Christian Citizenship Poll?

[Christusregnat]

Jessica,

Since Casey's not a theonomist, I'll throw in my

What I am made most uncomfortable by with the idea of electing Christ as King, or putting him into our Constitution, etc, is the premise behind that that signifies, in my mind, His need for our putting him there. He IS King. No matter what any nation or person says or does. He needs us not to prove that Kingship. He is the ruler of this country and this world.

I don't believe that this particular argument helps your cause. For instance, did you or do you acknowledge Christ as Lord and King over your home? Does your local church acknowledge Christ as Lord and King over that church? Is the premise behind such activities an assumption that Christ needs us? If you argue against the magistrate fulfilling his calling in this way, why not every other sphere of government?

Now as for the pragmatic implications of putting Christ in our constitution, or calling him King of America (or whatever country), I think would work against Christianity. I think people have enough trouble accepting that they are not Christians simply because they live in a country that has "In God We Trust," on its dollar bills. I think the Kingdom thrives where the lines are actually as clear as can be. Putting Christ's name on our constitution, naming Him King of the universe, would not bring salvation to one person, and I think would or could actually prevent people from recognizing their need for true belief and true repentance. What are we to be concerned with? Will Christ not receive the glory due to him without our help or our recognition?

I think I understand your concern. You seem to be concerned with people naming the name of Christ, without actually knowing Him as their savior. Is that correct?

Cheers,

 

[he beholds]

Jessica,

Since Casey's not a theonomist, I'll throw in my

What I am made most uncomfortable by with the idea of electing Christ as King, or putting him into our Constitution, etc, is the premise behind that that signifies, in my mind, His need for our putting him there. He IS King. No matter what any nation or person says or does. He needs us not to prove that Kingship. He is the ruler of this country and this world.

I don't believe that this particular argument helps your cause. For instance, did you or do you acknowledge Christ as Lord and King over your home? Does your local church acknowledge Christ as Lord and King over that church? Is the premise behind such activities an assumption that Christ needs us? If you argue against the magistrate fulfilling his calling in this way, why not every other sphere of government?

I acknowledge Christ as King over my home and we do over our church because HE IS King. I also acknowledge him as King over our country and our world, because HE IS King. I see nothing wrong with an individual magistrate or a group of magistrates or every single magistrate in the world believing this (on the contrary, I, of course, see it as a good thing!). However, I think that we do not need or want to force false acknowledgment, nor do we need to give lip service to our King as a country. Our whole country does not acknowledge this and, in my opinion, Christ does not need us to force those who don't to pretend they do. The church, however, and my home, should acknowledge Christ as King, because we believe He is King. If a member of a church does not believe this, he should probably not be a member. But, since he claims to believe it, I don't think it is the same as a country acknowledging it. As for families, my husband is the head of our family. He could easily say, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
Sure, my children may grow to not acknowledge Christ (may it not be so!), but as a part of our family, under the head of their father and as members of the Covenant, we gladly treat them as if they do acknowledge Christ.

I do not think nations as a whole are part of the covenant, but families and churches within it are. (Apart from Israel.)

I hope that answered your Q.

Now as for the pragmatic implications of putting Christ in our constitution, or calling him King of America (or whatever country), I think would work against Christianity. I think people have enough trouble accepting that they are not Christians simply because they live in a country that has "In God We Trust," on its dollar bills. I think the Kingdom thrives where the lines are actually as clear as can be. Putting Christ's name on our constitution, naming Him King of the universe, would not bring salvation to one person, and I think would or could actually prevent people from recognizing their need for true belief and true repentance. What are we to be concerned with? Will Christ not receive the glory due to him without our help or our recognition?

I think I understand your concern. You seem to be concerned with people naming the name of Christ, without actually knowing Him as their savior. Is that correct?

Cheers,

Yes! That is one of my "pragmatic" concerns. I would hate to offer someone false hope.

 

[satz]

Again, what are the verses where God tells his people they have a responsibility to enforce his kingship in pagan societies?

Mark,

Where are verses that support women participating in communion? Where are verses saying that abortion is explicitly wrong? What about homosexual marriage?

You very well know that we draw out conclusions from the text without having explicit commands.

That is certainly true, but so what are the verses from which you draw your conclusions?

 

[Philip]

Governments are instituted to bring the wrath of God down upon those who do evil. If you think it is more evil to commit adultery or to murder than to worship idols, you are severely mistaken.

I don't deny it. However, we are dealing with two different kinds of crime here. One is a crime against a neighbor (and indirectly against God) whereas the other is a crime against God alone.

In other words, it is outside the State's jurisdiction, just as one cannot be tried for murder in a traffic court. The difference is not merely one of degree, but of nature. Transgression of God's rights requires a higher court than that of the State.

In fact, it is the church's duty to teach the magistrate to root out idolatry, to punish blasphemers, to see that the sabbath is hallowed, and that their nation have no other god, but the LORD.

I suppose I'll have to disagree with Calvin on this one. He was a man of his time, right as he was on many issues. I don't think you would have found St. Paul supporting such a view of governmental authority.

 

[Christusregnat]

Governments are instituted to bring the wrath of God down upon those who do evil. If you think it is more evil to commit adultery or to murder than to worship idols, you are severely mistaken.

I don't deny it. However, we are dealing with two different kinds of crime here. One is a crime against a neighbor (and indirectly against God) whereas the other is a crime against God alone.

In other words, it is outside the State's jurisdiction, just as one cannot be tried for murder in a traffic court. The difference is not merely one of degree, but of nature. Transgression of God's rights requires a higher court than that of the State.

It is not outside of the jurisdiction of the state if God put it there; and He did, without ever revoking it.

In fact, it is the church's duty to teach the magistrate to root out idolatry, to punish blasphemers, to see that the sabbath is hallowed, and that their nation have no other god, but the LORD.

I suppose I'll have to disagree with Calvin on this one. He was a man of his time, right as he was on many issues. I don't think you would have found St. Paul supporting such a view of governmental authority.

Not only will you have to disagree with Calvin, you'll also have to disagree with Rutherford, Gillespie, Augustine, the majority of the Westminster Assembly, the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, the Heidleburg Catechism, Turretin, Cotton Mather, Knox, the Covenanters, Zwingli and on and on.

By the way, you are likewise a man of your time (post-Enlightenment), but the distinct advantage for the Reformers and Fathers is that they reasoned from the whole of the Bible, rather than from an oversimplification of the New Testament, as influenced by the myth of man's freedom to believe in false gods.

Also, as I cited, Paul believed in capital sentences for heresy; he would not refuse to die if he had done anything worthy of death (denying the resurrection, for example).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Some of the claims here for "logical consistency" seem mighty strained.

For example, who could doubt that there could be (at the very least) a very different way from the ordinary for a state magistrate to handle a "first-table" offense, assuming correct jurisdiction was determined (granted for argument's sake)?

The parallel is found no further away than the office of church-governor. Who can doubt that there is a very different way from the ordinary for a church minister to handle a "second table" offense?

For the pastor or elder, dealing with the first table is a matter primarily of faith (the church's first priority); and of the second table, a matter primarily of morals (its second priority). How a church disciplines heresy and false teaching is in many respects different (and graver) than its handling of the stumbler and transgressor.

More to the point, the church proceeds against violations of the second table as though they were sins of faith (which there is a component). There is nothing, in reality, appropriate in a "five-thousand Hail Marys and a 500 guilder indulgence" punishment for a standard pecuniary penalty laid down for "murder-1, first offense" by the church, for example.

In other words,, as far as the church is concerned, temporal penalties imposed by the state for the actual crime of murder are both irrelevant and unrelated to her business. Ecclesiastic discipline seeks nothing but evidence of repentance and heart-change, and if the repentant murderer is not punished by the state, and is back in church next week, the church MAY NOT bar him "because he belongs on a gallows".


Back to the state. There was a time when the state proceeded against violators of the first table as though they were sins of morals, per se. Of course, as in the case above, no one doubts there is a moral component to these sins. The question is, what manner (if any) should the state prosecute these sins?

Are these violations that, if once engaged in, incur a specific penalty? Repentance doesn't change the "price" of a theft. So, should a Sabbath-breaker be stoned to death, even if he genuinely seems sorry? Why not?

Why should the state be in the business of granting clemencies, or judging sincerity of repentance? These are magistrates of law, not ministers of mercy, are not really competent to dispense forgiveness. Judges have historically been given only a window of flexibility in which to exercise discretion in both justice and in sentencing. They are paid to lay down the law.

If they don't, then soon all violators would soon learn to lie convincingly: "Hey, I'm really, really sorry for that idol. Look, I burned and smashed it!" Seems like a real attack on false religion, so I guess his sentence should be commuted? But no, we have to treat these crimes with Israelite justice, and "thine eye shall not pity." There's no "room for repentance" when you are judging a civil law.

Or does the state--if it is going to address matters of the first table--need to tread carefully, if it is going to exercise itself in matters of justice and the first-table? Blue laws make a good case-in-point. I'll state for the record that I think a state may create blue laws, if it wants. And if it catches a violator, a nuisance penalty is appropriate. I'd rather have obstinate people pay a repetitive (and escalating) fiduciary "sin tax", and get a reduction in my taxes as a bonus, than stone him to death.

But, unless we wish a state to enforce complete uniformity of religion and uniformity of worship, and feel morally obligated to work for an Establishmentarian status--enforced from the top down--the whole matter of which laws, and how enforced, will needs be variable from place to place.


That, by the way, is akin to Calvin's view expressed in the Institutes. He certainly did not hold the view that Mosaic penal sanctions were incumbent upon every just society. He was desirous to see the first table upheld by magistrates, but he was not so rigid as to mistake Mosaic judicials or sanctions for universal standards, pro forma as given.


Actually, I don't think Christ really wants his people focused on "the earthly big picture," societal transformation, directed change, ideal government, etc. Such a monstrous undertaking, it takes God to direct this show (to his own glory). When we use Man's manipulative tools to pursue god-like purposes, to try to erect the next level the way we are sure God wants it done, we are only building a Tower of Babel.

Stick to your limited span of control, Christian. We make better cultural-historians than cultural-architects, better home-makers than world-builders. We are gatherers and preservers (by our worldly contributions) of construction material for use in a world which is to come. Our focus is not supposed to be here, due to our transitory, temporary interest in the world, which is passing away.

 

[Philip]

By the way, you are likewise a man of your time (post-Enlightenment), but the distinct advantage for the Reformers and Fathers is that they reasoned from the whole of the Bible, rather than from an oversimplification of the New Testament, as influenced by the myth of man's freedom to believe in false gods.

Granted, I am a man of my time. However, I am, I think, taking the whole of scripture into account. I do not think that state-enforced religion has ever been a good thing since the time of Christ. In every case it has a) corrupted the church b) led to some sort of caesaropapism c) led to a false morality. State churches are breeding grounds for hypocrisy and government legislation of religious practices just leads to embarrassment.

The reformers were blind to this because it was all they knew. To them, this was a foreign concept.

However, if you're going to argue for state jurisdiction, then you do need to go all the way and argue for the full penalties of the OT law. Adultery punished with death in every case; disobedience to parents punishable by death (even if justified); taking God's name in vain punishable by death (oops! there go the rest of us). You can't have it both ways.

In the end, I think I have to agree with Bruce that this is not what I would want. The church's job is not to achieve external conformity but to transform hearts through the preaching of the word. It's about grace, not just the law. We follow the law out of gratitude to God because we have been saved by His grace alone.

 

[Peairtach]

I believe that theonomy is wrong-headed, one reason being because the many death penalties that were added at the time of Moses, were typological of the fact that all sin deserves death and pointed to God's wrath against sin which had been unatoned for by sacrifice (e.g. Hebrews 2:1-4; 10:26-29).

This means that in looking for the general equity in Moses, the death penalty can't be imposed simply because it was suitable in the Old Covenant - which was an administration of death (II Cor. 2:7).

Richard,

So, would you consider George Gillespie to be a theonomist? He said that whoever was punishable by death under Moses is punishable by death now, and whoever was not punishable by death under Moses is not now.

How do you avoid the charge of arbitrariness when simply asserting that the judicial sanctions were typical? If the Old Covenant was an "administration of death" in the sense that you have stated, why not, during the "administration of life" do away with all forms of capital punishment? In fact, why not do away with all punishment due to the "grace" vs. "death" paradigm you are superimposing on the magistrate?

It appears that you have bought into an anti-Confessional form of Biblical theology which seeks to evade the clear teaching of scripture by typology. Our confession states that the ceremonial laws were typical. Perhaps I misread, however, and it does state that the judicial laws were typical. If it doesn't, however, this sounds similar to an anabaptist argument Zwingli refuted in his Tricks of the Anabaptists.

Cheers,

It sounds like Gillespie was a proto-theonomist. In subscribing to the WCF, you do not have to agree with everything Gillespie said, or with Bahnsen's interpretation of general equity.

If it is the case that there are typical elements in the penal sanctions, then it would be theonomists who would be arbitrary in legislating shadows and putting the new wine of the Kingdom into old bottles.

Nothing that God does is arbitrary, as you know. If God wished to teach his people under age about salvation through the sacrifices of animals that was good. If He wished to hasten their physical death if they committed certain crimes against the law written on stone, to correspond to the fact that they were without a sacrifice and teach them about His eschatalogical judgment, and also to function as the penal law of the Kingdom under age, that was good.

In legislating the general equity of these penal laws in the New Covenant period we had better not legislate anything purely because it was a typical part of the Old Covenant, otherwise we will be legislating shadows which will overshadow the greater graciousness of the New Covenant and the greater eschatalogical punishment of eternal death of which these death penalties speak.

I don't say that the penal laws were only typical/ceremonial but they also were moral and functioned as Israel's penal law. Every sin deserves immediate physical (and spiritual) death.

Those of us who subscribe to the WCF, nevertheless do not learn everything from the WCF. Just because the WCF may not mention typical elements in the penal law does not mean they are not there. E.g. the high priest had to die before the manslayer was released from internal exile in the city of refuge.

The Old Covenant was an adminiistration of death because of the physical death of sacrificial animals and the physical death of people without an animal sacrifice. We don't need to go to extremes and abolish the death penalty for murder, as it has its own rationale. Nor do we need to go to extremes and get rid of civil punishments generally; we just need to be careful not to legislate what is shadowy, typical, weak and beggarly.

In the New Covenant conditions of the Millenial Golden Age, the raft of Mosaic death penalties would be inequitable (because the sacrificial system has ended), inappropriate and unecessary.

In Hebrews 2:1-4, the word spoken by angels and through Moses that every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward (which could only be escaped by valid animal sacrifices) is compared with the antitype, that a fortiori if we neglect Christ's sacrifice we will not escape God's eschatalogical judgment.

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? (Hebrews 2:1-4)

In Hebrews 10:26-29 we are reminded that those who were executed under Moses law had no animal sacrifice - neither could they offer a sacrifice for their sin before their execution. They had to pay with their own blood because the blood of an animal was not allowed to be shed for their sin. Likewise, those that despise Christ's sacrifice which is revealed in their law-breaking will receive a sorer punishment than physical death.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29)-----Added 7/16/2009 at 12:21:35 EST-----

By the way, you are likewise a man of your time (post-Enlightenment), but the distinct advantage for the Reformers and Fathers is that they reasoned from the whole of the Bible, rather than from an oversimplification of the New Testament, as influenced by the myth of man's freedom to believe in false gods.

Granted, I am a man of my time. However, I am, I think, taking the whole of scripture into account. I do not think that state-enforced religion has ever been a good thing since the time of Christ. In every case it has a) corrupted the church b) led to some sort of caesaropapism c) led to a false morality. State churches are breeding grounds for hypocrisy and government legislation of religious practices just leads to embarrassment.

The reformers were blind to this because it was all they knew. To them, this was a foreign concept.

However, if you're going to argue for state jurisdiction, then you do need to go all the way and argue for the full penalties of the OT law. Adultery punished with death in every case; disobedience to parents punishable by death (even if justified); taking God's name in vain punishable by death (oops! there go the rest of us). You can't have it both ways.

In the end, I think I have to agree with Bruce that this is not what I would want. The church's job is not to achieve external conformity but to transform hearts through the preaching of the word. It's about grace, not just the law. We follow the law out of gratitude to God because we have been saved by His grace alone.

The idea that the state can or should remain opposed to Christ or neutral about Christ - and that Christians should think this is God's will - is ridiculous.

This does not need to mean that the state should persecute non-Christians. Holy War is over. The way people are converted (opposition to Christ is neutralised) is by faith alone in Christ alone through grace alone - not by being cut down with a sword of iron or stoned to death. Evangelism and education are the means.

This is how Western freedoms developed after the Reformation, but sadly things have got out of control.

Balance is the key, and what should be proposed depends very much on the size of the Christian consensus in a nation or the state of the Christian ascendency/descendancy. The leaven is still on the march, but the cake hasn't yet been baked.

 

[brianeschen]

In the end, I think I have to agree with Bruce that this is not what I would want. The church's job is not to achieve external conformity but to transform hearts through the preaching of the word. It's about grace, not just the law. We follow the law out of gratitude to God because we have been saved by His grace alone.

No one said it was the church's job . . . just the state's. The state does not deal with the heart, it is merely a minister of God to execute His judgment, where it has been given authority to do so. It is helpful to maintain a biblical understanding of the separation of the two.

 

[Peairtach]

Further evidence that the Mosaic death penalties were interlinked to the ceremonial law, is that appeal could be made to the altar, the place of atoning sacrifice.

E.g.

He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. (Exodus 21:12-15)

Here we are told that the premedidated murderer could not appeal to the altar. The implication is that other capital criminals could, although we're not told whom. In the New Covenant we do not have a typical altar, necessitating a reassessment of the Mosaic death penalties for today, since they are inextricably linked with the typical altar.

See also I Kings 1:50-53 and I Kings 2:28-34.

There is further evidence that the penal law of Moses and the ceremonial law were interlinked, this being relevant in assessing the New Covenant general equity.

 

[Philip]

The idea that the state can or should remain opposed to Christ or neutral about Christ - and that Christians should think this is God's will - is ridiculous.

Oh, I agree--I just think that government legislation of the first table would qualify as establishment of religion--and I oppose established churches as they tend toward either moralism (Puritan New England) or liberalism/broad church (Church of England).

No one said it was the church's job . . . just the state's. The state does not deal with the heart, it is merely a minister of God to execute His judgment, where it has been given authority to do so. It is helpful to maintain a biblical understanding of the separation of the two.

And because the state cannot deal with the heart, it cannot exercise mercy based on repentance unless there are more shades of grey than are given in the OT law. Again, the purpose of the state is to maintain order and do justice between human beings.

 

[DonP]

If the govt. requires everyone to go to church , then they have to decide which church.

If they did, then all other churches would be illegal, just as not going would be a crime.

What punishment would you suggest the govt give for violating this law?

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from P.F.Pugh
Oh, I agree--I just think that government legislation of the first table would qualify as establishment of religion--and I oppose established churches as they tend toward either moralism (Puritan New England) or liberalism/broad church (Church of England).

We've had that experience in Scotland as well. But it coincided with the ascendency of Enlightenment thinking and particularly also Liberal theology in the middle 19th century.

If godly, evangelical and Reformed thinking was in the ascendent, the establishment principle would work better. Reformed and evangelical ministers have to be willing to fight Liberalism in the church courts and have to be willing to be ejected rather than stay in a mixed denomination even if it is the established church. Or the church should be re-established according to its confession. The smaller Presbyterian churches in Scotland are closer to the CofS established by Knox. Evangelicals in the CofS are beginning to realise that Liberalism can't be accomodated - I hope.

If there was a true revival of Christianity in Scotland and the eclipse of secularism there would be a demand for some form of establishment. The Puritans and the compilers of the WCF were ahead of their time - the Millennial Golden/Silver Age. They didn't foresee Enlightenment rationalism and the great apostasy it fostered in the West. Secular humanism won't triumph forever. Hopefully it won't go on for further hundreds of years. The collapse of modernism into postmodernism may be a sign that the secular humanistic mindset is in trouble (?)

The state could recognise an etablished confession of faith rather than a denomination, so that a range of churches could be state churches.

I don't see how having laws against blasphemy and certain Sabbath activities involves the persecution of people of other faiths. We had such laws in Great Britain, and they worked well enough until the post-war break down of a Christian consensus in this country, particularly since 1960

 

[buggy]

I believe that the state should be kept small and limited - we should, as Scriptures say, pray for the leaders, that they may give us a peaceable life - and in my opinion the tenets of classical liberalism (not the social liberalism called 'liberal' today), is the best provider of such freedoms.

The Church should be the salt and light of the world - and the jewel of morality in any state. I pray for a broadly Christian society that tolerates the freedoms of the non-believers, that God may use our testimonies to lead them to the Gospel (and if He wills, salvation).

 

[Philip]

The state could recognise an etablished confession of faith rather than a denomination, so that a range of churches could be state churches.

Which confession, though? Would we exclude Roman Catholics? How about Eastern Orthodox? Or would we just have subscription to the creeds?

I don't see how having laws against blasphemy and certain Sabbath activities involves the persecution of people of other faiths. We had such laws in Great Britain, and they worked well enough until the post-war break down of a Christian consensus in this country, particularly since 1960

If there is such a consensus, then laws concerning such things are, to some extent, unnecessary. If there is not, then they are unenforceable. Unenforceable laws are no laws at all.

 

[Peairtach]

The state could recognise an etablished confession of faith rather than a denomination, so that a range of churches could be state churches.

Which confession, though? Would we exclude Roman Catholics? How about Eastern Orthodox? Or would we just have subscription to the creeds?

I don't see how having laws against blasphemy and certain Sabbath activities involves the persecution of people of other faiths. We had such laws in Great Britain, and they worked well enough until the post-war break down of a Christian consensus in this country, particularly since 1960

If there is such a consensus, then laws concerning such things are, to some extent, unnecessary. If there is not, then they are unenforceable. Unenforceable laws are no laws at all.

Re confessions, it depends on the spiritual maturity and state of the nation. That the state wants to lead the country in terms of the confession need not imply persecution of minority religions.

These laws are to some extent also necessary in a Christianised country, and an ascendant Presbyterianism/Evangelicalism would demand them, as they did in the past. As I've argued above, the Mosaic death penalties were linked to the ceremonial law, particularly the altar.

Because of this, it would not be appropriate or necessary to execute those e.g. behind "Jerry Springer the Opera" or "The Life of Brian" or those who open their shops on the Sabbath. A prison sentence or fine would suffice.

Laws such as these would be re(developed) in the light of Scripture, Christian reflection and sanctified common sense, as the godly ascendency gained momentum.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It seems Utopian and a bit of past-projection to say that we can tell how a future society will (or even should) govern itself. Are we actually so sure that in our own past, we've had the best society and government possible? And even if we are right that it was, we cannot begin to marshal all the facts that formed it in the first place, so as to replicate it.

Why are we suggesting "appropriate penalties" for crimes we are defining for a society we don't inhabit, and most likely won't? At least the theonomists are consistent when they say: "prescription then=prescription now."

Preoccupation with "the way things ought to be" culturally and societally--other than perhaps informing your voting-stance (if you happen to be enfranchised)--is an example of "taking your eyes off the ball."

I need to make sure I am the way I'm supposed to be. And then, I have responsibilities for having my family in order. And then lending a hand in keeping the church in order; or, if I am involved in any business, being a Christian in my station. That's about all any of us can handle.

Maybe one half of one percent of all the world's population has had, has now, or ever will have a say in how they are governed. Yet Christians flourish everywhere, seeking "the welfare of the city where I have sent you" (Jer.29:7), by building homes, planting gardens, and raising families.

Are Chinese Christians expending significant energies toward putting well-qualified Christians into positions of secular power and influence? No?!? What's wrong with those people? Why are they ignoring major planks of God's Word and Christ's explicit and detailed instructions on revolutionizing their institutions?

(somebody, help me out, ...I wanted to put down a Scripture reference for that last paragraph, but I can't seem to find it... anywhere)



Who are those primarily concerned about these things? People who feel as though they've lost something. But they didn't build what they had, and neither did their fathers or grandfathers. It all happened without human direction. And some of it is now gone, and will not be recovered in the same form.

Are we pursuing the Christian version of a centrally planned state? Thinking we are going to redirect the culture (other than as mindless germs of leaven or grains of salt) is as rational to me as AlGore's "taking command" of the weather. Or WashDC's attempt to rewrite economic law to suit them and their cronies.

This preoccupation is a massive distraction from the matters of truly monumental significance--such as having family devotions, and praying with my children, and making sure they wear a clean diaper. Now that is the sort of focus that changed a hostile Roman Empire.

If better things are meant for one generation than the previous (or the next), we live with it. We endure. We pray for ourselves and posterity, for faith in God. Everything else in in Christ's hands, the One who rules the nations (with an iron rod).

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Bruce
Are Chinese Christians expending significant energies toward putting well-qualified Christians into positions of secular power and influence? No?!? What's wrong with those people? Why are they ignoring major planks of God's Word and Christ's explicit and detailed instructions on revolutionizing their institutions?

(somebody, help me out, ...I wanted to put down a Scripture reference for that last paragraph, but I can't seem to find it... anywhere)

As we know, God is interested in "revolutionising" individuals before institutions, so I agree with you that the Chinese and other Christians that aren't too focussed on politics - or not focussed on politics at all - have got the right idea.

Quote from Bruce
At least the theonomists are consistent when they say: "prescription then=prescription now."

This is inconsistent of the theonomists, to the extent that they would be prescribing shadows, weak and beggarly typology.

I'm still for learning all we can about Christian ethics from both Testaments - properly interpreted.

Quote from Bruce
This preoccupation is a massive distraction from the matters of truly monumental significance--such as having family devotions, and praying with my children, and making sure they wear a clean diaper. Now that is the sort of focus that changed a hostile Roman Empire.

It would be if it prevented you from doing those things; it may do sadly in some cases.

Quote from Bruce
If better things are meant for one generation than the previous (or the next), we live with it. We endure. We pray for ourselves and posterity, for faith in God. Everything else in in Christ's hands, the One who rules the nations (with an iron rod).

It will all pan out in the most glorious way for Christ and His people in the end.

 

[brianeschen]

No one said it was the church's job . . . just the state's. The state does not deal with the heart, it is merely a minister of God to execute His judgment, where it has been given authority to do so. It is helpful to maintain a biblical understanding of the separation of the two.

And because the state cannot deal with the heart, it cannot exercise mercy based on repentance unless there are more shades of grey than are given in the OT law. Again, the purpose of the state is to maintain order and do justice between human beings.

And how do they maintain that order and justice except via external control? After all, the state was given the "sword," while the church was given the "keys of the kingdom." God never intended the state to deal with the heart, just the externals. God deals with the heart via His Word and Spirit and he uses the Church to accomplish that, not the state.

How then is the state to know what to enforce? What to externally control? Look at the moral law . . . all ten of the commandments. The state is to punish external violations of God's moral law.

 

[davidsuggs]

Split

I am rather divided at the moment between the theonomic view espoused by Bahnsen, et al. and the Kuyperian comprehensive and yet realistic position.

 

[Philip]

The trouble here is that, if we have any sort of external control, it will become totalitarian in a modern world. We start enforcing the second commandment and the logical conclusion is that we persecute the Eastern Orthodox and traditionalist Catholics.

Or take the third commandment? My interpretation is that this forbids bad theology--oops, we need to burn Karl Barth, Thomas Aquinas, and Charles Finney (not to mention Nestorius). The only way that this can play out well is if all in the nation either a) convert to reformed practice b) leave the country. And personally, I'd leave with them.

And how do they maintain that order and justice except via external control? After all, the state was given the "sword," while the church was given the "keys of the kingdom." God never intended the state to deal with the heart, just the externals.

Which is why the state should not enforce the first table: the first table is all about the heart. The state deals with man's relationship with man, and should not legislate his relationship to God. The best that the state will achieve is a nation of hypocrites.

 

[Southern Twang]

It seems Utopian and a bit of past-projection to say that we can tell how a future society will (or even should) govern itself. Are we actually so sure that in our own past, we've had the best society and government possible? And even if we are right that it was, we cannot begin to marshal all the facts that formed it in the first place, so as to replicate it.

The Bible gives us an indication that the best is yet to come.

Why are we suggesting "appropriate penalties" for crimes we are defining for a society we don't inhabit, and most likely won't? At least the theonomists are consistent when they say: "prescription then=prescription now."

We need to be prepared for that society. Theonomists believe we will inhabit such a society and that it is inevitable.

Preoccupation with "the way things ought to be" culturally and societally--other than perhaps informing your voting-stance (if you happen to be enfranchised)--is an example of "taking your eyes off the ball."

You are correct Bruce that we should not be preoccupied with the subject, but we should also not ignore it all together. Theonomy is the game plan for how society is to be run to the glory of God. No other standard will suffice.

I need to make sure I am the way I'm supposed to be. And then, I have responsibilities for having my family in order. And then lending a hand in keeping the church in order; or, if I am involved in any business, being a Christian in my station. That's about all any of us can handle.

I agree with this statement in general, though we should not neglect the governmental sphere. You believe it is all you can handle, but others may strive further by God's grace. I personally think you are cutting yourself short.

Maybe one half of one percent of all the world's population has had, has now, or ever will have a say in how they are governed. Yet Christians flourish everywhere, seeking "the welfare of the city where I have sent you" (Jer.29:7), by building homes, planting gardens, and raising families.

Are Chinese Christians expending significant energies toward putting well-qualified Christians into positions of secular power and influence? No?!? What's wrong with those people? Why are they ignoring major planks of God's Word and Christ's explicit and detailed instructions on revolutionizing their institutions?

The Chinese Christians will ultimately have to deal with this major plank. Hopefully they will choose wisely, unlike us here in America. I mean come on, humanistic pagan law is working out just so well for us!

Who are those primarily concerned about these things? People who feel as though they've lost something. But they didn't build what they had, and neither did their fathers or grandfathers. It all happened without human direction. And some of it is now gone, and will not be recovered in the same form.

Are we pursuing the Christian version of a centrally planned state? Thinking we are going to redirect the culture (other than as mindless germs of leaven or grains of salt) is as rational to me as AlGore's "taking command" of the weather. Or WashDC's attempt to rewrite economic law to suit them and their cronies.

I rather see it as a Christian decentralized state. You are approaching Theonomy from the wrong angle. Pagans will have to obey the law. Just like you and I live under pagan law now, the pagan will have to live under Christian law then. That's life. They'll have to get over it. If you ain't Christian, you should at least act like one.

This preoccupation is a massive distraction from the matters of truly monumental significance--such as having family devotions, and praying with my children, and making sure they wear a clean diaper. Now that is the sort of focus that changed a hostile Roman Empire.

If better things are meant for one generation than the previous (or the next), we live with it. We endure. We pray for ourselves and posterity, for faith in God. Everything else in in Christ's hands, the One who rules the nations (with an iron rod).

Once again your critique is dead on. Theonomy is a part of the Christian life. Christians should not be obsessed with it nor ignore it. Truly our "preoccupation" rests in Jesus Christ alone.

God's law produces ultimate justice. Man made or synergized law can simply not do this. Also, I find it ironic how the pietistic Christians believe they are so much kinder to the unbelievers by not subjecting them to such a standard in society all the while watching them sink into unbelief and eventually into hell. At least with Theonomy, the pagan can catch a real glimpse of God by seeing His law in everyday life (this is not to suggeest unbelievers cannot see God in other ways). It would be a reminder to him that the Christian religion is real and that worst is yet to come if he doesn't flee his rebellious state.

 

[dudley]

A question about Kline's views on Covenant

Which particular view of the Christian's responsibility as well as the Church's responsibility in Society, Politics, Culture do you adhere to? Feel free to explain the nuances of your differences if you adhere more or less to one of the particular view points above or a combination of view points.

I think I lean towards the Klinean Two Kingdom View (Generally line up with Kline's views on Covenant, Republication, Natural Law application for Civil Magistrates, and distinct separation of Church and State and an almost Libertarian approach to Politics) I am still relatively new to the Reformed faith and I do know from my studies of the Westminster standards that the original Westminster confession of faith did not allow tolerance for false and untrue religions. However I am asking if it is true that the founding fathers were Klinean Two Kingdom in their View when establising the Constitution of the U.S.? From my perspective as a former roman catholic and convert to the Presbyterian Reformed faith I am thinking they were.

According to what I have read the American modification of WCF 23:3 in 1788 in Philadelphia affirmed that the duty of the state in reference to religion was (1) to protect the church; (2) to protect citizens; (3) to ensure freedom of assembly. However, the duty of the state to encourage the unity of the church and the maintenance of the truth was not asserted and all denominations of Christians were placed on an equal basis. The underlying principle is at best that the state's duty does not extend to anything but the encouragement of a lowest common denominator Christianity, and at worst that the state has nothing to do with religion but to protect people in the free exercise of it-Ihe actual current practice in the United States. In other words, the vision of a thoroughly Christian state was somewhat dimmed by a pragmatic acceptance of the denominational ideal, and secularising influences since 1788 have contributed to a pluralistic view of the state with law derived from the will of the people. In addition, much evangelicalism is dispensational and antinomian

From OPC WCH 23 3 : "And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance."

Could anyone clarify this for me?

in grace,
Dudley

 

[Christusregnat]

Granted, I am a man of my time. However, I am, I think, taking the whole of scripture into account. I do not think that state-enforced religion has ever been a good thing since the time of Christ. In every case it has a) corrupted the church b) led to some sort of caesaropapism c) led to a false morality. State churches are breeding grounds for hypocrisy and government legislation of religious practices just leads to embarrassment.

Philip, would you argue, then, that a state-enforced religion was a good thing prior to the time of Christ? Also, do you think that the Westminster Assembly was the product (or produced) such false religion, hypocrisy, corrupt churches, and every other evil? Do you seriously believe this, or was this for rhetorical affect? You are clearly a child of the enlightenment, and the revisionist histories you've been reading aren't helping to educate you.

The reformers were blind to this because it was all they knew. To them, this was a foreign concept.

Actually, they argued for it from Scripture, and were quite aware of the strand of Anabaptist thought that advocates religious toleration as distinctly Christian. In fact, some of the Puritans (the Independents in particular) were of this erroneous opinion as well, and were soundly rebuked at the Westminster Assembly.

However, if you're going to argue for state jurisdiction, then you do need to go all the way and argue for the full penalties of the OT law. Adultery punished with death in every case; disobedience to parents punishable by death (even if justified); taking God's name in vain punishable by death (oops! there go the rest of us). You can't have it both ways.

There are a few issues to address here. One, you are right, a thoroughgoing Christian civilization can't be antinomian respecting the Mosaic judicials.

Second, God never stated that "justified disobedience" was worthy of death. You may need to do some homework on this. You may also find it of interest that Jesus considered death the only wholesome penalty for those that curse their father or their mother.

Of course public blasphemy should be punishable by death, and, no, the magistrate has no jurisdiction over the private thoughts of the heart; only over public and witnessable actions.

In the end, I think I have to agree with Bruce that this is not what I would want. The church's job is not to achieve external conformity but to transform hearts through the preaching of the word. It's about grace, not just the law. We follow the law out of gratitude to God because we have been saved by His grace alone.

Theology, praise the Lord, never revolves around what "I want". God doesn't really care. What we should care about is what He wants. Also, I agree: the church's job is to transform men's hearts. However, your approach is, again, dividing up the different uses of the Law in Anabaptist fashion. God gave us the Law to 1. Convict us of our sin, and lead us to saving faith in Christ; 2. Conduct the thankful believer in the path of righteousness for His Name's sake; 3. Direct the magistrate in what sins he has jurisdiction to punish, and how he ought to punish them. Erecting a grace/law dichotomy for the magistrate is confusing uses of the law.

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

Richard,

I'm finding this interchange enjoyable. So as not to become too tedious, I will say that I disagree with the typology you have imposed on the judicials; I think it is arbitrary. Further, I think if followed consistently, would lead to the abolition of civil justice.

The example you cited from the cities of refuge deals with captial punishment for muder. If you wanted to argue against a certain penalty from this passage, you would be forced to argue against the death penalty for murder (which I understand you are unwilling to do). The fact that the Torah does not nicely distinguish between the different types of law does not mean that they are the same kind. If you care to read "you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself" in Leviticus 19, you will find it surrounded by genuinely typological teachings. It is confusion to set aside these distinctions. I do not deny typology; it is all over the books of Moses. What this has to do with the equity of the judicial punishments is this: it is irrelevant.

The point about Gillespie is simply that the Assembly was composed of men of similar convictions, which can very easily be established (pun intended) by reading their writings and the original WCF etc.

It sounds like Gillespie was a proto-theonomist. In subscribing to the WCF, you do not have to agree with everything Gillespie said, or with Bahnsen's interpretation of general equity.

Indeed, you do not. My point remains that many of the men there were of the same mind, and that the original standards are impossible to make sense of from our modern Post-Enlightenment views of the magistrate's duty.

If it is the case that there are typical elements in the penal sanctions, then it would be theonomists who would be arbitrary in legislating shadows and putting the new wine of the Kingdom into old bottles.

It is not the case, however.

If He wished to hasten their physical death if they committed certain crimes against the law written on stone, to correspond to the fact that they were without a sacrifice and teach them about His eschatalogical judgment, and also to function as the penal law of the Kingdom under age, that was good.

Again, this is an unbiblical form of Biblical theology. Unconfessional to boot. Jesus reiterated Mosaic Judicial sanctions with approval, and (as we'll see in a second) so did the Apostles.

I don't say that the penal laws were only typical/ceremonial but they also were moral and functioned as Israel's penal law. Every sin deserves immediate physical (and spiritual) death.

Actually, not every sin deserves immediate physical death. One of the major functions of the judicials is to restrain the magistrate from punishing every sin that he wants. Jesus recognized this distinction in the Law He gave when he talked about murder in the Sermon on the Mount; some sins bring us to judgment before God (hating in the heart), but some can be brought as evidence in a trial (saying "Raca").

Those of us who subscribe to the WCF, nevertheless do not learn everything from the WCF. Just because the WCF may not mention typical elements in the penal law does not mean they are not there. E.g. the high priest had to die before the manslayer was released from internal exile in the city of refuge.

I'm not contending that arguing that the judicials is extra-confessional, I'm arguing that it is contra-confessional, since it specifically denies what the Confession states about the judicials.

In the New Covenant conditions of the Millenial Golden Age, the raft of Mosaic death penalties would be inequitable (because the sacrificial system has ended), inappropriate and unecessary.

This is unconfessional rot.

Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? (Hebrews 2:1-4)

Notice: 1. Hebrews argues that the mosaic judicials are righteous judgments (you think they are typical, but they are actually the right judgments). Notice: 2. He argues from the justice of these penalties to the greater justice of the final judgment. The main conclusion: Mosaic judicial sanctions are right; God's greater punishment is also right. I don't see where this bring in sacrifices.

In Hebrews 10:26-29 we are reminded that those who were executed under Moses law had no animal sacrifice - neither could they offer a sacrifice for their sin before their execution.

The point of the Mosaic law is that a man could not make an "escape route" for himself from a capital sentence. However, as we know, every sin can be forgiven against God, even though some could not be forgiven on earth, and still can't.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29)

Again, this argues for the justice of the Mosaic sanction, not for its typology. Despisers of Moses' law are worthy of death. Despisers of the gospel of Christ are worthy of an even greater death.

 

[christianhope]

Although I am new to this topic, I would echo ADkings post on a covenanted church and nation.

 

[brianeschen]

And how do they maintain that order and justice except via external control? After all, the state was given the "sword," while the church was given the "keys of the kingdom." God never intended the state to deal with the heart, just the externals.

Which is why the state should not enforce the first table: the first table is all about the heart. The state deals with man's relationship with man, and should not legislate his relationship to God. The best that the state will achieve is a nation of hypocrites.

Murder and adultery are all about the heart as well. You are arguing against all ten of the commandments. (see Matthew 5)

 

[Philip]

Philip, would you argue, then, that a state-enforced religion was a good thing prior to the time of Christ?

I think you're using the terms "state" and "enforced" rather loosely here. I suppose I'll have to grant, though, that biblical rulers are commended for tearing down shrines to Baal and Asherah.

Also, do you think that the Westminster Assembly was the product (or produced) such false religion, hypocrisy, corrupt churches, and every other evil?

Funny that the decisions of Westminster have stuck better in places where the divines had no legal jurisdiction (Scotland) than where they did (England). Fifty years after Cromwell's death, Puritanism was nearly extinct in England (and starting to rot in New England).

You are clearly a child of the enlightenment, and the revisionist histories you've been reading aren't helping to educate you.

Actually, my thought on natural law draws more from Aquinas than from Locke. I tend to advocate a limited monarchy, but that's another debate.

Actually, they argued for it from Scripture, and were quite aware of the strand of Anabaptist thought that advocates religious toleration as distinctly Christian. In fact, some of the Puritans (the Independents in particular) were of this erroneous opinion as well, and were soundly rebuked at the Westminster Assembly.

My point exactly: the reformers had blind spots too. The best theologians are only right about eighty percent of the time.

Of course public blasphemy should be punishable by death, and, no, the magistrate has no jurisdiction over the private thoughts of the heart; only over public and witnessable actions.

And I suppose we should be burning heretics at the stake?

God gave us the Law to 1. Convict us of our sin, and lead us to saving faith in Christ; 2. Conduct the thankful believer in the path of righteousness for His Name's sake; 3. Direct the magistrate in what sins he has jurisdiction to punish, and how he ought to punish them.

I agree with Richard that the legal system given to the nation of Israel is inextricably tied to the sacrificial system. Remember also what Jesus did about the woman caught in adultery.

Murder and adultery are all about the heart as well. You are arguing against all ten of the commandments. (see Matthew 5)

But the first four are primarily about the heart. I just wonder, under this new legal system, if we would end up assigning punishments for workaholism (idolatry) or using mild swears like "damn" (blasphemy) or having executions rather than shotgun weddings.

Sounds like we're going to need gas chambers here, what with all the executions we'll be having.

But in all seriousness, I don't think even Calvin argued for going the whole way in the sense you're talking about. Where were the stonings in Geneva? Where were the executions for blasphemy in New England? Where? Your spiritual forefathers, whom you respect and admire either a) didn't have the guts to go through with it b) knew better than you that the mosaic penal system was eradicated by Christ's death, along with the rest of the ceremonial law.

 

[Peairtach]

I think that the theonomists (or Theonomists) need to go back to the drawing board on civil offences and penalties.

The idea that they have the correct general equity on these, when they ignore the effect of the abolition of the typological sacrificial system which was linked to the use of the death penalty - no Israelite who was to be executed had a typological sacrificial atonement for his/her sin before their execution, which execution was carried out by the whole congregation. Which congregation would carry that out in the New Covenant? The local Presbyterian or Baptist church? Can we deny Christ's Cross (the altar) to someone who is going to be executed?

The Theonomists would certainly have to deprive the convict of sound spiritual counsel and access to God's Word if they were to even try to be faithful to this aspect of the Mosaic law.

On top of that it was often carried out by stoning: appropriate when the Israelites had the law in its stony form in their midst.

I'll answer your points one by one later, Adam.

 

[brianeschen]

Murder and adultery are all about the heart as well. You are arguing against all ten of the commandments. (see Matthew 5)

But the first four are primarily about the heart. I just wonder, under this new legal system, if we would end up assigning punishments for workaholism (idolatry) or using mild swears like "damn" (blasphemy) or having executions rather than shotgun weddings.

And the last 6 are primarily about . . . ?