Theocratic Alternatives to Theonomy?

Ivanhoe · #1 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 10:28 AM

Ok,
If I were to abandon my theonomic views for those of another position, any alternative view must answer these questions*:

1) Is it okay for the Civil Magistrate to promote the worship of other gods than Yahweh?

2) When a civil magistrate passes a law, by what standard is he to judge that law to be true or false?

BTW, these are "searching questions." I am really curious about positions like those of Peter and Andrew.

* I realize that issues such as covenant, kingdom, etc. factor in as well; we will get to those later.

[Edited on 5--9-05 by Draught Horse]

Radar · #2 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 10:32 AM

Sometimes I wonder if it matters what the civil authorities do. If we live by faith in Christ, our behavior will be seen as commendable by most governements. Those who don't like us anyway will just rob us and kill us. Should we just accept that joyfully?

Ivanhoe · #3 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radar
Sometimes I wonder if it matters what the civil authorities do. If we live by faith in Christ, our behavior will be seen as commendable by most governements. Those who don't like us anyway will just rob us and kill us. Should we just accept that joyfully?

Umm....no.

Who cares about abortion, sodomite marriages, etc? We are called to be salt and light permeating society. If it came down to it may God give me the grace to accept persecution for the cross joyfully. At the same time, we do not turn the cheeks of our wives and children, whom we have a covenantal obligation to defend to the death.

Back to the subject,
Here are some theocrats who are not theonomists:
Jim Jordan (granted, his name is not allowed to be spoken favorably, but he has done some good work here and there).

RCjr: I don't know if he would call himself a theocrat but he has written a lot of good articles on true liberty and a godly society. Go to his site and look up the article "Every Home a Castle." To ward off big government he suggests, and I love it!, that we grow some gators in the moat!!

As one who likes sytematics, I just wonder what system these men hold to that gives them a passion for liberty in a godly society or what is the connection between them and theocracy? Here I am searching since my posts are slowly losing cohesivity.

VirginiaHuguenot · #4 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 11:07 AM

Jacob, I would encourage you to take another look at the Reformed confessions dealing with the civil magistrate collated by Chris here as well as John Calvin's comments from the Institutes, Book IV, Chap. 20:

Quote:

9. The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here indicate in passing. That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers; for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. Seeing then that among philosophers religion holds the first place, and that the same thing has always been observed with the universal consent of nations, Christian princes and magistrates may be ashamed of their heartlessness if they make it not their care. We have already shown that this office is specially assigned them by God, and indeed it is right that they exert themselves in asserting and defending the honour of him whose vicegerents they are, and by whose favour they rule. Hence in Scripture holy kings are especially praised for restoring the worship of God when corrupted or overthrown, or for taking care that religion flourished under them in purity and safety. On the other hand, the sacred history sets down anarchy among the vices, when it states that there was no king in Israel, and, therefore, every one did as he pleased (Judges 21:25). This rebukes the folly of those who would neglect the care of divine things, and devote themselves merely to the administration of justice among men; as if God had appointed rulers in his own name to decide earthly controversies, and omitted what was of far greater moment, his own pure worship as prescribed by his law. Such views are adopted by turbulent men, who, in their eagerness to make all kinds of innovations with impunity, would fain get rid of all the vindicators of violated piety....

14. In states, the thing next in importance to the magistrates is laws, the strongest sinews of government, or, as Cicero calls them after Plato, the soul, without which, the office of the magistrate cannot exist; just as, on the other hand, laws have no vigour without the magistrate. Hence nothing could be said more truly than that the law is a dumb magistrate, the magistrate a living law. As I have undertaken to describe the laws by which Christian polity is to be governed, there is no reason to expect from me a long discussion on the best kind of laws. The subject is of vast extent, and belongs not to this place. I will only briefly observe, in passing, what the laws are which may be piously used with reference to God, and duly administered among men. This I would rather have passed in silence, were I not aware that many dangerous errors are here committed. For there are some who deny that any commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations. How perilous and seditious these views are, let others see: for me it is enough to demonstrate that they are stupid and false. We must attend to the well known division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial law, and we must attend to each of these parts, in order to understand how far they do, or do not, pertain to us. Meanwhile, let no one be moved by the thought that the judicial and ceremonial laws relate to morals. For the ancients who adopted this division, though they were not unaware that the two latter classes had to do with morals, did not give them the name of moral, because they might be changed and abrogated without affecting morals. They give this name specially to the first class, without which, true holiness of life and an immutable rule of conduct cannot exist.

15. The moral law, then (to begin with it), being contained under two heads, the one of which simply enjoins us to worship God with pure faith and piety, the other to embrace men with sincere affection, is the true and eternal rule of righteousness prescribed to the men of all nations and of all times, who would frame their life agreeably to the will of God. For his eternal and immutable will is, that we are all to worship him and mutually love one another. The ceremonial law of the Jews was a tutelage by which the Lord was pleased to exercise, as it were, the childhood of that people, until the fulness of the time should come when he was fully to manifest his wisdom to the world, and exhibit the reality of those things which were then adumbrated by figures (Gal. 3:24; 4:4). The judicial law, given them as a kind of polity, delivered certain forms of equity and justice, by which they might live together innocently and quietly. And as that exercise in ceremonies properly pertained to the doctrine of piety, inasmuch as it kept the Jewish Church in the worship and religion of God, yet was still distinguishable from piety itself, so the judicial form, though it looked only to the best method of preserving that charity which is enjoined by the eternal law of God, was still something distinct from the precept of love itself. Therefore, as ceremonies might be abrogated without at all interfering with piety, so, also, when these judicial arrangements are removed, the duties and precepts of charity can still remain perpetual. But if it is true that each nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges to be beneficial, still these are always to be tested by the rule of charity, so that while they vary in form, they must proceed on the same principle. Those barbarous and savage laws, for instance, which conferred honour on thieves, allowed the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and other things even fouler and more absurd, I do not think entitled to be considered as laws, since they are not only altogether abhorrent to justice, but to humanity and civilised life.

16. What I have said will become plain if we attend, as we ought, to two things connected with all laws--viz. the enactment of the law, and the equity on which the enactment is founded and rests. Equity, as it is natural, cannot be the same in all, and therefore ought to be proposed by all laws, according to the nature of the thing enacted. As constitutions have some circumstances on which they partly depend, there is nothing to prevent their diversity, provided they all alike aim at equity as their end. Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws. Wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and restricted to this end, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, however much they may differ from the Jewish law, or from each other (August. de Civit. Dei, Lib. 19 c. 17). The law of God forbids to steal. The punishment appointed for theft in the civil polity of the Jews may be seen in Exodus 22. Very ancient laws of other nations punished theft by exacting the double of what was stolen, while subsequent laws made a distinction between theft manifest and not manifest. Other laws went the length of punishing with exile, or with branding, while others made the punishment capital. Among the Jews, the punishment of the false witness was to "do unto him as he had thought to have done with his brother" (Deut. 19:19). In some countries, the punishment is infamy, in others hanging, in others crucifixion. All laws alike avenge murder with blood, but the kinds of death are different. In some countries, adultery was punished more severely, in others more leniently. Yet we see that amidst this diversity they all tend to the same end. For they all with one mouth declare against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law of God--viz. murder, theft, adultery, and false witness; though they agree not as to the mode of punishment. This is not necessary, nor even expedient. There may be a country which, if murder were not visited with fearful punishments, would instantly become a prey to robbery and slaughter. There may be an age requiring that the severity of punishments should be increased. If the state is in troubled condition, those things from which disturbances usually arise must be corrected by new edicts. In time of war, civilisation would disappear amid the noise of arms, were not men overawed by an unwonted severity of punishment. In sterility, in pestilence, were not stricter discipline employed, all things would grow worse. One nation might be more prone to a particular vice, were it not most severely repressed. How malignant were it, and invidious of the public good, to be offended at this diversity, which is admirably adapted to retain the observance of the divine law. The allegation, that insult is offered to the law of God enacted by Moses, where it is abrogated, and other new laws are preferred to it, is most absurd. Others are not preferred when they are more approved, not absolutely, but from regard to time and place, and the condition of the people, or when those things are abrogated which were never enacted for us. The Lord did not deliver it by the hand of Moses to be promulgated in all countries, and to be everywhere enforced; but having taken the Jewish nation under his special care, patronage, and guardianship, he was pleased to be specially its legislator, and as became a wise legislator, he had special regard to it in enacting laws.

In these citations, and many others like them coming from the best minds of the Reformation, we see that the civil magistrate is duty-bound to uphold both tables of the Decalogue (and this is where the pluralistic critique of theonomy and I part ways) but we do not see any instruction that they are duty-bound to uphold the Mosaic judicial laws. We have a three-fold distinction of God's law from the Scriptures and only one (moral) is still binding today upon magistrates and citizens alike, indeed the whole world. I think Calvin's comments indicate the standard for justice and equity is the Ten Commandments. The judicials are important and have their place in the totality of God's Word to show us what he thinks of certain crimes and how they were punished in a particular context, but the leap from studying the judicial laws and discerning what they were intended to accomplish in their context to presuming that they are still binding today is too great a leap to be warranted from God's Word. By what standard? How do we know whether things are good or bad today in general outside of civil polity? We know because we apply the light of God's Word and the light of Christian prudence and discernment to every situation. That's precisely what a civil magistrate should do. Not every nation is the same, but the standard of justice from the Ten Commandments binds all. The understanding of natural law that Calvin is describing is not a secular pluralistic humanistic United Nations-type law, but rather the law of God written upon the hearts of all men. All government punish theft for example, but the punishments may differ without violence to the principle of equity. That is the general equity, or moral principle, spoken of by the Westminster Confession. There is a standard of justice which is perfectly reflected in the Ten Commandments but the application of the Decalogue to civil law does not require only the Mosaic judicial laws to be in force, but rather wise and wholesome laws for a Christian commonwealth implemented by wise civil magistrates who apply the principles of both testaments from God's Word. This is the Biblical civil government desired by our forefathers from the Reformation.

More quotes to ponder:

William Perkins, A Discourse of Conscience, 1596, I:514:

Quote:

Therefore the judicial laws of Moses according to the substance and scope thereof must be distinguished.... Some of them are laws of particular equity, some of common equity. Laws of particular equity, are such as prescribe justice according to the particular estate and condition of the Jews' Commonwealth and to the circumstances thereof.... Of this kind was the law, that the brother should raise up seed to his brother, and many such like: and none of them bind us, because they were framed and tempered to a particular people. Judicials of common equity, are such as are made according to the law or instinct of nature common to all men: and these in respect of their substance, bind the consciences not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles: for they were not given to the Jews as they were Jews, that is, a people received into the Covenant above all other nations, brought from Egypt to the land of Canaan,... but they were given to them as they were mortal men subject to the order and laws of nature as all other nations are.

Samuel Rutherford, A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, (London : Andrew Crook, 1649), pages 298-299:

Quote:

Judicial laws may be judicial and Mosaical, and so not obligatory to us, according to the degree and quality of punishment.... No man but sees the punishment of theft is of common moral equity, and obligeth all nations, but the manner or degree of punishment is more positive: as to punish theft by restoring four oxen for the stealing of one ox, doth not so oblige all nations, but some other bodily punishment, as whipping, may be used against thieves.

Samuel Rutherford, Divine Right of Church Government, (1646), pages 493-494:

Quote:

But sure Erastus erreth, who will have all such to be killed by the magistrate under the New Testament, because they were killed by him in the Old: Why, but then the whole judicial law of God shall oblige us Christians as Carolostadius and others teach? I humbly conceive that the putting of some to death in the Old Testament, as it was a punishment to them, so was it a mysterious teaching of us, how God hated such and such sins, and mysteries of that kind are gone with other shadows. "œBut we read not" (saith Erastus) "œwhere Christ hath changed those laws in the New Testament." It is true, Christ hath not said in particular, I abolish the debarring of the leper seven days, and he that is thus and thus unclean shall be separated till the evening; nor hath he said particularly of every carnal ordinance and judicial law, it is abolished. "˜But we conceive, the whole bulk of the judicial law, as judicial, and as it concerned the Republic of the Jews only, is abolished, though the moral equity of all those be not abolished; also some punishments were merely symbolical, to teach the detestation of such a vice, as the boring with an aul the ear of him that loved his master, and desired still to serve him, and the making of him his perpetual servant. I should think the punishing with death the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath was such; and in all these, the punishing of a sin against the Moral Law by the magistrate, is moral and perpetual; but the punishing of every sin against the Moral Law, tali modo, so and so, with death, with spitting on the face: I much doubt if these punishments in particular, and in their positive determination to the people of the Jews, be moral and perpetual: As he that would marry a captive woman of another religion, is to cause her first to pare her nails, and wash herself, and give her a month, or less time to mourn the death of her parents, which was a judicial, not a ceremonial law; that this should be perpetual because Christ in particular hath not abolished it, to me seems most unjust; for as Paul saith, He that is circumcised becomes debtor to the whole law, sure to all the ceremonies of Moses his law: So I argue, a peri, from the like: He that will keep one judicial law, because judicial and given by Moses, becometh debtor to keep the whole judicial law under pain of God´s eternal wrath.

Theodore Beza, De Haereticis a Civili Magistratu Puniendis Libellus (Geneva, Switzerland: Robert Stephanus, 1554), pages 222-223:

Quote:

Although we do not hold to the forms of the Mosaic polity, yet when such judicial laws prescribe equity in judgments, which is part of the decalogue, we, not being under obligation to them insofar as they were prescribed by Moses to only one people, are nevertheless bound to observe them to the extent that they embrace that general equity which should everywhere be in force.... The Lord commands that a deposit be returned, and that thieves be punished.... Because it follows natural equity, and expounds that perpetual precept of the decalogue, Thou shalt not steal, to this extent all are bound to fulfill them both. The thief is sentenced to make restitution for the theft, sometimes twice as much, sometimes four times as much.... This penalty is purely political, and it binds the one nation of the Israelites, to whom alone it was adapted. Therefore it is permitted for the magistrate, in his exercise of sovereignty and for definite and good causes, to prescribe a more severe manner of punishment.... And to be sure, if anyone compares several of the laws of the Greeks, and many of the laws of the Romans, with the Mosaic, he will find a similarity among them in establishing penalties, so that it is sufficiently plain that all were adapted to the same goal of natural equity.

David Dickson´s Truth´s Victory Over Error (1684):

Quote:

Did the Lord by Moses give to the Jews as a Body Politick sundry judicial lawes, which expired together with their State?Yes.Do they oblige any other now, further than the general Equity thereof may require?No; Exod. 21, from the first to the last Verse. Exod. 22.1 to Verse 29. Gen. 49.10. I Cor. 9.8,9,10. I Pet. 2.13,14. Matt. 5.17,38,39.Well then, do not some err, though otherwise Orthodox, who maintain, "œThat the whole Judaical Law of the Jews, is yet alive, and binding all of us who are Christian Gentile?"Yes.By what reason are they confuted?1st, Because the Judaical Law was delivered to Moses to the Israelites to be observed, as to a Body Politick; Exod. 21. Chap.2d, Because, this Law, in many Things which are of particular Right, was accommodated to the Commonwealth of the Jews, and not to other nations also; Exod. 22.3. Exod. 21.2. Lev. 25.2,3. Deut. 24.1,2,3. Deut. 25.5,6,7.3d, Because, in other things which are not of particular Right, it is neither from the Law of Nature obliging by Reason; neither is it pressed upon Believers under the Gospel, to be observed. 4th, Because, Believers are appointed under the Gospel to obey the civil Law, and Commands of those under whose Government they live, providing they be just, and that for Conscience sake; Rom. 13.1. I Pet. 2.13,14. Tit. 3.1

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

Puritan Sailor · #5 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 11:59 AM

Honestly Jacob, kingdoms come and kingdoms go. I don't think we as Christians should be trying to set up theocracies. We are called to preach the gospel and make disciples. That will have ripple effects where ever we go certainly throughout society. But this present age is reserved for destruction along with all that dwells under the age of the First Adam. The new Creation in the second Adam is spiritually growing and at Christ's return shall be established forever. The work of the Christian is first and formorst to bring people into the kindgomn by the gospel. That is how they are brought into subjection to Christ, by faith. I know the postmil theonomists won't like this one bit. But that is where I think the misunderstanding of covenant theology comes in. This present age lies under the curse of the First Adam and the rule of Satan. The only way out, the only way to be part of the new creation, the new heaven and earth, is through the second Adam. Our suffering will not end in this world until the resurrection when all things are made new. Should the magistrates obey God? Absolutely. All in Adam are still required to obey God. The law is His standard of righteousness which men, in His image, are suppose to live by. Are magistrates ordained by God? Yes. But for the purposes of God's common grace, and even then, it is His providential work of preserving this present age until His purposes of redemption are complete and the elect finally gathered together, and then this present corrupt age will be destroyed with all that remains of the consequences of the first Adam and all renewed at the 2nd coming of Christ, the last Adam.

It's not simply a matter of "what is the Christian form of government?" Perhaps a better question would be, hypothetically speaking, how can this present government best serve the mission of King Jesus to gather His citizens unto Himself? In that sense, the answer is simply "get out of the way!" Leave the church alone to do her work. This doesn't require religious pluralism. Nor does it require killing heretics and false religionists. The magistrate must simply let the gospel go forth in his land, and do nothing to oppose it, lest he face the wrath of Christ who will stop at nothing to save His people. And this principle really, can apply to any form of government, in any time or culture. I'm certainly open to correction in any of this, but this is the way I'm seeing it for now.

turmeric · #6 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 12:07 PM

What Patrick said!

Ivanhoe · #7 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 12:34 PM

Patrick,
I don't see too much disagreement between us. I am actually a libertarian at heart! If the government would just leave me alone (Bill of Rights) and not burden me with its unconstitutional misinterpretation of its own laws (income tax [which I pay, btw], baby-killing, a whole host of covenants broken, etc.), then we would have no problem. Unfortunately, this question arises in every generation: If a nation accidentally gets Christian rulers (see the second reply to this thread), how ought they to rule? I don't think you and I are in too much of a disagreement.

I think you know--and you have done well not to suggest this--that I don't want to overthrow the government and force Christian laws. As I have already said, evangelism is the spear-head of the movement.*

*Rev. Joe Morecraft III.

Ivanhoe · #8 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 12:36 PM

Something else for thought"

When the president takes an oath to serve or protect or uphold the Constitution, he is calling for the judgement of God to fall on him if he breaks that oath. My question, who is to hold him accountable and who is to fulfill that role? The lesser civil magistrate.

I am not saying this to bash Bush. We can apply this to everyone post 1861.

RAS · #9 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 12:39 PM

Are there any good modern treatments/explanations of the classical reformed Two-Kingdoms theology?

I have searched for a discussion on two-kingdoms theology on this board and didn't find anything. Could somebody please articulate a concise summary of this position for us as an alternative to theonomy?

WrittenFromUtopia · #10 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 12:40 PM

Constitution Party!!!

Puritan Sailor · #11 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Patrick,
I don't see too much disagreement between us. I am actually a libertarian at heart! If the government would just leave me alone (Bill of Rights) and not burden me with its unconstitutional misinterpretation of its own laws (income tax [which I pay, btw], baby-killing, a whole host of covenants broken, etc.), then we would have no problem. Unfortunately, this question arises in every generation: If a nation accidentally gets Christian rulers (see the second reply to this thread), how ought they to rule? I don't think you and I are in too much of a disagreement.

I think you know--and you have done well not to suggest this--that I don't want to overthrow the government and force Christian laws. As I have already said, evangelism is the spear-head of the movement.*

*Rev. Joe Morecraft III.

I'm not necessarily advocating Libertarianism, though certianly the Church could prosper under such a system. I do believe that the moral law, including first table of the Law, should be enforced, or perhaps a better way to say it is defended. The question is how? That is what I wrestle with. I also believe, as noted before that the Kingship of Christ as Mediator is spiritual and therefore limited to the Church, just as much as His role as prophet and preist are limited to her. When the magistrate is under consideration, he falls under the providential reign of God as Creator, a different covenant than the Church falls under. The Scriptures are clear that our battle is spiritual, not physical. Certainly, just as the free offer of salvation in Christ as prophet and preist is made to all outside the covenant, so we may tie this to HIs general command to repent of sins and submit to His rule. But that is submitting to His spiritual rule and kingdom, becoming a citizen of heaven, which is done by faith, not the sword. So, hopefully, as I interact with my theonomists brothers we can come to some conclusions over this. There is always room for development in this area, so long as we understand that the proclaiming of the Gospel is our primary duty, not fighting for the effects of the Gospel (i.e. social and political changes). Those effects will come automatically as the Gospel permeates society.

more

nonconformist · #12 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Ok,
If I were to abandon my theonomic views for those of another position, any alternative view must answer these questions*:

1) Is it okay for the Civil Magistrate to promote the worship of other gods than Yahweh?

2) When a civil magistrate passes a law, by what standard is he to judge that law to be true or false?

BTW, these are "searching questions." I am really curious about positions like those of Peter and Andrew.

* I realize that issues such as covenant, kingdom, etc. factor in as well; we will get to those later.

[Edited on 5--9-05 by Draught Horse]

It is amazing to me how these 2 simple questions cannot get 2 simple correct answers, even from peaple with the best theology.By what standard?

One good thing is at least the reformed peaple are willing to get out the bible and search the scripture

Puritan Sailor · #13 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Something else for thought"

When the president takes an oath to serve or protect or uphold the Constitution, he is calling for the judgement of God to fall on him if he breaks that oath. My question, who is to hold him accountable and who is to fulfill that role? The lesser civil magistrate.

I am not saying this to bash Bush. We can apply this to everyone post 1861.

Well, for starters, that Christian leader should be working toward restoring the government back to the founders intent, which was predominantly Christian influenced. Much of the worldview the constitution is based on is Christian, so to move back toward that is a good step. Then, this accidental leader would have to work toward somehow reforming our laws back toward their foundation in the law of God. For America, reform would not be that difficult because we already come from a predominant Christian background, with some unfortunate mixtures of Enlightenment sentiments. It would be much harder a pagan country, for example China, to move toward a more biblical worldview so far as their magistrates are conerned because for them its a total overhaul in how they approach government, the soveriegnty of God, and the nature of man, along with the role of the Church. In either case, it is something only the Gospel can effect through changing the people.

Ivanhoe · #14 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Well, for starters, that Christian leader should be working toward restoring the government back to the founders intent, which was predominantly Christian influenced. Much of the worldview the constitution is based on is Christian, so to move back toward that is a good step. Then, this accidental leader would have to work toward somehow reforming our laws back toward their foundation in the law of God. For America, reform would not be that difficult because we already come from a predominant Christian background, with some unfortunate mixtures of Enlightenment sentiments. It would be much harder a pagan country, for example China, to move toward a more biblical worldview so far as their magistrates are conerned because for them its a total overhaul in how they approach government, the soveriegnty of God, and the nature of man, along with the role of the Church. In either case, it is something only the Gospel can effect through changing the people.

Well, we got our homework cut out for us. Good post.

Robin · #15 (**permalink**) 05-09-2005, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Quote:

Originally posted by Radar
Sometimes I wonder if it matters what the civil authorities do. If we live by faith in Christ, our behavior will be seen as commendable by most governements. Those who don't like us anyway will just rob us and kill us. Should we just accept that joyfully?

Umm....no.

Who cares about abortion, sodomite marriages, etc? We are called to be salt and light permeating society. If it came down to it may God give me the grace to accept persecution for the cross joyfully. At the same time, we do not turn the cheeks of our wives and children, whom we have a covenantal obligation to defend to the death.

Jacob,

I'd go with RC jr. Anyone in right understanding to Covenant theology...necessarily leads to preserving the "colony of Heaven" in this present evil age....which includes the home, being (Calvin) the "little church."

Yes, there should be gators in the moat....if our government offers the freedom to vote; be civilly active, etc. However --- Scripture teaches we live in the "present evil age" the Kingdom is not of this world; and yet, we should struggle to establish life and goodness in culture --- and yet, not be OF the culture. The decree to "have dominion" still stands in the sense of our own vocations - but God is doing something particular with His Kingdom "coming." He is doing it...not we. We are a "means" in the sense we are the messengers of the Gospel - which is THE means.

There are two pulls that create common tension of the "already and the not yet" of Christ's Kingdom that has already broken into history but has not yet been fully consummated. Only the eyes of Faith can see this.

Calvin's writings are of the best use, I think. Out of everybody, I think he nailed-it. But then, Calvin was a devoted student of Paul.

Christ ate with sinners....He did not insist that they repent before He would eat with them. And Christ admonished Peter to buy a sword. But, and Christ said to lay our lives down....

Pondering....Acts 17 is a good example of what the Christian is to do in secular life. Amidst all the civil decadence Paul witnessed in Ephesis...what did he do about it? Did Paul boycott Diana's temple practices imposed on the trade guilds? (Paul, a Roman citizen.) Meanwhile, as Christianity progressed from that point in history, the good works installed by civil minded belivers were orphanages; hospitals; universities, Etc.

Just some more thoughts.....

Robin

[Edited on 5-9-2005 by Robin]

VirginiaHuguenot · #16 (**permalink**) 05-19-2005, 03:55 PM

More on the theocratic duties of civil magistrates from David Dickson's commentary on the Westminster Confession re: Chap. XX:

Quote:

Quest. IV. "May such men be lawfully called to an account, and proceeded against by the censures of the church, and by the power of the civil magistrate, who publish such opinions, or maintain 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 and 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 hath established in his church?"

Yes; 1 Cor. 5.1,5,11,13. 2 John 10,11. 1 Tim. 6.3,4. Titus 1.10,11,13. Titus 3.10. 1 Tim. 1.19.20. Matt. 18.15-17. Rev. 2.2,14,15,20. Rev. 3.9.

...

Do not lastly, the Lutherans, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and all sorts of heretics and sectaries err, who maintain, under pretest of Christian liberty, That the civil magistrate is not in duty to punish any man with the sword, for errors in doctrine, but that they ought to be tolerated and suffered, provided such persons as own them, do not trouble or molest the common-wealth?

Yes.

By what reasons are they confuted?

...

The Lutherans, Anabaptists, Arminians, and other sectaries are confuted.

1st, Because it is evident from many examples of godly magistrates, who did extirpate idolatry, and inflict punishment upon idolaters; as did Jacob the patriarch, who purged his family of strange gods, Gen. 35.2-4. Moses likewise took punishment with the sword, upon those who did worship the golden calf, Exod. 32.26-28. We have

2d, The example of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 18.4. Of Josiah, 2 Kings 23. Of Asa, who decreed, that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel (according to the law of God, Deut 13.9.) should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman, 2 Chron. 15.13. Of Jehosaphat, 2 Chron. 17.6. Of Nehemiah, chap. 13.15,17,35.

3d, Were not good kings reproved, and was it not imputed to them as a fault, that they did not take away the high places? 2 Kings 12.3, 14.4, 15.4. 2 Chron. 15.17. Far more is it a fault to suffer heretics.

4th, It is evident from the office of the magistrate, who is the minister of God against them that do evil, and bears not the sword in vain, Rom. 13.4.

5th, Because it is expressly commanded in Scripture, that punishment be inflicted upon idolaters, even by the nearest relations. If then, the father may kill the Son, may kill the daughter; the husband the wife of his bosom; and if one brother may stone another brother with stones that he die, for being idolaters; much more may the civil magistrate do this, Deut. 13.6-13. Deut. 17.2-7. Lev. 24.10.

6th, Because it is foretold, that under the New Testament, kings shall be nursing fathers to the church, and queens nursing mothers; and that heretics that were about to be hurtful to the church, shall be removed and taken away, Isa. 49.23. Zech. 13.2,3. And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, (that is all idolatry whatsoever, so that the same shall not be so much as named any more among you) and they shall no more be remembered. And I will also cause the prophets, (the false prophets) and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land; (that is, the false teachers who teach impure doctrines, thro' the inspiration of the unclean spirit the devil.) Compare this with 1 John 4.1-3. For confirmation, consider what is foretold by John, Rev. 17.12,16,17. That the kings of the earth shall eat the flesh of the whore, and burn her with fire. All which are foretold, as blessings to be conferred upon the church.

7th, It is evident from the epithets whereby the pernicious and destructive nature of heretics is set forth in scripture. They are called wolves, not sparing the flock, thieves, robbers, troublers of the church, and seducers or beguilers of poor souls. They are like unto a gangrene, or canker in the body. They are as leaven, or sour dough, which leaveneth the whole lump, Acts 20.29. John 10.8. Acts 15.24. Gal. 5.12. 2 Tim. 2.17. Gal. 5.9.

8th, Because Ezra did esteem it a great favour and blessing of God conferred upon the church; for which he thanked God, that had inclined the heart of Artaxerxes to publish a decree for the punishment of those that did not observe the law, whether it be, saith the text, unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment, chap. 7.23,25,28.

9th, Because we ought to pray for kings, and all in authority, that under them we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness, and in honesty, which end cannot be attained unless the civil magistrate bridle and tie up heretics, 1 Tim. 2.2. these words, in all godliness, concern religion, or the first table of the moral law, as the following word, honesty, or civility, hath a respect to the commands of the second table, and the duties which we owe to our neighbour and to one another. For true magistrates are keepers and defenders of both tables of the ten commandments.

10th, Because the toleration of heretics, as we may read of the Anabaptists in Germany, Thomas Muntzer, John of Leyden, and their followers, first by railing against the ministry, as the Quakers do, and by raging against the magistracy, brought both church and state into confusion, put the country into burning flames, wherein themselves at length were consumed to ashes.

Poimen · #17 (**permalink**) 05-19-2005, 04:39 PM

I appreciate and agree with what Patman and Robin said!

Also...

Belgic Confession, Article 36

The Magistracy (Civil Government)
We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, has 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 has invested the magistracy with the sword for the punishment of evil-doers and for the protection of them that do well.

Their office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also to protect the sacred ministry, that the kingdom of Christ may thus be promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, as He commands in His Word.

Moreover, it is the bounden duty of every one, of whatever state, quality, or condition 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 tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity.

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 has established among men.

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by poimen]