Thread: Poll: WCF XXIII.3 / Belgic 36

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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."

Or to be more specific, do those who subscribe to the original believe that Puritanesque congregationalists and baptists are 'false religions' or 'heresies' that should be supressed by the civil magistrate? Who decides what is heresy and what is 'intramural debate'? Does the church decide or does the civil magistrate decide?

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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."

Or to be more specific, do those who subscribe to the original believe that Puritanesque congregationalists and baptists are 'false religions' or 'heresies' that should be supressed by the civil magistrate? Who decides what is heresy and what is 'intramural debate'? Does the church decide or does the civil magistrate decide?

Personally I do not think so (anabaptists however were by and large heretics and worthy of supression for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with baptism upon profession) and neither do I think that a non Christian has any business in judging Religion. The revised wording is open to much the same abuse as the original wording.

My own view is that a civil magistrate who is a Christian should supress false Religion and in this respect the original confession is correct. There is no need to use the confession to insist that the state and the religion have to be hand in hand, that is a different agument.

Originally Posted by Hippo

Personally I do not think so (anabaptists however were by and large heretics and worthy of supression for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with baptism upon profession)

I am not sure that the anabaptists were 'by and large' heretics. Without a doubt some were.

Originally Posted by Hippo

The revised wording is open to much the same abuse as the original wording.

This is very interesting. Can you elaborate? What are some of the same abuses?

Originally Posted by Hippo

My own view is that a civil magistrate who is a Christian should supress false Religion and in this respect the original confession is correct. There is no need to use the confession to insist that the state and the religion have to be hand in hand, that is a different agument.

Was it Daniel's duty to 'supress' the Babylonian religion? He worked for the sovereign nation of Babylon. How could he perform his duty to the Babylonian king while at the same time supressing the national religion?

I am not sure that the anabaptists were 'by and large' heretics. Without a doubt some were.

It is always difficult to be sure when victors write the history

This is very interesting. Can you elaborate? What are some of the same abuses?

The revised wording limits tolerance to other "denominations", all you have to do is to argue that a group is outwith the Christian Church and they are no longer protected by the confession.

Was it Daniel's duty to 'supress' the Babylonian religion? He worked for the sovereign nation of Babylon. How could he perform his duty to the Babylonian king while at the same time supressing the national religion?

The confession is not Holy Writ and it does have a historical context, that is the application of the Gospel to England. Of course Daniel would have the same problem here whichever version of the confession he adhered to, under the revision he would still have to "protect the Church".

Originally Posted by Hippo

Was it Daniel's duty to 'supress' the Babylonian religion? He worked for the sovereign nation of Babylon. How could he perform his duty to the Babylonian king while at the same time supressing the national religion?

The confession is not Holy Writ and it does have a historical context, that is the application of the Gospel to England. Of course Daniel would have the same problem here whichever version of the confession he adhered to, under the revision he would still have to "protect the Church".

Just a thought..........didn't David fight for the Philistines after he had fled there, and wasn't he also going to go up to battle against Israel itself? (I Sam. 27-29). How would this be protecting the church? I'm not saying this to debate your statement. Just wondering about this section of scripture in light of it.

I have subscribed to the Belgic Confession article 36, with the footnote:

We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship (see note below); that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, of what state, quality, or condition so ever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men.

NOTE: This phrase, touching the office of the magistracy in its relation to the Church, proceeds on the principle of the Established Church, which was first applied by Constantine and afterwards also in many Protestant countries. History, however, does not support the principle of State domination over the Church, but rather the separation of Church and State. Moreover, it is contrary to the New Dispensation that authority be vested in the State to arbitrarily reform the Church, and to deny the Church the right of independently conducting its own affairs as a distinct territory alongside the State. The New Testament does not subject the Christian Church to the authority of the State that it should be governed and extended by political measures, but to our Lord and King only as an independent territory alongside and altogether independent of the State, that it may be governed and edified by its office-bearers and with spiritual weapons only. Practically all Reformed churches have repudiated the idea of the Established Church, and are advocating the autonomy of the churches and personal liberty of conscience in matters pertaining to the service of God.

"The Christian Reformed Church in America, being in full accord with this view, feels constrained to declare that it does not conceive of the office of the magistracy in this sense, that it be in duty bound to also exercise political authority in the sphere of religion, by establishing and maintaining a State Church, advancing and supporting the same as the only true Church, and to oppose, to persecute and to destroy by means of the sword all the other churches as being false religions; and to also declare that it does positively hold that, within its own secular sphere, the magistracy has a divine duty towards the first table of the Law as well as towards the second; and furthermore that both State and Church as institutions of God and Christ have mutual rights and duties appointed them from on high, and therefore have a very sacred reciprocal obligation to meet through the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and Son. They may not, however, encroach upon each other's territory. The Church has rights of sovereignty in its own sphere as well as the State." Acta. Synod, 1910.

That being said, I hold to the position that the state has a responsibility to both tables of God's law, although they may never encroach on the sovereignty of the church, as the church must stay out of matters of state.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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.

Pergs,

No, the Apostle that wrote Hebrews was glorifying violence in the name of Christ.

If a civil power cares about man's "rights" more than God's "rights", he is a tyrant. In other words, if you want to put the situation as:

1. Magistrates enforce both tables of the law and suppress blasphemy, heresy, schism, lies, etc. causing some innocent Christians to be oppressed

vs.

2. Magistrates refuse to suppress blasphemy, heresy, schism, lies, etc. saving some innocent Christians from being oppressed, while leading down a road to total atheism (ala America)

I will take # 1. Further, I'm not familiar with the case of this gentleman Obadiah Holmes. If he was a heretic or a schismatic, perhaps he needed to be turned over to satan for the destruction of the body so that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. As for the Quakers, their blasphemy is well known, as is their heresy. Do you happen to have particulars of the cases you're alluding to? Or have you just romanticized the "good ol' days" of lawless, disorderly christians who suffer as evil doers because they were? It's like people who come to a country illegally, and then complain because they're punished. If you knew the law to begin with, don't whine when you're punished for violating it.

Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He reigns over all the nations of the earth, and all kings are to be converted to Him that we may lead a quiet life in peace and godliness. We are to make disciples of all nations; not just people out of the nations.

Also, contrary to your romanticizing of "volunteerism", savages were converted from eating one another and committing atrocities under state-sponsored evangelism (or non-state sponsored with a culture-wide thrust) all throughout the middle ages. With this kind of nation-wide evangelism, people do not convert to live and think as Christians in all areas. Western civilization is a product of this kind of evangelism, as was the Reformation. The decline in Europe came with the rejection of these ideas; not with the acceptance of Constantinianism.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

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.

Is it your assertion that there was a time when 'we' had a 'Holy Commonwealth'? Are you referring to the USA? And if so, what is that assertion based on? Were not our founding fathers Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists, atheists and just plain 'confused'? No doubt the USA was more Christian, percentage wise, than today, but can it truly be called a 'Holy Commonwealth'?

Or are you referring to the original colonies?

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What is Christendom?

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

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

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:



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.

Pergs,

No, the Apostle that wrote Hebrews was glorifying violence in the name of Christ.

If a civil power cares about man's "rights" more than God's "rights", he is a tyrant. In other words, if you want to put the situation as:

1. Magistrates enforce both tables of the law and suppress blasphemy, heresy, schism, lies, etc. causing some innocent Christians to be oppressed

vs.

2. Magistrates refuse to suppress blasphemy, heresy, schism, lies, etc. saving some innocent Christians from being oppressed, while leading down a road to total atheism (ala America)

I will take # 1. Further, I'm not familiar with the case of this gentleman Obadiah Holmes. If he was a heretic or a schismatic, perhaps he needed to be turned over to satan for the destruction of the body so that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. As for the Quakers, their blasphemy is well known, as is their heresy. Do you happen to have particulars of the cases you're alluding to? Or have you just romanticized the "good ol' days" of lawless, disorderly christians who suffer as evil doers because they were? It's like people who come to a country illegally, and then complain because they're punished. If you knew the law to begin with, don't whine when you're punished for violating it.

Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He reigns over all the nations of the earth, and all kings are to be converted to Him that we may lead a quiet life in peace and godliness. We are to make disciples of all nations; not just people out of the nations.

Also, contrary to your romanticizing of "volunteerism", savages were converted from eating one another and committing atrocities under state-sponsored evangelism (or non-state sponsored with a culture-wide thrust) all throughout the middle ages. With this kind of nation-wide evangelism, people do not convert to live and think as Christians in all areas. Western civilization is a product of this kind of evangelism, as was the Reformation. The decline in Europe came with the rejection of these ideas; not with the acceptance of Constantinianism.

Cheers,

Adam

So, let's get this on public record: You are in favor of killing Quakers?


Poor old Uncle Ben on the oatmeal box!



Obadiah Holmes was a Baptist and he was whipped for preaching as a baptist. I cannot but think that if you were in charge in Puritan New England I would be forced to buy arms and defend my family against folks of your like. These are civil discussions here, but if you had your "Christendom" we would be at war (or maybe I would be "re-baptized" in a nice river...glub, glub..until dead...).



Finally, the Reformation was not a time of great missionary advance outside the borders of Catholicism. It took the Modern Missions movement and the rise of baptistic ecclesiology and voluntarism in the manner of William Carey for Christianity to explode across the world. The Moravians were the first to go forth without state sponsorship and they are still an inspiration to us today. Your "Christendom" concept has always been a killer of true Christianity and expanding Christ's kingdom as the civil magistrates kingdom was expanded is not what I see in the NT. Let's get rid of your theocratic revisionist history that those were the "good ol' days." Those days were harsh, bloody and intolerant...and this often because of the Puritans.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

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.

Is it your assertion that there was a time when 'we' had a 'Holy Commonwealth'? Are you referring to the USA? And if so, what is that assertion based on? Were not our founding fathers Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists, atheists and just plain 'confused'? No doubt the USA was more Christian, percentage wise, than today, but can it truly be called a 'Holy Commonwealth'?

Or are you referring to the original colonies?

Rev. Klein,

I was indeed referring to the USA, whether in the original colonial days, or in the declining times of the Revolutionary period. This faith was rapidly lost after the Revolutionary War, and was replaced by "manifest destiny". Rushdoony has an interesting book on the topic called "The Nature of the American System". It's not the only topic, but is one of the leading features. He argues that the "Holy Commonwealth" idea superseded the State Church model in many cases, so that it could include Baptists, Methodists, etc.

Cheers,

Adam

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 02:43:17 EST-----

Originally Posted by Pergamum

So, let's get this on public record: You are in favor of killing Quakers?


Poor old Uncle Ben on the oatmeal box!

NO, NO, NO, you're missing the point. You boil them in a pan, and serve them up with butter and brown sugar!!

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Obadiah Holmes was a Baptist and he was whipped for preaching as a baptist. I cannot but think that if you were in charge in Puritan New England I would be forced to buy arms and defend my family against folks of your like. These are civil discussions here, but if you had your "Christendom" we would be at war (or maybe I would be "re-baptized" in a nice river...glub, glub..until dead...).

I try to keep them civil; maybe you could try a little harder?

So, again, you have not provided any documentation on what the actual charges were. The charges read: "You keep preaching as a baptist, glug, glug, so we're gonna whip you"? Perhaps some more civility and some scholarship wouldn't go amiss.

Judging by the tone of our conversation, I think I would need to take up arms and defend the lawful order against a rabble rouser Two can play at this game.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Finally, the Reformation was not a time of great missionary advance outside the borders of Catholicism.

Perhaps you should go back and read what I said with a little more civility:

Western civilization is a product of this kind of evangelism, as was the Reformation.

As you will see, my point was that the state-sponsored evangelism that operated throughout the middle ages was what laid the groundwork for Western Civ and the Reformation.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

It took the Modern Missions movement and the rise of baptistic ecclesiology and voluntarism in the manner of William Carey for Christianity to explode across the world. The Moravians were the first to go forth without state sponsorship and they are still an inspiration to us today.

You mean, William Carey who was sent out by a presbytery-like board? Whose basic method of evangelism was the transform an entire nation's educational and legal system? Not much of an example for very many modern missionaries. I know that Peter Hammond attempts to follow this example; but, hey, he's theocratic too.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Your "Christendom" concept has always been a killer of true Christianity and expanding Christ's kingdom as the civil magistrates kingdom was expanded is not what I see in the NT. Let's get rid of your theocratic revisionist history that those were the "good ol' days." Those days were harsh, bloody and intolerant...and this often because of the Puritans.

Again, a touch of civility would be in order. Here is "my concept of Christendom":

Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He reigns over all the nations of the earth, and all kings are to be converted to Him that we may lead a quiet life in peace and godliness. We are to make disciples of all nations; not just people out of the nations.

Perhaps we can get rid of your anti-Christian-theocracy revisionism history and read what "my concept of Christendom" actually is. If you think that this is a killer of true Christianity, then I'm afraid you may be unfamiliar with its goals: to eradicate lies, superstition, heresy, blasphemy etc. It is a common fallacy to toss out something because of its abuse; I'm afraid that you have not escaped this fallacy.

If you care to interact in a less harsh, bloody and persecuting tone, I'd be happy to continue the dialogue. If not, please cease these publick beatings of this poor defenseless presbyterian.

Cheers,

Adam

There are historical examples of Puritans persecuting not only crazy rabble-rousing anabaptists but holy baptists in Puritan New England. And add the Quakers as well, who were even killed.

There is nothing uncivil about this discussion.

The truth of it is that if we returned to Puritan New England before church and state were separated by the awesome 1788 Revision, I might be persecuted by either you or your buddies.

Theocracy is extremely incivil.



As far as medieval missions goes, lets start a new thread. I am not sure you would want the "missions as state-expansion" model of missions that was done at that period of time.

There are plenty of nation changing missionaries in the modern period.


It looks like I agree with your concept of 'Christendom" if you do not add civil powers and civil inforcement upon "erring sects" to your definition, which I suspect that you do.


Ha, I see we can both play the martyr. There is no anger in my posts - but this IS an important discussion and valid points must be made (and a very valid point is that Puritans WERE persecutory).

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 07:40:05 EST-----

p.s. Here is an interesting post from our own Dr. Clark at the Heidelblog: Or Maybe He Should Have Stayed Home? « Heidelblog

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 07:45:15 EST-----

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.

You could always repent...

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Rev. Klein,

I was indeed referring to the USA, whether in the original colonial days, or in the declining times of the Revolutionary period. This faith was rapidly lost after the Revolutionary War, and was replaced by "manifest destiny". Rushdoony has an interesting book on the topic called "The Nature of the American System". It's not the only topic, but is one of the leading features. He argues that the "Holy Commonwealth" idea superseded the State Church model in many cases, so that it could include Baptists, Methodists, etc.

Cheers,

Adam

I have not read Rushdoony's book, but how can the USA be considered a 'Holy Commonwealth' when Franklin was a Deist, Jefferson a Unitarian (or whatever he was), and Paine was an open unbeliever, to name a few.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Here is "my concept of Christendom":

Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He reigns over all the nations of the earth, and all kings are to be converted to Him that we may lead a quiet life in peace and godliness. We are to make disciples of all nations; not just people out of the nations.

But who gets to decide what a 'disciple' looks like? Jesus says it is the church, but it sounds like you are saying it is the state.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

p.s. Here is an interesting post from our own Dr. Clark at the Heidelblog: Or Maybe He Should Have Stayed Home? « Heidelblog

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 07:45:15 EST-----

Thanks for that interesting link!

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

You could always repent...

You could always try to rebaptize me like Zwingli did to some...I'd get promoted sooner.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

You could always try to rebaptize me like Zwingli did to some...I'd get promoted sooner.

Or to be fair, like Zurich did to some. We don't have unambiguous record of Zwingli advocating capital punishment for the baptistic believers in Zurich. Unfortunately we also don't seem to have record of his registering any complaint to the proceedings, so you could be right.

Sorry to overanalyze your joke.

Zwngli was religious and political leader of Zurich. Zwingli was the guilty one:

Here is an excerpt:

In Zurich Zwingli was now the commanding personality in all ecclesiastical and political questions. He was "burgomaster, secretary, and council" in one, and showed himself daily more overbearing. His insolence indeed prevented an agreement with Luther regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, when a disputation was arranged between the two heresiarchs at Marfurt in October, 1529. As a statesman, Zwingli embarked in secular politics with ambitious plans. "Within three years", he writes, "Italy, Spain and Germany will take our view". Even the King of France, whose greatest enemy he had previously been, he sought to win to his side in 1531 with the work "Christianae fidei expositio", and was even prepared to pay him a yearly pension. By prohibiting intercourse with the Catholic cantons he compelled them to resort to arms. On 9 Oct., 1531, they declared war on Zurich, and advanced to Kappel on the frontiers. The people of Zurich hastened to oppose them, but met a decisive defeat near Kappel on 11 Oct., Zwingli falling in the battle. After a second defeat of the Reformed forces at Gubel, peace was concluded on 23 Oct., 1531. The peace was of long duration, since the Catholic victors displayed great moderation. Zwingli's death was an event of great importance for all Switzerland. His plan to introduce his innovations into the Catholic cantons by force had proved abortive. But even Catholics, who claimed the same rights in religious matters as the people of Zurich, regarded him as the "governor of all confederates". Zwingli is regarded as the most "liberal" of all the Reformers, and was less a dogmatist than Calvin. His statue, with a sword in one hand and the Bible in the other, stands near the municipal library at Zurich, which has also a Zwingli museum.

Ulrich Zwingli, Huldrych Zwingli, Swiss Reformation

I've been reading d'Aubigne (thanks, Lance!) recently on the reformation in Zurich. While he has high praise for the evangelical revolutions Zwingli was at the center of, he also criticizes him for an over-mingling of church and state, and suggests that both the religious suppression of the baptistic believers and the war against the Catholics were causes ill becoming for a minister of the gospel to focus his efforts on so directly.

It can be a hard question, though. Where did Zwingli's duty as an evangelist and pastor end, and his duty as a citizen begin (here referring to the war, since I can't justify the persecutions)? To reference another recent thread, is it really so wrong for a chaplain to carry a sidearm? :^)

For what it's worth (neither endorsing nor disputing the following opinion), I recall the argument made by Balthasar Hubmaier (a person of very much relevance to the discussion of Zurich). He disagreed with the common argument of the baptistic Christians of his day on the issue of pacifism -- that we should emulate Christ Jesus himself, who didn't carry a sword here below. Doctor Hubmaier suggested instead that ministers of the gospel should emulate Christ in that literal way; whereas non-pastoral Christians have a different calling, and are to fulfill that calling faithfully, whether they are serving as soldiers, officers of the peace, magistrates, etc. It is an interesting take on the subject.

I think if your land is attacked and you are threatened with persecution than you have the right to self-defense, even as a pastor. And, if you are a high profile pastor, then you have greater influence to fight off any attack. So I don't blame Zwingli for defending his city if he was attacked by Catholics and he was defending life, or family. Starting a campaign to invade Catholic lands, however, wouldbe different.


However, strange is that he defended himself against Catholic persecutors even while hounding the mostly pacificistic baptists to death, whom, as far as I can tell, did not take up their own right of self-defense, but suffered as martyrs under this Reformer.

It would appear the Zwingli is a murderer, or at least sharing in the guilt.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Zwngli was religious and political leader of Zurich. Zwingli was the guilty one:

Here is an excerpt:

In Zurich Zwingli was now the commanding personality in all ecclesiastical and political questions. He was "burgomaster, secretary, and council" in one, and showed himself daily more overbearing. His insolence indeed prevented an agreement with Luther regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, when a disputation was arranged between the two heresiarchs at Marfurt in October, 1529. As a statesman, Zwingli embarked in secular politics with ambitious plans. "Within three years", he writes, "Italy, Spain and Germany will take our view". Even the King of France, whose greatest enemy he had previously been, he sought to win to his side in 1531 with the work "Christianae fidei expositio", and was even prepared to pay him a yearly pension. By prohibiting intercourse with the Catholic cantons he compelled them to resort to arms. On 9 Oct., 1531, they declared war on Zurich, and advanced to Kappel on the frontiers. The people of Zurich hastened to oppose them, but met a decisive defeat near Kappel on 11 Oct., Zwingli falling in the battle. After a second defeat of the Reformed forces at Gubel, peace was concluded on 23 Oct., 1531. The peace was of long duration, since the Catholic victors displayed great moderation. Zwingli's death was an event of great importance for all Switzerland. His plan to introduce his innovations into the Catholic cantons by force had proved abortive. But even Catholics, who claimed the same rights in religious matters as the people of Zurich, regarded him as the "governor of all confederates". Zwingli is regarded as the most "liberal" of all the Reformers, and was less a dogmatist than Calvin. His statue, with a sword in one hand and the Bible in the other, stands near the municipal library at Zurich, which has also a Zwingli museum.

Ulrich Zwingli, Huldrych Zwingli, Swiss Reformation

Catholics always have such nice things to say about Reformers; thanks for sharing!

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 04:03:10 EST-----

Originally Posted by Pergamum

There are historical examples of Puritans persecuting not only crazy rabble-rousing anabaptists but holy baptists in Puritan New England. And add the Quakers as well, who were even killed.

Instead of continuing this discussion, I'm going to wait for actual cases, with reliable sources giving detailed information on events, charges, punishments etc.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

There is nothing uncivil about this discussion.

Indeed, there is. You have yet to answer my request for actual information; not some nut-job papist's view of a Reformer, but Puritan New England: facts, dates, charges, punishments.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Theocracy is extremely incivil.

Careful how you tread on the Sacred Word of God. Did God command some immoral, uncivil and worldly government in the Old Testament?

Still waiting for some reliable quotations.

Cheers,

Adam

Please...I don't tread on the Word of God when I tread on Big T Theonomy. Stop the silly accusations. We can both use rhetoric.


There is PLENTY of reliable history to show that the Puritans were the persecutors in many cases:

Quakers were killed by Puritans:

Quaker Proscecutions


Those Persistent Quakers: Puritans Deny Religious Freedom to Quakers

Mary Dyer, a woman, was hanged: Mary Dyer Quaker, hanged, Boston 1660 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony

Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were expelled (no need to cite, this is common knowledge.)

The Challenges of Roger Williams


Isaac Backus was another Baptist who suffered injustices by the Purtians: Isaac Backus

Encyclopedia of Religious Freedom - Google Book Search
Better citations could be found, but you can do that yourself.

Obadiah Holmes was a persecuted Baptist by the Mass. Bay Colony: Obadiah Holmes - Unmercifully Whipped « The Pastor’s Pen

The Persecution of Obadiah Holmes in America

Roger Williams - Google Book Search

Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony ... - Google Book Search pages 400-550 or so cover the Puritanitcal persecutions of differing sects.

History of religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Though better citations could be found, it is not so easy to excuse the massive body of writing on the subject of the Puritans' persecution of the Quakers and Baptists as all nutjobs.

It happened, it was real, and these persecuting Puritans were driven by the same beliefs as you and they fell into the sin of persecuting Baptist due to their mistaken notions on church and state. The 1788 revision of the WCF helped to curb these evils.




I don't support Sharia in any form.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Please...I don't tread on the Word of God when I tread on Big T Theonomy. Stop the silly accusations. We can both use rhetoric.

You stated:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Theocracy is extremely incivil.

Then I stated and asked:

Careful how you tread on the Sacred Word of God. Did God command some immoral, uncivil and worldly government in the Old Testament?

Please don't equivocate. You stated that "Theocracy is extremely incivil". God commanded Theocracy in the Old Covenant. Ergo, I asked my question about Theocracy. Which question you didn't answer, but instead accused me of making "silly accusations" and then commanded me to stop doing so.

So, did you want to change any part of what you said previously? Or, do you want to admit to equivocation? Or, do you want to answer my question? Or, maybe you think God didn't command Theocracy?

I'll review your sources, and get back to you.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I don't support Sharia in any form.

Whew! Neither do I!

Cheers,

Adam

Hey bro, I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I have a busy week ahead of me. I appreciate you and wish God's blessings on you; but I have limited time this week for debating theocracy yet again.

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 05:23:22 EST-----

God does not demand a theocracy in the form of a civil state any longer. To impose one would be sinful and uncivil. The New England Puritans have this sin upon them as they acted the role of persecutor. Civil punishments should not be levied against ecclesiastical offenses.

Applied with grace and truth, I think the original would actually support the unity of the church.

Quakers were killed by Puritans

I would not call Quakers Christians (that is of course not to say that individual Quakers have not been Chritians), if anyone should be supressed they should.

This does not mean that I agree that they should be executed, but punishments were more severe in those days for a whole host of reasons. Just as Servetes was justly executed by the civil standards of his day I see no reason why it was inherently evil that Quakers and extreme Anabaptists should not have been treated in a similiar manner.

What was so evil about the quakers and extreme anabaptists?

Originally Posted by satz

What was so evil about the quakers and extreme anabaptists?

Extreme anabaptists and Quakers sought to destroy the visible Church, they sought to overthrow society and shared a view that inner light should guide them wherever that may lead.

Religiously we would all have problems with this but of course this thread touches on why the magistrate should have a problem which is a different question.

Any group which seeks to overthrow the established order will historically be supressed and it is for these reasons that the anabaptists and quakers were supressed. As is often the case with justice some who were perhaps not guilty of the civil crime of insurrection where "tarred with the same brush" due to their religious affiliations and were incorrectly punished but that is the nature of justice.

The Quakers claim to pacifism only arose as they attempted to escape blame for the fifth monarchy men plot and was a bit of a shock to the many Quakers that were in the army at the time. Quakers are not cuddly, their theology is the very essence of mans rebellion against God. It is no coincidence that modern Quakerism has more in common with Budhism than Christianity.

Also I wonder if this thread has not recognised that the confession concerns the civil magistarte who is to enforce the law, not make law. This is an important distinction that may have been lost in this thread where it has been assumed that the confession concerns the making rather than the enforcement of law.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Hey bro, I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I have a busy week ahead of me. I appreciate you and wish God's blessings on you; but I have limited time this week for debating theocracy yet again.

Thanks! Sounds fine to me.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

God does not demand a theocracy in the form of a civil state any longer. To impose one would be sinful and uncivil. The New England Puritans have this sin upon them as they acted the role of persecutor. Civil punishments should not be levied against ecclesiastical offenses.

We'll have to discuss more in the future; over a pint of beer, or something

When are you in Cali next?

Adam

I personally agree with the Savoy Declaration of Faith in place of article XXIII.3 (replaced by XXIV.3):

"Although the magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and protect the professors and profession of the gospel, and to manage and order civil administrations in a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, and to that end to take care that men of corrupt minds and conversations do not licentiously publish and divulge blasphemy and errors, in their own nature subverting the faith and inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them: yet in such differences about the doctrines of the gospel, or ways of the worship of God, as may befall men exercising a good conscience, manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, not disturbing others in their ways or worship that differ from them; there is no warrant for the magistrate under the gospel to abridge them of their liberty."

Originally Posted by Neogillist

I personally agree with the Savoy Declaration of Faith in place of article XXIII.3 (replaced by XXIV.3):

"Although the magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and protect the professors and profession of the gospel, and to manage and order civil administrations in a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, and to that end to take care that men of corrupt minds and conversations do not licentiously publish and divulge blasphemy and errors, in their own nature subverting the faith and inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them: yet in such differences about the doctrines of the gospel, or ways of the worship of God, as may befall men exercising a good conscience, manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, not disturbing others in their ways or worship that differ from them; there is no warrant for the magistrate under the gospel to abridge them of their liberty."

Thanks for sharing this valuable historical expression!

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Neogillist

I personally agree with the Savoy Declaration of Faith in place of article XXIII.3 (replaced by XXIV.3):

"Although the magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and protect the professors and profession of the gospel, and to manage and order civil administrations in a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, and to that end to take care that men of corrupt minds and conversations do not licentiously publish and divulge blasphemy and errors, in their own nature subverting the faith and inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them: yet in such differences about the doctrines of the gospel, or ways of the worship of God, as may befall men exercising a good conscience, manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, not disturbing others in their ways or worship that differ from them; there is no warrant for the magistrate under the gospel to abridge them of their liberty."

That is much more tolerable. Would it protect anabaptists and Roger Williams if he lived in their colony?

I'm not entering this debate, just providing a link to a new book which is pertinent to the issues at hand.

Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie by Steven Dilday (Book) in Christianity

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who voted; I would have previously thought that the original version would be the minority position, but apparently I was wrong.

Mr. Buchanan (Contra_mundum), I have two questions for you:

1.) Is your use of the revision based upon your relationship to the OPC and their/our use of the revision, or did you hold that to be more biblical before/apart from becoming an OPC pastor?

2.) If the second, can you tell me some of the most influential or persuasive writings/teachers/anything that argued that such a position is more in keeping with scripture? I want to read good extended presbyterian arguments for the position.

I greatly appreciate one of the points which you earlier made:

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.
...
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.

This is an area in which I need to still learn much more, so you're help with question #2 would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Couple of thoughts...

Regarding Zwingli and the Zurich reformers (Bullinger)...They were [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Erastus"]Erastian (who came later in Zurich)[/ame] and during the Assembly were represented and reacted against in the WCF as it is not an Erastian document. An appeal to Zurich merely strengthens the appeal that overwhelmingly the Reformed tradition is theocratic or two-tablers but in no way negates the original discussion of the poll regarding the WCF. For a fair and balanced read on Zwingli's views of the magistrate, check out: Zwingli's Theocracy by Robert Walton published in 1967.

Also in order to best understand and unpack what the Divines meant in their chapter on the magistrate, one of the most helpful documents I've ran across is the Chapter 9 in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici (or The Divine Right of Church Government by Sundry Ministers of London, c. 1646): Of the Proper Receptacle and distinct Subject of all this power and authority of Church-Government, which Christ has peculiarly entrusted with the execution thereof, according to the Scriptures. And 1. Negatively, that the Political Magistrate is not the Proper Subject of this Power.

I have that chapter scanned in a .pdf document and will upload it for everyone's edification if Chris Coldwell will grant permission as I scanned it from his wonderful HB edition of the work (which I might add, should be sitting on everyone's lap or bookshelf!)

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Contra_mundum

1.) Is your use of the revision based upon your relationship to the OPC and their/our use of the revision, or did you hold that to be more biblical before/apart from becoming an OPC pastor?

2.) If the second, can you tell me some of the most influential or persuasive writings/teachers/anything that argued that such a position is more in keeping with scripture? I want to read good extended presbyterian arguments for the position.

1) I didn't give it a great deal of thought, these differences. I just concentrated on what I ought to be familiar with for ordination (that was the PCA). I knew or became aware there were differences from the original, but I didn't really have much reason to want to determine whether I thought, personally, I had been bequeathed an defective document.

I consider that chapter in the Confession--the church's relation to the state--one of the least impacting on any "free" church's general doctrine and practice. To use my "car analogy" it has nothing essential to do with the drivetrain; it's "environmental", it has to do with the "well-being" of the church, not its "being".

I grew up in the OPC. I joke sometimes and say that at 30+ years, even though I've been ordained less than 4 years, I've been "in" the OPC longer than many men who have come into it to minister from the outside. Honestly, I've never been in the position of making a determination of "where" I wanted to be a minister. I went to seminary wanting to be a minister in "my" church. The Confession that I now take an oath to uphold has been the confession I've "grown" into.

Since then, through discussions before, in, and after Seminary, on the P-B, and elsewhere, I have had to evaluate the issue in its larger context. And I've come to believe that what we have at present in the "bigger" (tiny) denominations (OPC/PCA) suits us and our situation admirably. I think that in saying less specifically, in "confessing" less, our church is able to hold a greater catholicity in areas where disagreement on what's "best" does not undermine the gospel.


So, as to 2)
I'd say its been a process. Like a lot of young men my age, getting into seminary in their late 20s, in the late '90s, I was at least partly influenced toward the "theonomic thesis". I like the idea that the Bible could tells us exactly "how to" do a lot of things, including statecraft. And that subject has certain obvious connections to the "theocratic" situation of post-Medieval Europe.

Many years later now, I think RSC's "QIRC" acronym does a nice job summarizing my unfocused, growing unease with the Theonomy project. Not that I agree with him in every respect. For instance, I think QIRC is totally inapt for application to the Creation question. But strong emphasis on the gospel turns our attention (as churchmen) away from mining the Bible for a bunch of pragmatic solutions to non-central things. I say, let the GaryNorths of the world do their "economics" or "political" work, and let the world judge it. We don't need to confess it.

But the more "details" mined from Scripture to support theonomy, the more all the nations start looking homogeneous in the ideal, something which now seems bizarre to me. Then there was the wonderfully pragmatic approach that Paul seems to have in accommodating the church to life in the Roman Empire. And the conviction that we need to be able to confess what Paul's churches confessed.

Eschatology is mixed in there. Being "in the world, not of it" is in there. Getting a better handle on historical theology, and how the "theocratic-state church" of the Reformation period had plenty of its own difficulties. What it was that a guy like Calvin actually thought about the "theonomic thesis" in his own day.

(Calvin thought it was a pernicious idea: that no nation's laws were properly framed that had no reference to Mosaic institution--and he certainly rejected the idea that the Mosaic penal code was trans-temporal and trans-cultural. Rushdoony called Calvin's view "heretical nonsense." Oooops.)

Anyway. If I can think of anything written that was particularly helpful, I'll say something else. Late. Gotta go.

Thank you; I appreciated the post.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

I think that in saying less specifically, in "confessing" less, our church is able to hold a greater catholicity in areas where disagreement on what's "best" does not undermine the gospel.

I like this. I'm obviously not a minister and have no authority, but nevertheless I'm not sure this article is something churches should be splitting over. Thus, with reference to this particular article, so far as a revision allows those who believe what the original said to not be excluded from the church or ministerial roles, I think I like that. I want to learn more, however.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Then there was the wonderfully pragmatic approach that Paul seems to have in accommodating the church to life in the Roman Empire. And the conviction that we need to be able to confess what Paul's churches confessed.

If you have time later, could you elaborate on what you meant here?



It's particularly presbyterians who reject this original article whose arguments I want to hear: I don't want to exclude the arguments for the article, it's just that there's a plethora of such things from the time of the reformation to read. I'm just interested in learning the theology behind its revision. Thanks all for bearing with my slowness!

[quote=Contra_Mundum;521161]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Contra_mundum

I think that in saying less specifically, in "confessing" less, our church is able to hold a greater catholicity in areas where disagreement on what's "best" does not undermine the gospel.

I really like how you summed this up here.

Thank you, Rev Buchanan, for taking taking the time to edify us. I always love to hear your insight.

Ken,
I'm glad you like it; I'm just a schmuck living and ministering at the edge of the world. And regardless of how smoothly the verbiage unrolls, I'll be the first to admit it can't possibly be the first, best, or last word on the subject.

It's my take, my informed (slightly), Reformed (hopefully) take. Let it be judged.
____________

Paul,
I have to start out by saying that I believe in the inviolable nature of the Moral Law, conveniently summarized in the 10 Commandments (10C). It is unconditional, trans-temporal, and trans-cultural. And no man (or group of men) may set it aside and act individually or govern with no regard for its general equity.

So, Rome had an obligation, as does every ministry of law, to rule by the same standard by which they expected to be judged themselves. And if they ignored that expectation, so much the worse for them--they knew better, Rom.2:14-16.

Second, its too hard NOT to merge the principles of establishment, enforcement of the first Table, church-state relations, etc., and talk about all of it rolled together. So I won't try.

My purpose here is simply to point out that the NT isn't written to a situation where these questions have relevance, it never assumes they do or will have relevance, and they never direct magistrates back to explicit Mosaic judicials for guidance.

The HOST and VARIETY of future earthly circumstances, from the standpoint of the NT, do not need this sort of meticulous guidance. If examples are sought from the Bible (OT/NT) to aid governments in their labors (what TO do, what NOT TO do), good. They certainly could look in worse places, and perhaps none better.

But the best they can do is a conditional analogy, assuming the moral continuity (identical general equity) is established. The integrity of their pronouncement is still contingent on the moral quality of their government. Its the 5th commandment, under the 1st, that ultimately enjoins obedience, and not some perceived connection to a Mosaic judicial.

But there are no instances or allusions in the NT to the powers of this world being referred to Israel's judicials for guidance in their judicial conduct, as if it were morally incumbent upon them to do so. And, needless to say, if it were the case then I would expect that somewhere in the NT it would be spelled out in no uncertain terms, given that Christ obliterates the Old Covenant nation, completely removing them as a living example.

It is the church that is set up in Israel's place, not a general theocracy under the same rubric. Instead, Christians are commanded to live patiently under the systems of government in the world, in which they find themselves and are enmeshed. God will free them eventually, either at their death, or at the passing into oblivion of that system or the death of this transient world entirely. They are commanded to fix their eyes on the eternity that is already present, that is "more real" than this world of shadows.

The confession of those Christians regarding church-state relations had to be enunciated in the context of indifference, hostility, and outright persecution. I don't think our confession should be such that it cannot be confessed in a rational way absent a particular set of circumstances.

The more particular we get as a church, in confessing how we think other men (kings) should treat us, it seems to me the less we are concerned to confess how we believe our Christ (our King) does treat us. And that is the vital thing.

I mean that Apostle Paul said things like "make it your AMBITION (!) to live quietly, mind your own business, work with your hands" 1 Thes.4:11. Check out the other two times that particular word is used in the NT. In Rom.15:20, its the preacher's proper ambition Paul describes: preach the gospel. And in 2 Cor. 5:9, its for all of us: to be pleasing to our Lord.

He never bothers to tell anyone else, from the least to the greatest, how to do their job. The Bible's concern for commonwealth is utterly absorbed in its concern for the church--the eternal commonwealth. If a magistrate like Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7) comes to faith, great; let him govern his Island as a man that fears the Lord, and knows he will be judged by him. Reflect on the natural results of Paul's devastation of his Jewish high-councilor, Barjesus. He was like a "Daniel" to this governor!

But we have no record that Paul next told SP to attend to the Law for himself now, or find himself another Jewish mage. Paul has not a word to him about how he should treat with the church in his domain. Where else might we have found such a treatment in the whole NT? Where else was a king or governor converted? We simply do not find the NT even intimating there is meticulous counsel to be found in the Scriptures for magistrates.

Judgments we make for here and now or for some earlier or future time, regarding the pragmatic utility of principles gleaned from God's occasional (using that word technically) prescription for ancient Israel, are conditional even when they are properly used.

Our changing "house rules" are a reflection of the constantly changing environment of our house. The things essential to stability in the house are the rate of change, and the unchanging MORAL law (summarized nicely in the 10C). Obviously, for example, parents of autistic children (or other disab.) have to manage that rate of change much closer--again, just another reflection of the conditional nature of applying the 10C.

There is no essential difference that I can see between applying the principle at the family (micro) level and applying it at the level of larger social units (macro). But just as I don't believe that my kids can be "inserted" (plugged in) into another family's life without having to adjust to DIFFERENT RULES, merely because we are both Christian families, and we both revere the 10C;

so also I don't expect that citizens of Country A should be able to go to Country Z, and expect the exact same tolerations, the same penalties for the same crimes and misdemeanors, just because they are all under Christ--assuming they both were culturally "Christian", assuming they both cared to have "Christian justice", etc.

But that is precisely the kind of "world-order" that Theonomy envisions.

There is something strangely "millennial" (pre or post) about this "seamless" earthly vision of the future. And, there is something oddly RomanCatholic about it as well, betaking of their vision of Christendom, something that separates their ideal of earthly centralization from both Protestants in general and the Eastern Orthodox conglomerate.

I better quit. I think I've run down too many rabbit trails. I can't articulate the "theology" behind the American revision, not least for which I agree with Adam (Christusregnant) that the circumstances in which those men lived framed their theological expression; as much as the original statement also was expressed in situ. IOW, given different circumstances, I believe many of the same men could have written or affirmed either statement.

But in the latter case, I do not think there is anything like the "body of work" that Protestant Christendom, post-Reformation, produced to defend its establishment against the pretensions of Rome, etc. There is a sense, I think, that a non-establishment situation doesn't need that sort of robust defense. The NT documents themselves are written in that context, and assume the church alive and able to thrive (in spite of persecution) without such an articulation.

Contra_Mundum

I can't articulate the "theology" behind the American revision,

I think it was your point

It is the church that is set up in Israel's place, not a general theocracy under the same rubric. Instead, Christians are commanded to live patiently under the systems of government in the world, in which they find themselves and are enmeshed. God will free them eventually, either at their death, or at the passing into oblivion of that system or the death of this transient world entirely. They are commanded to fix their eyes on the eternity that is already present, that is "more real" than this world of shadows.

combined with

a notion that all of Scripture should impact every aspect of one's life, including those who go into civil governance. Also, that there is a transforming effect of the Gospel and discipleship in the lives of people that affects culture and institutions. We should expect this because God's Word is so powerful. We may not see the transforming effect in our time, far less understand it, but we should, on authority of God's Word expect it, by faith- for His Honor and Glory.

And that understanding, I think has given rise to the greatest, most free, most extraordinarily blessed nation on the face of the earth.

Thanks Scott,
Theologically, of course I think those are the real issues.

But I think Paul's query had to do with whether there was a deliberate articulation of those or similar views, or a theology of "pluralism", or some such, by the restaters of WCF23. For now, I simply think there was a decision to say less by way of binding common confession.

I'm not aware of the Colonial era American Presbyterian minister's treatise that gives theological rationale for or defense of the their restatement of WCF #23. But neither do I think that it should be expected that one had to be produced. Perhaps there never was one, I don't know. Certainly we don't read about a severe split or dissension arising among the American Presbyterians over the rewording.

Europeans of different languages, churches, etc. had been living together and jumbled up on this continent for over 150 years by the time 1789 rolled around. Double the time, and you're back near Martin Luther's birthdate.

Unimaginable change had taken place in Western civilization in those 300 years--unimaginable from the standpoint of the Middle Ages, unimaginable from the standpoint of the early, or perhaps even the late, Reformation.

My point: the most "old world" chapter of the confession (23) had to be rewritten, not to disavow particular truth, but to avoid an anachronistic confession.

"Americans" had already been living a profoundly different experience from the context (of tumultuous change) produced in, by, and around the Reformation; and they'd been living it just as long a time as the framers of the WCF had been living the Reformation era. And there's a quarter-century overlap in there (settling the New World, writing the WCF).

Treatises written a single generation or two prior defending Protestant establishment vs. Roman, or marshaling religious objections to political absolutism, attempting to define church-state relations in an era of transition from what had been a an ecclesiastical monoscape--THAT is the reality of the first half of that period.

And out of that historic moment comes the church in the New World. It is a complete mishmash ecclesiastically. The world had never seen anything like it. And we are still after 400 years waiting to see what will finally emerge on this continent, and elsewhere in the world as a result of it.

So, were the WCF writers writing a confession for the whole world? Not in their own minds; they were writing themselves a national confession (or a united kingdom confession). Even the Scots, the only national body to actually adopt the WCF, expressly declared in adoption (there's animus imponentis again!) clarifying language how they understood certain terms in 31.2 (touching again on the state's power relative to the church).

And we need to recall that a theological defense of something isn't the same thing as stating that the something MUST be exactly that way, and no other, unless the defense also eliminates all other options. E.g., if I make a defense of inter-ethnic marriage, I am not therefore saying that ALL marriages should be inter-ethnic.

I have to say that even without thousands of words, and pages of exegesis, the rewording of WCF23 itself constitutes theological reflection on the situation. Our forefathers decided that it was wiser to "confess less".