Charles Hodge on the Role of Civil Government

Commenting on the Law, more specifically, the fifth commandment, Hodge says --

[T]he Scriptures clearly teach that no human authority is intended to be unlimited.  Such limitation may not be expressed, but is always implied. The command “Thou shalt not kill,” is unlimited in form, yet the Scriptures recognize that homicide may in some cases be not only justifiable but obligatory. The principles which limit the authority of civil government and of its agents are simple and obvious. The first is that governments and magistrates have authority only within their legitimate spheres. As civil government is instituted for the protection of life and property, for the preservation of order, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of those who do well, it has to do only with the conduct, or external acts of men. It cannot concern itself with their opinions, whether scientific, philosophical, or religious. An act of Parliament or of Congress, that Englishmen or Americans should be materialists or idealists, would be an absurdity and a nullity. The magistrate cannot enter our families and assume parental authority, or our churches and teach as a minister. A justice of the peace cannot assume the prerogatives of a governor of a state or of a president of the United States.  Out of his legitimate sphere a magistrate ceases to be a magistrate. (iii. 358-359)

Some Articles on The Two Kingdoms

I am still studying this issue but as of right now, a Two Kingdoms approach to church and state makes a lot of sense. Here are some helpful articles on the subject.

A Two Kingdoms Primer - Kim Riddlebarger

Responding to Questions Concerning Two Kingdoms - Michael Horton

A Tale of Two Kingdoms (a good article) - Michael J. Glodo

A Tale of Two Kingdoms - Michael Horton

Bearing the Sword in the State, Turning Cheek in the Church: A Reformed Two-Kingdoms Interpretation of Matthew 5:38-42 - David VanDrunen

Natural Law

I wrote an outline to a lecture I heard by David VanDrunen (Westminster Seminary California) on Natural Law. Note how Scriptural it is.


Natural Law (David VanDrunen)

Brief Definition— A law that is given by God which defines human beings’ basic moral obligations and the consequences of obedience or disobedience to those obligations. It is a law revealed objectively in the structure of the natural world and it is known subjectively by rational human beings who are constantly confronted by this natural world though they are sinfully prone to twist its meaning.

2 parts to lecture – I. historical reflection (nat. law part of reformed system of doctrine, woven in WCF); and II. constructive biblical suggestions (outline of how biblical nat. law might look).

I. Historical Reflection
Some misconceptions about NL and the reformed community (why so suspicious?):

- NL presumes too high a view of human capacities (rationality) and too low a view of human sin (i.e. noetic affects of sin).
- NL detracts from supreme authority of Scripture (compromises sola scriptura)
- NL is understood to represent a vision of ethics based on human autonomy (w/o God)

These objections are valid concerns IF we take NL in an “enlightenment” sense
- What is meant by “enlightenment”?
    17th-18th cent. “tiredness” of religion and to get beyond religion
    Emphasized human reason (can reason unite?)
    NL doesn’t die during this time but becomes a way of doing ethics w/o talking religion
    Resulted in an exaltation of reason over Scripture

These objections NOT valid if NL is taken in a historic Reformed sense
- Would not be valid critiques of many medieval views of NL
- Many NL theorists (including Roman Catholics) are recognizing that they need to get away from enlightenment NL and calling for more “biblical-oriented” view.
- NL a common topic amongst medieval thinkers (differed on various aspects but widespread agreement on basic structure)
- Agreed that sin has damaged to the powers of human mind
- Agreed that NL is foundational for civil law (if not grounded in natural law, not a valid civil law)

- The Reformation/Reformers and NL
    Looked at NL as catholic Christianity and didn’t see it as needing reform
    Worked into their doctrine w/o conscious effort to change it
    Some shifts in perspective – 1) an enhanced sense of the noetic effects of sin and need of scripture to    clarify; 2) views of conscience (move away from seeing conscience as the movement of reason & more of being brought before the presence of God, hearing the voice of God)
    Clearer distinction in the role of NL between earthly things (pagan civil usage) and heavenly things (could not get anyone in right relationship to God)

- NL in the Westminster Standards
    Reformed theologians never tried to rebuild NL but built upon it and incorporated it into Westminster Standards (13 explicit NL statements – law of nature, the light of nature, or law written on the heart)
    There is a range of doctrines that are explained or connected in reference to NL
• The existence of God (WLC, Q&A 2 – “light of nature”)
• WCF 4.2 &WLC 17 utilize NL to explain Man’s nature as created under the covenant of works (Adam as having “the law of God written in their hearts”)
• There is a permanent moral standard that binds all people, even after the Fall (WCF 21.1 – “the light of nature”)
• The Sabbath (WCF 21.7 – “law of nature”)
• The heinousness of sin (WLC 151 – “against the light of nature”)
• All people will be held accountable to God on judgment day (WCF 1.1 – “light of nature”)
• The necessity of the preaching of the Word of God (WCF 10.4; WLC 60 – “light of nature”)
• Helps understand the bounds of Christian liberty (WCF 20(.4) – “light of nature”)
• Helps us properly order worship and ecclesiastical government (WCF 1.6, dealing with sufficiency of Scripture, appeals to “light of nature” concerning worship and the govt. of Church)
    The doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that there is no need for natural revelation, rather, it means that there is no need for other special revelation other than Scripture
    Scripture presumes that there is a natural revelation
    Scripture would make no sense w/o natural revelation (e.g. Gen. 1:1 – In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth – how could we understand this verse if we didn’t know what a “beginning,” “heavens,” etc. was?)

If we want to be confessional Presbyterians, then there is no other option than to have a positive view of NL. We should have a robust view of it. It is so thoroughly integrated into our doctrine that to take it out would be to unravel many of these doctrines.

Challenge: How can we faithfully develop a theology of NL that is consistent w/ the Scriptures?

II. Constructive Biblical Suggestions

A. Any theology of NL has to be grounded in a theology of nature which, in turn, ought to be grounded in our covenant theology
- Begin at the beginning (Gen. 1 & 2)
    For a foundation of NL to work, there are 2 things that have to be affirmed – 1) The natural order is objectively meaningful, purposeful, and ordered; and 2) Human beings as subjectively able and obligated to take-in that information/revelation coming from the objective natural order
    Gen. 1 gives us these ideas –
1. God creates meaningful things and Man is created in God’s image (a statement about the nature of Man)
• Eph. 4 & Col. 3 – image of God as knowledge, righteousness, and holiness
• Man is, by nature, a creature which is oriented towards knowing God, pursuing God, and pursuing holiness
• All creation is revelatory (Van Til) and our being made in the image of God is revelational.
• If we are to exercise dominion, we are to work toward a goal as Christ worked toward a goal
• Covenant of works in accord with the nature that God made in Man
2. The Fall
• We are not living in the original creation which a natural theology must account for
• Covenant w/ Noah
    God covenants w/ the whole of the created order itself
    Universal covenant for preserving the natural order and the social orders
    Gen. 8 & 9 – God continues to order this world and to give it meaning and purpose though sin has obscured it
    God still deals w/ human beings as bearers of his image (Gen. 9:6)
    This means we are responsible creatures with responsibilities in this world
a) Doing Justice (he who sheds the blood of man by man…)
b) Be fruitful and multiply

B. The importance of NL w/ respect to unbelievers
- 3 very important things that Scripture teaches, with respect to unbelievers, about NL
1) Scripture presents NL as a tool of common grace for the preservation of society
• Issues related to the 2nd use of the Law
• Gen. 20 as an example – Abraham and Abimalech
    Abraham says Sarah is sister
    Outcome meant to be seen as Abimalech (the pagan) as better than Abraham
    Abimalech alarmed when told by God that Sarah is Abraham’s wife
    Gen. 20:9 – Abimalech to Abraham: “You have done to me things that ought not to be done.” (cf. Gen. 34:7)
    Abimalech appeals to a universal conception of morality
    Gen. 20:11 – Abraham to Abimalech: “I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place…”
    “Fear of God” not full-orbed but rather meant to denote an accountability to someone higher than oneself (a basic respect for justice)
    This is a “God-instilled” sense
2) NL as a crucial means to hold Man accountable under God’s universal judgment (Romans 1 & 2)
• Romans 1:18-21 – All people w/o excuse before God
    Why? Because of the things that can be known in the things that have been made (1:19-20)
    Unbelievers, at some basic level, know God and know they are sinners before him
    Sexual perversion – people giving up natural relations for those that are contrary to nature. Thus, we cannot understand the nature of homosexual sin w/o the concept of NL. Thus, homosexuality not arbitrarily wrong but wrong because it goes against the nature of this world (how God made men and women)
• Romans 1:32 – unbelievers know that the things they do are worthy of death but continue to do them and give approval to those who do them (they fail to execute justice
• Romans 2:14-15 – (there is debate about this passage as to whether it means that the law is written on the heart of pagan gentiles)
    But NL is the best interpretation of these verses
3) NL lays the foundation for the Gospel (i.e. thank God Romans didn’t end at 3:20)
• NL explains why Gospel is necessary
• We as believers are to be appealing to the witness of the NL because w/o the Law, there is no Gospel
• NL as an essential means by which God brings his Law to the world

C. The NL rebukes us when we stray (a way which God calls us back when we sin)
- OT prophets do not simply say to the people that they have broken God’s law and must repent. They also call to the people’s knowledge of the broader world around them (i.e. their knowledge of the natural world confronting them) as a way to help the people understand their sin and the foolishness of their sin before God
• Isaiah 1:2-3 – 2 Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth;
For the LORD speaks, “Sons I have reared and brought up,
But they have revolted against Me. 3 “An ox knows its owner, And a donkey its master’s manger, But Israel does not know, My people do not understand.”
    Oxen and donkeys as dumb animals but they, unlike Israel, understand who their owners are
- NT example
• 1 Cor. 5:1 – It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.
    Pagans cannot even countenance such a sin
    Paul’s appeal here doesn’t make sense unless pagans can also recognize a universal, moral truth (i.e. NL)
- Scriptures call upon NL to show us how to live well in a dangerous world
• Wisdom Literature – Proverbs
    Moral life we are called to live before God is not about memorizing rules
    It involves observing the world around us and learning how things work and operate to draw appropriate moral conclusions
    Wisdom requires us to make use of the NL
    Proverbs 8 – structure of universe is effused with wisdom
    Pro. calls us to observe the world to draw appropriate moral conclusions
    Pro. 6:6ff – observe the ant and learn you sluggard (gain wisdom)
    Pro. 24:30-34 – wise man walks past sluggards vineyard
- NL reinforces for us, especially NT believers, why we need to continue to honor and participate in natural (creation order) institutions (marriage, family, the state) even though we are citizens of a heavenly kingdom
• We are called to participate in these natural institutions
• NT does not call us to these obligations but rather echoes the obligations that are already there
• Jesus came and founded the church. He didn’t need to establish the state, the family, marriage, etc. because they were already existed
• When NT commands us to submit to civil govt, pursue justice, engage in sexual activity within the bounds of heterosexual marriage, parents to train their children, these are not arbitrary commands but are echoes of who we are (natural order)
• Romans 13:1-7 – Paul not creating obligations but rather echoing Noahic covenant: retributive justice, use of the sword, etc.
• Sexual morality – matt. 19 & mark 10 – divorce and remarriage: Jesus appealing to created order
- We must remember that we as NT believers (as members of the church) are called to transcend the bounds of the NL as we anticipate now the life of the age to come
• We are never called to transgress the NL or despise it (or natural institutions – marriage, state, etc.) but are called to give testimony that we are citizens of a new creation which transcends this present created order
• Christians are called to anticipate this new creation by the way we conduct ourselves, especially in the church (i.e. when someone wrongs us, we do not bring the sword but rather are forgiving, bearing each other’s burdens, etc. – these are things that NL does not teach)
• There is a Natural Law but there is no Natural Gospel hence we, as Christians, are called to give testimony of this by lavishing forgiveness and love on one another.

Concluding Remarks


- 3 reasons to recover and Reformed theology of NL

1) To be faithful to our confessional tradition thereby showing that we are heirs of the one true Christian catholic faith (of which NL has been a part of since the patristic age)

2) To be able to teach the whole counsel of God from the Scriptures thus accounting for Gen. 20, the prophets, proverbs, Rom. 1:18-21, Rom. 13 etc.

3) To understand better the ways by which God upholds human society through his common grace
    - It is not enough to know the bare fact that God upholds this world by his common grace (civil court, society, etc.) but to understand better one of the most important ways by which God does this: by NL. By this we, as Christians, will know how to better conduct ourselves as sojourners through this world on our way to the kingdom of our Lord

Refutation of My Last Post Coming Soon...

It has been over a year since I last posted on this blog. I remained a Baptist for about a month before going back to Presbyterianism (i.e. Reformed). I hope to use my last post as an example of how anyone could be wrong theologically yet redeem themselves.

Note: A good book to read on the Reformed perspective on baptism is J.V. Fesko's Word, Water and Spirit - A Reformed Perspective on Baptism

My Retraction

To anyone who has ever read any of my blogs, you will know that I have posted several blogs on the Presbyterian view of baptism. I know and understand the covenantal argument for paedobaptism as seen in my posts. But recently, after giving this doctrine a lot of thought, I have come to the conclusion that infant baptism, as a whole, is not biblical. That's right, I am now a Reformed Baptist. What dealt the decisive blow in my "conversion" was the simple exegesis of the commonly known paedobaptist texts (Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3; Col. 2:11-12; etc). The specific text was Colossians 2:11-12. In context, verses 8-15 read-

8See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Colossians 2:11-12 has been the number 1 verse given to show the continuity of circumcision and baptism within the covenant of grace. The argument is simply this: "The sign of the covenant of grace in the O.T. was circumcision/ baptism has replaced circumcision in the N.T. as the sign of the C.o.G./ infants were circumcised in the O.T./ therefore, baptize you infants as infants in the O.T. were circumcised."

The problem with using colossians 2:11-12 as an argument stating that baptism has replaced circumcision is that it neglects and misreads the context of col. 2:11-12. Notice how vs. 9 & 10 transition from describing Christ to our being in Christ. Then, a plain reading of v. 11 will show that those who are in Christ have been circumcised with a circumcision without hands. These verses will now show us how we, who are in union with Christ, participated in the DEATH, BURIAL, and RESURRECTION of Christ.

"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ..."
Our body of flesh (old man) was cut off by the Spirit as Christ was cut off from the Father in His sacrifice (My God, My God, why have you forsaken me).

"having been buried with him in baptism..."
As Christ was buried in the tomb, so we are symbolically buried in the act of baptism (immersion: as we go down into the water)

"in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead..."
Our coming up out of the water portrays our having been raised with Him as well. Paul, in using the phrase "raised with him through faith," directs us back to the fact that this is all by grace alone through faith alone for this is "the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

But Paul does not stop there...

"13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him."
If anything confirms what Paul is saying in vs. 11 & 12, it's vs. 13-15. We were dead in the "uncircumcision of your flesh" (look at v. 11) and now we are "made alive together with him," we are "forgiven" of "all our trespasses," and Christ has cancelled "the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands" by NAILING IT TO THE CROSS.

If Colossians 2:11-15 is showing us anything, it is showing us that REGENERATION, not Baptism, is the fulfilment of circumcision. Just because these verses mention circumcision and baptism in the same sentence, does not mean that they are therefore linked together in a manner that justifies infant baptism.

In conclusion, if the fulfilment of circumcision is regeneration (Union with Christ), and if baptism is a sign of our union with Christ (our old man has died, and we are raised with Christ as a new man), then it follows that Baptism is to only be administered to those that are regenerated. Now I know that some will object at this point saying "how do you know if a person is truly regenerate? Can you see the heart?" That is why baptism is given on a profession of faith. Even the apostles could not see into the heart and yet gave the sign to an unregenerate, yet professing person (Simon the Sorcerer-Acts 8). Plus, it's a giant leap in logic to try to justify infant baptism saying "we can't see into the heart and we baptize anyway, therefore, baptize infants." Hence, I stand by my claim that infant baptism is not biblical.