life.
The old Reformed never said, however, that only Christian magistrates are proper magistrates. Calvin said the opposite explicitly. We can’t set up a situation where there’s no such thing as common or civil life. Those were Anabaptist, not Reformed, positions.
See this post:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/natural-law-and-light-in-the-reformed-confessions/