No King but Jesus - 9 February 2011 |
|
 |
Here are the questions for session 45 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course. This week we conclude our discussion of Calvin’s chapter on civil government (Institutes, IV.xx), before looking at a more recent Reformed discussion of the nature and role of civil government by Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Theonomic Position,” pp. 21-53 in God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government, ed. G. S. Smith (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989).
As you’re reading Bahnsen, try to identify where you think he might be saying something different from what you read in Calvin last week, and where he’s saying the same thing in different ways. Inevitably you will probably prefer one or the other – try to articulate why.
Before you begin, here’s a question to get you thinking. Leviticus 20:10 declares that “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” What is your emotional response to this commandment? If you were asked to justify your emotional response, how would you do so?
Calvin, Institutes, IV.xx
1. May a Christian go to court? Under what circumstances? With what motives (IV.xx.17-21)?
2. Must Christians obey unjust rulers? Why (IV.xx.22-29)?
3. What should a magistrate do if a King becomes tyrannical (IV.xx.30-31)?
4. What should a citizen do if a civil ruler commands something sinful (IV.xx.32)?
Bahnsen, “The Theonomic Position”
5. According to Bahnsen, theonomists repudiate both “secularism” (p. 21) and “the sacred-secular dichotomy” (p. 22). What does Bahnsen mean by this, and what is his preferred alternative?
6. What do you think of Bahnsen’s 12-point summary of theonomy on pp. 23-25? Do you disagree with any of these points? If so, why?
The section entitled “Christ presently, Supremely Our King” begins with a brief introduction to the theme of Christ’s kingship before surveying the theme of the Kingdom of God in two numbered sub-points relating to the teaching of (1) Scripture in general (pp. 25-28); and (2) Psalm 2 in particular (pp. 28-30).
7. Bahnsen says that Psalm 2 “[asserts] the eschatological … and ethical … character of Christ’s reign” (p. 29). What does he mean by this (pp. 29-30)?
8. In what way(s), according to Bahnsen, is this biblical teaching ignored by “the pluralist political theories of our day” (p. 30)? Do you agree with Bahnsen’s critical assessment here?
9. How, in Bahnsen’s view, should “civil magistrates find the political dictates of God” (p. 31)?
10. How would Bahnsen respond to the objection that the discontinuities between the Old and New Covenants render the Mosaic Law invalid as a guide for political ethics (pp. 31-32)?
11. How would Bahnsen respond to the objection that the Mosaic Law was only ever intended for Israel, not the Pagan nations of the world (pp. 37-38, 48-50)?
12. Augustine asked, “Without justice, what are states but great bands of robbers?” (p. 43). What did he mean by this? What point is Bahnsen seeking to support with this quotation (pp. 43-44)?
13. How would Bahnsen recommend that Christians today seek to bring about the change he regards as desirable (pp. 52-53)?
| Tweet | Post comment via Facebook |
Posted by Steve Jeffery · Topics: Guided Reading Course, Minister's Blog