A Tale of Two Kingdoms

Horton seems to defend the proposition that we should close our Bibles and secularize our society. Horton says "the church" is obligated to obey the Bible, but it would be improper to say the rest of society -- especially "the government" -- is too. One "kingdom" is based on the Bible, the other "kingdom" is not.
The other kingdom hears this and happily says, "Whew! What a relief!"
But since

• most of the 30,000+ verses in the Bible are directed to this "secular" "kingdom," and

• an important task of "churchmen" is to rebuke "statesmen" in terms of these verses,

"churchmen" also hear Horton's "two kingdom" theory and say "Whew! What a relief!" This means churchmen only have to concern themselves with "theological" and "ecclesiastical" stuff -- a tiny fraction of the Bible -- and don't have to worry about poverty, tyranny, and mass death.

In case you're unaware, Horton is an opponent of the "Theocratic" views of the "Christian Reconstruction" or "Theonomy" movements.

by Michael Horton

Horton speaks derogatorily of "political allegiances," by which I think he means "Trump or Hillary?" He thinks this is unimportant compared to the "faith and practice" of the church. I would like to think that at "election time" people are asking questions like, "Will this candidate perpetuate 3,000 abortions every day?" "Will this candidate get us in a nuclear war and kill millions of people?" "Will this candidate steal more purchasing power out of the pensions of widows?" "Will this candidate accelerate our decline into a moral cesspool?" "Will this candidate make it impossible for me and millions of others to get a job and feed our families?" and not just quibbling over political celebrities and personalities. These questions may not be of interest to seminary professors.

But, of course, Horton is correct if he's saying that one's allegiance to Hillary or to Trump is of dubious value or distinction, and is certainly of no eternal value. But we may discover that allegiance to a particular ecclesiocentric "faith and practice" (centered and limited to a church building) may also be of little value.

City of God is large, sweeping, and confusing book, covering a wide variety of arcane topics. In the table of contents in the Modern Library edition, we have this example:

BOOK VII

Of the "select gods" of the civil theology, and that eternal life is not obtained by worshipping them.

BOOK VIII

Some account of the Socratic and Platonic philosophy, and a refutation of the doctrine of Apuleius that the demons should be worshipped as mediators between gods and men.

There is a great deal of history in City of God -- the history of Rome, and the 4,000-year history of man revealed in the Bible. There is a little bit of everything in this book. As Wikipedia (which Horton seems to have consulted) puts it,

The City of God ... expound[s] on many profound questions of theology, such as the suffering of the righteous, the existence of evil, the conflict between free will and divine omniscience, and the doctrine of original sin.

Horton says that Augustine's book has been given many different interpretations. "However," he says, " it is indisputable that it helped to create what came to be called the doctrine of the two kingdoms." What is more accurate is that some folks who defend the "two kingdoms" doctrine say they got the doctrine from Augustine. But it is certainly disputable that Augustine helped create Michael Horton's particular doctrine of the "two kingdoms." That is, it is not at all clear that if Augustine were to travel through time to our day and read Horton's particular doctrine of "the two kingdoms," Augustine would say, Yes, that's what I was trying to say.

What is "indisputable" is that many creators of doctrines have appealed to Augustine for support of their new doctrine, and Michael Horton is a recent addition to this long list.

Here is how Wikipedia describes Augustine's two "cities":

Augustine’s thesis depicts the history of the world as universal warfare between God and the Devil. This metaphysical war is not limited by time but only by geography on Earth. In this war, God moves (by divine intervention/ Providence) those governments, political /ideological movements and military forces aligned (or aligned the most) with the Catholic Church (the City of God) in order to oppose by all means—including military—those governments, political/ideological movements and military forces aligned (or aligned the most) with the Devil (the City of Devil).

This concept of world history guided by Divine Providence in a universal war between God and Devil is part of the official doctrine of the Catholic Church as most recently stated in the Second Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes document: "The Church . . . holds that in her most benign Lord and Master can be found the key, the focal point and the goal of man, as well as of all human history...all of human life, whether individual or collective, shows itself to be a dramatic struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness...The Lord is the goal of human history, the focal point of the longings of history and of civilization, the center of the human race, the joy of every heart and the answer to all its yearnings."

So Wikipedia equates the "City of God" with the Roman Catholic Church. We assume without reading any further that Horton has a different conception of the City of God. Wikipedia also seems to equate the "City of Man" with the City of Satan. If it's not aligned with God, it's not good. There is no neutrality.

Over and over again on this webpage we're going to call to mind that unholy triumvirate:

• strife,
• war,
• and the desire to exercise domination over others.

These are the goals (or the fruit) of the City of Man. We're going to keep this in front of us.

The goals (or fruit) of the City of God, would (logically) be the opposite of those of the City of Man:

• harmony
• peace
• service rather than domination, the initiation of force, and threats of violence

"Kill your old man!"

One might be inclined to see a parallel between Augustine's "cities" and the Apostle Paul's "men" in Romans 6, Ephesians 4, and Colossians 3. Read these passages here. Paul says we should "put off" or "mortify" (put to death) the "old man" and "put on" the "new man." In Colossians 3:5, Paul says, "Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry." We might add Horton's words: "put off  strife, war, and the desire to exercise domination over others."

In other words, the Bible says we should "mortify" or destroy the City of Man.

The "City of Man" is like "the old man." The "City of God" is like "the new man."

We might ask the question (though Horton does not), How can we put to death the City of Man so that the City of God may prosper?

Examples of the City of Man are fascism, socialism, communism, and other forms of totalitarianism. The City of God is on the opposite side of the scale.

Horton is writing in a Calvinist periodical, so he appeals to Calvinists with Calvinist-sounding rhetoric. But is it relevant to his argument about the two cities? Is it even meaningful?

The Bible teaches that Judas Iscariot was predestined to betray Christ (Luke 22:22 ). The Bible teaches that the crucifixion of Christ was predestined (Acts 4:27-28). Does that mean that those who participated in the betrayal and murder of Christ were under no moral or ethical obligation to do otherwise? Of course not, and the texts themselves make this clear. All the parties involved were held morally responsible for killing Christ, even though they were predestined to do so.

So if Hitler or Stalin or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (head of ISIS) create a new "City of Man" -- a society based on strife, war, and archism -- it is not outside the predestined plan of God, but they are still morally culpable. And if you are recruited to join ISIS, or the U.S. Marines, you should exercise your "free will" and say No, even though God may have predestined someone else to join.

God predestined Hitler to kill Jews. Does that mean that if you were a Christian in Germany and your next-door neighbor had a job at a death camp ("I've got to feed my family," "Just following orders"), you were under no moral or ethical obligation to try to persuade your neighbor to get a new job?? Just because a tyrannical government is "grounded in God's eternal predestination" does not mean that we are not morally obligated to denounce and help as many as we can to repent of its evil deeds.

What moral or ethical effect on the reader does Horton intend to engender by saying,

Ultimately, Augustine says, these two loves and two cities are themselves grounded in God’s eternal predestination.

It's not clear. And as we continue reading, it doesn't get any clearer.

Here's the best spin I can put on this sentence:

The City of Man (generally speaking, The State) is predestined by God. The evil, tyrannical atheistic oligarchy ruling over you has been providentially put in place over you. God "ordained" this evil. It "serves" (deaconeo) God's purposes. But it is not normative. Judas Iscariot was not normative. The murder of Christ was not normative. Citizens of the City of God may be forced to be subject to the City of Man, but should always look at the City of Man as a rebellious city that needs to repent and come under the jurisdiction of the City of God. (This is Romans 13 in a nutshell.)

• First, note the non-parallel:
  • God is creating a new city (the church)
  • God is preserving the old city (nothing in parentheses)
  • If the new city is "the church," what is the "old city?"
    • "The State?"
    • "Patriarchy?" (Adam and Noah with no state and no priesthood)
    • "Theocracy?" (The Levitical Priesthood under Moses)
    • Priests of Moloch and Ashtoreth in Canaan and Egypt and Babylon?
    • Hollywood, the Pentagon, and Harvard University?
• Second, The City of Man (based on the love of self, rather than the love of God, and producing strife, war, and coercion) is "destined to perish." That's good news.
• God is creating something from its "ruins," which implies that it is already perishing, being converted from a vibrant "city" into "ruins."
• Horton does not say who or what it is that is destroying the city of man and turning it into "ruins."
• Nevertheless, despite the "ruins" of the old city, Horton says God is "preserving the old city."
• Not doing a very good job of this, I gather. What does Horton mean by this?
• Despite the fact that the old city is crumbling, and God is creating a new city from its ruins, Horton claims that God is preserving the old city "by His common grace."
• "Common grace" is a theological term. It is not a Biblical term. Beware of it: it tends to mean whatever the theologian using it wants it to mean.
• Big Question: WHY would God want to "preserve" the "old city?" As a museum exhibit, perhaps? And WHERE does the Bible say this? Which verse would Horton give us to prove that God wants to "preserve" a pagan or secular polity? Which verse says God wants to protect the entire "cosmos" of rebellion and autonomy against Christians who would convert it to the City of God?
• Horton equates the "new city" with "the church."
  • Does this mean the Roman Catholic Church?
  • Or does this mean the Body of Christ -- butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers who are "putting to death the old man" -- or to use Horton's words, putting off
    • strife
    • war
    • the desire to exercise domination over others. ("archism")
    • in short, putting off the City of Man, renouncing allegiance to it, and signing a treaty of unconditional surrender with the City of God.
  • Why Horton's "church" is not a part of the City of God, or Kingdom of God.
• Are you a citizen of the New City or of the Old City?

"God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common" (Acts 10:14-15,28; 11:8-9).

When did this "era of common grace" begin?

Is Horton saying that before this "era of common grace" began, God did not send rain on the just and the unjust?"

What era will begin when "this era of common grace" ends?

Is any of this actually in the Bible itself? For further study.

Horton says God calls on "us" to "imitate His clemency."

Who is "us?"

Does this mean politicians should legalize rape and murder?

Horton says, "So Christians have two callings:

• the high calling in Christ to belong to His body
• and the calling to the world as citizens, parents, children, friends, coworkers, and neighbors."

 
How is it that a Christian has a calling "to the world." Doesn't the Bible say

 
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
James 1:27
 

Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
James 4:4
 

Take parents as just one example. What obligation do Christians who are "parents" have?

• to make their home and family a part of the City of God,

• or to make their home and family a city of
         • strife
         • war
         • the desire to exercise domination over others.

See Deuteronomy 6 and Ephesians 6 for clues. Being a parent is a distinctively sacred calling that requires an open Bible. It is not a "secular" calling. It is not a calling "to the world." Being a parent and raising children in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord" is a high, heavenly calling, no matter where the parents may be found on the surface of planet earth.

Our calling as "neighbors" is a heavenly calling to treat the least of our neighbors as we would treat Christ Himself (Matthew 25:31-46). Our calling as "coworkers" is to work for our employer as if we were working for Christ Himself (Ephesians 6:5-6; Colossians 3:22-24). Every form of human action and human thought is to be conducted as a high, heavenly calling as citizens of the City of God, to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). We have no secular calling, no "calling to the world."

Is Horton saying Christians have a calling to be citizens of both the City of God and the City of Satan? Can we really serve two masters?

In every area of life, we are called to act in allegiance to the City of God.

Your Calling in the City of God grounded in the love of God:	Your Calling in the City of Man grounded in the love of self:
husband/protector	wife-beater
job-creator	boss
civic leader	tyrant
rescuer	invader
teacher
classmate	bully
pastor	abuser
personal coach	drill sergeant
evangelist	terrorist

No Christian is called to live in, work in, or be loyal to the City of Man. Everything in life that a Christian does should be done in terms of God's Law in the Bible. Even if you're taken captive and physically exiled to Babylon, your allegiance should be to the Bible and the City of God.

But now Horton is talking about "an earthly city." But surely this is not the same thing as the City of Satan, because Horton speaks of this "earthly city" as a city of "relative peace and justice." Relative to what? That doesn't sound like the city Horton describes above, as a city of

• strife
• war
• the desire to exercise domination over others.

We might think Horton is saying that the City of God is a "heavenly" city existing on the surface of planet earth, while the City of Man is an "earthly" city existing in defiance of the rules which Heaven has ordained.

After being sworn in as President of the United States, George Washington delivered his "Inaugural Address" to a joint session of Congress. In it Washington declared:

[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves . . . .  In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and . . . can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.
W]e ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained . . . .
Messages and Papers of the Presidents, George Washington, Richardson, ed., vol. 1, p.44-45

A polity is any kind of political entity. It is a group of people that are collectively united by a self-reflected cohesive force....

Merriam-Webster says a polity is

a politically organized unit : something (such as a country or state) that has a government

You might think Horton meant to say that "each city IS its own polity." So this sentence, as edited, is obviously true, as we saw in the table above. I don't think Horton would disagree with these two propositions:

• The end (purpose, goal) of the City of God is the glory of God
  • The means to this end is loving God and loving His Word
• The end (purpose, goal) of the City of Man is the glory of Man
  • The means to this end is loving self and ignoring His Word

I think what Horton is getting at is that each City has its own standard: The Word of God and the word of Man. This is, of course, satanic.

Whatever the end, purpose, or goal of the City of Man might be, Horton is right to distinguish the result or fruits of the City of Man compared with the result or fruit of the City of God:

During my lifetime, the City of Man, expressing itself in the U.S. Federal Government (which claims that aligning with the City of God would "violate the Constitution" -- a claim with which not a single signer of the Constitution would have agreed), has

• created strife between classes, races, and sexes, which didn't exist a generation ago,
• through unconstitutional wars has killed, crippled, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent, non-combatant civilians around the world
• and has increased its power to regulate, oppress and dominate others, creating an atheistic tyranny that America's Founding Fathers could not have imagined in their worst dystopian nightmares.

It could be, however, that Horton thinks "polity" means "law."
It could be that Horton believes that the City of God obeys God's Law, while the City of Man follows Man's Laws.
And it could be that Horton is OK with this.
We'll keep this option in mind as we continue reading his article.

Horton says a Christian is a citizen of the City of God.

Can a Christian also be a "citizen" of the City of Man or the City of Satan?

This question is huge. It is an important theological question, as well as a practical political question.

America used to think of herself as being a part of the City of God.

• Here is an "election sermon" from May 10, 1810, "A sermon preached before his excellency the Governor, and the honorable legislature of the State of Connecticut." The text of the sermon is PSALM XLVI, "There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God."
• Here is an "election sermon" preached "At a General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, holden at Hartford in said State, on the second Thursday of May, A. D. 1814." The Reverend Dan Huntington said

  From what has taken place, since the Messiah’s advent, we gain still further proof of the point in question. Why have nations, professedly Christian, been preserved, like God’s chosen people of old, through a series of ages; and though comparatively feeble, and unprotected by any human arm, been highly elevated; while the great pagan empires of the East, by an influence unseen, have been successively crumbling into atoms? Any why, in civilization, in refinement, in liberty, in religion, and in everything, that stamps dignity upon the character of a people, and renders existence a blessing, have the reformed nations of Europe been distinguished from those, that have been led away, by the delusions of Mohammed and the abominations of Antichrist? Are we at loss for an answer? The nations, that have enjoyed this prosperity, were the lovers of the Lord, and of his interest. They were careful to maintain a reverence for divine institutions. Their children were brought up in “the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”

  All nations should be Christian nations, a part of the City of God. Jesus commanded us to make all nations students ("disciples") of the commands of God (Matthew 28:18-20). The word "Taliban" means "students." Jesus inaugurated a Christian Taliban, which does not use stinger missiles provided by the CIA (2 Corinthians 10:3-5), or "exercise domination" over others.

• America once saw herself as a "City upon a hill." City of Man? City of Satan? Of course not.
• Looking back, Sacvan Bercovitch says many sermons of American preachers, "direct an imperiled people of God toward the fulfillment of their destiny, to guide them individually toward salvation, and collectively toward the American city of God."

On might disagree with Puritan eschatological interpretation at places, but it is clearly a matter of historical fact ("indisputable!") that Americans at one time sought to align themselves with the City of God rather than the City of Satan. Reiner Smolinski writes,

With such self-conscious exertions to make the New World safe for the millennial kingdom, it is all the more surprising that in its national mythology America is portrayed as the Promised Land of the Bible. According to this familiar argument, American Puritans saw themselves as God’s chosen people on an “Errand into the Wilderness,” there to set up a city upon the hill as a shining beacon to the rest of the world. Come the millennium, New England and the American continent at large, would be transformed into the eschatological New Jerusalem, where Christ would set up his throne to govern the effete nations the world over. Put in another way, the Mosaic exodus from Egypt through the Red Sea and the Sinai Desert to the Promised Land is seen as the prophetic type foreshadowing its eschatological antitype fulfilled in John Winthrop’s Puritan exodus from England through an Atlantic baptismal font into the Wilderness of the New English Canaan. In short, the appropriation of the City of God to the American hemisphere, modern scholars have argued, instilled in the colonists a sense of purpose that came to fruition during the First Great Awakening, the War of Independence, and in the American missions to the Third World in the nineteenth century. Whether or not English Puritans justified their removal to the New World in eschatological terms is an issue that has divided the scholarly community since the 1980s. One school of thought (historians of religion and literary scholars) argues that the Puritan fathers’ emphasis on purity of doctrine and church discipline, on conversion as a prerequisite to church membership, and on de facto separation from the lukewarm Church of England (of which Laodicea was the type) was informed from the start by a fully articulated millenarian credo that sought to anticipate the City of God in America. These ideas were inscribed into the typology of their errand and invoked in the jeremiads of their descendants who summoned the ghosts of their illustrious ancestors to revitalize their mission whenever a crisis threatened their survival. Representative examples of this type include Samuel Danforth’s Errand into the Wilderness (Boston, 1670) and Increase Mather’s Ichabod, Or, ... The Glory is Departing from New England (Boston, 1702). The creation of this mythic Errand occurred in the decades after the Half-Way Covenant (1662) and proved so adaptable to the changing needs of the revolutionary pulpit that it was constantly reinvented as the Puritans’ usable past, this time as a quest for a civil millennium in which God’s American Israel was now called upon to defend her civil and religious liberties against the encroachments of the British Antichrist.

In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that America was "a Christian nation." But that case and the perspective it embodied was tossed out in the 20th century, Today the government of the United States no longer considers itself a part of the City of God. In fact, if you were born outside the U.S., and you consider yourself a citizen of the City of God, as per Philippians 3:20, today's Federal Government maintains that you cannot become a naturalized citizen of the United States, because a citizen of heaven cannot be loyal to the City of Man. I know this because I passed the California Bar Exam (said to be the toughest legal exam in the world) but was denied a license to practice law because I claimed a citizenship in heaven. I admitted that my allegiance to the City of God trumps any allegiance demanded of me by any other polis and any "birthright citizenship" it may have granted me by virtue of where I was born. As the Apostles said, "We must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). If that's your attitude, courts will say -- and have been ruling this way for decades -- then you do not have adequate allegiance to the now-secular polis to be permitted to become an attorney, a public school teacher, a draftsman for the County of San Diego, a certified elevator inspector, or any other occupation that requires a statement or oath of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. During my litigation in federal court to become an attorney, I read hundreds of court cases and law review articles. For details about those cases, follow the links that begin here.

Any polis that will not acknowledge itself to be a part of the City of God and obligated to obey the Law of God in Scripture has declared its citizenship in the City of Satan. There is no neutrality; there is only historical immaturity as one becomes more self-conscious in his citizenship. It might look like wheat early on, but will soon become more evidently a tare. You do not want mature tares to have power over you.

Hebrews 12
¹⁸ For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, ¹⁹ and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. ²⁰ (For they could not endure what was commanded: “And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned or shot with an arrow.” ²¹ And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.”)

²² But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, ²³ to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, ²⁴ to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

Already.

The "flow" and "stream" that Micah predicted (Micah 4:1-5) has been happening for 2,000 years. The "New Jerusalem" is not a future event. The building of this City began in the past and continues in the present. Refusing to build this edifice is a sinful act of rebellion.

Would you ever vote to join your nation to Babylon?

"Even fight in its armies."

Imagine that Babylon has invaded your nation. They broke down the door of your house in the middle of the night, lined you and your family against the wall at gunpoint, tied you up after raping your wife in front of your children, loaded you and your family in a van, and took you and your family captive. You are now slaves in a new polis. And it's time to replenish the stock of slaves, so you have been conscripted to join a war party to go back to your home country and take your relatives captive. Will you fight in Babylon's armies? Will you break down the door of your cousin's home, rape his wife, and kill his kids if they refuse to become slaves? Don't worry, you were "just following orders."

¿WHAT ON EARTH does Horton mean when he says believers fight in the army of the City of Man as it makes war on the City of God?

Remember the table above. What Horton here refers to as "the properly coercive powers of the state," he there lists as

• strife
• war
• the desire to exercise domination over others. ("archism")

In what sense is this aggression morally "proper?" Jesus plainly says it is not proper for Christians to "exercise domination over others." It is a violation of Biblical Law to initiate force against others to obtain your selfish desires. Is Horton applauding ("proper!") state coercion as the key to "(relative) peace?"

And this is not the first time Horton speaks of "the relative peace" of the City of Satan. And again we ask, relative to what? Relative to how evil, savage, and warlike the City of Satan can possibly be?

The powers of even the most limited State are not "proper." The power to tax one penny is a violation of God's command, "Thou shalt not steal." The "Boston Tea Party" involved a tax of three pence per pound of tea. America's Founders said this was not "properly coercive." Today's government steals ten times as much on every gallon of gas. Is this "proper?"

The City of Man never creates "relative peace." At its inception, the State moves society from "relative peace" to  relative

• strife
• war
• domination over others. ("archism")

The only reason the smallest State ever comes into existence is because someone wants to violate God's Law. The State increases its size with ever-increasing violations of God's Law.

Horton has a fundamentally positive take on the State, whereas the Bible has a fundamentally negative judgment against the State. In the Bible, the State is demonic.

1. Transformation?
2. When?
3. How?

Horton opposes "transformation." He does not want Christians working to transform a secular nation into a Christian nation. He seems to say that transformation will occur at Christ's yet-future second coming, but I think upon closer examination this turns out to be elimination rather than transformation. In other words, Horton looks forward to heaven as a place where nobody will be talking about politics at all.

Should we be working right now, in 2016, to transform culture? Or should we just wait for the second coming.  If now, "how should we then live?"

America once saw itself as aspiring to be a "City [of God] upon a hill." It sought its moral standard and spiritual energy from heaven, not "the world." Few would argue that this once-glorious and admirable "City upon a hill" has been transformed into a Satanic City of Man. The U.S. is now the enemy of God and Christ. Why is cultural transformation only to be a one-way (downward) street?

Horton says we should not ask how the world can best be saved. Why not? Isn't Jesus the savior of the world?

John 4:42
Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”

1 John 4:14
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

John 3:17
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Isaiah 45:22
“Look to Me, and be saved,
All you ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.

1 Chronicles 16:23
Sing to the Lord, all the earth; Proclaim the good news of His salvation from day to day.

Psalm 65:5
By awesome deeds in righteousness You will answer us, O God of our salvation, You who are the confidence of all the ends of the earth, And of the far-off seas;

Psalm 67:2
That Your way may be known on earth, Your salvation among all nations.

Psalm 74:12
For God is my King from of old, Working salvation in the midst of the earth.

Psalm 98:3
He has remembered His mercy and His faithfulness to the house of Israel; All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.

Isaiah 45:8
“Rain down, you heavens, from above, And let the skies pour down righteousness; Let the earth open, let them bring forth salvation, And let righteousness spring up together. I, the Lord, have created it.

Isaiah 49:6
Indeed He says, ‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

Isaiah 49:8
Thus says the Lord: “In an acceptable time I have heard You, And in the day of salvation I have helped You; I will preserve You and give You As a covenant to the people, To restore the earth, To cause them to inherit the desolate heritages;

Isaiah 51:6
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, And look on the earth beneath. For the heavens will vanish away like smoke, The earth will grow old like a garment, And those who dwell in it will die in like manner; But My salvation will be forever, And My righteousness will not be abolished.

Isaiah 52:10
The Lord has made bare His holy arm In the eyes of all the nations; And all the ends of the earth shall see The salvation of our God.

Acts 13:47
For so the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

2 Corinthians 5:19
that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

1 Timothy 4:10
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

When the Lord spoke to Isaiah and the prophets, that He would save the whole world, was He announcing a doctrine of "universalism," that every individual would go to heaven when he died? Even universalists would say no -- provided they understand the prophetic meaning of the concept of "salvation." That is, even if eternal paradise after death has been granted universally to all individuals, that's not what the prophets were talking about when they foretold the "salvation" of the entire world.

In the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, "salvation" means what economist Murray N. Rothbard described as "anarcho-capitalism" -- a vibrant global network of commerce liberated from the "strife," "war," and coercive regulatory "domination" of the City of Man. The economics of the New Jerusalem rather than the Old Babylon.

Contrary to Horton, Christians best "serve" the world by helping to "save" it. For "serve" see here. For "save" see here. "Save the world" does not mean "preserve the world in a state of rebellion against the City of God." It means convert the world into the City of God.

Horton elsewhere modifies the second half of the sentence:

true righteousness before God and civil righteousness before fellow humans.

This is frustratingly vague. What is Horton getting at? There's a lot of content in that little word "before." It will take an hour to unpack the theological slogans behind that little word. It will take me 15 minutes just to summarize the issues, and I'll give you a couple of links that will take another 45 minutes to read. Or, you can click here and just skip to the next sentence in Horton's article and we'll continue down that path.

When Horton uses the word "before" in the same sentence as "Luther" and "righteousness," you can bet Horton is poo-pooing works. He's talking about "Justification by faith" rather than "justification by works." And what he means by "justification by faith" is "justification by mere belief alone."

Justification by Allegiance

The Bible seems to contradict itself. Consider this apparent contradiction:

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

I said at the very beginning of this webpage that "allegiance" and "citizenship" are key issues. Are you a "citizen" of heaven (The "City of God") or are you a citizen of your own city, or the city of the Republican Party, or the city of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, or the city of the sexual revolution -- in short, the "City of Man." Where is your allegiance? Whom do you serve?  God or Self? Theonomy or Autonomy?

Luther called the epistle of James "an epistle of straw." The letter (especially chapter 2) called into question Luther's view of justification by mere belief. James says God does not impute the righteousness of Christ to your account unless your loyalty is to the City of God. Jesus says the "sheep" obey the King and do "works of mercy"  (Matthew 25:31-46), while the "goats" have faith in themselves and their profession of faith, or in their ecclesiastical works for "the church" (Matthew 7:21-23; 13-19; 24-29).

True faith -- justifying faith -- means tearing down the City of Man by works of righteousness (a word which can also be translated "justice," but which means obedience to God's commands, not the commands, traditions, or memes of man).

Luther (and Horton, I suspect) and theologians like him try to evade the works-doctrine of James by saying that James is not talking about true righteousness "before" God, but practical works "before" your fellow men. As Calvin says:

That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists [the Romanists], we must take notice of the two-fold meaning of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, Show me thy faith, etc.
Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, 314ff.

Horton is bringing this whole dispute into his "two kingdoms" article in the second half of the sentence we're now looking at:

true righteousness before God and civil righteousness before fellow humans.

I think we can speak of three levels of "works,"

1. Ecclesiastical "works" and liturgies.
When the Roman Catholic Church questioned Luther's doctrine of "justification by faith alone" and defended justification by works, they were often talking about works that benefited the church directly. Tetzel sold "indulgences" for donations to the church. Attending mass, lighting candles and incense, and the performance of other rituals which are not commanded in the Bible were said to have justifying effect. Luther said no. Good for Luther.

2. Works of Mercy
These are the works James is talking about (read the context from 1:27 - 2:15).  In Matthew 25, Jesus said the sheep performed valuable services to those in need, investing their own time and money, while the goats said "I gave at the office."
       • I was hungry and you gave Me food;
       • I was thirsty and you gave Me drink;
       • I was a stranger and you took Me in;
       • I was naked and you clothed Me;
       • I was sick and you visited Me;
       • I was in prison and you came to Me.'
We could add to that list,
       • "I was ignorant, and you invested a few hours of your time to educate me."
If the Body of Christ would obey these commands, a major leg of the State would be cut off: "The Welfare State." Today's church-goers give about 25% of the minimal "tithe" required of the hard-hearted in the Old Testament. If we gave even the minimum 10%, Christians in America could provide education and basic healthcare for all of the poor, leaving nothing for politicians to take credit for. And not just the poor in America, but all the poor of the earth. (American Christians have a lot of money, especially compared to non-Christians around the world.) Tithing would also produce an additional $70 Billion or so for other relief.

(Side note: Having disposed of the "welfare state," let's quickly dispose of the other two legs of the State stool: vengeance and "national security" ("The Warfare State").

• By "vengeance" I mean police and courts. The Church should be doing this. Some would say the Church should not carry out "capital punishment." Correct: nobody should. Nor should there be any penitentiaries (as if they actually create penitent inmates).
• The quest for "National Security" through "the State" is sinful. That's a longer discussion, obviously. (Since we're talking about the Epistle of James, don't forget James 4:1-4.)
• There is overlap between police (e.g., "war on drugs") and military (e.g., "war on terror"). Here are the tools of the "archist":
  • regulations
  • IRS audits
  • fines
  • eminent domain
  • civil asset forfeiture
  • imprisonment
  • capital punishment
  • conscription
  • military imperialism
  • torture
  • "the sword."
  • the Bomb -- "Mutual Assured Destruction"
  • and many others.

  This is what "archists" do. These are the techniques of the City of Man, but not the City of God.

So we've eliminated the need for the Welfare State, the Warfare State, and the Police State. Talk about "cultural transformation!" (At that point we would possibly need to "vote" for a group of politicians to clean up the debris of "The Administrative State" -- the bureaucrats who administer the Welfare/Warfare/Police State. I suppose somebody needs to "issue the pink slips" and "turn off the lights" in Washington D.C. [and every other capitol]. If everybody stopped voting entirely, all these political hacks would still show up for "work" and issue themselves paychecks by inflating the currency.)

3. Works of Cultural Transformation
We looked at this issue a little above. I think this is what Horton is talking about when he speaks of "civil righteousness before fellow humans." As it turns out (to answer many of the questions raised above), "works of mercy" are the primary way to transform culture.

Voting for politicians is usually not going to transform culture. Billions of dollars are spent every year on political campaigns and lobbying, with little ROI. "Pro-life" groups have solicited millions of dollars in donations, and urged election of Presidents who would "appoint pro-life judges," and they didn't, and the money was wasted. If that money had been used since 1973 to help women who are pregnant, educate the poor, and assimilate the stranger, tens of millions of dead babies would be alive and voting today.

. . . or else there would be vastly fewer opportunities to "vote," because society no longer expects solutions to come from politicians. Too many people think they are engaging in "cultural transformation" when they vote against Bad Candidate A by casting a vote for Bad Candidate B. #NeverEitherOne  Culture is only transformed when individual people -- hearts and minds -- are transformed. Most such transformation has been effected by public schools and the Mainstream Media. Cultural transformation is primarily discipleship of individuals.

"Cultural transformation" in practice, and even at its best, means re-transforming. It means undoing the transformation of a Christian nation into a homosexual atheist nation. The transformation of a virtuous nation into an immoral nation is (almost by definition) accomplished by unethical means. They had to lie to do it -- in the "oath of office."
       • Marxist politicians and judges had to lie about their commitment to the Constitution.
       • Apostate clergymen had to lie about their commitment to historic church standards.
       • Change-agent educators had to lie about their intentions for their students.
This is how the City of Man captured the robes of the City of God. Lying and subversion are not paths for a truly Christian transformationalist. Our job is to build, not merely subvert.

The Church in the Old Testament was primarily defensive. Touch the unclean thing, and you become unclean. So true faith in the Old Covenant is often defensive "civil righteousness":

Hebrews 11:33
³² And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: ³³ who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, ³⁴ quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. ³⁵ Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. ³⁶ Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. ³⁷ They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented— ³⁸ of whom the world was not worthy.

In the New Testament, when the Body of Christ touches the unclean, the unclean are cleansed.  This is an example of the basis for our optimism concerning our works of civil righteousness. We have the power that goes out and heals society.

Having seen three kinds of "works," let's focus on Horton's concern about "civil righteousness before fellow humans."

Matthew 6:33 says "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

The Greek word translated "righteousness" is often translated "justice" in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the "Septuagint," from which the writers of the New Testament most frequently quoted). But the word certainly means what Horton calls "civil righteousness." For a clear example, see Isaiah 1:21-27

21 How the faithful city has become a harlot!
It was full of justice;
Righteousness lodged in it,
But now murderers.

The opposite of justice/righteousness is murder: in our day, abortion and military invasions of foreign nations.

22 Your silver has become dross,
Your wine mixed with water.

The opposite of just and righteous money is inflation and debased currency.
(Most U.S. public school graduates do not know what the term "debased currency" means.)
Not just the act of currency debasement, but the ends to which the fraudulent money is put, makes the U.S. an extraordinarily unrighteous nation.

23 Your princes are rebellious,
And companions of thieves;
Everyone loves bribes,
And follows after rewards.

Millions of dollars are paid by lobbyists, in the hopes of receiving billions from the government in return. Politics is an auction of anticipated stolen goods, as Mencken trenchently phrased it..

They do not defend the fatherless,
Nor does the cause of the widow come before them. (cf. James 1:27)
24 Therefore the Lord says,
The Lord of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel,
“Ah, I will rid Myself of My adversaries,
And take vengeance on My enemies.
25 I will turn My hand against you,
And thoroughly purge away your dross,
And take away all your alloy.
26 I will restore your judges as at the first,
And your counselors as at the beginning.
Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.”
27 Zion shall be redeemed with justice,
And her penitents with righteousness.

The Apostate City of Man is transformed into the Faithful City of God. In this case, "cultural transformation" takes place after destruction by foreign military invasion. Maybe from ISIS or China. A nuke from North Korea. The assumption is that this would humble a proud nation, and we would see repentance. An unrepentant nation would simply fight back (vengeance), and mutual destruction would be the result.

The Bible is mostly about "civil righteousness," and only in passing does it deal with what happens after you die.

The "real meaning of Christmas" is "civil righteousness." Here again is the word "righteousness" from Matthew 6:33

Isaiah 9:6-7
⁶ For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
⁷ Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and righteousness/justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 11
There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse,
And a Branch shall grow out of his roots.
² The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him,
The Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The Spirit of counsel and might,
The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord.
³ His delight is in the fear of the Lord,
And He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes,
Nor decide by the hearing of His ears;
⁴ But with righteousness He shall judge the poor,
And decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked.
⁵ Righteousness/justice shall be the belt of His loins,
And faithfulness the belt of His waist.

We see "civil righteousness" in Luke 1, concerning the newborn Messiah:

John the Baptist's father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:

A lengthy digression, I suppose, occasioned by one sentence from Horton:

Like Augustine, Luther emphasized the distinction between “things heavenly” and “things earthly,” righteousness before God and righteousness before fellow humans.

Back to the "two kingdoms" article.

Why does Horton not agree with this? He's not a "Christian Reconstructionist," so he doesn't want the City of Man to feel obligated to follow God's Law in the pages of Scripture. Why does Horton not regard "the earthly city" as "simply evil and unworthy of Christian involvement."

Answer: Horton actually likes the Secular State. "Involvement" for Horton means "support" rather than "transformation." Horton thinks that on balance the Secular State makes a positive net contribution to society. "Austrian economists" have shown that the initiation of force (the quintessence of The State) is always a net loss to society, or a long-term loss.

Calvin and Luther got their view of the State from Ancient Rome, not the Bible. The Theonomic Anabaptists went back to the Bible.

• Book IV Chapter 20 Section 1 - analysis
• Book IV Chapter 20 Section 2 - analysis

On the other hand, Calvin was not as bad as Horton boasts that he was.

• Horton’s “contrived empire”: Calvin denied Christendom?

What does "natural order" mean? Why should any "natural" order be "affirmed?" It just is.
By distinguishing "the political means" from "the economic means," Franz Oppenheimer showed that the basic nature of the State ("the City of Man") is conquest. Is conquest "natural?" What is "natural" for fallen, unredeemed man?
 

among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
Ephesians 2:3
 

When I come up against the Law I want to do good, but in practice I do evil. My conscious mind whole-heartedly endorses the Law, yet I observe an entirely different principle at work in my nature. This is in continual conflict with my conscious attitude, and makes me an unwilling prisoner to the law of sin and death. In my mind I am God’s willing servant, but in my own nature I am bound fast, as I say, to the law of sin and death. It is an agonizing situation, and who on earth can set me free from the clutches of my sinful nature? I thank God there is a way out through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 7:21-25
 

An order based on "love of self" rather than "love of God" will be a sinful order.
What is meant by "ultimate" society? If there were no sin, would "the natural order" be able to create "an ultimate society?"

Don't blame sin for the "inability" of "the natural order" to "generate an ultimate society." The "natural order" -- assuming this is another vague verbal equivalent to "the City of Man" -- is itself sinful. It should not exist. It is sinful to be an "archist."

• Easter and Anarcho-Capitalism Man's Purpose
• Here is an "excursus" on Man's Purpose.
• Here is an "excursus" on God's People "building the City of God." (Some premillennialists really object to the idea that it is "our job" to build the City of God. They want God to do all the building and hand it to us on a silver platter.)
• Here is an "excursus" on how God's People (and unbelievers too) build the City of God without the central planning of John Calvin's City of Man: The Division of Labor and the Invisible Hand of Divine Providence.
• Each of those excursuses is important, but if you can only read one, read the first one ("Easter").

The Great Commission was given by "the Last Adam." It is a call to restore descendants of the First Adam to their original Edenic purpose. The Old Adam must die and be re-created in Christ, the New and Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22,45). Then the redeemed race can pursue the "Dominion Mandate." (As for the unredeemed -- those who refuse to submit to the King and vow their allegiance to Him -- "the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just" - Proverbs 13:22).

Thus both mandates belong to "the covenant of grace." That is, Christ re-establishes the Dominion Mandate through the Great Commission. The Great Commission is not solely about where you go when you die. As we saw above, the Great Commission is about creating a "Christian Taliban." It's about making students out of "nations," not just individuals, but not "nations" as in "political entities" or archist oligarchies, using the tools of the State to seize and maintain coercive control.

• #1 - In this age of common grace, God is trying to "preserve" something that is "destined to perish."
• #2 - In this era of common grace, God “sends rain on the just and on the unjust”

Now he says that the goal of common grace is not to "perfect nature" (make nature perfect). By "nature" is Horton talking about sending rain? Or is he talking about something he calls "the natural order?"

You don't have to know anything about "common grace" to make some deductions based upon what Horton says about it. We can deduce that Horton believes "perfecting nature" is not a good thing. "Restraining sin" is a good thing, as anyone who loves the City of God would agree. Could we say that "restraining sin" = "restraining the City of Man" with its love of self rather than love of God, and the resulting

• strife
• war
• and the desire to exercise domination over others?

Jesus says we are to "be perfect" (Matthew 5:48, etc.), so "common grace" must be opposed to the commands of Christ. (More on "perfectionism")

Does the City of Man Restrain Sin?

Horton says "the goal of common grace is ... to ... restrain sin . . . ."

What is "sin?"

The Bible says sin is the transgression of God's Law (1 John 3:4). The City of Man says that "sin" is the transgression of Man's law.

Does the City of Man also restrain transgression of God's Law, as well? There are two answers to this very important question.

1. Historically, NO.
2. Biblically, NO.

Historically, Franz Oppenheimer has shown that the origin of every outpost of the City of Man ("the polis," "the State") has been the desire to escape God's Law. "The State" was invented by rebels, not by the Godly. Rather than pursue purely "economic" means to increase one's wealth,

-- by working, and creating products or performing services which are valued by consumers, and for which consumer will voluntarily give you some of their wealth --

the founders of the City of Man seek to increase their wealth by the "political" means,

-- robbery, plunder, "taxation," conquest --

which are prohibited by God's Law: . As a result, there is an inherent conflict between the City of Man and the Law of God. If the City of Man should allow God's Law to be preached and propagated, it commits suicide. It will be replaced by the City of God.

We saw above that the State is propped up by three legs: "welfare," "warfare," and "police." We saw (very briefly) that every legitimate function of the State is required of Godly families, and as long as families (acting in a market freed of statist violence) are doing their duties, there is no need for the State. The State comes into existence either as an act of conquest, or as a temptation to disobedience. The State says to families, "Let us do your work for you. You can get something for nothing." The State encourages disobedience and dependence.

The State not only encourages slacking off on duties, but the State justifies violence. It teaches the lesson that might makes right. Instead of families engaging in obedient service and prophetic rebuke, they simply say, "There ought to be a law." That is, there ought to be government coercion and violence.

The State was created to avoid God's Law, and its continued existence depends on continued violations of God's Law. The stronger the Polis, the stronger is immorality. Name one city/state that has ever decreased violations of God's Law, much less resulted in an overall increase in Biblical morality in the long-run, say, over the course of an entire generation (c. 40 years). I don't think you can find an exception, but an exception would only prove the rule. In all of human history, The City of Man has never operated as a restraint on sin, but only as a justification for greater sin.

If someone were to kill the Godfather, you can bet that the Mafia would punish that someone with rapid vengeance. Does this mean that God ordained the Mafia to "restrain sin?" Does the existence of the Mafia in fact restrain or accelerate sin?

The goal of "the State" is total monopoly power that can allow a local Mafia to exist only at the pleasure of The State. The goal is the reverse of Revelation 11:15

“The Mafias of this world have become the kingdoms of the City of Man and of the Emperor, and the Polis shall reign forever and ever!”

Horton might reply by conceding that throughout human history, sin actually increased while the State was on duty, but that if the State had not existed, sin would have increased even more. We might be getting far afield here, but let's consider this hypothetical for just a couple of sentences.

Under what circumstances would the State have gone out of existence?

• Horton might like to imagine Captain Kirk on the Starship Enterprise beaming the entire state -- lock, stock, and barrel -- several parsecs away in the Deltoid Galaxy, and then watch the ensuing chaos.
• But historically speaking, a society does not reduce the State unless there is a revival of moral rectitude which results in a greater respect for life, a greater repulsion against theft and vengeance, and a greater desire for personal responsibility. The State comes into existence when people want to steal instead of work, and take vengeance instead of forgive. The State goes out of existence when people want to educate their own children, work instead of receive welfare, and don't want to bomb weaker nations "back to the stone age."
• Ron Paul had a sign on his Congressional desk that said
              "Thou Shalt Not Steal: The State Hates Competition."
  The State also hates being the victim of theft. But if the State's lawless competitors become powerful enough to abolish the State so that they can steal more than the out-going State stole, then sin increases, and Horton will say "See? The State was restraining sin." But the State was also modeling sin; it restrained competitive sin only to preserve its own monopoly on sin, and was the cause of a new and more powerful State being born, thus increasing sin.
• Thus there are two ways to abolish the State. One results in less sin, the other results in a more sinful and more powerful State. Discussion here.

That's history. The State is leaven. The State is cancer. The State is sin.

Does the Bible tell us that God "ordained" the State in order to "restrain sin?" Does the State have a salutary effect on society? Is it gracious of God to raise up the State?

No. From cover to cover, the Bible says the State is a curse upon disobedience. It is evil. The evil acts of the State are God's "deacons," in that they "serve" God's purposes. But it is often God's purposes of judgment to increase evil, and the State does this blindfolded with one arm tied behind its back.

The State is not evidence of God's "common grace," but of God's wrath. This is really obvious. Read the Bible verses collected here. Nowhere in the Bible does God recommend that human beings form "the State." When they do so, they are rebuked and cursed by God. Nowhere in the Bible does God say, "I'm glad you finally obeyed my command to form a State. Your State will do a better job of being king, lawmaker, judge, and deliverer than I've been doing."

In summary: The State does not "restrain sin." The very existence of the City of Man is itself sinful. It needs "The People" to be sinful in order to perpetuate itself. In order to become more powerful, the State needs "the People" to become more rebellious against God's Law. Godly obedience always opposes theft and vengeance, and works to reduce the power of the State, and the State never wants this, so it eventually fights Godly obedience to the death.

"Civic" Virtues

Horton says "the goal of common grace is ... to ... animate civic virtues and arts...."
"Animate" can mean "give life to" or "give rise to," but Horton seems to say it must not animate virtues perfectly. So the goal is imperfect virtue, which, from Satan's perspective is imperfect immorality, but maybe that's good enough for Satan.

But what exactly is a "civic" virtue? The word "civic" is defined as "of or relating to a city," and comes from the Latin, civis, "citizen." Augustine's book is called De Civitate Dei, "On the City of God" (Civitas Dei). The first words of the City of God are ‘gloriosissimam civitatem Dei,’ ‘the glorious city of God.’

The "civic" "virtues" of the City of Man are tyrannical. Lofton reminds us,

Aristotle and Plato incorporated into their ideal codes the command that a deformed baby son was to be put to death. And in his “Laws,” Plato says (and this sounds very familiar today): “Parents ought not to be free to send or not to send their children to the masters to whom the city has chosen [for their education]; for the children belong less to their parents than to the city.” And in ancient Athens, a man could be put on trial and convicted for something called “incivism,” that is being insufficiently affectionate toward the Civitas (The State, the City of Man)! Coulanges says (emphasis mine):

The ancients, therefore, knew neither liberty in private life, liberty in education, nor religious liberty. The human person counted for very little against that holy and almost divine authority called the country or the State…. It is a singular error, among all human errors, to believe that in the ancient cities men enjoyed liberty. They had not even the idea of it. They did not believe that there could exist any right as against the city [of Man] and its gods.

"Civic" virtues? But there are two cities involved here. Is "the goal of common grace" to animate

• the city-related virtues of the City of God (love of God, fellowship, communion)
• or the city-related virtues of the City of Man (love of self, strife, war, and archism)?

The logic of Horton's article leads to the conclusion that "the goal of common grace" is actually to animate the "civic" virtues of the City of Man. But why on earth would that be a good thing? Why would that be a "gracious" thing ("common" or otherwise) for God to do?

The City of Man is best symbolized by the Tower of Babel, the civic egg from which Babylon was hatched. Isn't the goal of the Christian to put the old city to death? Why would we want Babylon re-animated?

We're now ready for the second half of that convoluted sentence. So let's read it again:

• strife
• war
• and the desire to exercise domination over others

I see little "grace" in anything that promotes these goals.

"Secular" Ends

Is the goal of "common grace" to secularize society? Nothing gracious about that, unless you liked the Soviet Union. A "secular" culture is a culture that arises by defying God by ignoring God.

The secular is at war with redemption. How does God in His "common" grace levy war against "the redemptive aims of His everlasting city" by helping the Empire of Man fulfill its "secular ends?"

I hate to say this, but Calvin was a murderous fascist. I have done a lot of research, and I'm (slowly but surely) posting it here. I consider myself a "Five-Point Calvinist," and I agree with Calvin's criticisms of Roman Catholic theology, but on "civic" issues, Calvin was left behind in the dust of the Anabaptists. Calvin was an opponent of Roman Catholic theology, but not Roman Catholic political theory. The Anabaptists were opponents of both.

Lots of people were called "Anabaptists" by Calvin and by others in Calvin's day,  Being an "anabaptist" was a capital crime throughout Europe, so if you wanted one of your enemies out of the way, you didn't have to pay for a hired contract killer, you could just tell the king that your opponent was an "anabaptist," and he would be out of your way, courtesy of the City of Man.

But key "anabaptists" were champions of God's Law and opponents of Man's Law, because Man's law leads to

• strife
• war
• and the desire to exercise domination over others

Tragically, Calvin (and the "magisterial reformers") upheld the laws and "civic virtues" of the City of Man, in particular the ancient city of Rome, over against the laws and virtues of the City of God, which were being promoted by the "radical reformers." See here.

So if you read Horton's first sentence carefully, he says that Calvin opposed the "theonomic" Anabaptists who said a commonwealth ("secular" government) must follow God's Law. Calvin said it was OK to "abrogate" God's Laws, and replace them with Man's "new laws," because Man's new laws are "perfectly adapted to maintain the observance of God's law" (even though observing God's law is a radical goal that Calvin called "utterly vain"). This is because the Law of God is nothing -- just the projection of the old man's conscience. We do not need to mortify the old man, we need to vote for him!

All of this is ambiguous at best, Satanic at worst.

Contrary to Horton, Paul does not say (in Romans 13) that unbelievers "can rule justly and prudently." By calling them "the powers," Paul says they are demonic. In Romans 12, Paul says we are not to "resist" evil (e.g., with muskets and cannons), but are to overcome evil with good, even ... (turn the page to Romans 13) the most evil entity on the planet: the Empire of Man.

We are to overcome evil (the "civic virtues" of the City of Man) with good (the civic virtues of the City of God).

"Natural law" is a doctrine of the City of Man, not the City of God.

The word "theocracy" is a boogeyman. It generates more emotion than wisdom. It literally means "God's Rule" or "God's government." Theocracy is an inescapable concept. Whoever makes the laws in a society is the "god" of that society. The question is never "Will our society be a theocracy," but rather "Who will be god in our theocracy?"

The word "theocracy" comes from two Greek words:

•  theos = God
• "-cracy" is from kratia (noun) or kratein (verb) which come from the Greek word κράτος [kratos], power.  The verb [Strong's G2902] means to seize and to hold. Politically it means to issue your decree (will) and make it stick (enforce).

The "Sinai theocracy" had hit hard times when Jesus was born. Israel was no longer an independent nation. The Roman Empire had violently seized Israel and was holding on to it ("kracy"). But Israel herself (in her leaders) had abandoned "the Sinai theocracy" by substituting their own rabbinic traditions and rules for "the Law [torah] and the Prophets" of the Scriptures.

Jesus revived Theocracy, but not as His unbelieving, faithless contemporaries had hoped. When Jesus arrived, He arrived as the Christ. (He is the Christ today. Horton says Jesus will not reign as Theocratic Ruler until He comes again in our future.)

Just as Moses gave God's Law from the Mount, Jesus gave His Sermon on the Mount, and revived God's Law (Theo-cracy, God's rule):

Matthew 5:17-20
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Why must our righteousness (law-keeping) exceed that of the Pharisees? Because the Pharisees were citizens of the City of Man, and fierce opponents of the laws of the City of God.

It is one of the biggest anti-Theonomic myths that the Pharisees were pro-nomian. To the contrary, the religious leaders of Jesus' day were "hypocrites," as Jesus repeatedly said. Outwardly they postured as Theonomists, but they were actually committed to evading God's Law, not putting it into practice.

On the Jews as Christ's "enemies," see here.

The legalistic religious leaders were the enemies of God and the enemies of Theonomy and therefore the enemies of Theocracy (i.e., God's rule through God's Law-Word):

Matthew 5:17-20 is the beginning of the fulfillment of Micah's “Vine & Fig Tree” vision:

For from Zion will go forth the Law
Even the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Micah 4:2

Mark 7

⁵ Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

⁶ He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

         ‘This people honors Me with their lips,
         But their heart is far from Me.
         ⁷ And in vain they worship Me,
         Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

⁸ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

⁹ He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.¹⁰ For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ ¹¹ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), ¹² then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, ¹³ making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Theonomists are not Pharisees. Theonomists are "Bibliolators." They are the New Covenant believers Jeremiah and Ezekiel described.

So Jesus' "contemporaries" did not want the Sinai theocracy revived.
They wanted a theocracy based on their own legal traditions.
Would Moses himself have been disappointed with what Jesus did?

Moses handed down a blueprint for a Theocracy centered around a temple, blood atonement, and the Levitical priesthood.
Christ created a new Temple, with a new sacrificial lamb, and a new priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). But this was in reality what Moses was teaching in the Law he was given by God. This is what the Prophets were looking forward to.

You cannot escape Theocracy. You will either have the Theocracy of the City of God, or the theocracy of the City of Man, where Man is his own god.

But this is what Moses would have done. This is what the Prophets would have warned about. Judgment begins at the house of God. This is Christocracy in action. Jesus reigns as the Messiah-King.

"inserted into the heart of the secular city" is a metaphor. What exactly/specifically does it mean?

What happens if everyone in the "secular city" is converted? What if nobody does anything "secular," but everyone does everything -- everything -- parenting, commerce, art, education, recreation, resolution of disputes, eating and drinking -- EVERYTHING -- to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.  
1 Corinthians 10:31

In that day “HOLINESS TO THE LORD” shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the Lord’s house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
Zechariah 14:20

What if the few, lone, straggling unbelievers left in society, feeling the social pressure, never come "out of the closet," and pretend to be Christians and also do nothing "secular?"

"Bring freedom" is, of course, a deceptive code word for "protect campaign contributors' business assets in foreign nations and create jobs at home in the military-industrial complex at the same time." Another similarly deceptive code word is "spread democracy." No Theonomist supports this.

One does not need to employ the Marines to pursue "temporal freedom from injustice." But Jesus calls those who do nothing about injustice "goats."

Horton does believe that the City of God will someday be a Kingdom of "glory and power." Will it no longer be a Kingdom of Grace in that day?

The Bible does not agree with Horton.

"Salvation" is a peace treaty, a treaty of unconditional surrender. Citizens of the City of Man are commanded to renounce their allegiance to self and vow their allegiance to the City of God.

The City "that has foundations" (Horton quotes Hebrews 11:10) was established at Christ's first coming, with Christ as the cornerstone of that foundation. We are to be building upon that foundation today. Right now. Not waiting. The writer to the Hebrews said a few verses later:

²² But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, ²³ to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, ²⁴ to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

Already.

The "flow" and "stream" that Micah predicted has been happening for 2,000 years. The "New Jerusalem" is not a future event. The building of this City began in the past and continues in the present. Refusing to build this edifice is a sinful act of rebellion.

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. {16} So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
Revelation 3:15-16