Poll: WCF XXIII.3 / Belgic 36

[TsonMariytho]

Ah, thanks for clarifying that. This question then becomes a little dizzying to me, because one must apparently dig into the publications of each respective denomination claiming to "affirm" the WCF, to see whether they were merely publishing the entire original document as a gesture of respect to the framers (while taking exception), or whether they truly affirmed all of the original text.

 

[Neogillist]

Virtually all theonomists would embrace the first original version, although agreeing with it does not make one a theonomist. The problem I personally see with the original is that there are various degrees of "heresies" and varying opinions as to what constitutes a heresy, and what happens to be merely a theological error. If you now have to leave it to the judgment of the monarch or the magistrate as to whether there is a heresy that he must oppose or an error that he may allow to pass, you are bound to be walking on thin ice.

I assume that the Westminster Divines were expecting the monarch to subscribe to the WCF and in so doing would not be labelling as "heresy" what is obviously taught in the confession, but unfortunately, it is impossible to fully differentiate heresy from error, even with the use of the WCF. Will any disagreement with the WCF constitute a heresy?

Moreover, the danger in having a state-church where only one denomination is allowed (namely Old-School Presbyterianism) is bound to back-fire on Christians. There needs to be some religious freedom granted by the state, at least in the sphere of Christendom or Christians will be found persecuting one another.

Finally, the fact that religious freedom in England was again suppressed later after the WCF was written, and that many who contributed to it found their own right to serve as pastors removed proves that it simply did not stand. Besides, what purpose is it to subscribe to such idealism that will never stand beyond a few decades of history? It is also the business of the church to fight and supress heresy, both at the pulpit and at synods, etc. If the church may not have the power of the sword to physically punish heretics, than why should she encourage the state to do it as if she would rather have hypocrites sitting on pews rather than heretics in prison? Although the confession does not state or mean that, this is unfortunately what did happen in practice.

 

[Christusregnat]

I don't believe it is a weak position at all. My rejoinder would be: There were different 'state' churches, and Presbyterians establishing a national church from all over. The preponderance were from PA and NJ, which were states (and previously colonies) with the greatest degree of religious freedom, and no establishment. THAT was their experience, and the new church needed to reflect the diversity of state situations.

Not all the facts you marshal are accurate, for example, New Jersey never had a 'state church' of any kind, due to the fact there was no dominant church in the state. This is quite clear from their 1776 Constitution, although NJ and PA did restrict voting and officeholding to "Protestants" (as did many other states).

The authors of the New Jersey Constitution moved to protect that to which they were accustomed. They provided for both liberty of conscience and the prohibition of an established church. Section 18 of the constitution stated that everyone would have "the estimible Priviliege of worshipping Almighty God" according to the "Dictates" of their "own Conscience." No one would be forced to attend a church "contrary" to their "own Faith or Judgment." Significantly, Catholics were no longer excluded; the provision overrode the Royal Instructions of 1702 and extended toleration to Catholics as well.

In addition to insisting on the freedom to worship as they wished, New Jersey residents refused to support the establishment of a state church. Indeed the constitution clearly stated that no one would "ever be obliged to pay Tithes, Taxes, or any other Rates" to build or maintain a church or support a minister, except voluntarily. This was immediately followed by section 19, stating: "That there shall be no Establishment of any one religious Sect in the Province in Preference to another."

{from New Jersey in the American Revolution, pp41-42.}

So, clearly, 1) the definition of 'state church' is itself susceptible to a range of interpretation--from the clear establishments of Anglicans and Congrgationalists to varying levels of toleration for Romanists, Quakers, and other bodies;

and 2) the states where Presbyterianism was strongest (PA and NJ) had noteworthy non-establishment histories, and places like NY and VA had landmark legal cases in BOTH (!) Colonies that sought legal protections for dissident Presbyterians. Talk about a heritage of toleration--the Presbyterians were fighting for it or finding a "free space" for themselves from the beginning.

So, no, I don't think I am even close to being shown I am in error about the animus imponentis of the Adoption, and this attitude is reflected in the changes that the adopters DID make.

Rev. Buchanan,

I was in error about New Jersey; thank you for correcting me. I was going based off of my (faulty) memory, and rechecked my source to find that you were correct. The interpretation you have given to the facts is interesting, and I think I will have to grant your understanding of the situation, since I can't offer a suitable rebuttal. Perhaps some day when I'm all growed up

The conclusion of the Presbyterians may have likewise been out of reaction to their circumstances rather than as a matter of biblical and reformed conviction. In other words, just because they couldn't get their act together and establish a state church may have influenced their convictions, rather than their convictions influencing their practice.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[KMK]

Sam Waldron has an interesting section in "1689" concerning the revision of WCF 20:4 which says:

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 has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account,[16] and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate.[17]

Waldron says, "This deleted paragraph underscores the danger of 'perverse reactionsim' by dealing with the limits of Christian liberty," due to the Anabaptists of Munster and the Fifth Monarchy Men of England.

Thus the position by the original wording of the Westminster Confession has been rejected not only by the whole body of English Baptist and Congregationalist Churches, but also by the American Presbyterian Churches. This rejection of the wording of the original Westminster Confession should serve as a caution against 'throwing out the baby with the bath water' in dealing with the secular, liberal interpretation of the separation of church and state we confront today. The early English Baptists and Congregationalists taught, believed and suffered for a doctrine of the seperation of church and state. They rejected the idea that the state had the right to punish men for publicly teaching heresy. Those who advocate working for the removal of the tax-exempt status of liberal denominations, or who openly teach that the government ought to suppress the public teaching of heresy should find no welcome among the doctrinal descendants of such forefathers. Those attracted by such positions should know that they were deliberately and firmly rejected by Congregational and Baptist Puritans. pg. 255,256

 

[Christusregnat]

When church and state march together it is hard for servants of the Gospel not to look like agents of the State. The evangelization of the world among increasingly hostile powers like Islam will not be done by theocrats, but by those willing to be persecuted and vulnerable and out of power because they are seeking a better country.

False dichotomy after false dichotomy; when will you dislodge that pretzel

By the bye, contrary to false opinion, those that "seek a better country" includes those that do the following:

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.
32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

It's not just suffering by faith, it's also conquest by faith.

Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc. I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves. Judgment begins at the household of God, and if we are pluralists, what can we expect from everyone else?

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Pergamum]

What is Christendom?

-----Added 12/27/2008 at 05:00:31 EST-----

When church and state march together it is hard for servants of the Gospel not to look like agents of the State. The evangelization of the world among increasingly hostile powers like Islam will not be done by theocrats, but by those willing to be persecuted and vulnerable and out of power because they are seeking a better country.

False dichotomy after false dichotomy; when will you dislodge that pretzel

By the bye, contrary to false opinion, those that "seek a better country" includes those that do the following:

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.
32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

It's not just suffering by faith, it's also conquest by faith.

Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc. I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves. Judgment begins at the household of God, and if we are pluralists, what can we expect from everyone else?

Cheers,

Adam

Ah, trying to romanticize those who would do violence in the name of Christ, heh? Looking back to the "good ol' days" of civil authorities using their power to enforce particulars sects?

I gues you agree with the whipping of Baptist Obadiah Holmes and the hanging of Quakers and other evils done by the Puritan Mass. Bay colony?

With the death of Christendom began the spread of the Gospel with unprecedented speed to the ends of the earth in voluntarism rather than in bed with the colonizing powers.

 

[KMK]

I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, "some of the Puritans are turning over in their graves."

 

[Pergamum]

How about those Baptists killed by the magisterial Reformers...are they turning in their graves too?

I find it troubling that the theology of some, if successful, would cause me to buy arms to defend myself as a Baptist.

 

[Hippo]

How about those Baptists killed by the magisterial Reformers...are they turning in their graves too?

I find it troubling that the theology of some, if successful, would cause me to buy arms to defend myself as a Baptist.

It is strange though that you are acting with horror that the civil magistrate should oppose false religion, If you have power should you not oppose false religion? Do you think that God preceptively encourages false religion?

You do of course have a very good point that Christians do abuse power and the consequenses are awful but surely the answer is for Christians to live in the light of the true gospel and repent of sins and abuses of power and not to argue that Christians should cease opposing false religion.

Baptists do not have a monopoly on being oppressed, this is a theological question not a self defence issue.

 

[Pergamum]

What is your definition of "false religion?"

A different Christian sect or the Muslims? The Puritans did not often make that difference between "broad Christianity" and "false religion."



The State Church system in Europe is dead and lifeless. Wherever Church and State have had more distance, both have prospered.

 

[KMK]

What is your definition of "false religion?"

A different Christian sect or the Muslims? The Puritans did not often make that difference between "broad Christianity" and "false religion."

Or to be more specific, do those who subscribe to the original believe that Puritanesque congregationalists and baptists are 'false religions' or 'heresies' that should be supressed by the civil magistrate? Who decides what is heresy and what is 'intramural debate'? Does the church decide or does the civil magistrate decide?

 

[Hippo]

What is your definition of "false religion?"

A different Christian sect or the Muslims? The Puritans did not often make that difference between "broad Christianity" and "false religion."

Or to be more specific, do those who subscribe to the original believe that Puritanesque congregationalists and baptists are 'false religions' or 'heresies' that should be supressed by the civil magistrate? Who decides what is heresy and what is 'intramural debate'? Does the church decide or does the civil magistrate decide?

Personally I do not think so (anabaptists however were by and large heretics and worthy of supression for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with baptism upon profession) and neither do I think that a non Christian has any business in judging Religion. The revised wording is open to much the same abuse as the original wording.

My own view is that a civil magistrate who is a Christian should supress false Religion and in this respect the original confession is correct. There is no need to use the confession to insist that the state and the religion have to be hand in hand, that is a different agument.

 

[KMK]

Personally I do not think so (anabaptists however were by and large heretics and worthy of supression for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with baptism upon profession)

I am not sure that the anabaptists were 'by and large' heretics. Without a doubt some were.

The revised wording is open to much the same abuse as the original wording.

This is very interesting. Can you elaborate? What are some of the same abuses?

My own view is that a civil magistrate who is a Christian should supress false Religion and in this respect the original confession is correct. There is no need to use the confession to insist that the state and the religion have to be hand in hand, that is a different agument.

Was it Daniel's duty to 'supress' the Babylonian religion? He worked for the sovereign nation of Babylon. How could he perform his duty to the Babylonian king while at the same time supressing the national religion?

 

[Hippo]

I am not sure that the anabaptists were 'by and large' heretics. Without a doubt some were.

It is always difficult to be sure when victors write the history

This is very interesting. Can you elaborate? What are some of the same abuses?

The revised wording limits tolerance to other "denominations", all you have to do is to argue that a group is outwith the Christian Church and they are no longer protected by the confession.

Was it Daniel's duty to 'supress' the Babylonian religion? He worked for the sovereign nation of Babylon. How could he perform his duty to the Babylonian king while at the same time supressing the national religion?

The confession is not Holy Writ and it does have a historical context, that is the application of the Gospel to England. Of course Daniel would have the same problem here whichever version of the confession he adhered to, under the revision he would still have to "protect the Church".

 

[moral necessity]

Was it Daniel's duty to 'supress' the Babylonian religion? He worked for the sovereign nation of Babylon. How could he perform his duty to the Babylonian king while at the same time supressing the national religion?

The confession is not Holy Writ and it does have a historical context, that is the application of the Gospel to England. Of course Daniel would have the same problem here whichever version of the confession he adhered to, under the revision he would still have to "protect the Church".

Just a thought..........didn't David fight for the Philistines after he had fled there, and wasn't he also going to go up to battle against Israel itself? (I Sam. 27-29). How would this be protecting the church? I'm not saying this to debate your statement. Just wondering about this section of scripture in light of it.

 

[BertMulder]

I have subscribed to the Belgic Confession article 36, with the footnote:

We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship (see note below); that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, of what state, quality, or condition so ever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men.

NOTE: This phrase, touching the office of the magistracy in its relation to the Church, proceeds on the principle of the Established Church, which was first applied by Constantine and afterwards also in many Protestant countries. History, however, does not support the principle of State domination over the Church, but rather the separation of Church and State. Moreover, it is contrary to the New Dispensation that authority be vested in the State to arbitrarily reform the Church, and to deny the Church the right of independently conducting its own affairs as a distinct territory alongside the State. The New Testament does not subject the Christian Church to the authority of the State that it should be governed and extended by political measures, but to our Lord and King only as an independent territory alongside and altogether independent of the State, that it may be governed and edified by its office-bearers and with spiritual weapons only. Practically all Reformed churches have repudiated the idea of the Established Church, and are advocating the autonomy of the churches and personal liberty of conscience in matters pertaining to the service of God.

"The Christian Reformed Church in America, being in full accord with this view, feels constrained to declare that it does not conceive of the office of the magistracy in this sense, that it be in duty bound to also exercise political authority in the sphere of religion, by establishing and maintaining a State Church, advancing and supporting the same as the only true Church, and to oppose, to persecute and to destroy by means of the sword all the other churches as being false religions; and to also declare that it does positively hold that, within its own secular sphere, the magistracy has a divine duty towards the first table of the Law as well as towards the second; and furthermore that both State and Church as institutions of God and Christ have mutual rights and duties appointed them from on high, and therefore have a very sacred reciprocal obligation to meet through the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and Son. They may not, however, encroach upon each other's territory. The Church has rights of sovereignty in its own sphere as well as the State." Acta. Synod, 1910.

That being said, I hold to the position that the state has a responsibility to both tables of God's law, although they may never encroach on the sovereignty of the church, as the church must stay out of matters of state.

 

[Christusregnat]

What is Christendom?

-----Added 12/27/2008 at 05:00:31 EST-----

When church and state march together it is hard for servants of the Gospel not to look like agents of the State. The evangelization of the world among increasingly hostile powers like Islam will not be done by theocrats, but by those willing to be persecuted and vulnerable and out of power because they are seeking a better country.

False dichotomy after false dichotomy; when will you dislodge that pretzel

By the bye, contrary to false opinion, those that "seek a better country" includes those that do the following:

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.
32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

It's not just suffering by faith, it's also conquest by faith.

Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc. I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves. Judgment begins at the household of God, and if we are pluralists, what can we expect from everyone else?

Cheers,

Adam

Ah, trying to romanticize those who would do violence in the name of Christ, heh? Looking back to the "good ol' days" of civil authorities using their power to enforce particulars sects?

I gues you agree with the whipping of Baptist Obadiah Holmes and the hanging of Quakers and other evils done by the Puritan Mass. Bay colony?

With the death of Christendom began the spread of the Gospel with unprecedented speed to the ends of the earth in voluntarism rather than in bed with the colonizing powers.

Pergs,

No, the Apostle that wrote Hebrews was glorifying violence in the name of Christ.

If a civil power cares about man's "rights" more than God's "rights", he is a tyrant. In other words, if you want to put the situation as:

1. Magistrates enforce both tables of the law and suppress blasphemy, heresy, schism, lies, etc. causing some innocent Christians to be oppressed

vs.

2. Magistrates refuse to suppress blasphemy, heresy, schism, lies, etc. saving some innocent Christians from being oppressed, while leading down a road to total atheism (ala America)

I will take # 1. Further, I'm not familiar with the case of this gentleman Obadiah Holmes. If he was a heretic or a schismatic, perhaps he needed to be turned over to satan for the destruction of the body so that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. As for the Quakers, their blasphemy is well known, as is their heresy. Do you happen to have particulars of the cases you're alluding to? Or have you just romanticized the "good ol' days" of lawless, disorderly christians who suffer as evil doers because they were? It's like people who come to a country illegally, and then complain because they're punished. If you knew the law to begin with, don't whine when you're punished for violating it.

Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He reigns over all the nations of the earth, and all kings are to be converted to Him that we may lead a quiet life in peace and godliness. We are to make disciples of all nations; not just people out of the nations.

Also, contrary to your romanticizing of "volunteerism", savages were converted from eating one another and committing atrocities under state-sponsored evangelism (or non-state sponsored with a culture-wide thrust) all throughout the middle ages. With this kind of nation-wide evangelism, people do not convert to live and think as Christians in all areas. Western civilization is a product of this kind of evangelism, as was the Reformation. The decline in Europe came with the rejection of these ideas; not with the acceptance of Constantinianism.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[KMK]

Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc.

Is it your assertion that there was a time when 'we' had a 'Holy Commonwealth'? Are you referring to the USA? And if so, what is that assertion based on? Were not our founding fathers Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists, atheists and just plain 'confused'? No doubt the USA was more Christian, percentage wise, than today, but can it truly be called a 'Holy Commonwealth'?

Or are you referring to the original colonies?

 

[Pergamum]

What is Christendom?

-----Added 12/27/2008 at 05:00:31 EST-----

False dichotomy after false dichotomy; when will you dislodge that pretzel

By the bye, contrary to false opinion, those that "seek a better country" includes those that do the following:



It's not just suffering by faith, it's also conquest by faith.

Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc. I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves. Judgment begins at the household of God, and if we are pluralists, what can we expect from everyone else?

Cheers,

Adam

Ah, trying to romanticize those who would do violence in the name of Christ, heh? Looking back to the "good ol' days" of civil authorities using their power to enforce particulars sects?

I gues you agree with the whipping of Baptist Obadiah Holmes and the hanging of Quakers and other evils done by the Puritan Mass. Bay colony?

With the death of Christendom began the spread of the Gospel with unprecedented speed to the ends of the earth in voluntarism rather than in bed with the colonizing powers.

Pergs,

No, the Apostle that wrote Hebrews was glorifying violence in the name of Christ.

If a civil power cares about man's "rights" more than God's "rights", he is a tyrant. In other words, if you want to put the situation as:

1. Magistrates enforce both tables of the law and suppress blasphemy, heresy, schism, lies, etc. causing some innocent Christians to be oppressed

vs.

2. Magistrates refuse to suppress blasphemy, heresy, schism, lies, etc. saving some innocent Christians from being oppressed, while leading down a road to total atheism (ala America)

I will take # 1. Further, I'm not familiar with the case of this gentleman Obadiah Holmes. If he was a heretic or a schismatic, perhaps he needed to be turned over to satan for the destruction of the body so that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. As for the Quakers, their blasphemy is well known, as is their heresy. Do you happen to have particulars of the cases you're alluding to? Or have you just romanticized the "good ol' days" of lawless, disorderly christians who suffer as evil doers because they were? It's like people who come to a country illegally, and then complain because they're punished. If you knew the law to begin with, don't whine when you're punished for violating it.

Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He reigns over all the nations of the earth, and all kings are to be converted to Him that we may lead a quiet life in peace and godliness. We are to make disciples of all nations; not just people out of the nations.

Also, contrary to your romanticizing of "volunteerism", savages were converted from eating one another and committing atrocities under state-sponsored evangelism (or non-state sponsored with a culture-wide thrust) all throughout the middle ages. With this kind of nation-wide evangelism, people do not convert to live and think as Christians in all areas. Western civilization is a product of this kind of evangelism, as was the Reformation. The decline in Europe came with the rejection of these ideas; not with the acceptance of Constantinianism.

Cheers,

Adam

So, let's get this on public record: You are in favor of killing Quakers?


Poor old Uncle Ben on the oatmeal box!



Obadiah Holmes was a Baptist and he was whipped for preaching as a baptist. I cannot but think that if you were in charge in Puritan New England I would be forced to buy arms and defend my family against folks of your like. These are civil discussions here, but if you had your "Christendom" we would be at war (or maybe I would be "re-baptized" in a nice river...glub, glub..until dead...).



Finally, the Reformation was not a time of great missionary advance outside the borders of Catholicism. It took the Modern Missions movement and the rise of baptistic ecclesiology and voluntarism in the manner of William Carey for Christianity to explode across the world. The Moravians were the first to go forth without state sponsorship and they are still an inspiration to us today. Your "Christendom" concept has always been a killer of true Christianity and expanding Christ's kingdom as the civil magistrates kingdom was expanded is not what I see in the NT. Let's get rid of your theocratic revisionist history that those were the "good ol' days." Those days were harsh, bloody and intolerant...and this often because of the Puritans.

 

[Christusregnat]

Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc.

Is it your assertion that there was a time when 'we' had a 'Holy Commonwealth'? Are you referring to the USA? And if so, what is that assertion based on? Were not our founding fathers Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists, atheists and just plain 'confused'? No doubt the USA was more Christian, percentage wise, than today, but can it truly be called a 'Holy Commonwealth'?

Or are you referring to the original colonies?

Rev. Klein,

I was indeed referring to the USA, whether in the original colonial days, or in the declining times of the Revolutionary period. This faith was rapidly lost after the Revolutionary War, and was replaced by "manifest destiny". Rushdoony has an interesting book on the topic called "The Nature of the American System". It's not the only topic, but is one of the leading features. He argues that the "Holy Commonwealth" idea superseded the State Church model in many cases, so that it could include Baptists, Methodists, etc.

Cheers,

Adam

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 02:43:17 EST-----

So, let's get this on public record: You are in favor of killing Quakers?


Poor old Uncle Ben on the oatmeal box!

NO, NO, NO, you're missing the point. You boil them in a pan, and serve them up with butter and brown sugar!!

Obadiah Holmes was a Baptist and he was whipped for preaching as a baptist. I cannot but think that if you were in charge in Puritan New England I would be forced to buy arms and defend my family against folks of your like. These are civil discussions here, but if you had your "Christendom" we would be at war (or maybe I would be "re-baptized" in a nice river...glub, glub..until dead...).

I try to keep them civil; maybe you could try a little harder?

So, again, you have not provided any documentation on what the actual charges were. The charges read: "You keep preaching as a baptist, glug, glug, so we're gonna whip you"? Perhaps some more civility and some scholarship wouldn't go amiss.

Judging by the tone of our conversation, I think I would need to take up arms and defend the lawful order against a rabble rouser Two can play at this game.

Finally, the Reformation was not a time of great missionary advance outside the borders of Catholicism.

Perhaps you should go back and read what I said with a little more civility:

Western civilization is a product of this kind of evangelism, as was the Reformation.

As you will see, my point was that the state-sponsored evangelism that operated throughout the middle ages was what laid the groundwork for Western Civ and the Reformation.

It took the Modern Missions movement and the rise of baptistic ecclesiology and voluntarism in the manner of William Carey for Christianity to explode across the world. The Moravians were the first to go forth without state sponsorship and they are still an inspiration to us today.

You mean, William Carey who was sent out by a presbytery-like board? Whose basic method of evangelism was the transform an entire nation's educational and legal system? Not much of an example for very many modern missionaries. I know that Peter Hammond attempts to follow this example; but, hey, he's theocratic too.

Your "Christendom" concept has always been a killer of true Christianity and expanding Christ's kingdom as the civil magistrates kingdom was expanded is not what I see in the NT. Let's get rid of your theocratic revisionist history that those were the "good ol' days." Those days were harsh, bloody and intolerant...and this often because of the Puritans.

Again, a touch of civility would be in order. Here is "my concept of Christendom":

Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He reigns over all the nations of the earth, and all kings are to be converted to Him that we may lead a quiet life in peace and godliness. We are to make disciples of all nations; not just people out of the nations.

Perhaps we can get rid of your anti-Christian-theocracy revisionism history and read what "my concept of Christendom" actually is. If you think that this is a killer of true Christianity, then I'm afraid you may be unfamiliar with its goals: to eradicate lies, superstition, heresy, blasphemy etc. It is a common fallacy to toss out something because of its abuse; I'm afraid that you have not escaped this fallacy.

If you care to interact in a less harsh, bloody and persecuting tone, I'd be happy to continue the dialogue. If not, please cease these publick beatings of this poor defenseless presbyterian.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Pergamum]

There are historical examples of Puritans persecuting not only crazy rabble-rousing anabaptists but holy baptists in Puritan New England. And add the Quakers as well, who were even killed.

There is nothing uncivil about this discussion.

The truth of it is that if we returned to Puritan New England before church and state were separated by the awesome 1788 Revision, I might be persecuted by either you or your buddies.

Theocracy is extremely incivil.



As far as medieval missions goes, lets start a new thread. I am not sure you would want the "missions as state-expansion" model of missions that was done at that period of time.

There are plenty of nation changing missionaries in the modern period.


It looks like I agree with your concept of 'Christendom" if you do not add civil powers and civil inforcement upon "erring sects" to your definition, which I suspect that you do.


Ha, I see we can both play the martyr. There is no anger in my posts - but this IS an important discussion and valid points must be made (and a very valid point is that Puritans WERE persecutory).

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 07:40:05 EST-----

p.s. Here is an interesting post from our own Dr. Clark at the Heidelblog: Or Maybe He Should Have Stayed Home? « Heidelblog

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 07:45:15 EST-----

 

[Kevin]

How about those Baptists killed by the magisterial Reformers...are they turning in their graves too?

I find it troubling that the theology of some, if successful, would cause me to buy arms to defend myself as a Baptist.

You could always repent...

 

[KMK]

Rev. Klein,

I was indeed referring to the USA, whether in the original colonial days, or in the declining times of the Revolutionary period. This faith was rapidly lost after the Revolutionary War, and was replaced by "manifest destiny". Rushdoony has an interesting book on the topic called "The Nature of the American System". It's not the only topic, but is one of the leading features. He argues that the "Holy Commonwealth" idea superseded the State Church model in many cases, so that it could include Baptists, Methodists, etc.

Cheers,

Adam

I have not read Rushdoony's book, but how can the USA be considered a 'Holy Commonwealth' when Franklin was a Deist, Jefferson a Unitarian (or whatever he was), and Paine was an open unbeliever, to name a few.

Here is "my concept of Christendom":

Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He reigns over all the nations of the earth, and all kings are to be converted to Him that we may lead a quiet life in peace and godliness. We are to make disciples of all nations; not just people out of the nations.

But who gets to decide what a 'disciple' looks like? Jesus says it is the church, but it sounds like you are saying it is the state.

p.s. Here is an interesting post from our own Dr. Clark at the Heidelblog: Or Maybe He Should Have Stayed Home? « Heidelblog

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 07:45:15 EST-----

Thanks for that interesting link!

 

[Pergamum]

How about those Baptists killed by the magisterial Reformers...are they turning in their graves too?

I find it troubling that the theology of some, if successful, would cause me to buy arms to defend myself as a Baptist.

You could always repent...

You could always try to rebaptize me like Zwingli did to some...I'd get promoted sooner.

 

[TsonMariytho]

You could always try to rebaptize me like Zwingli did to some...I'd get promoted sooner.

Or to be fair, like Zurich did to some. We don't have unambiguous record of Zwingli advocating capital punishment for the baptistic believers in Zurich. Unfortunately we also don't seem to have record of his registering any complaint to the proceedings, so you could be right.

Sorry to overanalyze your joke.

 

[Pergamum]

Zwngli was religious and political leader of Zurich. Zwingli was the guilty one:

Here is an excerpt:

In Zurich Zwingli was now the commanding personality in all ecclesiastical and political questions. He was "burgomaster, secretary, and council" in one, and showed himself daily more overbearing. His insolence indeed prevented an agreement with Luther regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, when a disputation was arranged between the two heresiarchs at Marfurt in October, 1529. As a statesman, Zwingli embarked in secular politics with ambitious plans. "Within three years", he writes, "Italy, Spain and Germany will take our view". Even the King of France, whose greatest enemy he had previously been, he sought to win to his side in 1531 with the work "Christianae fidei expositio", and was even prepared to pay him a yearly pension. By prohibiting intercourse with the Catholic cantons he compelled them to resort to arms. On 9 Oct., 1531, they declared war on Zurich, and advanced to Kappel on the frontiers. The people of Zurich hastened to oppose them, but met a decisive defeat near Kappel on 11 Oct., Zwingli falling in the battle. After a second defeat of the Reformed forces at Gubel, peace was concluded on 23 Oct., 1531. The peace was of long duration, since the Catholic victors displayed great moderation. Zwingli's death was an event of great importance for all Switzerland. His plan to introduce his innovations into the Catholic cantons by force had proved abortive. But even Catholics, who claimed the same rights in religious matters as the people of Zurich, regarded him as the "governor of all confederates". Zwingli is regarded as the most "liberal" of all the Reformers, and was less a dogmatist than Calvin. His statue, with a sword in one hand and the Bible in the other, stands near the municipal library at Zurich, which has also a Zwingli museum.

Ulrich Zwingli, Huldrych Zwingli, Swiss Reformation

 

[TsonMariytho]

I've been reading d'Aubigne (thanks, Lance!) recently on the reformation in Zurich. While he has high praise for the evangelical revolutions Zwingli was at the center of, he also criticizes him for an over-mingling of church and state, and suggests that both the religious suppression of the baptistic believers and the war against the Catholics were causes ill becoming for a minister of the gospel to focus his efforts on so directly.

It can be a hard question, though. Where did Zwingli's duty as an evangelist and pastor end, and his duty as a citizen begin (here referring to the war, since I can't justify the persecutions)? To reference another recent thread, is it really so wrong for a chaplain to carry a sidearm? :^)

For what it's worth (neither endorsing nor disputing the following opinion), I recall the argument made by Balthasar Hubmaier (a person of very much relevance to the discussion of Zurich). He disagreed with the common argument of the baptistic Christians of his day on the issue of pacifism -- that we should emulate Christ Jesus himself, who didn't carry a sword here below. Doctor Hubmaier suggested instead that ministers of the gospel should emulate Christ in that literal way; whereas non-pastoral Christians have a different calling, and are to fulfill that calling faithfully, whether they are serving as soldiers, officers of the peace, magistrates, etc. It is an interesting take on the subject.

 

[Pergamum]

I think if your land is attacked and you are threatened with persecution than you have the right to self-defense, even as a pastor. And, if you are a high profile pastor, then you have greater influence to fight off any attack. So I don't blame Zwingli for defending his city if he was attacked by Catholics and he was defending life, or family. Starting a campaign to invade Catholic lands, however, wouldbe different.


However, strange is that he defended himself against Catholic persecutors even while hounding the mostly pacificistic baptists to death, whom, as far as I can tell, did not take up their own right of self-defense, but suffered as martyrs under this Reformer.

It would appear the Zwingli is a murderer, or at least sharing in the guilt.

 

[Christusregnat]

Zwngli was religious and political leader of Zurich. Zwingli was the guilty one:

Here is an excerpt:

In Zurich Zwingli was now the commanding personality in all ecclesiastical and political questions. He was "burgomaster, secretary, and council" in one, and showed himself daily more overbearing. His insolence indeed prevented an agreement with Luther regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, when a disputation was arranged between the two heresiarchs at Marfurt in October, 1529. As a statesman, Zwingli embarked in secular politics with ambitious plans. "Within three years", he writes, "Italy, Spain and Germany will take our view". Even the King of France, whose greatest enemy he had previously been, he sought to win to his side in 1531 with the work "Christianae fidei expositio", and was even prepared to pay him a yearly pension. By prohibiting intercourse with the Catholic cantons he compelled them to resort to arms. On 9 Oct., 1531, they declared war on Zurich, and advanced to Kappel on the frontiers. The people of Zurich hastened to oppose them, but met a decisive defeat near Kappel on 11 Oct., Zwingli falling in the battle. After a second defeat of the Reformed forces at Gubel, peace was concluded on 23 Oct., 1531. The peace was of long duration, since the Catholic victors displayed great moderation. Zwingli's death was an event of great importance for all Switzerland. His plan to introduce his innovations into the Catholic cantons by force had proved abortive. But even Catholics, who claimed the same rights in religious matters as the people of Zurich, regarded him as the "governor of all confederates". Zwingli is regarded as the most "liberal" of all the Reformers, and was less a dogmatist than Calvin. His statue, with a sword in one hand and the Bible in the other, stands near the municipal library at Zurich, which has also a Zwingli museum.

Ulrich Zwingli, Huldrych Zwingli, Swiss Reformation

Catholics always have such nice things to say about Reformers; thanks for sharing!

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 04:03:10 EST-----

There are historical examples of Puritans persecuting not only crazy rabble-rousing anabaptists but holy baptists in Puritan New England. And add the Quakers as well, who were even killed.

Instead of continuing this discussion, I'm going to wait for actual cases, with reliable sources giving detailed information on events, charges, punishments etc.

There is nothing uncivil about this discussion.

Indeed, there is. You have yet to answer my request for actual information; not some nut-job papist's view of a Reformer, but Puritan New England: facts, dates, charges, punishments.

Theocracy is extremely incivil.

Careful how you tread on the Sacred Word of God. Did God command some immoral, uncivil and worldly government in the Old Testament?

Still waiting for some reliable quotations.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Pergamum]

Please...I don't tread on the Word of God when I tread on Big T Theonomy. Stop the silly accusations. We can both use rhetoric.


There is PLENTY of reliable history to show that the Puritans were the persecutors in many cases:

Quakers were killed by Puritans:

Quaker Proscecutions


Those Persistent Quakers: Puritans Deny Religious Freedom to Quakers

Mary Dyer, a woman, was hanged: Mary Dyer Quaker, hanged, Boston 1660 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony

Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were expelled (no need to cite, this is common knowledge.)

The Challenges of Roger Williams


Isaac Backus was another Baptist who suffered injustices by the Purtians: Isaac Backus

Encyclopedia of Religious Freedom - Google Book Search
Better citations could be found, but you can do that yourself.

Obadiah Holmes was a persecuted Baptist by the Mass. Bay Colony: Obadiah Holmes - Unmercifully Whipped « The Pastor’s Pen

The Persecution of Obadiah Holmes in America

Roger Williams - Google Book Search

Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony ... - Google Book Search pages 400-550 or so cover the Puritanitcal persecutions of differing sects.

History of religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Though better citations could be found, it is not so easy to excuse the massive body of writing on the subject of the Puritans' persecution of the Quakers and Baptists as all nutjobs.

It happened, it was real, and these persecuting Puritans were driven by the same beliefs as you and they fell into the sin of persecuting Baptist due to their mistaken notions on church and state. The 1788 revision of the WCF helped to curb these evils.




I don't support Sharia in any form.