Almost Makes Me Want to Be a Lutheran . . . Almost . . .

Comments

[Lloyd I. Cadle]

Good stuff Zrim!

[reg]

Zrim, one of the best, most succinct explanations of the historical change in the 2K view I have seen.

[Tom]

So it is certainly proper to call this new thing neo-2K or by some other designation to differentiate if from the theology of the Reformers. It is not "classic 2K" in any true sense. It's also clear that the modifications to the American Confessions did not outlaw the earlier views of the Reformers wrt the magistrate and the first table of the Law. It's just made them “big tent” presbyterians.

>The question that remains for the latter is what to do about the fact that the NT no where condones true faith coming at the point of the sword but in fact only by the power of the Spirit.

A dispensational argument to the core. Also the argument used by some not to baptize their infant children. Reformed folks generally see through such illogical and stunted assertions.

> Maybe you want Mormons and Muslims punished for having false faith, but that's a really hard case to make biblically.

The Reformers clearly preferred a Christian magistrate overseeing an explicitly Christian system of jurisprudence. That would be most just. Of course if you live within a system that offers no such hope in this area, then the best you can do is to try and hold off the infidels till Jesus raptures us all away.

[Zrim]

Tom, Dispies don't actually have NT references to make their case against paedobaptism. But to make the case that true religion comes by the power of the Spirit and not the sword, 2kers would point to Eph. 6:12 or 2 Cor.10:4. But if you want to make the case that faith comes by physical coercion then what NT references do you have?

The Reformers were wrong. And the rapture is a Dispie ghost story.

[Kim Riddlebarger]

Zrim:

Great point on Kuyper above.

I wouldn't say the Reformers were wrong, as much as they were men of their times. When Christendom was alive and well the Reformer's view of the magistrate makes perfect sense.

Clearly, we live in a different age and factual situation than they, and their desire to see the magistrate defend the first table takes a different form than my desire to see a secular magistrate protect me so I can preach both the first table of the law, as well as the gospel.

Our friend Tom has his shorts too far in a wad to realize that the historical circumstances are not the same for the Reformers as for us, and you simply cannot pretend that what the Reformers said when Christendom was alive, has some sort of binding authority upon us today.

Therefore the question is not "what was Calvin's view," but what does Scripture require of the civil magistrate? Two texts answer that for us-Romans 13 and Mark 12:13-17.

[Zrim]

KR, fair enough. But it's also hard to read Kuyper or the revisions to Belgic 36 and WCF 23.3 and not conclude that some other worthy individuals, as well as ecclesiastical bodies, thought the reformers were wrong, even as they were also men of their times like we are.

Re your point on Romans and Mark, while they are descriptive of the magistrate, those texts seem to be much more prescriptive for believers in relation to our magistrates, namely submit and obey. But bingo on not framing these questions upon a man, but rather on the Bible. And for Tommittes, the question that remains is whether the ecclesiastical revisions got the Bible right. And since there is scant biblical evidence that the apostles wanted Caesar to enforce true religion, their task seems really hard.

[Expert witness]

The name "Lutheran" originated as a derogatory term used against Luther by Johann Eck during the Leipzig Debate in July 1519. Eck and other Roman Catholics followed the traditional practice of naming a heresy after its leader, thus labeling all who identified with the theology of Martin Luther as Lutherans.