Thread: Poll: WCF XXIII.3 / Belgic 36

A recent thread made me curious:

How many PBers hold to the original versions of the articles in the Title of this thread, and how many hold to modern revisions?

As far as the WCF, here is the original:

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

And here is a revision:

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;5 6 7 or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ has appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

I agree the original , hoever it only holds authority for orthodox believers and gives no warrant for any action by unbelievers, heretics and schismatics.

The revision is a humanistic not a religious document in this respect.

I find myself in the original article 36 of the Belgic Confession, but I don't agree with the interpretation offered above, i.e. that the magistrate has a responsibility to suppress heresy. My understanding is that the magistrate is called to protect the church and its ministry with the result that idolatry and false worship will be removed and prevented. I don't think the original BC envisions the magistrate directly suppressing heresy. The magistrate only subverts it by making room for the church and its ministry of Word and sacrament.

The revision is a novelty, and is symptomatic of larger problems in American Presbyterianism. The Confession is a system of doctrine, and to remove the duty of the magistrate to enforce all ten commandments is civil anti-nomianism. It is not a reformed position, but was originally propagated by some of the anabaptists; actually, more correctly, it was an ancient error of the Manichees, Donatists and others about the nature of the created order, and was revived by some of the anabaptists.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Guido's Brother

I find myself in the original article 36 of the Belgic Confession, but I don't agree with the interpretation offered above, i.e. that the magistrate has a responsibility to suppress heresy. My understanding is that the magistrate is called to protect the church and its ministry with the result that idolatry and false worship will be removed and prevented. I don't think the original BC envisions the magistrate directly suppressing heresy. The magistrate only subverts it by making room for the church and its ministry of Word and sacrament.

Yeah, the poll questions I guess were based on the WCF and not the Belgic; perhaps I should have chosen wording which would have fit both.

Sorry.

-----Added 12/19/2008 at 09:26:39 EST-----

(I am fairly surprised by the vote distribution so far. I don't really know what I was expecting, but I at least thought it would be split more evenly.)

I've always felt that if the revised version is better, then the civil government would have no business being concerned with the whole of God's Law. And while some would argue that their task is purely with moral and/or case Law, without the first table, such law is meaningless.

Theognome

I don't know.

I am committed to the American version, having subscribed as a minister in the OPC.

I hold to a revision...but then I'm a Baptist. I am assuming you want to limit responses to Presbyterians?

If we defend the historic presbyterian confessions because they were drawn up by the church as a whole rather than by schismatic factions (and I do know that this is arguable) I find it difficult to understand why a single denomination ammend that confession (especially when such a revision is grounded in culteral rather than theological concerns) and for such an ammended document to carry the same weight as the original.

Why not start ammending the Canons of the Council of Orange or the Nicene Creed?

Originally Posted by KMK

I hold to a revision...but then I'm a Baptist. I am assuming you want to limit responses to Presbyterians?

I tried thinking of a way to work Baptists in here, but in the end, I guess the answer pool would be pretty uniform...

Originally Posted by Prufrock

I tried thinking of a way to work Baptists in here, but in the end, I guess the answer pool would be pretty uniform...

Any exception to that would be pretty interesting and unusual. Historically, Baptists go even further than a face value reading of the American WCF revision, by advocating freedom of even non-Christian religious practice.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I am committed to the American version, having subscribed as a minister in the OPC.

Question about Bruce's answer above -- are there some OPC presbyteries where an exception taken to this revised WCF clause might be grounds for withholding ordination? (Reason I'm curious, in a previous theological forum I rubbed shoulders with brothers from the OPC who were solidly supportive of the original WCF.)

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I am committed to the American version, having subscribed as a minister in the OPC.

Rev. Buchanan,

Do you think that the revision on the Confession was completely carried out by the revisers? For instance, isn't the holy commonwealth idea, and the demand for the magistrate to countenance and maintain the true religion still taught in the OPC's Larger Catechism?

Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate; that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

Larger Catechism


I think this illustrates that fact that the revision of the Confession was not entire, and that the OPC seems to hold to a dare-I-say partially theonomic form of the Standards.

Cheers,

Adam

I hold to the original WCF, DPW, etc.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I am committed to the American version, having subscribed as a minister in the OPC.

Rev. Buchanan,
Do you think that the revision on the Confession was completely carried out by the revisers? For instance, isn't the holy commonwealth idea, and the demand for the magistrate to countenance and maintain the true religion still taught in the OPC's Larger Catechism?

Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate; that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

I think this illustrates that fact that the revision of the Confession was not entire, and that the OPC seems to hold to a dare-I-say partially theonomic form of the Standards.

I think that depends on what ideas are taken from the words "countenanced" and "maintained." The first term, certainly implies the permission of the church to be acknowledged unmolested "before the face" of the civil authority. I don't think it necessarily implies anything further.

The second term, "maintained," may have implied "state church" in the original era of the Confession, however, I do not think that was the common thought, the animus imponentis, of the American Adoption. "Competent maintenance" is an elastic concept that may take many forms, depending on the situation. I think we would be well off if the state simply provided peace at home and abroad, roads so that we could get to church easily, electricity to light and condition our buildings, or even just the environment where other private entities could provide many such things at market prices.

To say that "maintenance" of the church necessitates special public sanction or monies for one form of Christianity or all of them, or explicit civic acknowledgment of Christian order, is demanding too much of the language, absent that sort of pre-established cultural context. Why can't it mean the general social maintenance that the church says: "we're entitled to that too, and you should not persecute us, or deny us those rights or privileges enjoyed by other persons and entities"?

Does the church need exceptional "maintenance," special privilege, mandates through state organs? If it didn't need them in the first century to thrive, then its hasn't needed them any time since, however it may have benefited her. And whose to say that, in the main, it has? In other words, maybe those days weren't a net benefit to the church.


Here's what the revision says: "Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger."

That portion propounds the duty of the state to protect the right of the church to function. You can complain that it doesn't go far enough, that it backs off from a fuller statement of the truth (such as it may have had before), or that it allows too much freedom of expression. But it doesn't say anything substantially different from that one line in the WLC, imo.

The revision goes on to state a negative doctrine that the state should not harass Christians. The document simply refuses to tell the Magistrate how to do his job. It sticks to saying THAT it should do it's job in its sphere. And I think it assumes that God-fearing men of state will govern their public conduct according to the moral standards of the Christian faith.

It think it does good, that our Confession sticks to defining and detailing Church doctrine and practice, and individual Christian practice, within that sphere.

The original WCF was written in a different context, where it was just normal for the church to tell the state what to do, and the state to tell the church what to do; and the result was that more often than not the state controlled the church militant.

It's just my opinion, but I think that the original formulation of the WCF is overly positive in its declarations regarding the state, although I do not think that for its own day, it was that way in the least. The way things were was assumed to be the way things ought to be under all circumstances, and the original WCF chapter on the Civil Magistrate reflects that thinking.

Interesting thoughts, Bruce. Thank you. This is still an open area for me in the confession, and I'll be glad to hear from both sides.

animus imponentis,

like that term, will look for an opportunity to use it.

The animus imponentis of the American colonists, derived from their English counterparts was, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Larger Catechism and the Civil Magistrate

Excellent research as always, Andrew.

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

Question about Bruce's answer above -- are there some OPC presbyteries where an exception taken to this revised WCF clause might be grounds for withholding ordination?

When I was received into my current OP Presbytery of the Northwest, I took exception to the American/OP form of XXIII:3 and affirmed the original instead. I can’t imagine anyone being rejected for this reason as the OPC has fraternal relations with the RPCNA, RPCI, FCoS, and FCoS-C, all of which affirm the original. I believe a major shift in theology of the civil magistrate took place from 1647 to 1787, which would be worth detailed study.

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 09:30:42 EST-----

John Calvin, in the preface to his Institutes of the Christian Religion, instructed King Francis I of France regarding the legitimate authority and obligation of a ruler:

“The characteristic of a true sovereign is, to acknowledge that, in the administration of his kingdom, he is a minister of God. He who does not make his reign subservient to the divine glory, acts the part not of a king, but a robber. He, moreover, deceives himself who anticipates long prosperity to any kingdom which is not ruled by the scepter of God, that is, by his divine word. For the heavenly oracle is infallible which has declared, that ‘where there is no vision the people perish’” (Prov. 29:18).

Calvin, commenting on Exodus 32:29 said, "Let us also learn that nothing is less consistent than to punish heavily the crimes whereby mortals are injured, whilst we connive at the impious errors or sacrilegious modes of worship whereby the majesty of God is violated."

Where is the civil magistrate exempted from his duty to punish public violations of the First Table of God’s Law?

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

The second term, "maintained," may have implied "state church" in the original era of the Confession, however, I do not think that was the common thought, the animus imponentis, of the American Adoption.

First, all 13 original States in 1788 had official established religions. New Jersey was Presbyterian, Virginia was Episcopal, Mass. was Congregationalist, etc. Therefore, your assertion about the American Adoption being contrary to a state church is very weak. In fact, the point of the revision is the same as the Constitution's prohibition that Congress establish any particular form of ecclesiastical government, as this was the duty of the states; a duty they had all previously fulfilled. Thus, the animus imponentis, if we care to look at a revision in this light, requires a state church model to be considered as the most likely referent. Further, a nursing father to the church (which is what the revision calls the magistrate) does not signify bare recognition. What sort of father merely recognizes his children? Does he not nurish, defend at the hazard of his own life, provide for, correct and direct his children? Why should the 1788's amendment imply anything less?

Second, there is the question of the legitimacy of later amendments to the Confession. Our Confession is a system of doctrine derived from Scripture. Therefore, if we take one part away, it is no longer a system. This "Westminster Confession to Me" attitude is, I believe, directly responsible for later departures from the Confession's teaching. If we remove one plank from the Confessional Ship, we will soon sink the vessel. Later generations wanted the "Westminster Confession to Me" to teach universal atonement, or to soften depravity, or to exclude inerrancy, or whatever. I don't think you would agree with any of these latter points, but I think the revisions opened the door to this sort of non-systemic approach to the Confession.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

To say that "maintenance" of the church necessitates special public sanction or monies for one form of Christianity or all of them, or explicit civic acknowledgment of Christian order, is demanding too much of the language, absent that sort of pre-established cultural context. Why can't it mean the general social maintenance that the church says: "we're entitled to that too, and you should not persecute us, or deny us those rights or privileges enjoyed by other persons and entities"?

Again, a nursing father does more than just provide an environment that's a level playing field. He takes an active interest in the provision, defense, maintenance, correction, direction, etc. of his children. By the bye, on the fact that the Westminster Standards are a system, it is critical to note the treatment of 1 Timothy 2:1 - 2 in the Larger Catechism and in the original Confession. According to the System of Doctrine taught in the original Standards this passage can be used to prove the following two assertions:

1. that the magistrate:

has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.

2. that "Thy Kingdom come" includes praying that the Church of Christ may be:

countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate

Therefore, we may conclude that the System of Doctrine, before its desystematization, included Paul's injunction to pray for magistrate's conversion to explicitly Christian political philosphy. "Countenance and Maintain" in our System, mean "to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed". This has nothing to do with circumstances: it has to do with Scripture.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Does the church need exceptional "maintenance," special privilege, mandates through state organs? If it didn't need them in the first century to thrive, then its hasn't needed them any time since, however it may have benefited her. And whose to say that, in the main, it has? In other words, maybe those days weren't a net benefit to the church.

Again, our System of Doctrine doesn't really answer a pragmatic question such as this. The question is: "What is the Magistrate's Duty?" and "What do we pray for in the Second Petition?" If you think the biblical duties of magistrates or the contents of the Second Petition are an unworkable standard, or don't benefit the church, I believe you may be misled.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Here's what the revision says: "Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger."

That portion propounds the duty of the state to protect the right of the church to function. You can complain that it doesn't go far enough, that it backs off from a fuller statement of the truth (such as it may have had before), or that it allows too much freedom of expression. But it doesn't say anything substantially different from that one line in the WLC, imo.

Again, as stated above, its usage of 1 Timothy 2:1-2 is very different from the WLC. It is out of accord with the meaning of "countenance and maintain", or even of the words "nursing father".

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

The original WCF was written in a different context, where it was just normal for the church to tell the state what to do, and the state to tell the church what to do; and the result was that more often than not the state controlled the church militant.

It's just my opinion, but I think that the original formulation of the WCF is overly positive in its declarations regarding the state, although I do not think that for its own day, it was that way in the least. The way things were was assumed to be the way things ought to be under all circumstances, and the original WCF chapter on the Civil Magistrate reflects that thinking.

The Westminster Standards are not a product of man's historical context. They are the best summary of the Bible's teaching known to man. The revision's opinion was that of the Independents at the Assembly. Their party lost the debates, not because of the historical context, but because they were not biblical and Reformed ideas: they were anabaptist ideas. Let me repeat: The Westminster Standards are not the product of historical context, but of the Spirit of God's moving upon the minds of men to bring every thought captive to Jesus Christ. If this is not your opinion, why hold to the Standards?

Again, this line of argumentation would later be used to toss out the old relic of total depravity, which the historical context of the Westminster Assembly made it think was true, etc. The removing of one part of the System, makes it no longer a System.

Cheers,

Adam

I don't believe it is a weak position at all. My rejoinder would be: There were different 'state' churches, and Presbyterians establishing a national church from all over. The preponderance were from PA and NJ, which were states (and previously colonies) with the greatest degree of religious freedom, and no establishment. THAT was their experience, and the new church needed to reflect the diversity of state situations.

Not all the facts you marshal are accurate, for example, New Jersey never had a 'state church' of any kind, due to the fact there was no dominant church in the state. This is quite clear from their 1776 Constitution, although NJ and PA did restrict voting and officeholding to "Protestants" (as did many other states).

The authors of the New Jersey Constitution moved to protect that to which they were accustomed. They provided for both liberty of conscience and the prohibition of an established church. Section 18 of the constitution stated that everyone would have "the estimible Priviliege of worshiping Almighty God" according to the "Dictates" of their "own Conscience." No one would be forced to attend a church "contrary" to their "own Faith or Judgment." Significantly, Catholics were no longer excluded; the provision overrode the Royal Instructions of 1702 and extended toleration to Catholics as well.

In addition to insisting on the freedom to worship as they wished, New Jersey residents refused to support the establishment of a state church. Indeed the constitution clearly stated that no one would "ever be obliged to pay Tithes, Taxes, or any other Rates" to build or maintain a church or support a minister, except voluntarily. This was immediately followed by section 19, stating: "That there shall be no Establishment of any one religious Sect in the Province in Preference to another."

{from New Jersey in the American Revolution, pp41-42.}

So, clearly, 1) the definition of 'state church' is itself susceptible to a range of interpretation--from the clear establishments of Anglicans and Congrgationalists to varying levels of toleration for Romanists, Quakers, and other bodies;

and 2) the states where Presbyterianism was strongest (PA and NJ) had noteworthy non-establishment histories, and places like NY and VA had landmark legal cases in BOTH (!) Colonies that sought legal protections for dissident Presbyterians. Talk about a heritage of toleration--the Presbyterians were fighting for it or finding a "free space" for themselves from the beginning.

So, no, I don't think I am even close to being shown I am in error about the animus imponentis of the Adoption, and this attitude is reflected in the changes that the adopters DID make.

Thus, the animus imponentis,

the animus imponentis of the Adoption

I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the fact we have finally gotten this phrase, "animus imponentis" off the shelf and back into good usage again.

Not only are both your arguments cogent and interesting, but using terms in this kind of back-and-forth greatly helps expand one's vocabulary.

On to other points:
The attitude that the WCF in its original configuration is SO perfect, and SO free of any cultural assumptions, that it can never bear improvement, is borderline idolatrous. There is a BIG difference in trying to make Confessional adjustments to situational developments within biblical-authority constraints, and the wholesale capitulation of the Confession to the "spirit of the age." If we cannot justify the former under any circumstances, then we should probably ditch the Reformation as well.

Saying that: dismantling Soteriological doctrines is on par with making new statements about the relationship of the church to the state, is a denial that there are different levels of doctrinal importance. How important is it that a Kingdom "not of this world" be precise in how it counsels kingdoms that ARE of this world, in their various forms? It should stick to Confessing on general principles, and sometimes may find that it Confessed too much.

Contrary to the claim that the WCF is so "precisely engineered" that shaving off paint from one fender will make the thing "unfit for the road," I have a better analogy.

Adjustments to the WCF are like proposals to re-engineer a car model. There are good and bad ways of doing this. There are ways to change what is in the cabin, or under the hood that do NOT fundamentally change the vehicle. Even the body-style can be changed on cars in subtle ways that do NOT change the vehicle.

Of course, there will always be that "classic-car-guy" that HATES the company for changing the bolts on the carburetor cowling from flat-hex to slot-hex; or for adopting fuel injection--differences minor and major. As far as he is concerned, the car is "ruined", that system has been irreparably harmed. Well, he's right and he's wrong. It is a "different" vehicle, and it is the "same" vehicle. If a major piece that made that car a beautifully balanced machine was the 8 cylinder engine, and they just turned it into a 6-cylinder car, with little or no adjustments, and now it drives horribly? Then they did ruin it.

But if they went to a 6-, with increased compression, and it made the car more agile, quicker, increased torque, etc, then let the purist buff and wax his classic car. Fine, just don't insult the owners of the upgrade by telling them their 99.5% same car is "not the real thing."

They can both agree that the big dealership down the street, that has been turning out "specially modified" editions of their car--that significantly degrade performance and appeal to know-nothings--has damaged the car, and hurt its reputation.

So, no, I'm not in agreement that making of any, single "under-the-hood" adjustment to the WCF, by definition fundamentally alters an ideally-engineered Confession for the worse; i.e., throws the "system" out of whack.

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 10:04:46 EST-----

Continuing:
When you associate that prooftext (in the original WCF, and also in the LC), you are most assuredly correlating the teachings in their original settings. I wouldn't for a moment dispute that. However, it is just as clear that the teaching of the LC doesn't stand or fall, only in tandem with the original WCF23.3 at that point.

Imagine! saying that the truth propounded by the simpler statement (of the catechism) was dependent on the rather fulsome expansion on the Scripture text that was found in 23.3. That is completely backwards. How could the church even function in a persecuted situation, if she couldn't simply preach the state's simple moral obligation to treat her with equity? If she was morally obligated to command her preferential treatment?

This gets back to the idea that there are sub-systems that are central, and there are integrated systems that are dispensable, or adjustable to the main function of the system. How can we promote a WCF church in lands where the state is indifferent (to the point of negligence) or antagonistic to the church, when the church CONFESSES her detailed expectations for the STATE?

Here's the VITAL thing: CONFESSIONS don't have to speak to EVERYTHING; they don't have to be THAT comprehensive! Its as simple as that. The history of church thought and teaching on matters related to statecraft does not have a happy trajectory. It begins to decline no later than Gelasius in the 5th century, with his "two-swords" doctrine. It is developed in the middle ages until the "Unam Sanctam" bull of Boniface VIII, in 1302, where he places the State in total service to the church.

Not that things ever take that shape, because small gains aside, the trend is totally in the opposite direction. IOW, as the church increases it demands, the World-System pushes back more and more vigorously, and makes the church its vassal.

Better that the church concentrate on making Christians, who can then go on to make Christian contributions to statecraft. The church need not CONFESS its dependence for maintenance upon the state. In fact, it ought to CONFESS its natural independence from such reliance, and stick to telling the state to do its own diligence in attending to the counsel the Word will give it, if it desires a healthy estate.

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 10:36:36 EST-----

Your argument that the LC statement demands a reading consistent with the original 23.3 is purely contingent... on 23.3 original still being in place. IOW, you are saying that the language is incomprehensible apart from 23.3 original. This is completely erroneous. LC 191 can be understood in association with the rewritten 23, and I've demonstrated how that is so. Saying "it can't" begs the question in your favor.

Saying that the original WCF was basically the "perfect" system, incapable of improvement is like saying they should have quit making Corvettes in 1954, or still be making the 1953 model. It isn't an ideal analogy, but it makes my point. We aren't even talking about making that level of change to our document. Or maybe you think it does.

Even if I accepted the wholesale argument that the American WCF is basically a total revision on Independency principles, all by itself that says nothing about preference for what we now have--whether it is biblical or not. I think your arguments that the changes allowed led to later adjustments on deeper matters of doctrine is a post hoc fallacy.

While I disagree vehemently with those who use the "compromise document" thesis to defend all manner of revision and reinterpretation of the WCF, one cannot simply dismiss the reality that it WAS a product of a cultural and political and historic setting. The amazing thing is just how good a document it is! even given those human realities

Saying (as it seems you are) that basically the WCF is quasi-inspired (Spirit-overseen construction) is not a position I am willing to take. I did not take an oath to the "biblicalness" of the original. If I had, I suppose I would have to defend it as long as I believed it, or offer scruples if I had them, or depart that church to find one that confessed my mind biblically.

Fortunately, I don't have to. And equally, I think a person who prefers the original ought to be able (in most cases) to confess the basic American version. Just because it no longer CONFESSES the Pope is the Anti-Christ, doesn't mean the minister can't BELIEVE he is.

Likewise, just because the church doesn't CONFESS that the state should "maintain" the church in 17th century fashion, doesn't mean a minister cannot BELIEVE that it should, or hold opinions in favor of the theocratic (or theonomic) settlement.

Hooray for 1788...

....I am sure the Quakers appreciated it, too.


I'm sure Obadiah Holmes, dragged before the civil magistrate and whipped by Puritans of the Mass. Bay Colony for doing his baptistic ministerial duties would be appreciative of revisions to the WCF. The baptists and non-Puritans in some parts of New England had it rough when the persecuted Puritans became the persecutors.

Also, considering that some early colonies only permitted suffrage to the members of "their" church, I am glad that the incomplete reformation that happened in Europe, (whereby “cuius regio eius religio,” stating that whoever’s region it was, that also was the religion, the political powers fixing religion) was not carried over to our shores.

Missions is stunted when the church and state sleep together, and the Moravians were the first Protestants to go forth, not under a colonializing banner, but as servants, and we admire their courage even today. The modern missions movement happened due to the doctrines of the reformation freed from overly "reformed" ecclesiology, volunteerism being key in its rise and success overseas.

When church and state march together it is hard for servants of the Gospel not to look like agents of the State. The evangelization of the world among increasingly hostile powers like Islam will not be done by theocrats, but by those willing to be persecuted and vulnerable and out of power because they are seeking a better country.

I support the original wording. Of course some of the baptists persecuted under such provisions had other issues as well. And some of those persecuted wrongly do not reflect upon the confession, but upon the persecutors.

They were not persecuted "wrongly" from the WCF perspective. They were persecuted in perfect consistancy with the original wording...the baptists "errors" met with civil punishment, just like they should have according to the original sentiments of many.

-----Added 12/27/2008 at 06:50:42 EST-----

Originally Posted by Glenn Ferrell

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

Question about Bruce's answer above -- are there some OPC presbyteries where an exception taken to this revised WCF clause might be grounds for withholding ordination?

When I was received into my current OP Presbytery of the Northwest, I took exception to the American/OP form of XXIII:3 and affirmed the original instead. I can’t imagine anyone being rejected for this reason as the OPC has fraternal relations with the RPCNA, RPCI, FCoS, and FCoS-C, all of which affirm the original. I believe a major shift in theology of the civil magistrate took place from 1647 to 1787, which would be worth detailed study.

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 09:30:42 EST-----

John Calvin, in the preface to his Institutes of the Christian Religion, instructed King Francis I of France regarding the legitimate authority and obligation of a ruler:

“The characteristic of a true sovereign is, to acknowledge that, in the administration of his kingdom, he is a minister of God. He who does not make his reign subservient to the divine glory, acts the part not of a king, but a robber. He, moreover, deceives himself who anticipates long prosperity to any kingdom which is not ruled by the scepter of God, that is, by his divine word. For the heavenly oracle is infallible which has declared, that ‘where there is no vision the people perish’” (Prov. 29:18).

Calvin, commenting on Exodus 32:29 said, "Let us also learn that nothing is less consistent than to punish heavily the crimes whereby mortals are injured, whilst we connive at the impious errors or sacrilegious modes of worship whereby the majesty of God is violated."

Where is the civil magistrate exempted from his duty to punish public violations of the First Table of God’s Law?

A NOTE:

The RPCNA (Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America) actually REJECTS the original wording.

Here's the reference:

http://reformedpresbyterian.org/asse...titution04.pdf

Go to page A-73 (78).

Glenn attributes "original subscription" to the RPCNA, Pergamum corrects that the RPCNA explicitly "rejects the wording". Perhaps the RPCUS denomination was meant?

http://www.rpcus.com/content/RPCUS_W...Confession.pdf

Originally Posted by TsonMariytho

Glenn attributes "original subscription" to the RPCNA, Pergamum corrects that the RPCNA explicitly "rejects the wording". Perhaps the RPCUS denomination was meant?

http://www.rpcus.com/content/RPCUS_W...Confession.pdf

The RPCNA affirms the original 1646 WCF as well as a Testimony which rejects the portion of WCF 23.3 under consideration here. The Testimony has greater constitutional authority in the RPCNA than the WCF.

FWIW, my denomination, the Presbyterian Reformed Church, is one of those few today which adheres to the original 1646 WCF without revision or exception.

Ah, thanks for clarifying that. This question then becomes a little dizzying to me, because one must apparently dig into the publications of each respective denomination claiming to "affirm" the WCF, to see whether they were merely publishing the entire original document as a gesture of respect to the framers (while taking exception), or whether they truly affirmed all of the original text.

Virtually all theonomists would embrace the first original version, although agreeing with it does not make one a theonomist. The problem I personally see with the original is that there are various degrees of "heresies" and varying opinions as to what constitutes a heresy, and what happens to be merely a theological error. If you now have to leave it to the judgment of the monarch or the magistrate as to whether there is a heresy that he must oppose or an error that he may allow to pass, you are bound to be walking on thin ice.

I assume that the Westminster Divines were expecting the monarch to subscribe to the WCF and in so doing would not be labelling as "heresy" what is obviously taught in the confession, but unfortunately, it is impossible to fully differentiate heresy from error, even with the use of the WCF. Will any disagreement with the WCF constitute a heresy?

Moreover, the danger in having a state-church where only one denomination is allowed (namely Old-School Presbyterianism) is bound to back-fire on Christians. There needs to be some religious freedom granted by the state, at least in the sphere of Christendom or Christians will be found persecuting one another.

Finally, the fact that religious freedom in England was again suppressed later after the WCF was written, and that many who contributed to it found their own right to serve as pastors removed proves that it simply did not stand. Besides, what purpose is it to subscribe to such idealism that will never stand beyond a few decades of history? It is also the business of the church to fight and supress heresy, both at the pulpit and at synods, etc. If the church may not have the power of the sword to physically punish heretics, than why should she encourage the state to do it as if she would rather have hypocrites sitting on pews rather than heretics in prison? Although the confession does not state or mean that, this is unfortunately what did happen in practice.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I don't believe it is a weak position at all. My rejoinder would be: There were different 'state' churches, and Presbyterians establishing a national church from all over. The preponderance were from PA and NJ, which were states (and previously colonies) with the greatest degree of religious freedom, and no establishment. THAT was their experience, and the new church needed to reflect the diversity of state situations.

Not all the facts you marshal are accurate, for example, New Jersey never had a 'state church' of any kind, due to the fact there was no dominant church in the state. This is quite clear from their 1776 Constitution, although NJ and PA did restrict voting and officeholding to "Protestants" (as did many other states).

The authors of the New Jersey Constitution moved to protect that to which they were accustomed. They provided for both liberty of conscience and the prohibition of an established church. Section 18 of the constitution stated that everyone would have "the estimible Priviliege of worshiping Almighty God" according to the "Dictates" of their "own Conscience." No one would be forced to attend a church "contrary" to their "own Faith or Judgment." Significantly, Catholics were no longer excluded; the provision overrode the Royal Instructions of 1702 and extended toleration to Catholics as well.

In addition to insisting on the freedom to worship as they wished, New Jersey residents refused to support the establishment of a state church. Indeed the constitution clearly stated that no one would "ever be obliged to pay Tithes, Taxes, or any other Rates" to build or maintain a church or support a minister, except voluntarily. This was immediately followed by section 19, stating: "That there shall be no Establishment of any one religious Sect in the Province in Preference to another."

{from New Jersey in the American Revolution, pp41-42.}

So, clearly, 1) the definition of 'state church' is itself susceptible to a range of interpretation--from the clear establishments of Anglicans and Congrgationalists to varying levels of toleration for Romanists, Quakers, and other bodies;

and 2) the states where Presbyterianism was strongest (PA and NJ) had noteworthy non-establishment histories, and places like NY and VA had landmark legal cases in BOTH (!) Colonies that sought legal protections for dissident Presbyterians. Talk about a heritage of toleration--the Presbyterians were fighting for it or finding a "free space" for themselves from the beginning.

So, no, I don't think I am even close to being shown I am in error about the animus imponentis of the Adoption, and this attitude is reflected in the changes that the adopters DID make.

Rev. Buchanan,

I was in error about New Jersey; thank you for correcting me. I was going based off of my (faulty) memory, and rechecked my source to find that you were correct. The interpretation you have given to the facts is interesting, and I think I will have to grant your understanding of the situation, since I can't offer a suitable rebuttal. Perhaps some day when I'm all growed up

The conclusion of the Presbyterians may have likewise been out of reaction to their circumstances rather than as a matter of biblical and reformed conviction. In other words, just because they couldn't get their act together and establish a state church may have influenced their convictions, rather than their convictions influencing their practice.

Cheers,

Adam

Sam Waldron has an interesting section in "1689" concerning the revision of WCF 20:4 which says:

And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account,[16] and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate.[17]

Waldron says, "This deleted paragraph underscores the danger of 'perverse reactionsim' by dealing with the limits of Christian liberty," due to the Anabaptists of Munster and the Fifth Monarchy Men of England.

Thus the position by the original wording of the Westminster Confession has been rejected not only by the whole body of English Baptist and Congregationalist Churches, but also by the American Presbyterian Churches. This rejection of the wording of the original Westminster Confession should serve as a caution against 'throwing out the baby with the bath water' in dealing with the secular, liberal interpretation of the separation of church and state we confront today. The early English Baptists and Congregationalists taught, believed and suffered for a doctrine of the seperation of church and state. They rejected the idea that the state had the right to punish men for publicly teaching heresy. Those who advocate working for the removal of the tax-exempt status of liberal denominations, or who openly teach that the government ought to suppress the public teaching of heresy should find no welcome among the doctrinal descendants of such forefathers. Those attracted by such positions should know that they were deliberately and firmly rejected by Congregational and Baptist Puritans. pg. 255,256

Originally Posted by Pergamum

When church and state march together it is hard for servants of the Gospel not to look like agents of the State. The evangelization of the world among increasingly hostile powers like Islam will not be done by theocrats, but by those willing to be persecuted and vulnerable and out of power because they are seeking a better country.

False dichotomy after false dichotomy; when will you dislodge that pretzel

By the bye, contrary to false opinion, those that "seek a better country" includes those that do the following:

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.
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.

It's not just suffering by faith, it's also conquest by faith.

Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc. I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves. Judgment begins at the household of God, and if we are pluralists, what can we expect from everyone else?

Cheers,

Adam

What is Christendom?

-----Added 12/27/2008 at 05:00:31 EST-----

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Pergamum

When church and state march together it is hard for servants of the Gospel not to look like agents of the State. The evangelization of the world among increasingly hostile powers like Islam will not be done by theocrats, but by those willing to be persecuted and vulnerable and out of power because they are seeking a better country.

False dichotomy after false dichotomy; when will you dislodge that pretzel

By the bye, contrary to false opinion, those that "seek a better country" includes those that do the following:

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.
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.

It's not just suffering by faith, it's also conquest by faith.

Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc. I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves. Judgment begins at the household of God, and if we are pluralists, what can we expect from everyone else?

Cheers,

Adam

Ah, trying to romanticize those who would do violence in the name of Christ, heh? Looking back to the "good ol' days" of civil authorities using their power to enforce particulars sects?

I gues you agree with the whipping of Baptist Obadiah Holmes and the hanging of Quakers and other evils done by the Puritan Mass. Bay colony?

With the death of Christendom began the spread of the Gospel with unprecedented speed to the ends of the earth in voluntarism rather than in bed with the colonizing powers.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, "some of the Puritans are turning over in their graves."

How about those Baptists killed by the magisterial Reformers...are they turning in their graves too?

I find it troubling that the theology of some, if successful, would cause me to buy arms to defend myself as a Baptist.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

How about those Baptists killed by the magisterial Reformers...are they turning in their graves too?

I find it troubling that the theology of some, if successful, would cause me to buy arms to defend myself as a Baptist.

It is strange though that you are acting with horror that the civil magistrate should oppose false religion, If you have power should you not oppose false religion? Do you think that God preceptively encourages false religion?

You do of course have a very good point that Christians do abuse power and the consequenses are awful but surely the answer is for Christians to live in the light of the true gospel and repent of sins and abuses of power and not to argue that Christians should cease opposing false religion.

Baptists do not have a monopoly on being oppressed, this is a theological question not a self defence issue.

What is your definition of "false religion?"

A different Christian sect or the Muslims? The Puritans did not often make that difference between "broad Christianity" and "false religion."



The State Church system in Europe is dead and lifeless. Wherever Church and State have had more distance, both have prospered.