Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
What are the best arguments to use if you were trying to convince somebody that the Westminster Standards reject the concept of a regulative principle of civil government (hereafter, RPCG)?
One of the most obvious problems that I can think of are the inconsistency of the RPCG with the general equity clause and the three-fold division of the law (19:4), because how is the notion of a RPCG possibly congruous with the idea of a general equity of expired laws which may apply (not must apply in all circumstances) to modern nations?
Second, the WCF places limits upon Christian liberty which are not consistent with the RPCG. For instance, it says that " God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith on worship" (20:4). According to the Confession, in all aspects of life we are free from obedience to commands which are contrary to the word of God. In matters pertaining to faith and worship, furthermore, we are free from any command which is beside the word of God. In other words, nothing can be imposed upon us in matters of faith and worship except what is commanded in scripture. But the Confession does not apply this regulative principle to matters of civil ethics, because in the civil realm we are to obey all laws which are not contrary to God's moral law - even though such laws may not be expressly mentioned in scripture (traffic laws, for instance).
Third, the Confession states that the civil magistrate is to "maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth" (23:2). How is this principle consistent with a RPCG? Surely if the RPCG is correct each commonwealth could not have its own "wholesome laws", but, instead, every nation would essentially be bound to OT judicial law alone (except for what has been modified in the NT)? Moreover, if the Confession taught a RPCG, why does it only list a small number of areas which the civil ruler is absolutely forbidden from interfering in (preaching the word, administering the sacraments and church discipline) in 23:3?
Is there anything else in the standards that you would cite in opposition to the RPCG?
One of the most obvious problems that I can think of are the inconsistency of the RPCG with the general equity clause and the three-fold division of the law (19:4), because how is the notion of a RPCG possibly congruous with the idea of a general equity of expired laws which may apply (not must apply in all circumstances) to modern nations?
Second, the WCF places limits upon Christian liberty which are not consistent with the RPCG. For instance, it says that " God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith on worship" (20:4). According to the Confession, in all aspects of life we are free from obedience to commands which are contrary to the word of God. In matters pertaining to faith and worship, furthermore, we are free from any command which is beside the word of God. In other words, nothing can be imposed upon us in matters of faith and worship except what is commanded in scripture. But the Confession does not apply this regulative principle to matters of civil ethics, because in the civil realm we are to obey all laws which are not contrary to God's moral law - even though such laws may not be expressly mentioned in scripture (traffic laws, for instance).
Third, the Confession states that the civil magistrate is to "maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth" (23:2). How is this principle consistent with a RPCG? Surely if the RPCG is correct each commonwealth could not have its own "wholesome laws", but, instead, every nation would essentially be bound to OT judicial law alone (except for what has been modified in the NT)? Moreover, if the Confession taught a RPCG, why does it only list a small number of areas which the civil ruler is absolutely forbidden from interfering in (preaching the word, administering the sacraments and church discipline) in 23:3?
Is there anything else in the standards that you would cite in opposition to the RPCG?