Discipline in Calvin's Geneva

[Tom Hart]

Would you be equally opposed to the Government using its legislative power to close all commerce and recreational facilities, so that the Christian community could worship God unhindered on the Lords day?

Indeed. I would hope that every Christian would answer in the negative, but, sadly, the toxen of religious "freedom" is widespread. (And, anyway, most professing Christians today have no love for the Sabbath.)

For to whom does God's moral law apply? Believers merely? Or all men? If all men, surely magistrates, too! And if magistrates, then those magistrates are bound to enforce it.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Tell that to the Reformers, Puritans, and Scottish Presbyterians.

That is precisely where the debate lies. Those who subscribe to the original WCF would agree with Calvin. But those who subscribe to the American revision of the WCF, the Savoy Declaration, or the 1689 Baptist Confession would disagree with Calvin's view of Church and State.

 

[Pergamum]

Civil fines levied by the State for missing church services confuses what is Ceasar's and what is Christ's.

Plus, if we must lawfully attend church then the question enters, "What is a church" and also "Who is a lawful pastor"?What sort of lawful registration is needed by the State to preach?

And thus we have as a result of this baptists and independents and nonconformists who had to meet in secret lest they be prosecuted by the state and become persecuted martyrs. Many of these were not considered lawful churches or preachers in the past. The Puritans also had their times of hiding in the caves, too. Let's not forget the founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams, has now become a hero due to his banishment and his efforts to promote religious tolerance.

Sure, you can dispute and say that the next time a theocracy succeeds that there will be tolerance for all (at least Christians) in the future, but in the past this has never really happened, so why would we expect it in the future?

In heavily Muslim parts of Indonesia during the fasting month, there are roving bands of devout religionists who go around and check restaurants to make sure no Muslims are eating therein. I told one guy if they kept doing such I was going to carry around a bacon sandwich and eat it in front of the mosque everyday, and to just leave people alone. But religious people cannot seem to leave people alone, but want to regulate every part of their life. And such is why atheism begins to look good to people.

Religion should never be coerced.

 

[Rom]

Under the rubric advocated for by some, poor Nehemiah looks pretty bad for upholding the Sabbath.

So it was, at the gates of Jerusalem, as it began to be dark before the Sabbath, that I commanded the gates to be shut, and charged that they must not be opened till after the Sabbath. Then I posted some of my servants at the gates, so that no burdens would be brought in on the Sabbath day. Now the merchants and sellers of all kinds of wares lodged outside Jerusalem once or twice.
Then I warned them, and said to them, “Why do you spend the night around the wall? If you do so again, I will lay hands on you!” From that time on they came no more on the Sabbath. And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and that they should go and guard the gates, to sanctify the Sabbath day.

Remember me, O my God, concerning this also, and spare me according to the greatness of Your mercy! Nehemiah 13:19–22, NKJV

We'll see how the Western experiment of "freedom of religion" pans out. I suspect you'll find yourself in just as much hot water for not bowing down to the religion of the land (fundamentalist liberal atheism) as if a Muslim ran things around here soon enough.

Man is a religious creature. It is a question of which religion the State will enforce. Don't get so haughty that Western Democracies built upon Christian principles which have been around for a handful of years have "got it right" and Christian states got it wrong. If things continue as they are, some of you might beg to be led back into the Geneva of Calvin's day.

 

[Pergamum]

Under the rubric advocated for by some, poor Nehemiah looks pretty bad for upholding the Sabbath.



We'll see how the Western experiment of "freedom of religion" pans out. I suspect you'll find yourself in just as much hot water for not bowing down to the religion of the land (fundamentalist liberal atheism) as if a Muslim ran things around here soon enough.

Man is a religious creature. It is a question of which religion the State will enforce. Don't get so haughty that Western Democracies built upon Christian principles which have been around for a handful of years have "got it right" and Christian states got it wrong. If things continue as they are, some of you might beg to be led back into the Geneva of Calvin's day.

As if the only two alternatives are Geneva or America in 2019.

 

[Rom]

I'm saying that in the flow of history, America of 2019 is "inevitable" in a State that does not, in some way, set apart the Christian religion from the rest. If you are tolerant toward all religions, you end up where we are now because that rubric becomes the governing religion of the land (as evidenced by the COEXIST bumper sticker). As Christianity is intolerant by its very gospel message - such a State will never be happy to keep a religion in its bounds that proclaims sin and repentance and that "Christ is King!" and will not bow down to the altar of secularism. As seen in the book of Daniel, the Kingdom of God always comes into conflict with nations as well as individual sinners. History has shown this cycle over and over again as well.

Even the revised American Westminster Confession does not seem to go so far as to advocate for the magistrate to open up a complete freedom (or equality) of religions. It advocates for a State favorable to the Christian Religion by being nursing fathers. It still believes that the civil magistrate is supposed to protect the Church (Isaiah 49:23). At this point, though, someone has to define the Church. Nicene Christianity? The Papacy? etc. Sometimes tolerance sounds simple, but it really isn't.

Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. (Isa. 49:23, Rom. 13:1–6) 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. (American WCF 23.2)

Now, I prefer the original 1646 in Chapter 23, but I wonder if this portion of the American Revision might still be too narrow for some here? Or, maybe this is what you brothers and sisters are after? Maybe my reading of the 1788 is completely wrong. Maybe one of the brethren who are officers in churches that have adopted this confession can give me the right interpretation of it.

Have to get back to my studies. I was just taken aback by what appeared to be the wholesale embrace of secularism in government in this thread.

 

[Tom Hart]

I was just taken aback by what appeared to be the wholesale embrace of secularism in government in this thread.

I think someone said earlier something to this effect: "Men are products of their times." (Of course, there, it was said so as to portray a certain Reformer as rather backwards and mediæval.)

 

[RamistThomist]

Do you want your church financed with State money (and with the bureaucrats that entails)? Govt money is like plutonium.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Folks, a reminder to please cite the post you are responding to.

 

[Dachaser]

I think someone said earlier something to this effect: "Men are products of their times." (Of course, there, it was said so as to portray a certain Reformer as rather backwards and mediæval.)

Believe that the framers called this the separation between Church and State, as I do not want to become as Middle Age Catholic church age, when the government and church became strange bedfellows!

 

[Tom Hart]

Do you want your church financed with State money (and with the bureaucrats that entails)? Govt money is like plutonium.

Does the potential for abuse invalidate the principle?

 

[RamistThomist]

Does the potential for abuse invalidate the principle?

It doesn't, but I don't think it is merely the potential. My claim was that govt money corrupts churches. The Church in America, with all of its problems, is far healthier than German and English state-churches.

Are we really going to send IRS agents to make sure people tithe to the Presbyterian Church?

 

[Tom Hart]

It doesn't, but I don't think it is merely the potential. My claim was that govt money corrupts churches. The Church in America, with all of its problems, is far healthier than German and English state-churches.

Really?

Are we really going to send IRS agents to make sure people tithe to the Presbyterian Church?

Deal with the outworkings once the principle has been established. Church and state partnership does not mean automatic persecution of Baptists, for instance.

 

[RamistThomist]

Really?

Yes. On the grounds of biblical literacy, church attendance, etc.

Deal with the outworkings once the principle has been established. Church and state partnership does not mean automatic persecution of Baptists, for instance.

The only way this principle can get off the ground is for some sort of generic "Establishment of Athanasian Christianity" without committing to a specific denomination.

Baptists won't be persecuted because they are by far the largest. Presbyterians are 1% of 1% in America. We won't be calling the shots any time soon.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Brother, perhaps we can wholeheartedly agree on implementing the law of God on moral and civil matters, but I respectfully disagree on this part for a good reason. It would be outrageous to compel unbelievers into the communion of believers to worship God when their hearts are at enmity with God, and such mandate can led to a wrong impression of the Christian religion as bondage and legalistic in the unregenerate minds. This is my experience as a non-Christian in Romanist school where they require us to attend the mass every month regardless of our non-Popish faiths.

The fourth commandment demands that the stranger within your gates be required to externally observe the Sabbath. The civil magistrate, as father of the commonwealth, just like the father of a house, has the right to compel all those within his jurisdiction to attend worship on the Lord's Day. Doing so is not the same as forced conversion, as they are not to be compelled to believe but merely to attend the preaching of the word. Nor is it the same as forcing the ungodly to attend communion, as that ordinance, in distinction from the preaching of the word, is only for believers.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Do you want your church financed with State money (and with the bureaucrats that entails)? Govt money is like plutonium.

Ezra did not have the scruples that you are experiencing here, Jacob. Instead, he thanked God that he had put such a thing into the heart of a Gentile king.

Have you ever taken government money in your life? If so, do you now renounce it?

 

[Solparvus]

Ezra did not have the scruples that you are experiencing here, Jacob. Instead, he thanked God that he had put such a thing into the heart of a Gentile king.

Have you ever taken government money in your life? If so, do you now renounce it?

Here in America, if you take the Earned Income Credit or Child Tax Credit--which some part you can claim even if you have $0 tax liability--you are getting a free handout.

 

[RamistThomist]

Ezra did not have the scruples that you are experiencing here, Jacob. Instead, he thanked God that he had put such a thing into the heart of a Gentile king.

Have you ever taken government money in your life? If so, do you now renounce it?

Receiving money like Ezra isn't the same thing as perpetually living on govt dole.

While I have received "services" from the govt, it was never in the sense of living off of its teat.

Maybe there is nothing wrong with a church perpetually living off of the govt. I can conceptually grant that it might be right. But the churches today that are doing that are gutted.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Receiving money like Ezra isn't the same thing as perpetually living on govt dole.

You are moving the goalposts. Earlier you referred to the church being financed by state money without such convenient distinctions.

While I have received "services" from the govt, it was never in the sense of living off of its teat.

So, yes, you have received government money. State-funding of the church is money given to the church to fund its work. It is not, in a Reformed context, given to fund layabouts. Besides, I seem to remember Isaiah saying something about the NT church sucking the breasts of kings.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

And, for what it is worth, I am not saying that the church always has to be financed by the state, but I deny that there is anything iniquitous about the state doing so.

 

[Rom]

You are moving the goalposts. Earlier you referred to the church being financed by state money without such convenient distinctions.

State-funding of the church is money given to the church to fund its work. It is not, in a Reformed context, given to fund layabouts. Besides, I seem to remember Isaiah saying something about the NT church sucking the breasts of kings.

In addition, most churches go for tax-exempt status in the United States, which helps their (usually) meager budget considerably.

 

[Solparvus]

In addition, most churches go for tax-exempt status in the United States, which helps their (usually) meager budget considerably.

Interesting too, the way to lose that tax-exempt is for a church to try to have any influence in politics.

In other words, "We won't tax you so long as you make no application of the Word to us."

 

[RamistThomist]

You are moving the goalposts. Earlier you referred to the church being financed by state money without such convenient distinctions.



So, yes, you have received government money. State-funding of the church is money given to the church to fund its work. It is not, in a Reformed context, given to fund layabouts. Besides, I seem to remember Isaiah saying something about the NT church sucking the breasts of kings.

Granted we can have those qualifiers. I allow them. I am all for the state doing things that allow for the flourishing of the gospel. I just want to know if this requires IRS agents working in tandem with pastors. That's all.

 

[Dachaser]

Granted we can have those qualifiers. I allow them. I am all for the state doing things that allow for the flourishing of the gospel. I just want to know if this requires IRS agents working in tandem with pastors. That's all.

Once a church takes government monies, then liable to being run by rules of the state, so forced to hire those normally not acceptable, water down pulpit message, just not worth it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Once a church takes government monies, thenliable to being run by rules of the state, so forced to hire those normally not acceptable, water down pulpit message, just not worth it.

That's the fear. I guess it doesn't have to be that way but it almost always is.

 

[Rom]

Once a church takes government monies, then liable to being run by rules of the state, so forced to hire those normally not acceptable, water down pulpit message, just not worth it.

That is when the Church says, "we must obey God rather than man" and refuse the money. As mentioned above, most churches already take tax exempt status which comes with certain strings as @RPEphesian noted.

And frankly, the history of the Reformed Presbyterian Church and other Presbyterian bodies is really a story of refusing to cede to government control and Erastianism and denying themselves the benefit of government sanction.

 

[Dachaser]

That's the fear. I guess it doesn't have to be that way but it almost always is.

There would be much greater pressure of the government to regulate churches into confirming to current social morals and practices, as can see pastors forced to agree to teach same sex and other religions as being valid for example.

 

[Susan777]

The fourth commandment demands that the stranger within your gates be required to externally observe the Sabbath. The civil magistrate, as father of the commonwealth, just like the father of a house, has the right to compel all those within his jurisdiction to attend worship on the Lord's Day. Doing so is not the same as forced conversion, as they are not to be compelled to believe but merely to attend the preaching of the word. Nor is it the same as forcing the ungodly to attend communion, as that ordinance, in distinction from the preaching of the word, is only for believers.

But this assumes the hegemony of the true religion. It could just as likely be the case that one could be forced to attend the Mass. An unrelated question: was the stranger within the gate required to participate in the cultus or merely refrain from work in the manner prescribed for Israel?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

There would be much greater pressure of the government to regulate churches into confirming to current social morals and practices, as can see pastors forced to agree to teach same sex and other religions as being valid for example.

It looks like there may be no need for the Church to accept any help from the Government here for this to happen. We shall soon see. The Roman Church is going to have a Federal Law suit judged soon over firing a Counselor from their School here for entering a Union with the same sex, which was a violation of her Contract. It is a discrimination case.

 

[Dachaser]

It looks like there may be no need for the Church to accept any help from the Government here for this to happen. We shall soon see. The Roman Church is going to have a Federal Law suit judged soon over firing a Counselor from their School here for entering a Union with the same sex, which was a violation of her Contract. It is a discrimination case.

Interesting case here, as it will force the Court to decide which right is more constructional.