← Know What You Believe with Michael Horton
Loading summary
Transcript81 lines
- [00:02]
Sola Media Announcer
Most of us consume more Christian media than ever. Podcasts, videos, social media. And yet slowing down and really thinking feels harder than it used to. Our newest project was designed with this in mind. Introducing the Sola Newspaper, a quarterly print publication featuring articles on theology, the historic creeds and confessions, and reflections for the Christian life, delivered straight to your mailbox for free. Subscribe@solamedia.org newspaper and we'll send it to you at no cost. Read it, mark it up, leave it somewhere someone will find it. The Sola Newspaper, free today@solarmedia.org newspaper.
- [01:00]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
Hey, Pastor Adriel here. And I am excited for this conversation that we get to have with two friends of mine, Dr. Michael Horton and Dr. David Van Drunen, both professors at Westminster Seminary in California. And I'm hoping just for kind of a laid back, let's get into some of these issues that I think they're mostly your fault, Dave. The two kingdoms conversations that happen out there in the world, but something that you've written about. I know you've written about this a little bit as well, Mike, in there especially, I think in our day, there's a lot of interest in political theology and even in retrieving Protestant political theology, you know, people going back to the sources and wanting to apply some of those principles today. And you've been talking about that for many years, right, Dave?
- [01:45]
Dr. Michael Horton
It's been many years now.
- [01:46]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
It's true, since before I even knew it was a thing. And so I feel like there's a little bit of a resurgence with young men. As both of you guys know, the PCA just did a, has a committee that they formed on the question of Christian nationalism. And so this is a conversation that's happening. My hope would be to have a conversation with you, brother. I was just thinking we got an OPC guy here, a PCA guy here, and a URC guy here.
- [02:10]
Dr. David VanDrunen
This is ecumenical.
- [02:10]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
This is very ecumenical. And I think we can speak on behalf of our denominations, federations, you know, and settle this issue once and for all finally. Yeah. So my sense is that, and correct me if I'm wrong, you guys probably don't want to go down in history as like the two kingdoms guy. I know you've both written about all sorts of things. Dave, you're working on a moral theology right now, or maybe you do want to be known in this way. I'm not sure. But why is this an important topic? And maybe just if we could define it simply, somebody's coming into this conversation and they're hearing about this for the first time, when we talk about two kingdoms, what are we talking about?
- [02:50]
Dr. Michael Horton
Well, I think it's important for one thing, because Christians have, for as long as there have been Christians, we've been thinking about what are our responsibilities in this world, what is our place in this world, how do we be citizens of heaven and yet responsible citizens of our own societies. And the two kingdoms doctrine, it actually has served a number of purposes over the years. But that certainly one purpose of that is to try to help us understand our place in this world and above all, to explain God's rule in this world. How does God carry out his rule? And before I give a kind of a simple explanation that you ask for, it might be worth just noting that, you know, we can talk about these sorts of issues, these issues of Christians in society or Christians in politics, using other categories or other biblical metaphors other than the two kingdoms. It's not the only way to do it. I found over the years that the two kingdoms is a helpful category. It's a historical, reformed category, and it's useful for trying to think through these. So I would say that the very basic idea of the two kingdoms is that, well, God is the ruler of all things. He's the sovereign Lord over all things, but he carries out his rule in two distinct ways. And so we can talk about two kingdoms or a twofold kingdom of God. And in one way, God is the Creator and sustainer of all things. And as the creator and sustainer of all things, he has ordained human society for all human beings. He has instituted family and civil government and economic life, artistic life, scientific life, and does that for the good of all of creation. But there's a second sort of way that God carries out his rule in this world, and that's as the redeemer of his people through Jesus Christ, and as the King who carries out redemption. He has sent His Son and He's established his church. And this is the kingdom that Jesus proclaimed in the Gospels. And this kingdom is advancing here and now as the church does its work, as it proclaims the gospel, it gathers in the saints. And this is the kingdom that will be consummated, that will be brought to everlasting completion in the new creation. And so when we're talking about the two kingdoms, the basic idea is thinking about how does God carry out this twofold rule? And how do we as Christians, how do we exist in this world in light of the fact that we are citizens of both kingdoms? We are, along with unbelievers, we are Living under God's common rule and carrying out ordinary occupations in this world, participating in our political communities. And yet our dearest love is that redemptive kingdom that is a kingdom that cannot be shaken, as Hebrews 12 puts it. So that's how I would put it briefly. Now then from that there are all sorts of kind of questions of where do we go from that, how do we apply that?
- [06:01]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
You know, when I first heard about this concept, it was actually in a seminary, probably in your guys classes. And I remember what was really helpful for me was just being able to think through. Yeah, there are certain roles that the church. Jobs that the church has, jobs that the civil magistrate has. And so we have to be, you know, like, the church does not have the authority to bear the sword. We don't execute people. We do excommunicate people. And so there's a distinct way, I think that's a real simple way of realizing that, okay, there's a distinct way in which God is governing his church on earth. It's different from, you know, the role of the civil magistrate. I don't know, Mike, if you would add anything to Dave's simple definition.
- [06:35]
Dr. David VanDrunen
Yeah, secular officers can't preach or administer the sacraments. I think too, you know, when you talk about the biblical grounds for this, I don't think that that many Christians will find themselves disagreeing that we're dual citizens. That term has been used for a long time. And it's basically acknowledging that there are two kingdoms. When Jesus says, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's, he's distinguishing between two kingdoms. When Jesus said, it's no longer the Old Covenant where the church is a nation, a geopolitical nation, drive out the enemies of God, therefore it's holy land. So it's a holy war. Jesus says, no regime change. That's gone. Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says, this is common space and pray for your enemies. Turn the other cheek when they come to persecute you for the gospel. You know, finally, in the book of Revelation, the seventh trumpet, the announcement is, and now the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our God and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever. So that's already distinguishing between the two kingdoms. So you have it from the lips of Jesus, you have it from the lips of the apostles. And that's really the basis of what we're talking about here. The gospel being preached in all the world is the sign of the end. That is the sign that. That Christ's kingdom has conquered the world. Not that eventually it's going to control the arts and culture and politics and economics of the nation, the Christianizing of these nations.
- [08:23]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
Yeah, yeah. Whenever I think about the dual citizenship thing, my mind goes to Paul's words. I think it's in Philippians 3, where he says flat out that we have this heavenly citizenship and from heaven we're waiting for a Savior who's going to transform our bodies. Which is obviously not to say that we don't have an obligation, a role to play as citizens of the common world that we're a part of.
- [08:45]
Dr. David VanDrunen
Interesting that Paul says that in First Thessalonians, in the very chapter where he treats how you prepare for the coming of the Lord.
- [08:51]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
Yeah, but it does. I mean, I don't know if we would want to say that he's sort of relativizing our earthly life, but there is this focus on we are a part of something greater. And I wonder if some of the challenge that many people have today is that balance is we want to be really engaged in this world. And especially we have this theology that's saying we're bringing about the eschaton through our engagement with the world around us, then that makes a lot of sense. And some people say that not everybody goes that far. But finding that proper balance between, okay, what does it mean for me to be a good citizen, a dual citizen of this world, but also for my hope to be rooted in heaven. It seems like so much of the New Testament is pushing the Church in that direction and encouraging that meditation upon the things that are above and so forth.
- [09:42]
Dr. Michael Horton
Yeah, that's true. If you think about the Church today or through most ages, is the church's biggest problem being too heavenly minded or maybe being too worldly, loving the things of this world too much? I think the answer sort of. Well, I think the question sort of answers itself when you think about it. But it is still a difficult question. And this is one of the reasons why Christians have wrestled with this question is because it's not always easy. But I don't think there's any way to escape the fact that in the New Testament, the emphasis is upon the new creation that awaits us. And even the very images that the New Testament uses, images of being a sojourner, exile, stranger, pilgrim, these are ways to encourage us to understand that we shouldn't look at our present societies as our permanent place of residence. You think about the end of Hebrews here we have no lasting city. We are awaiting the city to come. So I Mean, I've, I, I've expended a lot of energy in my research and writing and trying to think about how can Christians be responsible as citizens? And I, you know, I'm interested in political things, how we can think well politically and about bioethics issues and, I mean, all sorts of cultural interests. And I think that's important. We are called to live in this world and to exercise the gifts that God has given to us and try to serve our neighbors as well as we can with the various sorts of talents and opportunities we have. That's all really important. But the New Testament frames that all against this background of, as you were saying, Philippians 3, our citizenship is in heaven. And that also entails a realization and acceptance that we are called to be a persecuted people in this world and we are more than conquerors in Christ. But that doesn't mean we're always going to see that here and now in the way that the world defines conquest. And we, we have to live under the cross the way Christ himself lived under the cross during his earthly ministry. So we try to be good, faithful servants, but we recognize that we do so under the shadow of the cross.
- [12:07]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
Yeah, a lot of people bristle against that. I mean, who wants to live under the shadow of the cross? But also depending on a person's eschatology and how they think about the advancement of the gospel, I think a lot of people define victory for the church as taking control of these institutions, are Christianizing the nations. And if we want to, we can try to define what that means.
- [12:29]
Dr. David VanDrunen
Yeah, bearing the cross versus using the cross. I think we have a lot of the latter holding it up as a symbol to grab worldly power and dominion. To threaten people is to turn the gospel into law. It's to take the great symbol of Christianity, of the gospel, and turn it on its head. We're to follow Christ in his suffering, as Davis said. We are to take up our cross and follow him even when it's difficult, even when we're opposed. And it's interesting, in the history of the church, at the times when the church has borne the cross, it has almost unintentionally had an immense influence on the world around it. But whenever it has then had that success and then now has power at its fingertips, it becomes corrupt. And there is that story throughout church history.
- [13:35]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
I think that's an important point. And I do think, I mean, at the end of the day, I would see that as just rooted in the teaching of Scripture. Like you read the Book of Revelation, and that language of victory and conquering comes up again and again. But how does the church have victory? How does the church conquer? It's very cruciform in terms of how it looks. It's not the church conquering except by the word of their testimony. It's the advancement of the Gospel. And so you have this great. I mean, even up until the very end of the Book of Revelation, where the nations are once again gathered against the people of God. It's not like I've often wondered, like how. I don't think that there are good responses to, you know, you look at in Revelation 20, and Christ comes back, not with the world rolling out the red carpet for him in this Christianized society, but actually the nations once again have turned away from the Lord. And that's not to be. I think sometimes people say, well, man, you guys just have such a pessimistic outlook. I think, no, we just want to define victory the way the New Testament defines victory. It's the proclamation of the gospel. The word of God is going out. That Word is advancing and laying hold of hearts and minds. And as we're walking with Christ and being faithful to him, often we do see fruit. But that's, you know, that's not promised to us, this sort of rosy existence. And what's fascinating to me is you read guys like Calvin and Luther and boy, they say that over and over again. They're very honest about the reality of the struggles in this world, in this life, and the expectation that we should have as the people of God. Again, that's not. This is reality. That's not saying the gospel isn't advancing. It is advancing powerfully, but it doesn't look like the way we often think about from a worldly perspective, what victory should look like.
- [15:25]
Dr. Michael Horton
Yeah, I think the way you put it. It's exactly right, is there is victory for us even in this life. But we need to define it the way the New Testament does. I mean, you made a reference to. Oh, I think Mike did. To the Sermon on the Mount. You know, think about how that begins with the Beatitudes. So who are the blessed? It's the peacemakers, it's the meek, it's the mourners, it's those who are persecuted. This is not the way the world sees blessing. And I think that's another way of talking about how do we define victory? How do we define the Lord's blessing? And this is it. And when I think about a lot of the current. I guess I would put them under the general Category of theocratic views of Christians in society, Christians in politics, whether that takes the form of Christian nationalism or something else. Just how foreign that is to the New Testament. You would never get these ideas by reading the New Testament. The idea that, you know, what's important for us is to have political power and to exercise political power over others. And you see that that's explicit, sort of the thing advocated in the Christian nationalist literature or the idea that, you know, we need to have. It's really important for us to live with our own ethnic people in our own land. Where would you get that in the New Testament? It's entirely foreign to it. Yeah. The idea that we are supposed to be taking governments, taking them over. And where do you get this in the New Testament? And I think that's something that we just. Well, I mean, we find just the opposite. The apostles go out and what do they do? They gather churches of people from various people groups and various languages and say, there's no Jew or Greek, there's no barbarian, Scythian slave or free. It's just a very different perspective. And I mean, in some ways, maybe it's very clever that you could construct a Christian political theology that looks nothing like the New Testament and make some sort of plausible case that this is the Christian perspective.
- [17:40]
Dr. David VanDrunen
Yeah. For example, who could read Matthew 24 and conclude that all the nations will be Christianized? What Jesus says there in the clearest teaching he has in the New Testament on Bible prophecy, Jesus says, okay, first of all, you're going to be persecuted. Oh, by the way, there'll be natural disasters all over the place. There will be wars and rumors of wars. And you know, you have a lot of people saying, oh, well, that's happening. I just saw on cnn, da, da, da, da. No, Jesus says explicitly, but these are only birth pangs. And then he says, and then there will be false prophets. Many people will fall away. Again, you're thinking, wow, that just sounds really familiar. Jesus says the end is not yet. And then he says the gospel will be preached in all nations, and then the end will come. So while everybody else is looking for the end in terms of a kingdom bristling with Christianization, or on the other hand, with Armageddon and the Antichrist, they're missing the point. Jesus says that's the sign. That is the sign of the end when the gospel is preached to all nations. So simultaneously, the gospel is triumphing over the kingdoms of the world, while the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.
- [19:08]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
Yeah, I mean, I think what guys have to do is they just have to say, that's all 70 AD for the most part. Right? You know, look at Matthew 24 or so. You know, that was the, you know, the world ended there, and from then on out, it's resurrection, Christian life. You know, we're taking the.
- [19:21]
Dr. David VanDrunen
Well, the gospel wasn't preached to the ends of the Earth in 70 A.D. yeah, well, there's.
- [19:26]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
And I also think that passage in Revelation 20 is key, but I think it's easy. And, you know, one of the criticisms that I hear people make is, well, we can't just conflate everybody as sort of a post millennialist theonomist, that kind of thing, because there are lots of people, I think, especially more recent days, who are wanting to pick up the mantle of two kingdoms and go back to the reformers and say, well, no, these guys like Calvin, they argued for a Christian magistrate and were in favor of things like blasphemy laws. And I think actually one of the ways, Dave, that you're often misrepresented is people will say, hey, you've come and you've written a ton about two kingdoms, and you're just sort of acting like your view is the same as Calvin's view or the magisterial reformers. You haven't talked about the ways in which you're maybe nuancing their view or developing their view, which is really like, it's just not true. Because if you read your works, you're very clear about where you're critical of Calvin or where you think maybe he was inconsistent. So I always want to tell people you just have not read him if that's actually what you think. But maybe with that, where would you see yourself as distinct from. In terms of trying to apply this. This idea of two kingdoms is distinct from those guys because it doesn't. I don't think that this is kind of a tug of war between whose two kingdoms doctrine or theology is most like that of Calvin. I think we're thinking through how do we apply properly, as best as we can and prudently the theology that we're finding in the reformers that we love. And is it even applicable in our current political context?
- [21:02]
Dr. Michael Horton
Yeah. So, I mean, I've always tried to be very clear about my relationship to the earlier Reformed tradition. So what I said earlier at the beginning of our conversation about what I said is the basics of the two kingdoms doctrine. I don't think anyone can have any reasonable disagreement that that's the basics of what the early Reformed taught. But it's also the case that for the first couple of centuries of the Reformed tradition that basically all Reformed theologians were theocratic in the sense that they believed that they did. Well, I should say they did not believe that the civil magistrate should be preaching the gospel or taking on the functions of the church itself, but they did think that the civil magistrate had a responsibility to be not just protecting the welfare of the true church, but also promoting it at the expense of others, and so suppressing not only non Christian religions and assemblies, but the wrong kind of Christian beliefs, punishing heresy, punishing blasphemy, calling synods of the church. And so this is a continuation in a way, of what we sometimes call Christendom, medieval Christendom, in which it was really assumed through the long Middle Ages that we should be seeking kind of a unified confessional Christian society in which not only the church, but also the magistrate and all other civil institutions joined together in making one confession of Christ.
- [22:45]
Dr. David VanDrunen
So, which is also practiced by the Lutherans.
- [22:47]
Dr. Michael Horton
Oh, yeah, yeah.
- [22:49]
Dr. David VanDrunen
This is not something unique to reform.
- [22:51]
Dr. Michael Horton
And so obviously the political situation changed a lot at the Reformation in Europe. But Roman Catholics, Reformed, Lutherans, all thought in this way that if you're a Lutheran prince, you're going to enforce Lutheran doctrine and practice in your territory. And so that's just how everyone thought. And so I've always been very clear that we should not be theocratic and we should, we should not have a theocratic interpretation of the two kingdoms. So, I mean, for those today who will say, well, the early Reformers were theocratic, and I'm theocratic too, so I'm more like them than van Drunen or someone else. Well, I mean, they have a point on that, but I've always been very clear that we shouldn't go down that theocratic road. And I'm happy. I've made lots of arguments biblically as to why that's the case, but historically, I think it's really important to say this, is that for those of us at least, who are American Presbyterians, that's you and me. But also this goes for Mike as a member of the United Reformed Churches, the Dutch reform tradition in the United States has also made similar sorts of changes in doctrine on this point. And so what I'd like to focus on for a moment, if I can, is in the early American Presbyterian experience in the 1700s, this is a long time ago in the 1700s, the American Presbyterians, most of the American Presbyterians, were on board with this, actually changed the Westminster standards to reflect to take out the theocratic language and to affirm a view much more like what we've been talking about up to this point, a view that is consistent with what we know as sort of the American experiment in which there's freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. And I just thought this might come up conversation. So I brought my copy of the Westminster Standards here. So I'm referring here to the American revisions, which, just to be clear, the pca, the opc, this is what we confess. We don't confess the original theocratic statements. We've taken those out. We took those out like two and a half centuries ago, to be very clear about this. And In Westminster Confession 23:3, this is a long statement. Like in the second part of it, just for example, it says, so Jesus Christ has appointed a regular government discipline in his church, and no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let or hinder the due exercise thereof among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians according to their own profession and belief. Now just pause there for a moment. That's not the end of it. So in the earlier Christendom, in the views of those very early Reformed theologians, they weren't going for a mere Christendom, which is what some contemporary folks are calling for. I mean, they were suppressing each other.
- [25:56]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
Right.
- [25:56]
Dr. David VanDrunen
I mean, Baptists weren't allowed in Massachusetts.
- [25:59]
Dr. Michael Horton
That's right. I mean, right, right. I mean, yeah, if you're Baptist. Right. I mean, you weren't allowed anywhere. And if you're a Protestant, you try to suppress, you might kill Roman Catholics. You certainly wouldn't let them worship freely. If you're in a Roman Catholic country, they wouldn't do that to Protestants. And one Protestant group suppressed other Protestant groups.
- [26:17]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
It's amazing that people are like, those were the days, you know.
- [26:20]
Dr. Michael Horton
Yeah. And then it goes on. It's even more than that, because it goes on to say it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person in good name of all their people. All their people, not just those who make the right profession, not to mention not just those of the right ethnic group or something like that, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered. That means allowed, such that no person be allowed, either upon pretense of religion or infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse or injury to any other person whatsoever, and to take order that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation and disturbance. All religious assemblies, not just all ecclesiastical, all religious assemblies. The magistrate is to protect all of them. So I just Want to point that out? Because this is. I'm sorry, I'm interrupting you. I'm almost jumping out of my seat here because I guess when I hear people say things like, oh, well, if you're really Reformed, look at these. Look at these theocratic statements from 16th or 17th century people. We American Presbyterians, we rejected that two and a half centuries ago and we inscribed that in our standards. You know how hard it is to change doctrinal standards if you're a Presbyterian? And yet we did it. It's like the only place we've done it.
- [27:39]
Dr. David VanDrunen
Only place.
- [27:40]
Dr. Michael Horton
Yeah, and there's similar. Okay, I'm sorry. No, no, no, no, no. I think I'm done.
- [27:45]
Dr. David VanDrunen
I need to rest your case, counselor.
- [27:55]
Sola Media Announcer
Most of us consume more Christian media than ever. Podcasts, videos, social media. And yet slowing down and really thinking feels harder than it used to. Our newest project was designed with this in mind. Introducing the Sola newspaper, a quarterly print publication featuring articles on theology, the historic creeds and confessions, and reflections for the Christian life. Delivered straight to your mailbox for free. Subscribe@solarmedia.org newspaper and we'll send it to you at no cost. Read it, mark it up, leave it somewhere someone will find it. The Solar newspaper, free today@solarmedia.org newspaper.
- [28:52]
Dr. David VanDrunen
So one of the things that really gets me about this whole debate, the argument of Christian nationalists especially, is the cherry picking of quotes, not giving due attention to very obvious statements. Luther, Calvin, the Reformed, Orthodox, Presbyterian, divines, and on of two kingdoms. But also a historical sense. There's a real lack, it seems to me, of historical sensibility, that in a context, a Christendom type of context, the reformers look like liberals. I mean, they're really moving away from a kind of punishment of dissenters to the extent that Christendom for centuries had. Had pursued. Now, they weren't liberals in the sense of liberal democrats, but they're on a trajectory. They were on a trajectory. And so it's not just here we are now. Van Drunen and Sanchez and Horton are so shaped and influenced by political liberalism, by the democratic experiment in the United States of America, that they're just jettisoning the Reformed orthodoxy. Well, number one, you can still say the reformers didn't apply their principles properly. The burning of Servetus is a good example. The defense of the burning of Servetus by Calvin is reprehensible. And we can say that because people in their day said that. But Philip Melanchthon on the Lutheran side is one of the reasons Calvin did it. He said, calvin, you've got to do this or we're not a part of Christendom. I mean, all of Christendom condemns heretics who deny the Trinity to the flames. And even there, Calvin didn't. He handed him over. He was a witness in court. He wasn't the guy making the decision. But anyway, let me just ask. Raise your hand if you want the United States Congress to call a general assembly of a national church to revise a preexisting confession and to determine what the worship doctrine and confession of the church will be in the United States of America. So even if you thought that the calling of the Westminster assembly by Parliament was Okay in the 17th century, how many of us really want this United States Congress to call an ecclesiastical assembly for a new confession?
- [31:52]
Dr. Michael Horton
Yeah, if I could. Could I just kind of follow up with that? I mean, yeah, I put it sometimes a little bit differently, saying, you know, do you really want Donald Trump to be determining who the true church is or Joe Biden or Barack Obama? And I mean, that raises some ways the bigger question. Do you really want to put that kind of power in the hands of our civil magistrates? Because if you put the power there, then when you lose the next election, sounds great. If you win the. I mean, I'm not sure what the prospects are for a confessional Presbyterian Congress anytime soon, but even if you did win, you put the power there and then someone else is gonna wield it. And I mean, this goes back to something you were raising just a moment ago, Adriel. You know, the accusations that, oh, you know, contemporary two kingdoms guys are just, you know, they're overly influenced by classical liberalism or the democratic American experiment or something. I mean, on the one hand, you might say actually is reformed people, that a lot of American Presbyterians who are saying we really need to move in this direction.
- [33:03]
Dr. David VanDrunen
The American experiment is in part product.
- [33:06]
Dr. Michael Horton
It's actually our. It's actually our experiment as much as anything. So that's one thing. But I want to go back to who really is following the spirit of the world here. Is it those who are calling for humble, peaceful service under the cross of Christ? Those Are the people really following the spirit of this world? Or is it those who are saying, we Christians need to go out and get power and exercise power? Is there any real question what the spirit of the world is? I mean, that's what the woke progressives want to do. The woke progressives want to go out and get power and impose their ideology upon everyone else. And we say, oh, that's terrible. It's terrible. How does Vladimir Putin conduct. How does President Chairman Xi. How do these people conduct their affairs? Just by power, gaining power, wielding power, lording it over others? I think Jesus had something to say about not being like earthly magistrates that lord it over others. And so this is a challenge that I would put to Christian nationalists and others tempted in a theocratic direction is, you know, if you're going to accuse us of following the spirit of the world. Really.
- [34:21]
Dr. David VanDrunen
Yeah. It's interesting that just really quickly. James Madison, of course, the chief architect of the Constitution, said the government will be given a foot in the door to determine what a church is, what a true church is. Whenever the church. Don't we ever learn from church history says every time from Constantine on, the church has benefited from the privileges and patronage of Caesar. It has become corrupt. And every time the church has had to rely solely on its Lord and its means of grace, it has prospered. That's. That's from George. Well, of course, John Madison studied under John Witherspoon, who signed the Declaration of Independence, trained many of the leaders of the new Republic. Witherspoon was a Presbyterian pastor, president of Princeton. And Madison said he got his doctrine of two kingdoms. He calls it doctrine of two kingdoms. He got it from John Witherspoon. So this is, you know, it's not some crazy idea that just came out of nowhere.
- [35:32]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
Yeah, I appreciate both of the, both of these points that you guys are raising. I'm thinking, you know, to somebody listening to this who's maybe on the other side, you know, in answer to that question that you asked about, do we really want the president right now or previous presidents to be determining doctrine for the church or calling a council to determine what the true church is? I think. I think what they would want to say is, no, of course we realize that we have great imaginations. We're thinking of, as we work together, we're thinking of something down the road. And so incrementally, we want to move in this direction and recover. It seems to me like a lot of guys want to recover, not just the political theology of Calvin and thinking of the blasphemy laws and so forth, but the context as well, and so highly critical of liberalism and some of these other things. And so I don't think anybody would say we want Paula White determining what a true church is. Well, you never know.
- [36:32]
Dr. David VanDrunen
But no, I think that's arbitrary. If you're going to argue for this, when are you going to have the group that you really like, because in this present evil age, it wasn't Augustine who first said it, it was Jesus and Paul. In this present evil age, even the church is a mess. You're never going to get a group of Christians who have enough perfection and doctrinal clarity and certainty about how God wants our tax structure to be set up. You're never going to have that group. Even if you think that the New Testament gives you principles for that, which I don't, but even if you think that it gave you those kinds of principles, a blueprint for running a society like the Old Covenant, even if you think he did not until Jesus returns, is the church perfected with Christ.
- [37:31]
Dr. Michael Horton
You're right. I mean, there aren't any of the people on the other side who really think that they want Donald Trump or Joe Biden being the arbiter of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. But, you know, there is a problem with saying, okay, this is the ideal political structure for when we get our guy.
- [37:48]
Sola Media Announcer
Yeah.
- [37:49]
Dr. Michael Horton
I mean, that's totally unprincipled in a way, because we're not. I mean, we don't think about the church that way. Or, here are the things that the pastor should do when we get the pastor that we really want. And so you have to ask the principal question, I think, what are the qualifications for civil magistrate and what are their responsibilities? And I would say, where certainly we're in the New Testament, but where anywhere in Scripture, not talking about the Mosaic Law, talking about the covenantal Israelite king, where is there anywhere talking about a gentile nation in which the requirements for the magistrate are put in these theological terms, or that the magistrate has the qualifications for making those determinations. You just think about how careful the New Testament is in, say, 1 Timothy 3. These are the qualifications for those called to office. And you know how hard it is for us, for those of us ordained to office to do that work. Well, there's no indication that civil magistrates have those sorts of qualifications to be making those kinds of judgments. And I just think that's a principal
- [38:58]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
problem trying to anticipate, you know, again, you know, what would people be saying to this? You've written quite a bit about natural law and the role that the magistrate has in terms of upholding. I mean, these principles that are sort of ingrained in us. And one of the things that comes up a ton today is, well, what about the first table of the law? And what does it mean for the civil magistrate to apply that? And we do see that in the Reformed tradition, where especially early on we were talking about These early reformers who did make a case that it was the job of the civil magistrate to uphold that first table in punishing blasphemy and so forth. And so I think. I think that's. You know, I've seen guys try to argue from Romans 13 and other places, sort of, you know, by good and necessary consequence, the civil magistrate should be doing this, that or the other. But I think that's one of them. Yeah. Yeah. Well, there's another question there, but I think that's one of the areas that they would go to. And what's interesting to me is everyone still has to agree that you can't coerce faith and worship, really. So it's. You know, when they're talking about applying the first table of the law, I mean, you think of. In the larger catechism, when it talks about how to. How to properly obey the decalogue and the first table of the law, the magistrate's not doing that. They're thinking in terms of, you know, maybe labor laws. And some of these. In my mind, it's like, are they really actually applying the first table of the law? But there's a lot of people that are arguing for this and saying, well, really, what we need. And this is where we're getting the idea of the magistrate upholding Christian worship or promoting it. It's in this way, you're not coercing people, but you're kind of creating an environment. I sometimes think of it as, like, political friendship and evangelism. You know, you're trying to create the environment for people to become followers of Jesus. And just personally, as a pastor, one of the things that. I get it in one sense, but in another sense, I just think people are spinning their wheels trying to create this environment instead of just actually doing evangelism. I mean, maybe they are. I don't know, but I feel like I see a lot of arguments about, like, how, boy, if we just had Sabbath laws, it's like, you can actually go to your neighbor's house right now and invite him to church.
- [41:05]
Dr. Michael Horton
If I could get to the natural law thing for a moment. Yeah. So this is a long. I mean, a long tradition in Christianity. It predates the Reformation by a long time. The idea that the Ten Commandments are kind of a summary of the natural law. And so you're right. So there are those who are arguing, well, okay, so if the civil magistrate is bound by the natural law or is under the natural law, and all of the decalogue is a summary of the natural law, therefore, the magistrate ought to be applying the first table. So it has sort of a surface logic to it. But I would. I think it's really important to note that just because the civil magistrate is in some way under the natural law, that does not mean that he's supposed to be applying, enforcing every single thing in the natural law. I think we just have to admit that. I mean, you take the Tenth Commandment, for example, and I think you didn't say that, but I think you were alluding to this. The tenth Commandment is part of the Decalogue. Tenth commandment is part of the natural law. But everyone knows that the civil magistrate can't enforce the tenth Commandment. I mean, can you imagine?
- [42:15]
Dr. David VanDrunen
Do not covet.
- [42:16]
Dr. Michael Horton
That would be really nice if the, you know, you think government's big and intrusive now, just wait. And the Christian tradition has always been quite nuanced in recognizing. I mean, you can find some of this in Calvary, you find this in Thomas Aquinas, is that the government can't just go in and impose the same things in every society. It requires a lot more thought in terms of the application of this in a civil legal context. And so just because we find you have no other gods before me, you're as part of the natural law, it doesn't necessarily mean the civil magistrate has the responsibility to be enforcing that. That requires further argument, and we probably don't have time to go into the details of that. I think there are really good reasons to say no, the civil magistrate ought not to be trying to enforce that. Should he be trying to enforce, don't murder. Yes, but that takes argument. You can't just say it's part of the natural law, therefore enforce it. It's far too simplistic.
- [43:18]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
It's a little bit iffy in terms of what do you actually mean by enforce? Because you're not a theonomy. You're not saying if you don't go to church, you're going to be sent to prison or something, or maybe some guy, maybe. But we realize that faith and worship itself can't be coerced. So it's almost like this kind of middle ground of by upholding the first table of the law, what we mean is creating a context that's favorable toward it, maybe. Or suppressing other forms of false religion, closing down shops so that people will go. I think that's the idea. But I think it's fair to ask the question, is that really enforcing the first table of the law, or is that just a kind of Watered down
- [44:03]
Dr. David VanDrunen
hat tip to remember what I mean. People sometimes go too far with this. But Jesus really did turn attention from the external obedience to the law to not only the gospel, but also the interior obedience to God's law. There really is that emphasis. Nobody can deny a shift of attention, of focus. It's not about touching or tasting or what goes into the mouth. It makes them unclean, so forth. It's not that stuff Jesus says. It's out of the heart that all these defilements come and so forth. This is like rewinding the movie. This is like, you know, going back, as it seems many want to do, going back to the Old Covenant theocracy. Just like many medieval popes, you know, quoted the Old Testament holy wars for the Crusades. When I go back to the Old Code and what you're doing there really is retrograde in terms of the history of redemption.
- [45:10]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
Yeah. And you know, it's tough to paint with a broad brush because it seems like there are a lot of different players in this conversation. Not all Christian nationalists are post millennialists. Some of them are amillennial. Not all of them are theonomists. I think my best read is they realize they're honest about the fact that what we want is not something that we can bring about right now. And then sometimes they'll say, well, you know, it'll come through faithful preaching and teaching and discipleship. And I say, welcome to the club. You know, that's where we're at. You know, I think that's what we would want to say is that. And you alluded to this earlier, Mike, is when the church has been faithful in those things. I mean, you think of the church of the first few centuries, there was a lot of fruit that was born. You know, like, it was amazing to see the impact that Christianity had on the wider world as these people were suffering and dying for their neighbors who were sick with the plague. What's unfortunate is I feel like a lot of the present Christian nationalism movement, that's not their heart towards the outside world. It's less of one which looks like what you saw in the early church, and more of one which looks like how do we regain power? And, you know, you talked about the confusion of law and gospel and how in one sense we're turning the gospel into the law. If the focus is how can we regain power so that we can institute Christian law in the land, so that maybe there's a better context for people to. It just seems like the gospel is a means to an end Is that really is the gospel? Is the goal of the gospel the establishment of Christianized laws over society?
- [46:54]
Dr. David VanDrunen
And that seems to be assumed. The yes answer to that seems to be assumed when they say that in the Great Commission, Jesus says, go baptized. Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. And I think a lot of the groups you're talking about, yes, there's diversity, but a lot of them converge on
- [47:17]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
seeing that as the Christianization of nations, as political bodies. Yeah, yeah, I think you're right about that.
- [47:23]
Dr. Michael Horton
Yeah, I think. I mean, I find it helpful to focus the question on whether we as the church are supposed to be pursuing theocratic government, a theocratic society as part of our goal. And we may agree that we're not, you know, it's not around the corner, but is that something that we ought to be seeing? And by theocratic, again, I mean Christian magistrate, this idea. Yes. That we have sort of a confessional society in which the magistrate is actively suppressing non Christian religions or the wrong kind of Christian religions. And there are different ways to be theocratic. Like, you can have a Christian nationalist kind of theocratic view. You can have a theonomic kind of theocratic view. And those, those not all, who are one or the other. And so there are different varieties. But I do think we. I think what we're talking about here is saying, no, we don't think the church should be seeking a theocratic sort of society, theocratic kind of government. I think that is at least one of the key issues that we need to talk about.
- [48:34]
Dr. David VanDrunen
We can't baptize a nation.
- [48:35]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
How do you. Yeah, how do you respond?
- [48:38]
Dr. David VanDrunen
Get a whole nation into.
- [48:39]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
With a tank just to bring this in here. Because, because I'm again trying to anticipate what people. The person who says, well, yeah, but what about when the president converts and, you know, the church is doing her job really well. And so, you know, they're preaching the gospel and people are turning. There's a revival. There's a real revival. It's the work of the Holy Spirit. It's coming through the means of grace. I think that's that. I've heard this, you know, Psalm 2, you know, the call to the nations and the rulers of the nations to bow down to. To kiss the Son, to bow down to Jesus. Because obviously none of us is what Paul tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 3. We're praying for civil leaders to come to faith. We want them to believe in Jesus. We want all people to Believe in Jesus, all people come to faith. Yeah, but that's different from saying, great, now we want to establish this kind of Christian, you know, that's the goal.
- [49:31]
Dr. David VanDrunen
Well, again, the gospel becomes a means to an end.
- [49:34]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
That's right.
- [49:35]
Dr. David VanDrunen
In that scenario, instead of praising the Lord for this enemy of the faith who was converted by the grace of God and now is our brother or sister, we're using that conversion as a launching point for our. A beachhead for our strategy.
- [49:57]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
I've really appreciated this conversation, your guys. This is getting fiery at points, but I know it's something that we're passionate about. I know we're passionate about the Gospel and applying God's word. Well, you brought up just now the Great Commission and how that verse, how that passage in Matthew 28 is often used to support this idea of, okay, Jesus said, go baptize the nations. And there are different ways of reading nations there. You know, are we thinking about these governments, these institutions, or are we talking about the gentile inclusion, for example? And so how. How is that passage used in these conversations and maybe misused?
- [50:38]
Dr. Michael Horton
Yeah, I think when you read the Great Commission at the end of Matthew, there are two immediately plausible interpretations or possible interpretations. One is that Jesus is talking about nations as nations. You're going to go out and convert nations themselves. Or the other possible interpretation is Jesus is saying people from all nations, and just looking at those few words make disciples of all nations. We're not sure which one it is. But I would say in the immediate context and in the broader context of the New Testament, it has to be the second of those. It has to be people from all nations is what Jesus is talking about. And I mean, even from the immediate context, I think Mike was making an allusion to this just a moment ago as I. Well, we're supposed to baptize. Well, how do you baptize a nation as a nation? You don't do that. You baptize individuals. You baptize people from all nations. So it goes on. Jesus goes on teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. Well, how many commands did Jesus give? I mean, he's talking about that I commanded you. I think he's talking about teaching the things that I've been teaching you that's recorded in the Gospels. How many things did he say about nations as nations?
- [51:54]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
Sermon on the Mount. It'd be hard to apply.
- [51:56]
Dr. Michael Horton
Yeah, I mean, he's talking about people from. So Jesus said a lot about individuals, about people from all nations, and then he turned to Acts. So I Think that's important because how did the disciples who heard him give the Great Commission, how did they interpret it? How did they go put it into practice?
- [52:14]
Dr. David VanDrunen
They went baptizing Turkey and Syria?
- [52:19]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
Yeah, that's a great question.
- [52:20]
Dr. Michael Horton
I mean, there's absolutely zero interest in nations as nations in the Book of Acts, but there's tons of interest in preaching the Gospel to people from all nations and joining them into one church. And then, I mean, Revelation, you've made some references to Revelation, Adriel. And so you hear. I mean, there's a lot about the nations in Revelation. Sometimes you hear people will appeal to, you know, the final vision that John has of the heavenly Jerusalem. And, you know, you got the nations coming in. Oh, wow, look at that. You know, they're the Irish and, you know, they're the Japanese and. Okay. But it's interesting. You go back throughout Revelation. How many times do you find things like, you know, all the nations were getting drunk on the wine of, you know, the harlot Babylon, all the nation. Well, what is it? Is it all the nations are coming into the new Jerusalem, or all the nations falling under God's judgment of the great harlot? Those questions are completely solved. If you say, well, actually, the nations.
- [53:26]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
Right.
- [53:26]
Dr. Michael Horton
It's people from all nations. In fact, you have.
- [53:29]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
I mean, I opened it again.
- [53:30]
Dr. Michael Horton
Revelation 5. I think it's five, nine people from all. How does it go? Tribes, nations, peoples, purchased for God with
- [53:38]
Dr. David VanDrunen
His blood, men from every tribe from kindred and tongue and people, and made them plural to be a singular kingdom.
- [53:48]
Dr. Michael Horton
That's nice.
- [53:48]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
Yeah. Yeah, there it is. Our view is the biblical view.
- [53:53]
Dr. David VanDrunen
Well, it always is.
- [53:54]
Dr. Michael Horton
Yeah, that's right.
- [53:55]
Pastor Adriel Sanchez
But I actually love. I do go to that one, because it does seem like we're kidding. You know, the best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself. And it does seem like helpful guidance in terms of understanding. Okay, what are we thinking about with regard to nations in Matthew 28? Calvin, in his commentary, there is like, this is a gentile inclusion. You know, this is what's. And I think most people that's. On a surface level is just, you know, Jesus has not been going to the Gentiles. Now he's saying, go to the Gentiles. Go and invite the nations in. And again, Revelation 5. 9. The saints are singing, worthy are youe to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God. And then John gives us this partitive, genitive from every tribe and language and people and nation. And as you said Mike, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God and they shall reign on the earth. We've covered a lot of ground. I think one of my desires was just, well one to hang with you guys and to have a fun conversation, but also to try to address some of the criticisms. I think one of the ones I mentioned earlier, Dave, is just, you know, this idea that we're saying or that you're saying specifically, hey, this my view, the way I'm parsing the two kingdoms is exactly how Calvin did it. I think anybody who's read you realizes that's not at all what you've been saying. And we need to be, I think, a little bit more careful in terms of trying to apply some of their thought today and thinking through some of these bigger questions. We didn't get to go as deep as maybe we would have liked, but I really appreciate your guys time and I hope that as people are thinking about this, about their earthly citizenship and their heavenly citizenship, that they take comfort in the fact that Jesus is giving us a kingdom. We're not bringing it down, we're not creating it from the ground up, but Christ himself is giving us a kingdom that cannot be shaken through the proclamation of the gospel. And that kingdom is advancing. Sometimes the church, as that message is going out, is in that difficult situation. There's suffering, there's persecution. Sometimes she enjoys more freedoms. And we've enjoyed many, many freedoms here in the United States that we should give thanks to God for. But God doesn't owe us any of it. There are a lost world to reach and he's given us a gospel. He's given us good news to proclaim to that world. And so grateful to get to do that alongside of you brothers. Thank you for your time.
- [56:19]
Dr. Michael Horton
Thanks Andrew.
- [56:24]
Sola Media Announcer
Thanks for listening to this production of Sola Media. If you enjoyed this episode, would you share it with someone you think would benefit from it? Your support helps us spread the riches of the Reformation and apply historic Christian theology to every area of life.