More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
The key takeaway here is that man is bound to obey the moral law regardless of his covenantal status before God, for obeying the moral law is the sole means to his happiness and the fulfillment of his nature as man.
Pragmatic, geared toward "highest human good", not based upon God's infallible Law Word and the Crown Rights of King Jesus.
Put differently, in form the “image of God” ensures rectitude, integrity, purity, and order of body and soul, but in consequence to this dignity, man can exercise dominion well. In other words, while dominion is one purpose of the divine image, in itself the divine image concerns rectitude, integrity, and order.
This might seem to be an unimportant distinction, but it allows us to conclude that the right to rule over creation follows from human excellence. The dominion mandate cannot be a bare divine command that is disconnected from human nature and the sort of gifts God gave us. Taking dominion is not an adventitious duty or a divine positive command.29 It proceeds from the very nature of man, and so it cannot be rescinded, even by God, without violating the fundamental nature of man. The right to rule creation as vice-regents is derived naturally and necessarily from divinely-granted majesty.
And since grace assumes nature (as we see in the next chapter), it does not rescind or abrogate the dominion mandate, and taking dominion...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
But having dignity is not uniquely human, for (contrary to the modern notion) dignity refers to something...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
Human dignity is far more than a status we can enjoy passively; it is a call for the dignified to act in ways that are worthy of his elevated station in the cosmic order.
Unfallen man is benevolent to all but can only be beneficent (i.e., act for the good of) to some, and this limitation is based not merely in geographic closeness but in shared understanding, expectations, and culture.
Cultural diversity is, therefore, a necessary consequence of human nature, and so it is good for us. It is good that particular practices are made habitual by localized socialization and are “owned” in a sense by a particular place and people. It is good that the particularity of each community distinguishes it from the others. Even the in-group/out-group distinction is good, since it establishes who “we” are in relation to “them”—effectively bounding particular expectations and preserving cultural distinctives.
I have more to say about nations, ethnicity, and cultural diversity in the next few chapters, including the argument that man, by his nature, requires particularity and must dwell
among similar people to live well.
Indeed, inegalitarian principles are so common and foundational in the Christian political tradition that one might call inegalitarianism a catholic political doctrine.
Inequality in bodily stature, beauty, knowledge, virtue, domestic authority, and civil authority were regularly affirmed as good and not due to the fall.
As Calvin states, “[T]here would have been, I allow, a difference of endowments had nature remained perfect,” though all “would be alike in their integrity.”
The history of the human race did not begin atomistically, with a group of isolated individuals, but organically, with a marriage and a family. . . . The disparity, which we presently observe everywhere in human society, is in principle and in essence not a result of sin, as many people thought in earlier and later times, but it existed from the beginning, even before sin entered the world.50
The goodness of creation is not found in each part obtaining equality with every other part, nor is the completeness of humanity achieved by eliminating superior/inferior relations.
Since each community has a diverse set of members—each member contributing his gifts to the whole—it would contain a multiplicity of interests, pursuits, and ends. All would share in ultimate ends, such as the good of the whole (i.e., the common good) and the glory of God, but penultimate ends would vary.
In such cases, the absence of rules hinders liberty.
We can also conclude that a natural aristocracy would arise in each community to rule, establishing a rule by the best. And while these leaders would possess humility and magnanimity, they would nevertheless assume their rank with proper dignity and self-respect.
Indeed, many theologians believe that one of Adam’s covenantal tasks was protecting the garden and killing the serpent (and other creatures) that threatened its peace.
“reason, by which man discerns good and evil, and by which he understands and judges, is a natural gift, [so] it could not be entirely destroyed [by the fall].”
Fallen man cannot please God in his works, but his actions can be good as to outward duty, and, generally speaking, fallen man’s actions reflect knowledge of natural principles (even when he errs in applying them).
Charles Hodge
“The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of own race and country.”
We can further conclude that the diversity of nations throughout history is not a product of the fall but of human nature.
Civil government is not, in origin, a post-fall ad hoc institution intended only to preserve sinful mankind. It is necessary by the nature of man and serves man for his good.
A set of political principles that are ineffective for governance and inadequate to shore up civil order for man’s complete good is not from God, no matter how lofty or “moral” those principles might appear to be.
Hence, crafting policy (and ethics generally) in a fallen world requires us to consider unpleasant trade-offs, and magistrates must have the fortitude to enact and enforce the greatest good, despite unfortunate costs involved, and Christians should recognize the necessity of such choices and shun the moralism that limits action.
Thus, they are positive rights, not strictly natural, and are a particularity of a people—an inheritance from ancestors—not things owed by “inviolable dignity.”
It follows that the more righteous the community, the fewer required egalitarian institutions.
By trusting in the person and finished work of Christ, one is reconciled to God (i.e., justified) and enters the covenant of grace.
It is crucial to recognize that though having a title to eternal life rescinds our relationship to the moral law as a condition of works for eternal life, the moral law still remains our only rule for duty and happiness in this life.
Working is no longer about obtaining eternal life; good works—which accord with the moral law—are “the way appointed to eternal life,” says John Davenant.22
The believer is a complete human being, restored to integrity. The state of grace is a state of restored integrity.
Adam’s original tasks were not simply a matter of divine command; these tasks are the ends of human nature as restored by grace.
One can rest from trying to merit eternal life and still labor according to the restored gifts that Adam originally possessed but lost.
Christians cannot bring heaven to earth, for Adam never had that ability in the first place, and Christians are not given any gifts beyond what was given to Adam.
To avoid problems, VanDrunen would have to adopt either a neonomian or antinomian view of righteousness in a state of restored integrity: either Christians follow a new or modified law of God or obedience is obsolete in the state of grace.
Restored integrity entails that Adam’s task in terms of moral content is part of Christian obedience.
Grace did not, despite what is popularly suggested, introduce equal love for all, or an overriding duty to the abstract “marginalized” or to the abstract “outcast” or to “identify with the weak.”
Matthew Henry rightly said that “the highest degrees of divine affection must not divest us of natural affection.”36
Philip Melanchthon, wrote,
“For Christ did not come into the world to teach precepts about (civic) morals, which man already knew by reason, but to forgive sins, in order that he may give the Holy Spirit to those who believe in him.”39
It is world-formative with regard to applications of principles, not with regard to principles themselves.
Richard Hooker writes, The most certain mark of goodness is the general conviction of all humanity. . . . The general and perpetual voice of mankind is as the judgment of God Himself, since what all men at all times have come to believe must have been taught to them by Nature, and since God is nature’s author, her voice is merely His instrument.41
Augustine, in his commentary on Galatians (3:28–29), states that “The difference of nations [gentium] or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains embedded in mortal relations, and this order is to be preserved in the journey of this life.”44
Here Augustine makes a fundamental distinction between spiritual unity in Christ—a unity that takes no account of gender, class, nationality, or other earthly difference—and the inequality and differences necessitated by earthly life in accordance with natural principles.
[R]egarding our eternal salvation it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and shepherd, or between German and Frenchman. Regarding policy however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us.45
The Reformed tradition affirms that all who have true faith in Christ—who are thereby members of the invisible church—are equally justified; their social station, sex, and nationality have no relevance. But, at the same time, their obligations in earthly life are based on outward earthly qualities and circumstances. Here we see two-kingdoms theology at work. As Calvin said, “[T]he spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very widely separated. . . . [The civil] government is distinct from the spiritual and internal kingdom of Christ, [which] begins the heavenly kingdom in
...more
faith is an active, inward trust of conscience.
although as such it is not entrusted with the administration of any ordinances,
