TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
I'd like to see that.
What Should the State do about Heresy? (Poll)
- Thread starter Parakaleo
- Start date
- Status
This article was on the Board The Westminister Presbartarina
http://www.westminsterconfession.or...xercise-of-civil-authority-about-religion.php
The original author was Thomas M'Crie
I am addressing myself to answering this question from the viewpoint of what should a leader do while here in the United States. in regards to upholding and enforcing the scripture morality?
The Apostle Paul stated to us in Romans 13 that the State, the government, is the sword of the Lord to enforce judgment and to execute punishment upon the wicked, but Paul did not addres here how that relates to governing exclusivekly from a Christian based perspective, as he no doubt would have ancient Rome enforce the laws against Murder, Rape, stealing, but do not see Him commanding Rome to obey the scriptures except in a general basis. There seemed to be a clear distinction between what God demanded for a Christian state, and a secular government.
The Apostle Paul stated to us in Romans 13 that the State, the government, is the sword of the Lord to enforce judgment and to execute punishment upon the wicked, but Paul did not addres here how that relates to governing exclusivekly from a Christian based perspective, as he no doubt would have ancient Rome enforce the laws against Murder, Rape, stealing, but do not see Him commanding Rome to obey the scriptures except in a general basis. There seemed to be a clear distinction between what God demanded for a Christian state, and a secular government.
What do you mean by linking this? Is it in support of your view? If so, could you provide a summary of some sort? The document is quite long.
Basically, its stating that one of the chief duties for those who are ruling for/in the place of God is to make sure to mandate and enforce that the society reflects His moral Law, and that the scripture morality is upheld. The caveat being here though was written in 1807, and the climate for doing that is much different and harder than it was back then.
So in fact M'Crie is arguing precisely against your position. But it was over two centuries ago, so... Well, that was then and this is now.
Please explain what exactly was different in Scotland in the early 19th century compared to now, and explain why the moral law was applicable then but not now.
By the way, Scotland in 1807 had been in union with England for 100 years. They were governed by the parliament at Westminster, which, while it did include some upright men of strong Christian character, did not really care to uohold the same establishmentarianism of the kind we have been discussing. I just want to be clear that M'Crie is likely not intending to be dealing with a present reality. (I have yet to read the document.)
M'Crie's biography of John Knox is great. Read it if you get a chance. I think it was cheap on Kindle.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
I think David's opining is not what a magistrate "should" do ideally or what a magistrate "ought" to aim for, but rather a more practical question: What ought a Christian magistrate to do governing in the current system of the USA? Certainly, while they ought to reform the form of government in the USA and seek to protect the church to the degree that laws allow, there is only so much that they can do within the current system. So what ought a Christian governor in today's USA to do? I think that is the question that David is trying to answer.
Or to put it in more careful terms, I think that David is dealing with the application of the moral law that establishmentarians would make in the present system of things. He has specifically said that a Christian in a Christian government ought to enforce God's law, and that his question is what ought a Christian to do in the present system in enforcing Scriptural morality?
Of course, the poll is not dealing with that question (which is also an interesting question; and it's made more complicated by the fact that Christian establishmentarianism is a super-added duty to the Christian magistrate, although all magistrates are obligated to enforce the entirety of the moral law, e.g., see Gillespies 111 Propositions or Rev. Matthew Winzer's article about Theonomy in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal, which includes duties towards true religion). The poll is dealing with the moral law itself. What ought a magistrate to do? What kinds of laws ought they to make? It is dealing with the moral law, not necessarily the practical application of the moral law to a Christian serving in the present system of government.
Or to put it in more careful terms, I think that David is dealing with the application of the moral law that establishmentarians would make in the present system of things. He has specifically said that a Christian in a Christian government ought to enforce God's law, and that his question is what ought a Christian to do in the present system in enforcing Scriptural morality?
Of course, the poll is not dealing with that question (which is also an interesting question; and it's made more complicated by the fact that Christian establishmentarianism is a super-added duty to the Christian magistrate, although all magistrates are obligated to enforce the entirety of the moral law, e.g., see Gillespies 111 Propositions or Rev. Matthew Winzer's article about Theonomy in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal, which includes duties towards true religion). The poll is dealing with the moral law itself. What ought a magistrate to do? What kinds of laws ought they to make? It is dealing with the moral law, not necessarily the practical application of the moral law to a Christian serving in the present system of government.
You have articulated here exactly what I am attempting to do with answering this OP question.
Maybe we need to expand and broaden it towards the larger context of how a Christian governs in this present Government system, as I thought was being asked here?
Again, should a Christian leader enforce the scriptures morality? Of course. but my concern really is how that applies in a government such as ours, which is a Republic and has religious plurality set up in our Constitution?
He should always attempt to uphold the moral laws of God in the scriptures, when possible.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
We're glad you at least admit he should enforce the ten commandments.
So we're in agreement. The magistrate should uphold the moral law. Sadly, we do not see our governments doing that.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Agreed, and there is little at the moment. But we can use this same scenario and hypothetically apply it backwards to the 1st century to show how faulty the reasoning is "Well, Paul didn't say go kill Caesar, therefore we shouldn't strive for a biblical govt."
Therefore, since we can't apply God's law right now, we shouldn't try to reform govt according to biblical standards.
Something seems off about that.
Yes. David has at least accepted the statement that the magistrate should do right in upholding the moral law, even if his other statements (that we should in fact do nothing, and that government should in fact protect the evils of idolatry and heresy) are incongruous with it.
I'll leave David to sort out that inconsistency.
One thing to sort out is what is meant by “the moral laws of God.” Do you believe that the moral law still includes the 4th commandment (the setting apart and regulated keeping of the Sabbath/Lord’s day), and the 2nd commandment (including no depictions of Christ), for instance? In other words, all 10 of the commandments?
There was once a time in this country when those two laws and the rest of the 10 were at least prominent in people’s minds and the law reflected it (we had the Sunday blue laws, for instance, and actually in many instances still do). That’s something to sort out in your mind. If God requires the magistrate to honor and enforce the 6th and 8th commandments, then he also requires him to honor and enforce the other 8.
I know it’s strange to consider, from a recent dispensational background, that the requirement to keep the Sabbath holy is a moral issue, obligatory on all men including the magistrate, just as murder and theft are. Yet that may be something you need to deal with and resolve.
Yes, I do see that God requires us today to uphold the Moral Law as in the 10 Commandments, and to set aside for worship and teaching the lord's Day now, but my conflict is more on how that practically applies today in a pluralistic Republican form of government that the USA is under now.
Then start a new thread. That is not the question we are dealing with.
It was once the will of the people in the U.S. that the Lord's Day be set apart, that adultery and other such immorality be illegal, and so forth. So my understanding is that under our form of government, it would once again have to become the will of the majority and the magistrates would need to be men who share that will- something obviously that only God can bring about. I have heard it said that we should pray for "reforming times." God has done and is able to do that (see the reforming kings in the OT). Changes like that, historically, have come accompanied with a lot of upheaval and violence. Maybe those times will never come again before Christ's return, but maybe they will.
Our political leaders should always try to get laws passed that reflct what the moral code of the scriptures are, but fear that will not be fully realized until the Lord Jesus returns again.
We can still have a real revival though sweep our Lord if God so willed that to happen, as that would cause many to turn back to him and the scriptures, and we would have laws more in accord with ways of God then getting implemented.
Again, is versus should.
We have agreed that the magistrate ought to uphold the moral law. Obviously, that is not what we see happening today. How do we go about ushering that sort of government? Well, that's another big question. The question we are dealing with is utterly simple: What is right?
What has me confused, David, is that you have previously said that "a republican government like ours" (those terms being still undefined) should tolerate and protect idolatry of the worst sort. That you, a Christian, say that, even while declaring the moral imperative of the magistrate to uphold God's law, is rather perplexing.
We have agreed that the magistrate ought to uphold the moral law. Obviously, that is not what we see happening today. How do we go about ushering that sort of government? Well, that's another big question. The question we are dealing with is utterly simple: What is right?
What has me confused, David, is that you have previously said that "a republican government like ours" (those terms being still undefined) should tolerate and protect idolatry of the worst sort. That you, a Christian, say that, even while declaring the moral imperative of the magistrate to uphold God's law, is rather perplexing.
I have an obligation to God, but also to this nation, and so the balancing act is that in this current republican government, I can uphold a higher standard, but still need to allow for diversity positions to be held and done. President trump could sign an Executive order banning all l other religions to be observed/followed save for Christianity, but the Supreme Court would see that down quickly as not Constitutional.
David, do you accept or reject the establishment principle as stated in the original WCF? That's basically what the OP poll is getting at.
There are varying convictions about it on the Puritanboard you know, so it's not a trick question.
There are varying convictions about it on the Puritanboard you know, so it's not a trick question.
It's really not about your thoughts on our current form of government or what you think God may or may not do. Either God, in his word, obligates the leaders of a country to suppress heresy, or he doesn't (whether or not they currently can or are willing to is another question).
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Am I obligated to my neighborhood to allow Satanic groups to perform blood rituals in their vicinity? Does that really promote the commonweal and quality of life? Your position logically requires you to say, "Yes."
He obligates the spiritual leaders of the churches to do that, but would not be mandating that the federal Government be doing that, not unless there is a move by him to hearts and minds changed in order to have new laws made to confirm to His standards in the scriptures.
Render unto God His things, and unto Caesar his.
Do you allow for Muslims to practice their prayers unto their false God daily?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I am not in a position to allow or disallow them, as I am not a magistrate. In any case, even in a dreaded theocracy, it's impossible for the state to criminalize what you do privately in your own home.
I actually long for the Theocracy, but only directly under Jesus himself.
- Status
Similar threads
