nonconformist
Puritan Board Freshman
I hope this is in the right section.Where in scripture can I find seperation of church and state?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Chap. 20
IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.(p) And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church,(q) and by the power of the civil magistrate.(r)
(p) Matt. 12:25; I Pet. 2:13, 14, 16; Rom. 13:1 to 8; Heb. 13:17.
(q) Rom. 1:32 with I Cor. 5:1, 5, 11, 13; II John ver. 10, 11, and II Thess. 3:14, and I Tim. 6:3, 4, 5, and Tit. 1:10, 11, 13, and Tit. 3:10 with Matt. 18:15, 16, 17; I Tim. 1:19, 20; Rev. 2:2, 14, 15, 20; Rev. 3:9.
(r) Deut. 13:6 to 12; Rom. 13:3, 4 with II John ver. 10, 11; Ezra 7:23, 25, 26, 27, 28; Rev. 17:12, 16, 17; Neh. 13:15, 17, 21, 22, 25, 30; II Kings 23:5, 6, 9, 20, 21; II Chron. 34:33; II Chron. 15:12, 13, 16; Dan. 3:29; I Tim. 2:2; Isa. 49:23; Zech. 13:2, 3.
Chap. 23
III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: (e) yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be. preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.(f) For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.(g)
(e) II Chron. 26:18 with Matt. 18:17 and Matt. 16:19; I Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 4:11, 12; I Cor. 4:1, 2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4.
(f) Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23, 25, 26, 27, 28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5, 6, 12; I Kings 18:4; I Chron. 13:1 to 9; II Kings 23:1 to 26; II Chron. 34:33; II Chron. 15:12, 13.
(g) II Chron. 19:8, 9, 10, 11; II Chron. 29 and 30; Matt. 2:4, 5.
Chap. 31
II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion;(b) so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies.(c)
(b) Isa. 49:23; I Tim. 2:1, 2; II Chron. 19:8, 9, 10, 11; II Chron. 29, 30 chaps.; Matt. 2:4, 5; Prov. 11:14.
(c) Acts 15:2, 4, 22, 23, 25.
IV. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude, nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth; unless by way of humble petition, in cases extraordinary; or by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.(f)
(f) Luke 12:13, 14; John 18:36.
3) We must realize that the desire to have people who "lord" things over us is looked upon in scripture as a BAD thing.
3) We must realize that the desire to have people who "lord" things over us is looked upon in scripture as a BAD thing.
Is this not the same wicked principle we use today? Jesus is not our Lord,its George bush.George is our savior,George is our health care provider,George is our retirement plan.Do we not look at the world through totalitarian socialism and consider it normal?1Sa 8:19 But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, "No! But there shall be a king over us,
Originally posted by nonconformist
Is this not the same wicked principle we use today? Jesus is not our Lord,its George bush.George is our savior,George is our health care provider,George is our retirement plan.Do we not look at the world through totalitarian socialism and consider it normal?
That is what Rushdoony says we either tithe 10 % to christianity or 50 or 60% to the state.Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by nonconformist
Is this not the same wicked principle we use today? Jesus is not our Lord,its George bush.George is our savior,George is our health care provider,George is our retirement plan.Do we not look at the world through totalitarian socialism and consider it normal?
True, the U.S. has taken upon itself many roles that are intended for the church. It is not the civil magistrate that is to provide for the poor, but it is the church's responsibility. On the other hand, I don't believe the church has taken upon itself it's proper roles. If the church was doing its job, the government wouldn't have to.
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by nonconformist
Is this not the same wicked principle we use today? Jesus is not our Lord,its George bush.George is our savior,George is our health care provider,George is our retirement plan.Do we not look at the world through totalitarian socialism and consider it normal?
True, the U.S. has taken upon itself many roles that are intended for the church. It is not the civil magistrate that is to provide for the poor, but it is the church's responsibility. On the other hand, I don't believe the church has taken upon itself it's proper roles. If the church was doing its job, the government wouldn't have to.
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I am wondering and fleshing this thought out.
Does the spiritual barometer of the Church reflect the sociological, economic, and moral status of the state. I.e, when the Church is apostate the state becomes tyrannical? Just wondering.
But I thought unregenerate magistrates natually supress the truth in unrighteousness? Unless you are talking about christian magistrates.Only when both parties adhere to their biblical role, does harmony exist.
What alterior motives? position,money? Psa 110:2 Jehovah shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion to rule in the midst of Your enemies. How is this scripture to be interpreted?Originally posted by Draught Horse
That is true, but an unregenerate magistrate might actually stick to his biblically defined roles for ulterior motives. Thus Luther's adage about being ruled by a wise Turk. To be sure, this almost never happens, but it could, I guess.
Thanks Jeff.
Originally posted by nonconformist
What alterior motives? position,money? Psa 110:2 Jehovah shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion to rule in the midst of Your enemies. How is this scripture to be interpreted?Originally posted by Draught Horse
That is true, but an unregenerate magistrate might actually stick to his biblically defined roles for ulterior motives. Thus Luther's adage about being ruled by a wise Turk. To be sure, this almost never happens, but it could, I guess.
Thanks Jeff.
BTW, I agree with you on what you are trying to get at.
Originally posted by nonconformist
another question I have for Andrew or anybody. 2 Chron. 26.18 this scripture proves that state has no authority in the churches business but what about vice versa? Can somone give me a main scripture for the opposite? A scripture that would help me give psalms 110:2 a little more balance?
Originally posted by nonconformist
another question I have for Andrew or anybody. 2 Chron. 26.18 this scripture proves that state has no authority in the churches business but what about vice versa? Can somone give me a main scripture for the opposite? A scripture that would help me give psalms 110:2 a little more balance?
Originally posted by nonconformist
another question I have for Andrew or anybody. 2 Chron. 26.18 this scripture proves that state has no authority in the churches business but what about vice versa? Can somone give me a main scripture for the opposite? A scripture that would help me give psalms 110:2 a little more balance?
Ephesians 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
13Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by nonconformist
another question I have for Andrew or anybody. 2 Chron. 26.18 this scripture proves that state has no authority in the churches business but what about vice versa? Can somone give me a main scripture for the opposite? A scripture that would help me give psalms 110:2 a little more balance?
You really can't use this verse to argue for a seperation of church and state. This is refering to the OT economy in Israel, in which both the King and Preist were offices within the OT church, and types of Christ. And kings (i.e. David, Solomon, Hezekiah, etc.) often performed prophetic ( writing music for the temple) and even preistly functions at times (i.e. Solomon sacrificing at the opening of the temple, David sacrificing at the threshing floor on behalf of Israel, etc.). You will also notice that Ps. 110 doesn't just teach us about Christ's kingship, but also His preisthood, as Hebrews clearly lays out for us. Both of these offices are limited to the covenant of grace in the Church. If you are going to use that verse to say Christ is the King of all nations, then you will have to argue he is the preist of all nations as well since his kingship and preist hood are bound together and defined by the covenant. Rom. 13 certainly can be used to teach the seperation though, along with directives in the Noahic covenant which empower the magistrate with the sword to kill murderers.
1. Civil government is a divine institution, and those that are entrusted with the administration of it have their commission from Christ; it is a branch of his kingly office that by him kings reign; from him to whom all judgment is committed their power is derived. They reign by him, and therefore ought to reign for him. 2. Whatever qualifications for government any kings or princes have they are indebted to the grace of Christ for them; he gives them the spirit of government, and they have nothing, no skill, no principles of justice, but what he endues them with. A divine sentence is in the lips of the king; and kings are to their subjects what he makes them. 3. Religion is very much the strength and support of the civil government; it teaches subjects their duty, and so by it kings reign over them the more easily; it teaches kings their duty, and so by it kings reign as they ought; they decree justice, while they rule in the fear of God. Those rule well whom religion rules.
Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king?
Answer: Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel.
Chapter XXX.
Of Church Censures.
I. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.(a)
(a) Isa. 9:6, 7; I Tim. 5:17; I Thess. 5:12; Acts 20:17, 28; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24; I Cor. 12:28; Matt. 28:18, 19, 20.
Actually Andrew, that's not correct. The Confession also cites Matt. 18:7, 16:19, 1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, 1 Cor. 4:1, Rom. 10:15, and Heb. 5:4. I'm not sure what version you are refering to. I'm looking at the FPP version. So the principle stands just as firm without that Chron. proof text. I think that is left over from the view of some of the Divines that England and Scotland, like Israel, were covenanted nations, which (I think at least) is clearly not the case, at least not in reference to the covenant of grace or even the Mosaic administeration of it.Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by nonconformist
another question I have for Andrew or anybody. 2 Chron. 26.18 this scripture proves that state has no authority in the churches business but what about vice versa? Can somone give me a main scripture for the opposite? A scripture that would help me give psalms 110:2 a little more balance?
You really can't use this verse to argue for a seperation of church and state. This is refering to the OT economy in Israel, in which both the King and Preist were offices within the OT church, and types of Christ. And kings (i.e. David, Solomon, Hezekiah, etc.) often performed prophetic ( writing music for the temple) and even preistly functions at times (i.e. Solomon sacrificing at the opening of the temple, David sacrificing at the threshing floor on behalf of Israel, etc.). You will also notice that Ps. 110 doesn't just teach us about Christ's kingship, but also His preisthood, as Hebrews clearly lays out for us. Both of these offices are limited to the covenant of grace in the Church. If you are going to use that verse to say Christ is the King of all nations, then you will have to argue he is the preist of all nations as well since his kingship and preist hood are bound together and defined by the covenant. Rom. 13 certainly can be used to teach the seperation though, along with directives in the Noahic covenant which empower the magistrate with the sword to kill murderers.
2 Chron. 26.18 is the one and only proof text cited by the Westminster Confession (1646 and 1789) for the proposition that "Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments" (XXIII.3). Clearly the framers of the Confession (and those who have adopted it since) understood it to be an applicable principle today.
I think it's significant that Christ doesn't take that official title "king of kings..." until His second coming, when all His enemies are finally conquered. But I'm still meditating on that one.Christ is "king of kings and lord of lords" says the Bible (Rev. 19.16). Christ is king of the church certainly, but his kingship is not limited to the church. He is king over all (Phil. 2.-9-11; Heb. 2.8). He governs all institutions which he ordained, notably the church and the state (the two which the word of Christ designates "ministers" of God). This article treats the subject of Christ's kingship very well.
Obviously at this point, I disagree with Henry's first point that His rule is an extension of His kingly office, though I agree with the rest. Certainly they rule by Christ's providential rule, but this is not grounded in their relationship to Him as King in the covenant of grace, but rather in the covenants of works and preservation as Creator and Judge.Moreover, Proverbs 8 teaches us that:
15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. 16 By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
That this passage is speaking of Christ (personified as wisdom) is clear. Thus Matthew Henry:
1. Civil government is a divine institution, and those that are entrusted with the administration of it have their commission from Christ; it is a branch of his kingly office that by him kings reign; from him to whom all judgment is committed their power is derived. They reign by him, and therefore ought to reign for him. 2. Whatever qualifications for government any kings or princes have they are indebted to the grace of Christ for them; he gives them the spirit of government, and they have nothing, no skill, no principles of justice, but what he endues them with. A divine sentence is in the lips of the king; and kings are to their subjects what he makes them. 3. Religion is very much the strength and support of the civil government; it teaches subjects their duty, and so by it kings reign over them the more easily; it teaches kings their duty, and so by it kings reign as they ought; they decree justice, while they rule in the fear of God. Those rule well whom religion rules.
Westminster Larger Catechism:
Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king?
Answer: Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel.
Originally posted by puritansailor
Actually Andrew, that's not correct. The Confession also cites Matt. 18:7, 16:19, 1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, 1 Cor. 4:1, Rom. 10:15, and Heb. 5:4. I'm not sure what version you are refering to. I'm looking at the FPP version. So the principle stands just as firm without that Chron. proof text. I think that is left over from the view of some of the Divines that England and Scotland, like Israel, were covenanted nations, which (I think at least) is clearly not the case, at least not in reference to the covenant of grace or even the Mosaic administeration of it.Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by nonconformist
another question I have for Andrew or anybody. 2 Chron. 26.18 this scripture proves that state has no authority in the churches business but what about vice versa? Can somone give me a main scripture for the opposite? A scripture that would help me give psalms 110:2 a little more balance?
You really can't use this verse to argue for a seperation of church and state. This is refering to the OT economy in Israel, in which both the King and Preist were offices within the OT church, and types of Christ. And kings (i.e. David, Solomon, Hezekiah, etc.) often performed prophetic ( writing music for the temple) and even preistly functions at times (i.e. Solomon sacrificing at the opening of the temple, David sacrificing at the threshing floor on behalf of Israel, etc.). You will also notice that Ps. 110 doesn't just teach us about Christ's kingship, but also His preisthood, as Hebrews clearly lays out for us. Both of these offices are limited to the covenant of grace in the Church. If you are going to use that verse to say Christ is the King of all nations, then you will have to argue he is the preist of all nations as well since his kingship and preist hood are bound together and defined by the covenant. Rom. 13 certainly can be used to teach the seperation though, along with directives in the Noahic covenant which empower the magistrate with the sword to kill murderers.
2 Chron. 26.18 is the one and only proof text cited by the Westminster Confession (1646 and 1789) for the proposition that "Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments" (XXIII.3). Clearly the framers of the Confession (and those who have adopted it since) understood it to be an applicable principle today.
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by puritansailor
Actually Andrew, that's not correct. The Confession also cites Matt. 18:7, 16:19, 1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:11, 1 Cor. 4:1, Rom. 10:15, and Heb. 5:4. I'm not sure what version you are refering to. I'm looking at the FPP version. So the principle stands just as firm without that Chron. proof text. I think that is left over from the view of some of the Divines that England and Scotland, like Israel, were covenanted nations, which (I think at least) is clearly not the case, at least not in reference to the covenant of grace or even the Mosaic administeration of it.Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by nonconformist
another question I have for Andrew or anybody. 2 Chron. 26.18 this scripture proves that state has no authority in the churches business but what about vice versa? Can somone give me a main scripture for the opposite? A scripture that would help me give psalms 110:2 a little more balance?
You really can't use this verse to argue for a seperation of church and state. This is refering to the OT economy in Israel, in which both the King and Preist were offices within the OT church, and types of Christ. And kings (i.e. David, Solomon, Hezekiah, etc.) often performed prophetic ( writing music for the temple) and even preistly functions at times (i.e. Solomon sacrificing at the opening of the temple, David sacrificing at the threshing floor on behalf of Israel, etc.). You will also notice that Ps. 110 doesn't just teach us about Christ's kingship, but also His preisthood, as Hebrews clearly lays out for us. Both of these offices are limited to the covenant of grace in the Church. If you are going to use that verse to say Christ is the King of all nations, then you will have to argue he is the preist of all nations as well since his kingship and preist hood are bound together and defined by the covenant. Rom. 13 certainly can be used to teach the seperation though, along with directives in the Noahic covenant which empower the magistrate with the sword to kill murderers.
2 Chron. 26.18 is the one and only proof text cited by the Westminster Confession (1646 and 1789) for the proposition that "Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments" (XXIII.3). Clearly the framers of the Confession (and those who have adopted it since) understood it to be an applicable principle today.
I stand corrected on this point. I was looking at the OPC Confession online, not the 1646 Confession. Thus, I was citing the one and only proof text for your church's version of the Confession, and you cited the multiple proof texts for my church's edition of the Confession.
BTW, I am referring specifically to the clause "Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments."
I do believe the Westminster Assembly was correct on this point to cite that verse because it is a classic example of the distinction between the civil magistrate and the ministry. The other verses cited by the Assembly elucidate the point well too.