“What is true of an individual like Abraham is also true of the nation as a whole. Israel as a theocracy was under the direct command of God their king. During the first part of Israel’s national existence God forbade them to have any earthly king at all. Then when He did allow them to have a king he gave them to understand that their king was not to be like other kings but was to be a king under God. Then too the prophets always stood next to the kings to tell them what to do. There was to be no political diplomacy in the usual sense of the term. The kings were simply to carry out the behest of God” –Cornelius Van Til1
“From the end of the fourth century to the time of the Reformation, sacralism—the interconnectedness of church and state—reigned in Christian Europe. Though the dynamic of that relationship changed and evolved, the connection was undeniable, and it deeply impacted the practice of both. Martin Luther emerged out of this same context, and he, like all the other major Reformers, was a sacralist who could not conceive of a free church or anything but a specifically governmental structure”—Desmond Berg2
INTRODUCTION:
Whose world is it? All arguments are settled, although not necessarily agreed upon, when it comes to ownership.
“Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker—an earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’” (Isa. 45:9)
I work for a company that manufactures stoneware (i.e., pottery) and a recycled glass product that mimics natural pumice stones. If I told you the brand name of either product that we handle at one of our two manufacturing/packaging plants, odds are you would immediately recognize it for what it is. As a production manager, and the head of maintenance, I have some clout in making decisions regarding planning, ordering material, management of personnel, etc. But, ultimately the decision is left up to the owner of the company. His trust of me in handling his affairs is well warranted (my intention is to treat the company and its operations as I would the handling of my household), but he may see things in a different light, and so, when a change of course is necessary there are times he steps in and makes a firm determination that is meant to be obeyed.
Established Hierarchal Order…
There is a pecking order in all areas of life, a hierarchal system in place where the head rules the body. There are subordinates in institutions just like there are those in power, and the lesser serves the greater. What we might term the natural way in which the world operates is nothing less than a reflection of how the God of Scripture is.
The Triune Creator God is described in the Holy Bible as One and yet many; One God in three persons. One being with three personalities; all of which are fully God, and yet serve in distinct ways within the Godhead. The Father is the head, the Son is sent from the Father to do the Father’s will, and the Holy Spirit comes forth from both the Father and the Son in order to glorify the Son by bringing all under the conviction of sin and righteousness and the reward (positive or negative) given to them in terms of their response to the One and Only Son of God, the King of kings and Prince of princes, to whom all knees will bend in submission confessing His authority over all. The established hierarchal order exists because it is an accurate reflection of the God of Scripture, in terms of their personal interaction with one another in the Godhead, and in their dealing with their Creation.
Thus, on a creaturely level in the spheres of governance created/instituted/ordained by God we see the following truths: the family is headed by a father, the Church by an elder, and the state by a magistrate. All revealed spheres of governance are ruled over by appointed (ordained) heads, instituted by God in order to properly reflect Him in creation. The Father of the family serves to glorify His Maker in honoring his wife and raising his children in the fear and admonition of the Lord of Hosts. The Elder of the church serves to glorify His Maker in much the same fashion within the congregation of Jesus Christ, and as a prophetic voice within his culture. And, the Magistrate likewise is called to mimic what we see in both family and church in their governing over the affairs of society; serving as a bulwark against evil. All three governing spheres are reflective of the Holy God in heaven, and the manner by which they bring about this glorification of God in the offices they hold is via His Holy Law-Word. Each realm of government “operate[s] in terms of God’s law.”3
God is Sovereign over His creation, and He alone reserves the right to order His creation in a manner, by a standard, that He deems fit. There is no other standard that will do in governing the affairs of men in all God-ordained institutions on this earth, but the inscripturated Law-Word of God. It alone reveals the heart/mind of God suitably; perfectly.
Theocratic leanings…
Let us now shift our attention to a subject that seems to me very few Christians take much time in considering: The theocratic leanings of a nation-state. We live in God’s world. Every aspect of creation, both the seen and unseen, belongs to Him (cf. Psa. 50:10-12).
Christians live off some basic presuppositions that are correct. We live our lives, differently than what we previously did before our deliverance from sin. Our lives are structured under a new law-order whereby a new found desire we seek to serve our king according to the dictates of His will. So, the Christian lives a life that recognizes the sovereignty of God in all things. This presupposition plays out as well in two other key areas that immediately effect our day-to-day interactions: family and church. Within our families and churches we recognize Christ’s Lordship over all things. So in two key areas of life—personal and corporate—we live under the theocratic rule of God.
What I find amusing about the whole ordeal surrounding the question of Christian Nationalism (aka., Christian Nations) is the downright refusal by so many within the Christian community to recognize that every nation has a god(s) behind it. Individuals and corporations live their lives in terms of particular theocratic leanings. Since we are all in God’s creation, there is nowhere mankind can function without being God-centered (i.e., theocratic leaning). Of course, not all people will acknowledge this truth, but then again we still have people who deny that the earth is round and the universe doesn’t revolve around them.
The fact of the matter is that all nation-states have a god or gods that are leaned upon to govern their affairs. And, the laws of a particular land are derived from the god or gods they serve. Moreover, we find that it is the moral responsibility—perceived at least—by those in power to uphold it. As R. J. Rushdoony explains,
“Law is in every culture religious in origin. Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a culture… Second, it must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society.4
The Bible teaches very plainly that the desire of mankind since the fall is to have another god, another law-order, over them rather than the God of all creation. What nation in the biblical record failed to have a god or gods over it? The Philistines, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians and Medes, the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Assyrians, etc., etc. All nations on this earth have a god or gods that is seated on the throne and their system of law taught and upheld by the powers that be. Some may argue that not all states are religious, not all states have a recognized god behind them, over them, for them, because they are essentially atheistic or agnostic. Another point that Rushdoony touches upon,
“If law has its source in man’s reason, then reason is the god of that society. If the source is an oligarchy, or in a court, senate, or ruler, then that source is the god of that system… Modern humanism, the religion of the state, locates law in the state and thus makes the state, or the people as they find expression in the state, the god of that system.”5
Some may not like his reasoning here, but it cannot be refuted. If you listen to the commentary that comes out of such groups like the World Economic Forum (WEF), you will note the claims of men like Rushdoony validated.
The term God has a range of meaning, and it is a range that is unfamiliar with many church going Christians, but it is nonetheless true. To be a god means to be “A ruler… [or] person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good.”6
History teaches that we have no shortage of men, past or present, that esteem themselves or are esteemed by others as godly in stature, wisdom, and knowledge. To such men people flock, and adopt the doctrines of such without reserve. Teachings that demonics enjoy and fallen men embrace7, but the redeemed abhor in their hearts as an affront to their God and King, Jesus Christ.
The point I have been long in making here is rather simple. Theocracy is a term that some fear, but they do so out of ignorance. For what nation is there on this earth in the past, or in our present, that is not theocratic at its foundation? The question is not whether there is a god or gods behind a nation whose laws are enacted and upheld, but which?
The Fear of Sacralism…
I have listened to Dr. James White of the Dividing Line now for nearly a decade. His ministry has been a gift to the church of Jesus Christ, and I appreciate the way that the Lord has used his work in my own life and ministry. Of course, this does not mean that I agree with him on every point. Funny isn’t it that we always feel compelled to say such things, especially before we voice an area of disagreement. However, given the nature of our culture’s attitude regarding critique of any kind, I find it necessary to preface my forthcoming comments with an air of respect for my fellow brother in Christ.
Dr. White has noted on several occasions his trepidation regarding the current talks surrounding Christian Nationalism. Him being a new convert to Post-Millennial thought and a cautious adoptee of theonomic leanings (via the work of Dr. Joe Boot and his work in books like the Mission of God; King of kings) I can understand his position. In particular, if you consider his baptist leanings and the errors committed by Christian leaders in the past in their handling and influence on civil government(s) during the era of the Reformation and for some time afterward, his caution is understandable. Therefore, it is not at all surprising when he warns those adopting a Christian Nationalist stance of the error of sacralism.8
Now, I wasn’t initially familiar with the term. I have since done some reading and listening to get a better grasp of the subject in question. Often times you will hear it said that sacralism is the confluence of church and state. Dr. White has expressed concern that there is a possibility of blurring the lines between spheres of sovereignty, if one is not careful in how they seek to implement a Christian Nation (what Doug Wilson has affectionately called Christendom 2.0). According to the theology section on Monergism.com the following definition is offered for sacralism. It states,
“Sacralism, in its theological and political sense, refers to the belief that religious and political authorities should be closely aligned, with the state having a role in enforcing religious laws and the church wielding political influence. This concept often leads to a theocratic form of government, where civil authority is viewed as divinely appointed and religious leaders hold sway over political governance.”9
A Bird’s Eye View…
Let us take for the moment the thrust of this definitional argument. The first line of thought states that sacralism is concerned about theological and political alignment, with state legislating religious laws and the church influencing the political (societal) arena. Should these two governing spheres (Church and State) align in anyway? If so, in what way should they align, and in what way should they avoid aligning? What is being meant by alignment (confluence)?
Now, in order to think through these issues critically, some basic assumptions and/or realities will need to be considered. What laws are, in principle, non-religious? Can you name one? Is refraining from muzzling an ox while it treads the grain an agricultural law without religious concerns? Does prohibiting false witnesses in a court of law, or the slandering of one’s neighbor speak of civil (i.e., secular, societal, political, etc.) concerns alone? Is the law against man-stealing theological or political? What is the underlying principle of having working brake lights (and brakes) when operating a motor vehicle? Can you layout an argument for euthanasia that does not suppose some religious belief? Is the taxation of a people, in order to support various social programs, a theologically or a politically driven system of laws?
Let us consider the second line of thought: Is it wrong to see those in civil power as filling seats ordained by (instituted by) God? (I surmise that the fear is the twisted doctrine of the ‘divine right of kings’ as understood in the medieval period). Moreover, should the role of those in the ecclesiastical (church) sphere be silent (indifferent) to what occurs in the political realm? At what point do these circles of influence touch? And, at what point is it right for the one to address issues in the other?
I find that many will answer these questions from a variety of positions. But the only position that I am concerned about is the one that professing Christians hold. I can understand the conclusion drawn by those outside the family of God, but those who share in Jesus Christ should, in principle, be of the same mind and heart (cf. Rom. 15:5-6; Phil. 2:2). When we reach a determination on an issue it needs to be clearly articulated and defended from the Holy Scriptures.
Warranted or Unwarranted Fears…
People fear the term theocracy10, but Van Til makes a very astute point. Abraham lived a life directed by the Law-Word of God.11 His faith was lived out because he took God’s instruction for granted and acted upon it. The same that was expected of the individual, was likewise expected of the nation (or the group, the whole). Image bearers imitate the one that they are created to image. Much like a mirror is supposed to show you your reflection, we are to reflect the nature, the will, and therefore the heart/mind of God. How do we do this? By reflecting His Law-Word in our daily lives; which means dependently. A mirror does not reveal anything, unless, that which it is supposed to be imaging is before it.
Kings and Prophets…
Thus, the king of Israel was called upon to live in terms of God’s Law-Word:
“When he sits on his royal throne he must make a copy of this law on a scroll and given to him by the Levitical priests. It must be with him constantly and he must read it as long as he lives, so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and observe all the words of this law and these statutes and carry them out. Then he will not exalt himself above his fellow citizens or turn from the commandments to the right or left, and he and his descendants will enjoy many years ruling over his kingdom in Israel” (Deut. 17:18-20; NET).
And the prophet’s of God were charged with declaring to those in power the will of God as disclosed by His Law-Word. With the result being that the people under their governance would benefit from being led by a holy representative in holy living.
“We have not paid attention to your servants the prophets, who spoke by your authority to our kings, our leaders, and our ancestors, and to all the inhabitants of the land as well” (Dan. 9:6).
Forthcoming Riposte?…
This of course raises a question in my mind that I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer from the opposition. Would the ancient nation of Israel (i.e., biblical Israel) have been guilty of sacralism? Would they be found in violation of the definition provided by outspoken Christian leaders today? The seats of authority found within the civil sphere were obviously recognized as seats of power and authority authorized/instituted by God (cf. Rom. 13:1-2). And, the ecclesiastical sphere certainly spoke with authority in challenging the direction of those in power in the civil sphere when they veered away from God’s Law-Word; thus, calling for their repentance.
Were they abusing their power? Were they confusing the boundaries of separation provide by differing jurisdictional spheres of governance? I think that we can see that they did this from time-to-time historically. And, when they did the biblical record records how the Lord sharply rebuked the offender. However, when looking at the big picture from a foundational perspective we can see quite clearly that God organized a nation state in Israel that many professing believers would do everything in their power to get away from.
The charge that we are not Israel is the common refrain. The claim that we do not live under God’s Law-Word, but should only look for principles to govern, and those perhaps when only articulated in the New Testament canon, are on the tongues of skeptics and deniers within our ranks.
On the one hand, you have those that want perfection (or near towards it) before they would ever entertain the idea of a Christian State (nation). And the other, preferring a pluralistic ideal that is said to be the American ideal, but is at base nothing-less than polytheism pretending to be neutral in matters of conscience. Which, by the way, is not possible. It is a deplorable canard that has seduced a great number of Christian men and women for far too long.
Distinctive Roles not to be Ignored…
I mentioned earlier that there were those in Israel’s past that ignored the separation of powers established within that holy commonwealth. When I speak of Christian Nationalism or a theocratic government, I am not erasing, nor is it in my mind a possibility for others to do so, the jurisdictional boundaries that God has placed on those holding seats of power/authority in their perspective spheres. I am not naive. I am not saying that such abuses can’t happen, but that they shouldn’t happen. But abuses happen all the time. Does the possibility of error make the effort wrong? Take that line of thought to its logical end and see where that leaves you. If you are unable, allow me to educate you.
Food is good, but it is abused, should we not eat? Sex is good, but is abused, should we not enjoy the spouse of our youth? Alcohol is good, but it is abused, should we not drink? These are elementary things that God have given to us. Things that sinful men have abused since the Fall in the garden. Do we then encase ourselves in various manmade “should not’s” in order to prevent the possibility of failing? Isn’t that the essence of legalism? The belief that if you hedge yourself in on all sides you will be protected from falling into some profane thing, thus saving yourself. How is that not living by sight rather than faith? How is that not living by the traditions of men, rather than the Law-Word of God?
Biblical Abuses of Power/Authority…
The conclusion provided by the writer(s) on the matter of sacralism on the Monogerism website states,
“While sacralism is not formally heretical, it is a significant error within the Protestant tradition. It conflates the roles of church and state, leading to violations of Christian liberty and religious persecution. Protestants, especially in the Reformed tradition, argue for the separation of church and state not because religion is unimportant but because the state cannot coerce genuine faith or properly govern the spiritual realm.”12
Without question it is wrong to cross the jurisdictional boundaries established by God from one sphere of influence into another. I have spoke on matters pertaining to the governing of the home, and the delegated power/authority given to the parents, and at the same time acknowledged the limitations by which they can exercise that power/authority. The father cannot rule the children of another home, he only has jurisdiction in his own home. The wife cannot nurture the children of another home, she only has jurisdiction in her own home. There are without a doubt instances where two family spheres intertwine for a time, but the context is limited in time and space.
For example, a camping trip consisting of two families will have some convergence in how they mitigate the children in both family units. If the son of another is endangering himself or another, then the other parent has a limited exercise of power/authority over the other’s son behavior in time and space as necessity calls for it. However, in the normal rearing of children the same father has no right to speak with authority, exercising his delegated God-given power, over the son of another. He cannot enter the home, see something that he finds distasteful, and then try to correct it. This is just as foolish as the mother of another household trying to console the son or daughter of her neighbor after the child has been justly punished, is ashamed, and is working through their own remorse. The walls of the home serve as a visual representation of the boundary markers that prevent unwelcome and unauthorized incursions.
The same truth applies in other institutions, including, but not limited to, the Church (ecclesiastical) and State (civil) spheres. Those who fell under the sway of Korah and the rebellion that he inspired within the ranks of the tribe of Levi against Moses (God’s prophet/judge) and Aaron (the High Priestly line), were immediately swallowed up by the earth for daring to supplant the boundary markers that God had established within their one tribe (cf. Numb. 16). Not all Levites served in the same role with Israel’s commonwealth. Some were judges (executive officers/civil magistrates), and others functioned as priests in a ministerial (ecclesiastical) role. Those who sided with Korah wanted a change of leadership and of roles within the God established hierarchy. For their rebellion—ultimately against God—they and their families were swallowed up in judgment, with the remaining who had adopted their mindset were consumed by fire.
Another blatant example of trying to usurp or cross jurisdictional boundaries (sphere sovereignty) as established by God is demonstrated for us in 2 Chronicles 26:
King Uzziah of Judah:
“But when he [Uzziah] became strong, his heart was so proud that he acted corruptly, and he was unfaithful to the Lord his God, for he entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense. Then Azariah the priest entered after him and with him eighty priests of the Lord, valiant men. They opposed Uzziah the king and said to him, ‘It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron who are consecrated to burn incense. Get out of the sanctuary, for you have been unfaithful and will have no honor from the Lord God. But Uzziah, with a censer in his hand for burning incense, was enraged; and while he was enraged with the priests, the leprosy broke out on his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, beside the altar of incense. Azariah the chief priest and all the priests looked at him, and behold, he was leprous on his forehead; and they hurried him out of there, and he himself also hastened to get out because the Lord had smitten him” (2 Chron. 26:16-20; NASB).
The king attempted to exert authority and power outside of his jurisdictional parameters and he was struck by God for the violation with leprosy; condemned to die in that state. Greg L. Bahnsen offers some clarity on this issue:
“A functional separation between king and priest—both answerable to God—was known and followed. Thus, kings and priests had different houses, different officers, different treasuries, different regulations, and different forms of discipline to impose. The alleged merger of church and state in the Old Testament is simply based on little familiarity with Old Testament realities as presented in Scripture.”13
Separation of Power/Authority…
Without question there is a separation of Church (ecclesiastical government) and State (civil government) in terms of jurisdictional boundary’s, but not in terms of religious faith. As Bahnsen explains,
“To admit that the church is separate from the state is not the same as saying that the state is separated from obligation to God Himself and His rule. Both church and state, as separate institutions with separate functions (i.e., the church mercifully ministers the gospel, while the state justly ministers public law by the sword), serve under the authority of God, the Creator, Sustainer, King, and Judge of all mankind in all aspects of their lives.”14
Church leaders dispense the grace of God as taught in His Law-Word and personalized in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Only elders within a church body can administer the sacraments and excommunicate the unrepentant sinner in their midst. They are charged with guarding the truth and prophetically proclaiming it, offering sound instruction to all, even those within the civil sphere of governance. But they are not governors, magistrates, judges, or the like. They do not rule the nation from the pulpit.
Similarly, the civil leader has been authorized to uphold justice, to protect the good from the evil in society, and this by exercising the sword using sound judgment in terms of the law. The law that they ascribe to the citizenry will be reflective of the God they serve. Though they do not have the authority to stand behind the pulpit, they do have the authority to lead the people in times of mourning and prayer, and to call attention to national sins and the need for the people as a whole to confess to the Lord God for mercy. They do have a right to exalt the name of Christ in the public sphere, and to discourage those who seek to defile His name in a public setting, and this primarily by executing biblical justice. However, there are matters that the civil sphere is prevented from intruding upon (i.e., matters of the heart and conscience). If you would like one quick example here you go. They do not have the right to stop the gathering together of a religious body under the guise of public health as many tyrants did during 2020-2021.
Closing Remarks…
The three subjects touched on in this post (Christian Nationalism, Theocracy and Sacralism) are scary or troublesome ideas for those within and outside the Christian camp. Culturally we have been conditioned to think along a particular line of thought in relation to religious and secular realities. However, I think that the more we wrestle with such things the better off we will be, for these subjects are worthy of our time and effort. The fact is, this is God’s world. He owns it all. There is not one square inch of it that does not have His finger prints on it. And, we need to learn to live in it in a manner that does not belittle His name.
In closing, I want to share a quote from Ray R. Sutton in his book That You May Prosper. It sums up my own thoughts regarding the sovereignty of God and an oft misunderstood concept: theocracy. His summary of the subject is helpful and offers some succinct clarity that my article is probably missing. He writes,
“The Christian always affirms that God rules over His creation. God (theos) rules (kratos). We live in a theocracy. The entire universe is a theocracy. Every human institution is a theocracy—Church, State, Family, business, etc. There is no escape from theocracy. But Christians in every aspect of their daily lives are supposed to manifest His rule in every institution (and not just the State).”15
ENDNOTES:
1 Cornelius Van Til, “The Old Testament Ethical Ideal,” in Cornelius Van Til Collection of Articles from 1920-1939, pg. 182, PDF. Original citation: Van Til, C., & Sigward, E. H. (1997). The works of Cornelius Van Til, 1895-1987 (electronic ed.). New York: Labels Army Co.
2“Dr. James White: Martin Luther & the Dangers of Sacralism,” Sovereign Nations, February 2, 2018,https://sovereignnations.com/2018/02/02/james-white-martin-luther-dangers-sacralism/.
3 Gary DeMar, God and Government: A Biblical, Historical, and Constitutional Perspective (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2011), 154, PDF E-book.
4R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburgh, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1973), 4. Italics in original.
5Ibid., 4, 5.
6 “God,” s.v., Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.
7What a person might consider demonic or the teaching of a demons may not in fact be an accurate picture of what the Bible shares as a truly genuine satanic teaching. For example, Paul in his first letter to Timothy warns of demonic teaching that will be embraced by those within the Christian community in the 1st century (1 Tim. 4:1). And, false teachings like these continue to permeate certain sectors of the Church even to this day: “They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Tim. 4:3).
8One of Dr. White’s key arguments of caution is the blurring of jurisdictional boundaries within the sovereign spheres of governance that God has ordained; namely, Church (ecclesiastical) and State (civil). The caution is not unwarranted, but it can be used as a paralyzing agent to prevent any further progress in the direction of a Christian Nation (or nations) because of fear of committing error. A position I have pointed out in previous posts that would warrant all Christian growth in any area of life, including personal growth (i.e., individual-governance) do hit a stalemate because of previous failures and errors in judgment. The concern is legitimate, but the solution cannot be an end to the discussion or movement towards a better end.
9 “Sacralism,”https://www.monergism.com/sacralism. The definition provided on this site goes into much more detail than I plan on covering in this post.
10 Gary North writes, “The fear of a Bible-based theocracy on the part of most Christians and all humanists rests on a partial misunderstanding. Most people think of theocracy as a social system modelled [sic] along the lines of ancient Egypt, with a top-down pyramid structure run by priests and kings. That is indeed Satan’s version of theocracy. It is the heart and soul of Marxist regimes, modern socialist societies, and the elitist dreams of scientific Darwinism.
“In contrast to this sort of theocracy is the ideal of a Christian holy commonwealth. It is fundamentally decentralist. Its bedrock presupposition is self-government under the law of God…All government begins with self-government. All discipline begins with self-discipline. All men stand alone before God on the day of judgment; they are personally responsible to God… Theocracy is government by God’s law—not just civil government, but all government. It is not a top-down imposition of biblical law by an elite [group] of priests, but, in contrast, a bottom-up imposition of biblical standards over every area of life—areas not regulated by civil law for the most part—by those people who are morally responsible for making decisions. As the process of dominion extends the authority of Christians over more and more areas of life, we will see the creation of a comprehensive theocracy. It will not come as the result of some sort of ‘palace revolution,’ but as a result of millions of God-fearing people working to extend the reign of Christ over every area of life.” Gary North, “Bottom-Up Theocracy,” Christian Reconstruction: Isaiah 61:4, Vol. VII, No. 5, September/October 1983 (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics), par. 1, 2, 6. Emphasis in original.
11 That is to say that he lived a self-governed life; a life lived under the discipline, and therefore, the knowledge and wisdom of the Lord as it was departed to him. If the person is accountable before God to do this, does the responsibility stop there or go into any sphere of influence/governance that may be impacted by the Law-Word of God?
12Closing paragraph. Emphasis in original. https://www.monergism.com/sacralism. Although this is not the place for it, the writer(s) of this definition, like others within the Reformed camp, seems to hold to the idea of Two Kingdom theology: spiritual and secular. While I understand the distinction popularly held, I deny its premise. There are Two Kingdoms, but they are the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of Darkness. The Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the Kingdom of Satan the adversary of God and the children of Light. What is commonly held to as the sacred (spiritual) and secular (worldly) is a dualistic understanding of reality that misses the point that all of life is spiritual/secular, since we are creatures of material/spirit. Both are governed and held accountable by the same Law-Word; holy standard. Thus, the governing sphere in question, regardless of its particular domain, is spiritual/secular, the question is what is the object of faith upon which it is founded, and that is determined by the standard of living to which it holds.
13Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985), 287, PDF E-book.
14Ibid., 289-290.
15 Ray R. Sutton, That You May Prosper: Dominion by Covenant (Tyler TX, Institute for Christian Economics, 1992), 45, PDF E-book.
Kristafal's Musings 