What Should the State do about Heresy? (Poll)

What Should the State do about Heresy?

  • Option 1, Avoid Being Guilty of Overreach

    Votes: 4 12.9%
  • Option 2, Enforcement Impossible to Implement

    Votes: 5 16.1%
  • Option 3, Establishmentarian View

    Votes: 22 71.0%

  • Total voters
    31
Status
Not open for further replies.
My concern with this topic is that I have not yet seen scriptures that would indicate that a president , or any other political leader in our type of government is required by God to demand to have the Law of God as the law of the land. Would we be better off it it were, yes, but our Constitution set up would not allow for that to happen.

But we have already shown that the Constitution doesn't ground rights and is often changing, so who cares what the Constitution says?
 
Are you saying also that a President can outlaw any other religion except Christianity then? If so, can he also outlaw any church whose understanding of Christianity differs from how reformed and Baptist see as being correct Christian doctrines and practices?

I've responded to this at least twice specifically in my posts on Athanasian Pluralism.
 
As long as not human blood.

Let's say they were there when person x died of natural causes and they drained the blood immediately. And the deceased agreed to it beforehand. Is that allowable?

Also, you just justified Satanism in the public square.
 
The basic problem is that the scriptures do not state to us that we must be governed by the law of God as a nation, but as in our personal lives as believers in Jesus Christ.

Dualist Ethics 101. And strictly speaking, I never said anything about the law of God in that sense. Further, you didn't deal with the article above (which provided for Baptist liberty)
 
My concern with this topic is that I have not yet seen scriptures that would indicate that a president , or any other political leader in our type of government is required by God to demand to have the Law of God as the law of the land. Would we be better off it it were, yes, but our Constitution set up would not allow for that to happen.

It is you who have the burden to prove that the Moral Law is somehow not applicable to all men. I am still waiting for that.
 
We have veered off into particulars when the fundamental pieces of this discussion have not been settled. The way I see it, we can't have a proper conversation until we take these topics in order.

1. Is the Moral Law binding on all men?

2. Is the Moral Law binding on the magistrate? If not, why not? (If the type of government is said to be relevant here (ie. monarchy, republic, theocracy), such must be proven, not merely asserted.)

3. If the magistrate, as much as any other man, is bound by the Moral Law, is he also bound to uphold it? If yes, what verses in Scripture would you point to? If no, how can it be explained that a ruler might be individually bound by the law, but not bound to enforce it?

4. If the magistrate fails to uphold God's commandments, does he sin therein?

It seems to me that only once we have established these points can we really begin to consider the particulars of what it might look like for a Christian ruler to rule as a Christian.
 
1. Is the Moral Law binding on all men?
Yes. See WCF 4.2

We are created with reasonable and immortal souls (a moral quality), have the law of God written in our hearts (a moral ability), and we are left to the liberty of our own will (a moral liberty). Accordingly, we are abled moral agents and culpable for our own actions.

The moral concepts of good and evil are to be determined by the will of God. God has revealed what is good and what is evil in the moral law. The moral law is naturally, perpetually, and unchangeably binding, something we are to meditate upon always (Psalm 1:2).

Per the WLC:
Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and bonding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it. Deut. 5:1-3, 31, 33; Luke 10:26-27;Gal. 3:10; 1 Thess. 5:23; Luke 1:75; Acts 24:16; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:10, 12.

2. Is the Moral Law binding on the magistrate? If not, why not? (If the type of government is said to be relevant here (ie. monarchy, republic, theocracy), such must be proven, not merely asserted.)
Yes it is. See above, every one.

3. If the magistrate, as much as any other man, is bound by the Moral Law, is he also bound to uphold it? If yes, what verses in Scripture would you point to? If no, how can it be explained that a ruler might be individually bound by the law, but not bound to enforce it?
Yes he is. See WCF 23.3 (and proof texts):
3. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (2 Chron. 26:18 with Matthew 18:17 and Mathew 16:19; 1 Cor. 12:28,29; Eph. 4:11,12; 1 Cor. 4:1,2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4): yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed (Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23,25-28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5,6,12; 2 Kings 18:4; 1 Chron. 13:1-9; 2 Kings 23:1-26; 2 Chron. 34:33; 2 Chron. 15:12,13). For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God (2 Chron. 14:8-11; 2 Chron. 29 and 30; Mt. 2:4,5).

The American version of the same offers no escape from the duty of preserving the good over the evil, for therein the magistrate...
Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord.

The moral law binds all forever, no matter regenerate and unregenerate. The moral law instructs us good is to be rewarded and is evil to be punished. Given that the moral law defines what is good and what is evil, and the magistrate is the minister of God to us for good and a revenger to execute wrath upon us that does evil (Romans 13:4), the magistrate cannot be exempted from his duty to enforce the moral law.

4. If the magistrate fails to uphold God's commandments, does he sin therein?
Yes he does.

Per the WLC:

Q. 24. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.

See also Acts 12:20-23.

Now that I have answered the questions, I have one for the reader: What is the moral law? I will answer with the observation that the Ten Commandments are not the moral law, rather the commandments summarily comprehend the moral law, per WSC 41, WLC 98. There are positive and negative aspects of the moral law. For example, to not kill necessarily implies to preserve life, and so on.
 
Yes. See WCF 4.2

We are created with reasonable and immortal souls (a moral quality), have the law of God written in our hearts (a moral ability), and we are left to the liberty of our own will (a moral liberty). Accordingly, we are abled moral agents and culpable for our own actions.

The moral concepts of good and evil are to be determined by the will of God. God has revealed what is good and what is evil in the moral law. The moral law is naturally, perpetually, and unchangeably binding, something we are to meditate upon always (Psalm 1:2).

Per the WLC:
Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and bonding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it. Deut. 5:1-3, 31, 33; Luke 10:26-27;Gal. 3:10; 1 Thess. 5:23; Luke 1:75; Acts 24:16; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:10, 12.


Yes it is. See above, every one.


Yes he is. See WCF 23.3 (and proof texts):
3. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (2 Chron. 26:18 with Matthew 18:17 and Mathew 16:19; 1 Cor. 12:28,29; Eph. 4:11,12; 1 Cor. 4:1,2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4): yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed (Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23,25-28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5,6,12; 2 Kings 18:4; 1 Chron. 13:1-9; 2 Kings 23:1-26; 2 Chron. 34:33; 2 Chron. 15:12,13). For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God (2 Chron. 14:8-11; 2 Chron. 29 and 30; Mt. 2:4,5).

The American version of the same offers no escape from the duty of preserving the good over the evil, for therein the magistrate...
Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord.

The moral law binds all forever, no matter regenerate and unregenerate. The moral law instructs us good is to be rewarded and is evil to be punished. Given that the moral law defines what is good and what is evil, and the magistrate is the minister of God to us for good and a revenger to execute wrath upon us that does evil (Romans 13:4), the magistrate cannot be exempted from his duty to enforce the moral law.


Yes he does.

Per the WLC:

Q. 24. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.

See also Acts 12:20-23.

Now that I have answered the questions, I have one for the reader: What is the moral law? I will answer with the observation that the Ten Commandments are not the moral law, rather the commandments summarily comprehend the moral law, per WSC 41, WLC 98. There are positive and negative aspects of the moral law. For example, to not kill necessarily implies to preserve life, and so on.

Brilliant. Thank you for this answer.
 
It is you who have the burden to prove that the Moral Law is somehow not applicable to all men. I am still waiting for that.
The Moral law of God is applicable to all men, in that it is the standard of what is right/wrong, and men shall be judged on that basis, but that does not mean that God will not allow for governments to not uphold it, as in making the Scriptures themselves the supreme law of the land.
 
We have veered off into particulars when the fundamental pieces of this discussion have not been settled. The way I see it, we can't have a proper conversation until we take these topics in order.

1. Is the Moral Law binding on all men?

2. Is the Moral Law binding on the magistrate? If not, why not? (If the type of government is said to be relevant here (ie. monarchy, republic, theocracy), such must be proven, not merely asserted.)

3. If the magistrate, as much as any other man, is bound by the Moral Law, is he also bound to uphold it? If yes, what verses in Scripture would you point to? If no, how can it be explained that a ruler might be individually bound by the law, but not bound to enforce it?

4. If the magistrate fails to uphold God's commandments, does he sin therein?

It seems to me that only once we have established these points can we really begin to consider the particulars of what it might look like for a Christian ruler to rule as a Christian.
How would a Christian President rule in a nation like ours thought that practices plurality of religious expressions, and whose basis of law is not the scriptures, but the US Constitution?
IF he was ruling in an area where the scriptures are the final say for that nation, of course should make sure their standards are upheld.
 
The Moral law of God is applicable to all men, in that it is the standard of what is right/wrong, and men shall be judged on that basis, but that does not mean that God will not allow for governments to not uphold it, as in making the Scriptures themselves the supreme law of the land.
You still don’t seem to be understanding that the question of the OP is what a magistrate *should* do and be responsible for. The question of the OP doesn’t so much concern what *is* currently the status.

Whether our constitution allows for it or not, the proposed idea is that God will hold kings and leaders accountable for how whether they ruled according to God’s Law. Ideally, part of a righteous rule should be a leader’s concern for the peace and purity of the true Christian church.
 
You still don’t seem to be understanding that the question of the OP is what a magistrate *should* do and be responsible for. The question of the OP doesn’t so much concern what *is* currently the status.

Whether our constitution allows for it or not, the proposed idea is that God will hold kings and leaders accountable for how whether they ruled according to God’s Law. Ideally, part of a righteous rule should be a leader’s concern for the peace and purity of the true Christian church.
The Magistrate who is ruling in the situation that you are describing to me should always be making sure to see that the scripture viewpoint in regard to morality are being followed.
 
You still don’t seem to be understanding that the question of the OP is what a magistrate *should* do and be responsible for. The question of the OP doesn’t so much concern what *is* currently the status.

Whether our constitution allows for it or not, the proposed idea is that God will hold kings and leaders accountable for how whether they ruled according to God’s Law. Ideally, part of a righteous rule should be a leader’s concern for the peace and purity of the true Christian church.

Excellent, Jeri. Additionally, because God's judgment isn't immediate only means it isn't immediate. I also hope no one is supposing God is restrained by the U.S. Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Excellent, Jeri. Additionally, because God's judgment isn't immediate only means it it isn't immediate. I also hope no one is supposing God is restrained by the U.S. Constitution.
God is not restrained by the US Constitution, but He has not directly implemented his law across the nation yet either.
 
God is not restrained by the US Constitution, but He has not directly implemented his law across the nation yet either.
You keep making this point, which is ok I guess if you want to keep repeating it, but it’s kind of obvious to all that God is permitting rampant disobedience to his word in the U.S. ( see Gforce9’s comment on God’s judgment). Instead of continuing to repeat the obvious, do you have an argument against the establishment principle, or have you ever studied the issues involved? That’s what’s under discussion when speaking of the magistrate’s duty to suppress heresy.
 
The Magistrate who is ruling in the situation that you are describing to me should always be making sure to see that the scripture viewpoint in regard to morality are being followed.

David, the first four commandments are also summarizations of moral law. A civl authority that turns a blind eye to blasphemy or Sabbath-breaking is turning a blind eye to real, harmful, society-crushing immorality.
 
God is not restrained by the US Constitution, but He has not directly implemented his law across the nation yet either.

Instead of continuing to repeat the obvious, do you have an argument against the establishment principle, or have you ever studied the issues involved? That’s what’s under discussion when speaking of the magistrate’s duty to suppress heresy.
David,

Indeed, that is a key issue in this thread. Please avail yourself of past discussions of the matter such that you are able to interact substantively, for example:
https://www.puritanboard.com/search/5586208/?q=establishment+principle&o=date&c[user][0]=1012
 
David,

Indeed, that is a key issue in this thread. Please avail yourself of past discussions of the matter such that you are able to interact substantively, for example:
https://www.puritanboard.com/search/5586208/?q=establishment+principle&o=date&c[user][0]=1012
I have read through the article http://www.westminsterconfession.or...xercise-of-civil-authority-about-religion.php On the reformed Books Online site, and i am still coming back to the point that we are discussing how a King, or someone in a solely Christian state can mandate and keep the rules of God, but not in a society set up as the USA is at this present time.
 
I have read through the article http://www.westminsterconfession.or...xercise-of-civil-authority-about-religion.php On the reformed Books Online site, and i am still coming back to the point that we are discussing how a King, or someone in a solely Christian state can mandate and keep the rules of God, but not in a society set up as the USA is at this present time.
David,

I assume you mean to say you have read two items, the one you provide a link to and something on the Reformed Books Online site. It is not clear what you are saying given the grammar being used.

Would that RBO item(s) be this one:
https://reformedbooksonline.com/the...tminster-standards-and-early-american-states/ ???

Can you be a wee bit more specific about what you have specifically read?
 
@Dachaser,

I think it would really help all of us if you just explained how you've arrived at certain conclusions. You have made the same assertions repeatedly, but, frustratingly, still you have not provided any support.

You must realize that it's very hard to take your position seriously when all you do is repeat the same assertions over and over.

I might repeatedly say, "I'm a purple dragon. I'm a purple dragon." I might even add, "I'm a purple dragon because God made me a purple dragon."

But you're still unlikely to be convinced that I'm a purple dragon.

Now, if I provided a selfie of myself as a purple dragon, that might be getting somewhere. You don't have to believe the selfie is real (it could be doctored), but at least I'm going somewhere towards supporting my claim.

Do you see what I mean? Make a claim, but don't just stop there. Give some support, ideally from Scripture. We might disagree on your interpretations, but at least we'd have something to work with. You've got to do better than what you're doing now.

If you are not prepared to have a serious discussion, then I'm not sure why you keep engaging with us.

I hoped you would respond to the questions I listed, so that we could have a more structures discussion. Ask Mr. Religion supplied very satisfactory answers, with support from the Bible and from the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.
 
The Moral law of God is applicable to all men, in that it is the standard of what is right/wrong, and men shall be judged on that basis, but that does not mean that God will not allow for governments to not uphold it, as in making the Scriptures themselves the supreme law of the land.

Let me spell it out for you:

P
R
O
V
E

I
T
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top