First table of the law as US law?

[jwright82]

All I am asking is what particular historic events you are referring to. Without specifics, we are grasping at vapours. We cannot make conclusions about history if we have not in the first place nailed down the history we are supposed to be discussing. You have written about the badness of all the bloodshed and war, of some unspecified time period not being a "golden age". You have made brief mention of a so-far unnamed German persecution, which Luther may or may not have written about, and of uncertain events taking place in England and other parts of Europe.

How did you come to your conclusions? "Show your work," as a mathematics teacher might say.

Some ideas:
Persecution of the Anabaptists?
The French Wars of Religion?
The Wars of the Three Kingdoms?
The Eighty Years' War?
The Thirty Years' War?
The government of Geneva?

Any all of the above. I don't think it's anything other than commonsense what happened to Germans who did not hold to the Augsburg confession during the Reformation, or any of the other nations (it was illegal). Unless you're suggesting that people were not persecuted, wars were not fought. In which case "show your work", loved that btw (I'd almost forgotten it). I'm not home so I don't have my books. But since you seem to be challenging the accepted history (If I understand you correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong) the burden of proof is on you.

 

[jwright82]

Practical blueprints have many times been hammered out by the church in times of need . Most recently, what happened at Westminster was a practical blueprint for going forward. They had the wisdom for that blueprint because of their understanding of church history and what had happened with Rome.

The result was also completely unexpected. There was really no hope that the Scottish and English representatives could agree to the extent they did. They were just hoping they could find some agreement somewhere. They gave the glory to God for it. Sure, fallible men stumbled with it afterward but there our confession stands, and is still the touchstone of the Reformed churches, though many are reformed in name only.

So there would likely be church councils called for and protected by the magistrate, just as there have been since the end of the apostolic age. And they would hammer things out with the wisdom of hindsight aiding them.

So it should be a sort of start with Wesminster and rework it to account for the problems? That's good and the sort of practical blueprint I was talking about. So from this I can conclude that Baptists, Lutherans, and Anglicans would be in violation of the law. So the humane thing would be to exile them to their own territory. But what's to stop them from going to war with us one day? Thank you for finally giving an answer to my question.

 

[jwright82]

Countries that wantonly disregard the first table of the law do not exactly have a good history. Two can play this game. How many people died in Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Nazi Germany, or even in Britain and the USA as a result of abortion? Also, how many have died in providential judgments which were partly the result of gross first table violations?

It's no game when we're talking about human life. But your question about countries that disregard the first table of the law being better or worse off is subjective. It depends on you're judging it. An establishment type might think that, and I'm not saying anyone believes this (But some do), killing people for practicing witchcraft is a good thing. I think it just historically didn't work. These are subjective POV Your list of countries is equally subjectively bad. But at least one thing is sure, in western non establishment societies the literary rate of women and minorities increased exponentially. That's something.

 

[ADKing]

So from this I can conclude that Baptists, Lutherans, and Anglicans would be in violation of the law. So the humane thing would be to exile them to their own territory. But what's to stop them from going to war with us one day? Thank you for finally giving an answer to my question.

Just because there would be (in the case of your hypothetical here) a Presbyterian establishment, does not mean that Baptists, Lutherans or Anglicans would necessarily be in "violation of the law." As I pointed out a little while ago, establishing a church does not require criminalizing dissent from it. "Humanely banishing Baptists et al." does not necessarily follow. If Baptists etc. could live peaceably, fine. If not, then the problem may be with belligerent Baptists, Lutherans etc. rather than the establishment principle.

As an illustration, the Seceeders and Free Church adherents in 18th and 19th century Scotland, while adhering to the establishment principle, lived peaceably in Scotland.

 

[jwright82]

I don't know.
I guess you're not to hot on the establishment principle. Let me ask you. How are we doing without it?

The general well being of most sectors of society.

 

[jwright82]

Just because there would be (in the case of your hypothetical here) a Presbyterian establishment, does not mean that Baptists, Lutherans or Anglicans would necessarily be in "violation of the law." As I pointed out a little while ago, establishing a church does not require criminalizing dissent from it. "Humanely banishing Baptists et al." does not necessarily follow. If Baptists etc. could live peaceably, fine. If not, then the problem may be with belligerent Baptists, Lutherans etc. rather than the establishment principle.

As an illustration, the Seceeders and Free Church adherents in 18th and 19th century Scotland, while adhering to the establishment principle, lived peaceably in Scotland.

Than what punishments should they get? The problem is that in an establishment any dissent from the legal confession breeds instability in the system. Which is one reason it didn't work historically.

 

[jwright82]

No doubt it would look different in different types of nations, with different forms of governments. In the Constantinian Roman Empire, the emperor can make a declaration. In the United States such issues would be decided by the people through their representatives. We do not have a dictator and it isn't essential to have one for the establishment principle to work. Many of the colonies and States early on had established churches.

Your question about which segments of the Reformed world would be illegal perhaps betrays an unnecessary assumption. It is not essential for the concept of an established church that all dissenters but criminalized. A national church can be recognized and supported by the civil powers without persecuting those who remain out of it. What to do with dissenters and whether or not to penalize them is a political question. No doubt this would look different depending on the light and maturity a nation has and the peaceable or non-peaceable conduct of the dissenters.

But dissenters breed instability in the system. If people all think their religion is the right one and that the state must promote true religion than there will always be war for control. Historically that's what happened.

 

[jwright82]

Along similar lines, the hope would not only be for a 'strong unifying confession', but also a strong and truly unified Church. As one who is a credobaptist, but in full agreement with the original standards position on the state, our congregation regularly prays that the Lord might bring the Church into unity again ('one Lord, one faith, one baptism') - and not by compromise, but true conviction from the Spirit.

So what would should be the position of the state on baptism? If its both are ok than that sort of compromise will only lead to more and more compromises like Evangelicalism (just to keep the peace) it will become so watered down to be useless. At least that sort of thing has been what's happened historically with similar situations.

 

[ADKing]

But dissenters breed instability in the system. If people all think their religion is the right one and that the state must promote true religion than there will always be war for control. Historically that's what happened.

You keep making the assumption that support for one thing (an established church) requires punishment or penalization of something else (dissent). That doesn't follow. A nation can adhere to a particular confession, financially support a church, hire chaplains of only the establishment, consult with the established church government on matters where the government seeks its counsel and advice etc. All these things can be done without in any way requiring penal laws against dissenting Christians

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

It's no game when we're talking about human life. But your question about countries that disregard the first table of the law being better or worse off is subjective. It depends on you're judging it. An establishment type might think that, and I'm not saying anyone believes this (But some do), killing people for practicing witchcraft is a good thing. I think it just historically didn't work. These are subjective POV Your list of countries is equally subjectively bad. But at least one thing is sure, in western non establishment societies the literary rate of women and minorities increased exponentially. That's something.

Subjective? Are you being serious? I am referring to objective reality.

Actually, the one making the subjective arguments is yourself. Ultimately, all you have done in this thread is prove that you do not like the civil application of the first table of the law because it hurts your feelings. This method of argument is unlikely to convince anyone who does not share your assumptions. The rest of us will prefer to follow scripture and the Reformed confessions.

Why is punishing offenders against the first table of the law wrong? By what standard do you judge Christian magistrates in ages past to have been in sin on this point?

 

[ADKing]

So what would should be the position of the state on baptism? If its both are ok than that sort of compromise will only lead to more and more compromises like Evangelicalism (just to keep the peace) it will become so watered down to be useless. At least that sort of thing has been what's happened historically with similar situations.

The position of the State on baptism should be the position of the Scriptures on baptism (in my understanding, paedo-baptism--I realize the brother whose post you responded to would give a different answer). That is the confession the state should adopt, and the state should support the church that teaches and practices it. No compromise on that practice should be allowed within the established church. This however, does not require the state to punish dissenting bodies, especially in the age we currently live in where the church as a whole has not come to unity of thought.

 

[smalltown_puritan]

So what would should be the position of the state on baptism? If its both are ok than that sort of compromise will only lead to more and more compromises like Evangelicalism (just to keep the peace) it will become so watered down to be useless. At least that sort of thing has been what's happened historically with similar situations.

I certainly agree that there should be no compromises in such a situation, and there would need to be a clear position on Baptism. The sacraments cannot be overlooked or lightly glossed over in any confessional statement. I presuppose, however, that should there be such a blessing of the Church in a particular land that She should be united and kings should bow to Christ, the same Spirit would unite the Church in regards to the sacraments. This may mean that credobaptists are proven wrong from the Scriptures and we joyfully repent, or vice versa.

 

[jwright82]

You keep making the assumption that support for one thing (an established church) requires punishment or penalization of something else (dissent). That doesn't follow. A nation can adhere to a particular confession, financially support a church, hire chaplains of only the establishment, consult with the established church government on matters where the government seeks its counsel and advice etc. All these things can be done without in any way requiring penal laws against dissenting Christians

Those are assumptions as well. Historically speaking, as I understand it, the general trajectory was at first it was illegal to practice another form of protestantism than it moved to only one was state funded church but others were allowed to exist. Now even that is going away. So you affirm, it seems, only one state funded denomination. Is that correct? But why the transition historically away from that, if it "worked" so well?

 

[jwright82]

Subjective? Are you being serious? I am referring to objective reality.

Actually, the one making the subjective arguments is yourself. Ultimately, all you have done in this thread is prove that you do not like the civil application of the first table of the law because it hurts your feelings. The rest of us will prefer to follow scripture and the Reformed confessions.

So the objective fact that you listed the worst of the worst countries as "proof" of how bad it gets for a nation not to uphold TFTOTL, US and Britain linked by analogy, and I stated an objective fact of the condition of life and specifically literacy improving for women and minorities in non-establishment countries is subjective?

 

[ADKing]

I suspect your question is susceptible to many different answers: practical considerations (being one of them) but also, lack of conviction in the establishment principle theologically, together with outright lack of belief and the ideals of enlightenment rationalism and indifference. I'm certainly not qualified to give a full response to the history of thought here.

My point is that one of your objections to the establishment principle seems to be that you don't see a way it could realistically work. I have proposed a solution that could be worked and in some historical instances has for periods of time. I am not really making an assumption, but pointing out how two things are logically distinct (even if they have often gone closely together in history).

 

[jwright82]

The position of the State on baptism should be the position of the Scriptures on baptism (in my understanding, paedo-baptism--I realize the brother whose post you responded to would give a different answer). That is the confession the state should adopt, and the state should support the church that teaches and practices it. No compromise on that practice should be allowed within the established church. This however, does not require the state to punish dissenting bodies, especially in the age we currently live in where the church as a whole has not come to unity of thought.

So than by support you mean only financially? So how is that working out for countries that still have that? I've read there not doing so well. In fact I think Chritianity is dying in Europe.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

So the objective fact that you listed the worst of the worst countries as "proof" of how bad it gets for a nation not to uphold TFTOTL, US and Britain linked by analogy, and I stated an objective fact of the condition of life and specifically literacy improving for women and minorities in non-establishment countries is subjective?

By what standard are you making these judgments?

 

[jwright82]

I certainly agree that there should be no compromises in such a situation, and there would need to be a clear position on Baptism. The sacraments cannot be overlooked or lightly glossed over in any confessional statement. I presuppose, however, that should there be such a blessing of the Church in a particular land that She should be united and kings should bow to Christ, the same Spirit would unite the Church in regards to the sacraments. This may mean that credobaptists are proven wrong from the Scriptures and we joyfully repent, or vice versa.

That didn't work out historically. I believe Christendom will truly exist when Christ returns. Until than we have to consider what happened historically and go from there.

 

[ADKing]

So than by support you mean only financially? So how is that working out for countries that still have that? I've read there not doing so well. In fact I think Chritianity is dying in Europe.

I'm not defending the existing European establishments--only the principle of establishmentarianism. Most of them are apostate and unbelieving. But this method of argumentation proves nothing. You began by asking for interaction on what establishmentarianism could like or how it might work in practice. Obviously we are not in a place historically where these doctrines are being practiced well. That does not prove it is impossible for them to work.

 

[jwright82]

By what standard are you making these judgments?

I know of no study that suggests that the general wellbeing and literacy rate among women and minorities has not generally gone up.

 

[jwright82]

I'm not defending the existing European establishments--only the principle of establishmentarianism. Most of them are apostate and unbelieving. But this method of argumentation proves nothing. You began by asking for interaction on what establishmentarianism could like or how it might work in practice. Obviously we are not in a place historically where these doctrines are being practiced well. That does not prove it is impossible for them to work.

My point has always been since it didn't really work historically, what practical changes could be made to ensure it will work? Postmillianalism and a new great awakening are good answers but we have no way of knowing that such a great awakening will happen.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Actually, the one making the subjective arguments is yourself. Ultimately, all you have done in this thread is prove that you do not like the civil application of the first table of the law because it hurts your feelings. The rest of us will prefer to follow scripture and the Reformed confessions.

I am new to this thread but it didn't take long to see that James' @jwright82 mind is made up. So I decided further interaction would be frustrating and get us nowhere. James, I am not going to pick on you anymore. Promise.

 

[jwright82]

I am new to this thread but it didn't take long to see that James' @jwright82 mind is made up. So I decided further interaction would be frustrating and get us nowhere. James, I am not going to pick on you anymore. Promise.

I appreciate your honesty and concern. I don't feel like I'm being picked on for the record. And yes my mind is made up but I'm always willing to feel out the ground to see if it's solid beneath me. I did finally get what I was looking for, some practical plans, so for conversation sake I'm going to assume that by establishment everyone means only state funded, not illegal. If that's not correct to anyone please correct me? But for conversation sake that's what I'll assume, to keep this moving forward and not in circles.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I know of no study that suggests that the general wellbeing and literacy rate among women and minorities has not generally gone up.

That was not my question. My question is by what standard are you making moral judgments about the propriety of establishment or the civil application of the first table of the law? You keep saying that things did not work. If by "worked" you mean it was unattended with any evils, then nothing in human history has ever "worked" in that sense. This argument is the same one that Romanists make about Protestantism not having worked because of all the different denominations and interpretations. Now, granted, the divisions within Protestantism are evil - and we should not pretend otherwise - but that does not mean that Protestantism as a concept has not worked because it has worked in bringing the gospel to millions of people.

And, for what it is worth, a rising literacy rate among "women and minorities" (Whatever minorities are? White males by any chance?), even if it is a good thing, pales in comparison to the evil of a society with liberal abortion laws. I thought that you were concerned about human life? Do you regard the slaying of stiff-necked heretics as a comparable evil with the taking of the lives of the unborn? Besides, this argument overlooks the reality that nations with established churches often had state-funded schools that encouraged education. Arguably, modern education is, in part, a hang-over from establishmentarianism.

 

[iainduguid]

There's an in interesting discussion to be had here, but I would suggest it needs a slightly different focus. I would propose the following:
1) I think we can all agree that if the Scriptures teach the establishment principle, we should pray for it and pursue it, though real Christians may disagree about how precisely to bring it about. For example, we all agree that in principle the church should be one, on the basis of numerous Scriptures. Nonetheless, we would have various views of what (if anything) we can do, apart from pray, to move toward that in our current situation. In spite of the desirability of the goal, there are lots of ways in which people might suggest resolving the problem that would be abhorrent to many of us - for example, Presbyterians and Baptists joining in a single church because we all love Jesus.

2) The establishment principle is not so transparent from Scripture as the unity of the church, since it usually rests on an underlying assumption that OT passages addressed to Israel can be applied directly to modern nation states. The Puritans definitely believed in this hermeneutical move, so it has a legitimate history, but it's not a move that most contemporary Reformed scholars would be comfortable making, and I think there was a discomfort with that move already by the American version of the WCF. And if you are going to make this connection the foundation of your case, it's hard to see how you get from there to "kinder, gentler" establishmentarianism - the kind that tolerates minorities, rather than the kind that actively persecutes them and fines people for not going to church. Israel was never told to tolerate the Canaanite in their midst.

3) A good historical example of the challenges of the establishment principle would be Puritan New England. The Pilgrim Fathers did not travel there seeking religious freedom, contrary to popular opinion. Rather, they sought freedom to practice their Biblical religion, as they understood it. Hence, Baptists were not welcome ("Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Go directly to Rhode Island"). As I understand it, the system faced difficulties already by the next generation, many of whom were unable to make an adequate profession of faith to become church members. Were they still able to have their children baptized and thus receive the benefits of being part of the community covenanted with God? The establishment principle did not last in New England, even though it began in a community of people dedicated to establishing a city on a hill, to shine the light of God's Word back to Europe, and I suspect the reasons for its decline would be important to study for anyone hoping to recreate their society's goal.

4) If you would like a thought experiment of what a modern day Reformed establishment community would look like, America is probably not what you should be thinking. It's too complex a society to tease out the salient challenges. Imagine a world in which not only has Scottish Independence happened (far from unthinkable), but the Hebridean Islands have declared their own autonomy. So you have a small, reasonably homogeneous community, many of whom have a history of Westminster Reformed Presbyterianism. The new government has asked the Puritanboard to advise them on this complex issue, including such questions as What do we do with the significant Catholic community on Barra? Should we expel them and burn their church building, as a monument to idolatry (which it certainly is)? Allow them to continue meeting? What action should be taken if they continue to meet and celebrate their abominable Mass? Or proselytize others?" Ditto for the small number of Mslim South Asians, who recently were allowed to build a mosque in Stornoway. What should happen to their building and to them? What about employment?

Would such people be allowed to serve as local councilors representing the majority on their island? School teachers? College Professors of Engineering (Obviously not of theology)? Doctors? Lawyers? ​

Should most professions be open, or should there be a religious test? How tight a religious test? Are Baptists allowed - dispensational as well as Reformed? Do all elementary school teachers need to affirm the WCF and Catechisms? Do they need to affirm a historic view of what those documents mean on such things like the Sabbath and worship, unlike many ministers in our contemporary Reformed denominations? What jobs should be restricted? To whom?

5) It would be interesting to see some discussion of these questions. For my own part, it becomes increasingly apparent why some people are skeptical of the establishment principle in the same way that they are skeptical of young idealistic seminary students with a burning desire to see all denominations merge in pursuit of church unity. The goal is a good one. In heaven, we will all be one in the church and the only church will be the one established by the powers that be (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). Could God do that now by the power of his Spirit? Undoubtedly. I pray that he would, sincerely. But in the meantime, I fear that attempts for any state to establish a church in this present fallen world, in any place and time, will create more problems than they solve for genuine believers in Jesus Christ of all convictions, and I don't see any examples in history that suggest the contrary. And if your answer is, "By then, we will all - every one, at least in our small community - be conservative Reformed, WCF-confessing Christians" I would suggest that you are describing the consequence of Christ's return, not anything that precedes it.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Goodbye to the Ten Words​

Maybe there are only six commandments--not ten--we need to concern ourselves with. The first four are long ago, abrogated. We are, after all, modern men and women.

I think we can pretty much delete the fifth as well. Never mind that Jesus--not just Moses--said that cursing father or mother deserves death. (Matthew 15:4) Children need to shape their own lives. Even when it comes to gender.

What about the seventh--adultery? What's wrong with that? These days, even ministers go for that on occasion. That leaves us with four commandments.

Can't the tenth commandment go too? Isn't coveting the basis of capitalism? That's what I hear. O, I forgot, there's a growing movement in the US to implement socialism. There will no longer be a need for the tenth Word because your neighbor won't have anything to covet.

What about the sixth "Thou shalt not kill." That's already been done away with for a vast and helpless class--the unborn and the recently born.

What are we left with? The eighth, "You shall not steal. And the ninth, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Nobody takes these last two very seriously, but let's keep them on the books so we can feel good about ourselves as godly men, women, and others.

Now I feel much better.

(pardon my rambling)​

 

[jwright82]

That was not my question. My question is by what standard are you making moral judgments about the propriety of establishment or the civil application of the first table of the law? You keep saying that things did not work. If by "worked" you mean it was unattended with any evils, then nothing in human history has ever "worked" in that sense. This argument is the same one that Romanists make about Protestantism not having worked because of all the different denominations and interpretations. Now, granted, the divisions within Protestantism are evil - and we should not pretend otherwise - but that does not mean that Protestantism as a concept has not worked because it has worked in bringing the gospel to millions of people.

And, for what it is worth, a rising literacy rate among "women and minorities" (Whatever minorities are? White males by any chance?), even if it is a good thing, pales in comparison to the evil of a society with liberal abortion laws. I thought that you were concerned about human life? Do you regard the slaying of stiff-necked heretics as a comparable evil with the taking of the lives of the unborn? Besides, this argument overlooks the reality that nations with established churches often had state-funded schools that encouraged education. Arguably, modern education is, in part, a hang-over from establishmentarianism.

My standard is in general. By work out I mean outside of small pockets it didn't work out in general. Yes I equate killing unborn children as horrible as killing heretics. But we can throw "stones" of facts all day about what is bad or good about society, but that gets us nowhere. In general things have gotten better. Historically speaking our liberal democratic track has gotten women and minorities better treatment (the right to vote, civil rights in general, etc). The religious wars of the past, although necessary, forced society to become secular. That's not speculation, there are scholars out there that have pointed that out. So had the practical problems been resolved, some think (myself included) we wouldn't be living in a secular society. But by establishment I thought you only meant one state funded religion, why the quib about killing heretics? I assume that's tounge in cheek.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

My standard is in general. By work out I mean outside of small pockets it didn't work out in general.

So, basically any facts that challenge your assumptions may be dismissed as inconvenient to your purposes.

Yes I equate killing unborn children as horrible as killing heretics.

The heretic is a soul-murderer. The unborn child, though a sinner, has not committed any actual sins on a par with the crimes of a heretic.

But we can throw "stones" of facts all day about what is bad or good about society, but that gets us nowhere.

So, again, any facts that challenge your assumptions may be disregarded as throwing stones.

In general things have gotten better.

By what standard? That of yourself or that of scripture?

Historically speaking our liberal democratic track has gotten women and minorities better treatment (the right to vote, civil rights in general, etc).

Except for the unborn, who are slaughtered in their millions. It has also led to the rise of Feminism, the homosexual mafia, transgender bathrooms, and the population replacement of white people. None of these things are positive moves, in my opinion. But even if we grant that the likes of Civil Rights was a good thing (in general, I agree that it was), how does that prove it is okay for the state to neglect the first table of the law? Indeed, segregationism existed in a context of disestablishment. Your whole argument, even if the point about women and minorities were to be granted, is a non-sequitur.

The religious wars of the past, although necessary, forced society to become secular. That's not speculation, there are scholars out there that have pointed that out.

And? Even if true, it does not mean that the move was a good thing in the eyes of God. From what I remember reading, the secularisation thesis is actually hotly disputed among scholars of religion in different fields. Either way, it is irrelevant to the moral question of whether or not the magistrate is free to disregard the first table of the law.

But by establishment I thought you only meant one state funded religion, why the quib about killing heretics? I assume that's tounge in cheek.

Historically speaking, the establishment principle included recognising that the magistrate had the right to inflict punishment (even capital punishment in extreme cases) on seducers to idolatry, obstinate heretics, blasphemers, and so on. Perhaps reading some pre-Enlightenment Reformed theology, with a teachable spirit (seeking to learn rather than to confirm your biases) might be instructive for you.

 

[Tom Hart]

Any all of the above. I don't think it's anything other than commonsense what happened to Germans who did not hold to the Augsburg confession during the Reformation, or any of the other nations (it was illegal). Unless you're suggesting that people were not persecuted, wars were not fought. In which case "show your work", loved that btw (I'd almost forgotten it). I'm not home so I don't have my books. But since you seem to be challenging the accepted history (If I understand you correctly, please correct me if I'm wrong) the burden of proof is on you.

I am going to step out of this after this comment. I will only repeat myself so many times.

You are making judgments on historical events without even naming or describing those historical events. Discussion about those events is therefore impossible, never mind moral judgments concerning them.

 

[jwright82]

I am going to step out of this after this comment. I will only repeat myself so many times.

You are making judgments on historical events without even naming or describing those historical events. Discussion about those events is therefore impossible, never mind moral judgments concerning them.

No I've never once said they were bad or good. infact multiple times I called them necessary. So I can't answer your question about views and methods I don't hold. All I said was that they did happen as an historical fact. If you think they did actually happen, than burden of proof.