The confessional consequences of denying the civil application of the first table of the law

[A.Joseph]

I’m just saying who benefits from these changes? It seems like it was written for the non Presbyterian. Why would we be concerned with those outside the church and outside a fuller exposition of truth, first and foremost?
It’s written from a place of neutrality. Can that ever truly be? It seems to stray from the definitive nature of the rest of the confession. I’d have no problem going back to the English version. Is that pope as antiChrist?

That's a pretty heavy charge to lay on the original founders of the OPC (who could easily have chosen to revert all the way back to the British version), as well as all of the office bearers of your present church, who have vowed to uphold the revised version. Do you have evidence to support that charge?

 

[jwright82]

Sounds like compromise and accommodation.... https://opc.org/documents/WCF_orig.html

Or a group of people who witnessed first hand what happened. If your accusing them of taking a great well working system and changing it for some reason, why?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

If you can produce a better result than lay it out in the thread I started.

The problem is James that you set up an impossible standard. You will argue that the establishment principle requires killing anyone who does not fully subscribe to a particular confession. Whenever someone contradicts you and says that it need not necessarily lead to this conclusion - and I cited pretty hard establishmentarians such as George Gillespie and Francis Turretin, not the kind and gentle types that I was mistakenly accused of agreeing with - then you will argue, "But that is just your opinion, someone else might differ."

This method of argumentation is not very productive. We could just as well argue that the type of secular liberal democracy that you want is only your opinion and that others might use secular liberal democracy to kill seventy million babies.

 

[jwright82]

The problem is James that you set up an impossible standard. You will argue that the establishment principle requires killing anyone who does not fully subscribe to a particular confession. Whenever someone contradicts you and says that it need not necessarily lead to this conclusion - and I cited pretty hard establishmentarians such as George Gillespie and Francis Turretin, not the kind and gentle types that I was mistakenly accused of agreeing with - then you will argue, "But that is just your opinion, someone else might differ."

This method of argumentation is not very productive. We could just as well argue that the type of secular liberal democracy that you want is only your opinion and that others might use secular liberal democracy to kill seventy million babies.

No it's rhetorical. What would the people who want establishment do if they were in charge do with these People? That becomes their opinion or the opinion of some group they endorsed to be in charge, and not the opinion of other reformed folk.
And when did I say I wanted secular liberal democracy? Again I agreed to be careful in explaining what I meant if others would read what I said and what I didn't say.

 

[A.Joseph]

I will bow out of this discussion. My premise is that the civil application of the second table must follow or flow from first table. I am accepting the premise of the op. I’m not seeking to cast stones or critique. I’m just reviewing what appears the most consistent position. I believe the American church was already going south when the changes were made. Maybe I’m seeing a loose association of how things have come to be. A state in which the Reformed church is both far removed and feels pressured to change and deny essential biblical tenets.

 

[jwright82]

I am really not interested in starting a separate thread. I was merely responding to the unfortunate rejection of the Establishment Principle exhibited above.

Than why bring it up?

 

[A.Joseph]

The only thing I miss about living in Bergen County, NJ...

https://www.northjersey.com/story/life/columnists/2018/01/25/seeing-red-over-blue-laws/1040987001/

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

No it's rhetorical. What would the people who want establishment do if they were in charge do with these People? That becomes their opinion or the opinion of some group they endorsed to be in charge, and not the opinion of other reformed folk.

So, basically, we can never give you a satisfactory answer to the question. It does not seem like a very productive way to engage in dialogue.

And when did I say I wanted secular liberal democracy? Again I agreed to be careful in explaining what I meant if others would read what I said and what I didn't say.

I thought that you were arguing that things were better with secular liberal democracy owing to increased literacy rates among women and minorities.

 

[iainduguid]

I will bow out of this discussion. My premise is that the civil application of the second table must follow or flow from first table. I am accepting the premise of the op. I’m not seeking to cast stones or critique. I’m just reviewing what appears the most consistent position. I believe the American church was already going south when the changes were made. Maybe I’m seeing a loose association of how things have come to be. A state in which the Reformed church is both far removed and feels pressured to change and deny essential biblical tenets.

I understand your feelings. But if you really want to understand this matter better, rather than relying on a few internet combox comments, why don't you ask your pastor this Sunday to explain the OPC's adoption of the US rather than the British version of the WCF? I'm confident that Lane would be delighted to give you his perspective, which I doubt will be "The American church was already going south when the changes were made". When they were founded, the OPC rolled back the changes in the WCF made by the PCUSA, so they made a conscious decision to adopt the American version not the British version, and as I'm sure you are aware, the OPC doesn't make such decisions lightly or without theological reasons. That way, you will have a fuller understanding of the issues.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Or a group of people who witnessed first hand what happened. If you're accusing them of taking a great well working system and changing it for some reason, why?

I would hope that even the American revisors of the Confession did not come to their conclusions, even if wrong, for pragmatic reasons. We don't decide religious matters by our human wisdom and choose what works. At this time in the US, there are very few thriving churches with one exception—the megachurches—with their thousands of members, and pastors with private jets and totally gutted theological views. That's what works.

I am 68 years old, and the more I study the Bible, the more convinced I become that hard times are just around the corner for faithful believers. I am persuaded that the truce between the two sides of our present pluralistic society is coming to an end. Maybe an abrupt end at that.

Think about the short excerpts I quote below.

========​

From
POLITICAL POLYTHEISM
The Myth of Pluralism
by
Gary North​

Selection from Preface page XIX

A Parting of the Ways
What we find in the final decades of the second millennium after the birth of Jesus Christ is a growing realization on both sides of the political cease-fire line that the traditional ideological synthesis of political pluralism is collapsing. What we are witnessing is a slow but sure breakdown of the political cease-fire between humanism and Christianity. On each side, the defenders of the compromise sy~tern can no longer hold their own troops in line. Guerilla skirmishes are breaking out continually. The humanists are beginning to act like humanists, and a tiny handful of Christians are beginning to act like Christians.

The confrontation over the life-and-death issue of abortion is one obvious example of this irrepressible conflict. On the abortionist's table, there is no neutral position between life and death. This is why the inescapably political debate over abortion is so frustrating for those who want to steer a middle course. There is no middle course. There is no neutrality. The politician's left foot is being held to the fire by the pro-d~athforces, and his right foot is being shoved in the coals by the pro-life forces. He has only one choice: accept the political fact of either one burned foot or two. He, like the political pluralist, deeply resents being forced to make this choice. He wants no burned feet. He longs for the simpler, cooler world of yesterday, when the common morality was implicitly Christian and officially neutral. He is not going to get that world; it is gone forever. So are .at least 25 million dead babies, all executed legally in the United States.

Selection from Preface page XX

A Warning Shot
This book is a warning shot across the bow of the aging battleship, Ideological Synthesis. It argues that Christian defenders of political pluralism are now trapped by the necessary and inescapable impli~ cations of their own compromise. They have bet their futures (and yours) on the preservation of the political cease-fire between Christianity and anti-Christianity. But as Christians steadily retreated from this covenantal conflict, 1673 to 1973, turning in their weapons (e.g., Christian education) to a supposedly "neutral" police force, their covenant-breaking enemies have systematically taken over that police force. This cease-fire is beginning to resemble the cease-fire of the firing squad. It can end with one word: "Fire!"

PS - Please don't get on me by quoting scary Gary. When he is right he can be pure genius.​

 

[jwright82]

So, basically, we can never give you a satisfactory answer to the question. It does not seem like a very productive way to engage in dialogue.



I thought that you were arguing that things were better with secular liberal democracy owing to increased literacy rates among women and minorities.

As I said in the other thread almost verbatim "there are bad things about the Reformation and good things about liberal democracy" which implies the opposite "there are good things about the Reformation and bad things about liberal democracy" . I didn't say "everything's better, or most things, are better under liberal democracy". I made no value judgements about either period. To this point you've haven't answered, to my knowledge what you would do with such a person, you're the judge what do you do?

 

[jwright82]

I would hope that even the American revisors of the Confession did not come to their conclusions, even if wrong, for pragmatic reasons. We don't decide religious matters by our human wisdom and choose what works. At this time in the US, there are very few thriving churches with one exception—the megachurches—with their thousands of members, and pastors with private jets and totally gutted theological views. That's what works.

I am 68 years old, and the more I study the Bible, the more convinced I become that hard times are just around the corner for faithful believers. I am persuaded that the truce between the two sides of our present pluralistic society is coming to an end. Maybe an abrupt end at that.

Think about the short excerpts I quote below.

========​

From
POLITICAL POLYTHEISM
The Myth of Pluralism
by
Gary North​

Selection from Preface page XIX

A Parting of the Ways
What we find in the final decades of the second millennium after the birth of Jesus Christ is a growing realization on both sides of the political cease-fire line that the traditional ideological synthesis of political pluralism is collapsing. What we are witnessing is a slow but sure breakdown of the political cease-fire between humanism and Christianity. On each side, the defenders of the compromise sy~tern can no longer hold their own troops in line. Guerilla skirmishes are breaking out continually. The humanists are beginning to act like humanists, and a tiny handful of Christians are beginning to act like Christians.

The confrontation over the life-and-death issue of abortion is one obvious example of this irrepressible conflict. On the abortionist's table, there is no neutral position between life and death. This is why the inescapably political debate over abortion is so frustrating for those who want to steer a middle course. There is no middle course. There is no neutrality. The politician's left foot is being held to the fire by the pro-d~athforces, and his right foot is being shoved in the coals by the pro-life forces. He has only one choice: accept the political fact of either one burned foot or two. He, like the political pluralist, deeply resents being forced to make this choice. He wants no burned feet. He longs for the simpler, cooler world of yesterday, when the common morality was implicitly Christian and officially neutral. He is not going to get that world; it is gone forever. So are .at least 25 million dead babies, all executed legally in the United States.

Selection from Preface page XX

A Warning Shot
This book is a warning shot across the bow of the aging battleship, Ideological Synthesis. It argues that Christian defenders of political pluralism are now trapped by the necessary and inescapable impli~ cations of their own compromise. They have bet their futures (and yours) on the preservation of the political cease-fire between Christianity and anti-Christianity. But as Christians steadily retreated from this covenantal conflict, 1673 to 1973, turning in their weapons (e.g., Christian education) to a supposedly "neutral" police force, their covenant-breaking enemies have systematically taken over that police force. This cease-fire is beginning to resemble the cease-fire of the firing squad. It can end with one word: "Fire!"

PS - Please don't get on me by quoting scary Gary. When he is right he can be pure genius.​

Thanks for the post. The excerpt is a little heavy handed though. The irony is it's pluralistic religious freedom he's taking advantage of to write that stuff free of persecution.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

As I said in the other thread almost verbatim "there are bad things about the Reformation and good things about liberal democracy" which implies the opposite "there are good things about the Reformation and bad things about liberal democracy" . I didn't say "everything's better, or most things, are better under liberal democracy". I made no value judgements about either period. To this point you've haven't answered, to my knowledge what you would do with such a person, you're the judge what do you do?

I did answer that question, but my answer did not satisfy you. My answer was that expecting precise answers to these questions is naive owing to their complicated nature. There is little point anyone else even attempting to give you an answer because no answer ever will satisfy you owing to your prejudice against establishmentarianism per se.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Thanks for the post. The excerpt is a little heavy handed though. The irony is it's pluralistic religious freedom he's taking advantage of to write that stuff free of persecution.

Like I said, I am 68 and I don't have the best gene pool from my family. Therefore I may escape the possible persecution. How are your genes?

 

[Taylor]

If you can produce a better result than lay it out in the thread I started.

I was strictly speaking to Tom. I made no mention of the content of his post with regard to the OP.

 

[iainduguid]

I’m just saying who benefits from these changes? It seems like it was written for the non Presbyterian. Why would we be concerned with those outside the church and outside a fuller exposition of truth, first and foremost?
It’s written from a place of neutrality. Can that ever truly be? It seems to stray from the definitive nature of the rest of the confession. I’d have no problem going back to the English version. Is that pope as antiChrist?

Just a brief comment on "neutrality" and confessions. There is a difference between what we believe and what we confess. The Westminster divines had various millennial views which they believed firmly, but they chose not to confess a particular millennial view. Removing the antichrist clause does not forbid you from believing that the pope is, in fact, the Antichrist; rather, it does not tie ministers in the OPC to that very specific exegesis of particular Bible passages that the pope is THE Great and Final Antichrist; some might be quite content to affirm that the pope is antichrist, in the sense that the papacy is generally opposed to the gospel, but the original WCF goes much further than that. You might too, but you could still subscribe to the American version in good conscience. It has only been "watered down" in the sense that the majority chose not to exclude people with a different exegesis of the relevant passages.

Confessions are not Systematic Theology text books. If confessions are not "neutral" on anything, they would have to be hundreds of pages long and would exclude almost everyone from signing them. The trick is to confess the things that are primary and to "remain neutral" on the rest (however strong your personal beliefs). That's a tough balance to maintain, for any church

 

[Ed Walsh]

Confessions are not Systematic Theology text books. If confessions are not "neutral" on anything, they would have to be hundreds of pages long and would exclude almost everyone from signing them. The trick is to confess the things that are primary and to "remain neutral" on the rest (however strong your personal beliefs). That's a tough balance to maintain, for any church

A good reminder. The Confession is (and was) a consensus document, and not, as you reminded us, a systematic theology.

 

[Ed Walsh]

An aside.
How do you frequent poster people get all that time? I am off from work this week, but my wife keeps bothering me to do other things. Although the fruit may not be apparent, some of my posts take me an hour to write. You guys ware me out. Does the PB give frequent poster miles at some threshold I have not achieved? Now my wife wants me to go shopping with her.

Joking aside, I have a beautiful, godly, better-looking-than-me wife, and I love her to pieces. I think she's calling. Bye for now.

 

[jwright82]

Like I said, I am 68 and I don't have the best gene pool from my family. Therefore I may escape the possible persecution. How are your genes?

Not much better I'm afraid.

 

[jwright82]

I was strictly speaking to Tom. I made no mention of the content of his post with regard to the OP.

Oh my apologies.

 

[jwright82]

An aside.
How do you frequent poster people get all that time? I am off from work this week, but my wife keeps bothering me to do other things. Although the fruit may not be apparent, some of my posts take me an hour to write. You guys ware me out. Does the PB give frequent poster miles at some threshold I have not achieved? Now my wife wants me to go shopping with her.

Joking aside, I have a beautiful, godly, better-looking-than-me wife, and I love her to pieces. I think she's calling. Bye for now.

Single that's my excuse.

 

[jwright82]

I did answer that question, but my answer did not satisfy you. My answer was that expecting precise answers to these questions is naive owing to their complicated nature. There is little point anyone else even attempting to give you an answer because no answer ever will satisfy you owing to your prejudice against establishmentarianism per se.

Okay punting it to someone else is an answer. I assume though that you're saying you don't have an answer right now because it's complicated as you say? That's not saying there is no answer just you don't have one right now. I, myself, would have an answer to a situation where I had to decide someone's fate, but that's just me. There's nothing wrong with that though.

 

[Poimen]

Yes, this is what history demonstrates to me. I can only conclude that an Established church is the path to loss of true religion. Look at the State sanctioned churches of Europe: Dead. Apostate. Enemies of Christ. There were probably not many righteous men among our Founding Fathers, most being Deists, but they did recognize the corruption of the churches in Europe, with its attendant wars and miseries and in God’s providence sought to avoid it here. I’m grateful that the Confession was altered to reflect this.

An established church is the path to loss of true religion when religion is lost in the establishment. This is the record of church history as well as biblical history. But the efforts of men like Hezekiah, Josiah etc. were also accepted and blessed of God. Even the state sponsored repentance of Nineveh turned away the wrath of God for a time.

Note too, that many of our Reformed confessions resulted from some form of state sponsorship and protection. Luther was shielded by princes and other powerful allies. The examples could be multiplied. We would not be here if were not for some kind of intervention. And the blessings, which are now ours, are incalculable.

Friends, let us look objectively at the ecclesiastical situation in the West. Are we truly better off? Supposing that the Reformed faith is the purest and most biblical form of religion, why is it not flourishing? Why is it that the cults and sects are far more pervasive and influential -not only in America but throughout the entire world- than the Reformed church? Why is the Roman cult still the largest denomination?

It is not just the cults and the false churches. It is not just total depravity. When we, the people, say yes to idolatry (even in the name of tolerance) what does God say to us?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Okay punting it to someone else is an answer. I assume though that you're saying you don't have an answer right now because it's complicated as you say? That's not saying there is no answer just you don't have one right now. I, myself, would have an answer to a situation where I had to decide someone's fate, but that's just me. There's nothing wrong with that though.

What I am saying is that it is a matter of magisterial discretion. Do you recognise the existence of such a category? For example, I believe that p0rnography and smoking weed are evils that the state ought to discourage. That does not mean that I believe that people who distribute p0rnography or who smoke weed should be executed. Yet that does not mean that they should be completely free to pursue such evils without civil restraint. Precisely how the government should go about doing so is a matter for magisterial discretion, which will depend on various factors. Am I "punting it to someone else"? Yes, I am.

 

[Tom Hart]

Than why bring it up?

I didn't bring it up. As I said in the post which you quoted, I was responding to the views expressed above. (I'm not sure how far we're going to get if you don't read others' posts...)

 

[jwright82]

What I am saying is that it is a matter of magisterial discretion. Do you recognise the existence of such a category? For example, I believe that p0rnography and smoking weed are evils that the state ought to discourage. That does not mean that I believe that people who distribute p0rnography or who smoke weed should be executed. Yet that does not mean that they should be completely free to pursue such evils without civil restraint. Precisely how the government should go about doing so is a matter for magisterial discretion, which will depend on various factors. Am I "punting it to someone else"? Yes, I am.

Fair enough. Myself personally would at least have a general min/max penalty in mind, that's just me though. For instance if I believed that parents should be required to baptize their children but they were credobaptist than a minimum of 100 dollar fine for every year of noncompliance to maximum of imprisonment and/or removal of children until compliance. That's just throwing something out there. And my credobaptist friends would know what I would have done to them despite years of friendship. It would put a face to my beliefs. But since I dont believe that I don't have risk offending them. Just an example of what I would do.

 

[jwright82]

I didn't bring it up. As I said in the post which you quoted, I was responding to the views expressed above. (I'm not sure how far we're going to get if you don't read others' posts...)

I do. It would also go a lot better if people layed out min/max penalties for religious practices people regard as matters of conscience, my baptism example above. That people who disagree with me would know where they stand. Telling a credobaptist friend of years that I thought they should face a maximum penalty of them being imprisoned until they complied would be honest and put a face to my beliefs.

 

[Phil D.]

Telling a credobaptist friend of years that I thought they should face a maximum penalty of them being imprisoned until they complied would be honest and put a face to my beliefs.

And here I thought I was starting to like you...

 

[Jeri Tanner]

It would also go a lot better if people layed out min/max penalties for religious practices people regard as matters of conscience, my baptism example above. That people who disagree with me should let me know where they stand.

Well, gently, it strikes me as silly to try come up with what we would do. Just us accountants and grandmothers and whatnots on the PB. Those things were hammered out in context of the time ministers and magistrates were in, and it would be the same if such times come again. I certainly don’t have the wisdom or calling or station to speak to this.

 

[jwright82]

Well, gently, it strikes me as silly to try come up with what we would do. Just us accountants and grandmothers and whatnots on the PB. Those things were hammered out in context of the time ministers and magistrates were in, and it would be the same if such times come again. I certainly don’t have the wisdom or calling or station to speak to this.

Well with all due respect, and no what you mean (I think it's silly too) when someone's viewpoint if it becomes reality it will affect someone's lively hood it is silly to punt the problem to someone else. But that's just me. But it seems that that is the best I'll get so I'll drop it.