How Should Error Be Surpressed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
I was reading, and came across this:

"œOught error also, and with equal directness, to be suppressed?"

I'd agree - yes, error should be suppressed.

But then we ask "how?"

"The best method of obtaining a right answer to this inquiry is, to consult the Word of God, and to investigate the nature of conscience. The Word of God, in almost innumerable instances, commands the direct encouragement of truth, and also the suppression of certain forms of error, as of idolatry and blasphemy; but gives no authority to man to judge and punish errors of the mind, so far as these amount not to violations of known and equitable laws, and disturb not the peace of society. And with regard to the nature of conscience, it is manifest to every thinking man, that conscience cannot be compelled. It may be enlightened, it may be convinced, but its very nature is the free exercise of that self judging faculty which is the essential principle of personal responsibility. Hence it is evident, that it is alike contrary to the Word of God and to the nature of conscience, for man to attempt to promote truth by the compulsive suppression of error, when that error does not obtrude itself on public view by open violation of God´s commandments and the just laws of the land. But it by no means follows that toleration means, or ought to mean, equal favor shown to error as to truth. Truth ought to be expressly favored and encouraged; erring men ought to be treated with all tenderness and compassionate toleration; but error itself ought to be condemned, and all fair means employed for its extirpation. This could never lead to persecution; because it would constantly preserve the distinction between the abstract error and the man whose misfortune it is to be an erring man, and to whom it would show all tenderness, while it strove to rescue him from the evil consequences of those erroneous notions by which he was blinded and misled.

Thoughts?
 
It sounds reasonable to me.

The error is of a nature that the "...error does not obtrude itself on public view by open violation of God´s commandments and the just laws of the land."

In other words, perhaps the minister knows that a man has a conscience that is bound to a particular error but he doesn't lead other men astray with his error. A good question would be: Does the minister or elder who knows of a serious (but private) doctrinal error try to bring Church discipline to bear on such a man? I know the above is speaking in a more extreme form where you might punish a man for such a sin, even going so far as magisterial action against the man (when that was done).

Prudence would seem to suggest that the real danger of error is when it spreads and the man's error begins to cause problems with others. If a man holds an error and is still willing to sit under the preaching and authority of a Session, is it not better that the Elders are repeatedly condemning theological error and commending the Truth than to put the "private heretic" out of the Church. In that way they might restore the man to the Truth.

This problem is not theoretical in the least. I've had Arminians that I labored with my former pastor to convert to Godly doctrine with success. The Church allowed them membership but would disallow an office until their doctrine improved. The Church I attended in VA had a ton of people that would fall into the above category out of ignorance much more than willful rebellion of the WCF.

Overall, I would say it is very elegantly and succintly stated.
 
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

so far as these amount not to violations of known and equitable laws, and disturb not the peace of society.

Thoughts?

This is the current technique used to silence opponents of erroneous teachings. When your error is challenged the critic is accused of threatening the peace of the church (by those holding to the error being taught). Any criticism of the teaching is viewed as attacking the teacher and condemned as unchristian.
 
How far, do you think, does the state interfere in matters that disturb society? Jonestwon? Waco? Etc. Should the church have stepped in first?

We see through history that synods have often been called by the state to silence heresy, even to the extent that men were banished from the land.

Would that change (should that change) today?
 
The state should protect the unique gospel preaching role of the church. The magistrate must protect the church from any who are physically hostile. And the church should never use the sword against others. Everything else is just a matter of defending and proclaiming the faith to the minds of everyone. The church doesn't need a magistrate to suppress heresy by force. Suppression by the sword is a cop out for poor arguments (i.e. atheism, Isalm, etc.) My own provisional :2cents:
 
Originally posted by Puritan Sailor
The state should protect the unique gospel preaching role of the church. The magistrate must protect the church from any who are physically hostile. And the church should never use the sword against others. Everything else is just a matter of defending and proclaiming the faith to the minds of everyone. The church doesn't need a magistrate to suppress heresy by force. Suppression by the sword is a cop out for poor arguments (i.e. atheism, Isalm, etc.) My own provisional :2cents:

I think to much weight here is given to good argumentation. Great argumentation is not going to lead everyone to Christ nor is it going to stop the mouth of all heretics. Just like great argumenation is not going to stop all murder, rape, bank robberies etc. Sometimes you have to say, "Leave and don't come back or feel the sword"

CT
 
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
How far, do you think, does the state interfere in matters that disturb society? Jonestwon? Waco? Etc. Should the church have stepped in first?

Stepped in how?

We see through history that synods have often been called by the state to silence heresy, even to the extent that men were banished from the land.

Would that change (should that change) today?

The question is whether or not the state should have had such a relationship with the synods etc. in the first place. After we have decided that, then how we should operate today will simply fall out.

CT
 
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Puritan Sailor
The state should protect the unique gospel preaching role of the church. The magistrate must protect the church from any who are physically hostile. And the church should never use the sword against others. Everything else is just a matter of defending and proclaiming the faith to the minds of everyone. The church doesn't need a magistrate to suppress heresy by force. Suppression by the sword is a cop out for poor arguments (i.e. atheism, Isalm, etc.) My own provisional :2cents:

I think to much weight here is given to good argumentation. Great argumentation is not going to lead everyone to Christ nor is it going to stop the mouth of all heretics. Just like great argumenation is not going to stop all murder, rape, bank robberies etc. Sometimes you have to say, "Leave and don't come back or feel the sword"

CT

:ditto:
 
Matt,

I'm confused. Your original quote dealt with private error that "...amount not to violations of known and equitable laws, and disturb not the peace of society."

The discussion seems to be focused on public error that both the Church at large and Magistrate are involved in.
 
Gillespie's 111 Propositions is useful here, where he speaks of the different ends, means etc. of Church and State. If a teaching disturbs the public peace then the magistrate has a role to suppress it. Of course in today's extreme democratic countries disturbing the peace by mere teaching is nearly impossible since the democratic process requires free speech in order for the constituency (the people who elect officials) to be heard.
 
1646 Westminster Confession, Chap. 20:

4. And because the power which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.a 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 hath established in the Church; they may lawfully be called to account,b and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the Civil Magistrate.c

a. Mat 12:25; Rom 13:1-8; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 2:13-14, 16. "¢ b. Rom 1:32 with 1 Cor 5:1, 5, 11, 13; 2 John 1:10-11 and 2 Thes 3:14 and 1 Tim 6:3-5 and Titus 1:10-11, 13 and Titus 3:10 with Mat 18:15-17; 1 Tim 1:19-20; Rev 2:2, 14-15, 20; 3:9. "¢ c. Deut 13:6-12; 2 Kings 23:5-6, 9, 20-21; 2 Chron 15:12-13, 16; 34:33; Neh 13:15, 17, 21-22, 25, 30; Isa 49:23; Dan 3:29; Zec 13:2-3; Rom 13:3-4 with 2 John 1:10-11; 1 Tim 2:2; Rev 17:12, 16-17.
 
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Puritan Sailor
The state should protect the unique gospel preaching role of the church. The magistrate must protect the church from any who are physically hostile. And the church should never use the sword against others. Everything else is just a matter of defending and proclaiming the faith to the minds of everyone. The church doesn't need a magistrate to suppress heresy by force. Suppression by the sword is a cop out for poor arguments (i.e. atheism, Isalm, etc.) My own provisional :2cents:

I think to much weight here is given to good argumentation. Great argumentation is not going to lead everyone to Christ nor is it going to stop the mouth of all heretics. Just like great argumenation is not going to stop all murder, rape, bank robberies etc. Sometimes you have to say, "Leave and don't come back or feel the sword"

CT

It's not the magistrates job to put heresy on trial. That belongs to the church. The magistrate is to preserve civil order as part of his role in common grace, as established with Noah, to punish murderes etc. Unless some one is physically hostile to the church and threatens life, the magistrate has no just grounds to intervene. If heretics are going to start burning churches, then certainly the magistrate must unsheath the sword and let loose. But until then, he preserves a stable society which allows Christians to love their neighbors and freely combat hostile ideas and take captive every thought for Christ, leaving any unbelievers in that society without excuse. The Church should never be afraid of an open arena or competition of ideas. We have the truth. We should not have to rely on the sword to spread the gospel, that is the way of false religions.
 
Originally posted by Puritan Sailor
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Puritan Sailor
The state should protect the unique gospel preaching role of the church. The magistrate must protect the church from any who are physically hostile. And the church should never use the sword against others. Everything else is just a matter of defending and proclaiming the faith to the minds of everyone. The church doesn't need a magistrate to suppress heresy by force. Suppression by the sword is a cop out for poor arguments (i.e. atheism, Isalm, etc.) My own provisional :2cents:

I think to much weight here is given to good argumentation. Great argumentation is not going to lead everyone to Christ nor is it going to stop the mouth of all heretics. Just like great argumenation is not going to stop all murder, rape, bank robberies etc. Sometimes you have to say, "Leave and don't come back or feel the sword"

CT

It's not the magistrates job to put heresy on trial. That belongs to the church. The magistrate is to preserve civil order as part of his role in common grace, as established with Noah, to punish murderes etc. Unless some one is physically hostile to the church and threatens life, the magistrate has no just grounds to intervene. If heretics are going to start burning churches, then certainly the magistrate must unsheath the sword and let loose. But until then, he preserves a stable society which allows Christians to love their neighbors and freely combat hostile ideas and take captive every thought for Christ, leaving any unbelievers in that society without excuse. The Church should never be afraid of an open arena or competition of ideas. We have the truth. We should not have to rely on the sword to spread the gospel, that is the way of false religions.

This brings up the question of the magistrates relation to the first table of the law.
See Confessions, Catechisms, and sundry quotes here
 
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
How does the church make them "feel the sword?" Should the church make them feel the sword? (See Fred above).

The church does not make them feel the sword, the magistrate does. If the magistrate fails to do so, then the evildoers do not feel the sword until the magistrate starts to properly do its job.

CT
 
This could never lead to persecution; because it would constantly preserve the distinction between the abstract error and the man whose misfortune it is to be an erring man, and to whom it would show all tenderness, while it strove to rescue him from the evil consequences of those erroneous notions by which he was blinded and misled.


Where were those who put out Roger Williams when this was written or thought through?



[Edited on 7-15-2006 by ef]
 
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
How far, do you think, does the state interfere in matters that disturb society? Jonestwon? Waco? Etc. Should the church have stepped in first?

We see through history that synods have often been called by the state to silence heresy, even to the extent that men were banished from the land.

Would that change (should that change) today?

I agree with Christian Trader on this one. The question to be asked is whether those state powers ought to have been capable of calling a synod in the first place.

I think that this whole discussion points to one significant difference between our time and times past. Martin Luther lamented what he saw in his time, "as many churches as there are heads." Our discussion on private interpretation hit on relating points as well.

Outside of an environment where there is either one Church (as in pre-reformational Western Christendom) or a state church, there is nothing that the Church can do. With our Bible Church movement, (based upon that bunk Evangelical Solo Scriptura we talked about in the PI thread) the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormonism we have sects claiming to be part of the visible Church whose standing is, in my opinion and according to a strict reading of the reformational standards, suspect. What assembly shall adjudicate disagreement about such claims? The synod of the URC? The GA of the OPC? PCA? RPCNA? Upon what grounds would it/they have to act, and what would their actions look like?

I haven't the slightest idea what the answers to these questions are, but I do wonder what level of ecumenical cooperation we ought to work toward as confessionally reformed bodies. Several years ago Dr. Godfrey from WSC made just such a suggestion and I wonder if this thread doesn't point toward our need for just such an alliance.
 
Hmmm. True. If we can't decide, then how "should" error be surpressed? How CAN it? For example, If I publish a book on refuting the Federal Vision, as Guy Waters did, that seems to be picking up the guantlet a bit since such a book extends past denominational influence. APM for example, does that. I get emails from everyone under the sun.

How, then, do you think it would best serve the church to correct error? Ideally, it should be from the pulpit. But because everyone is not ont he same page, shoudl we then not "worry" about those who are not on the same page with "me"?

I find this to be an intriguing question. FOr If I didn't worry, I'd never write anything polemically outside my own circles. But I do, all the time.
 
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
How, then, do you think it would best serve the church to correct error? Ideally, it should be from the pulpit. But because everyone is not ont he same page, should we then not "worry" about those who are not on the same page with "me"?

I like the example of Federal Vision because it is so in-your-face and contemporary. The PCA set aside a statement by the OPC in its recent discussion on that topic because that study paper had not been formally adopted by the OPC's GA. This suggests some level of discussion beyond sectarian or denominational lines. <Total aside here... am I right to think that we, as reformed believers, would be in the same "sect," though in different denominations?>

You're right on in your suggestion re: the chief means of grace, the word preached, but as you say in that case would the minister in the Auburn Avenue congregation of the PCA have equal footing in that regard to you in yours? It seems to me that we ought to have an interdenominational forum formally set up for these matters.

One thing I really appreciate about this forum is that it is familiarizing me with authorities outside the circles I'd normally come into contact with. More of this would seem to me to help this issue, at least theoretically, because it would allow us to test one another's emphases against those of other groups within our faith tradition.

I've always appreciated Charles Hodge's boast of Old Princeton, that nothing original ever came out of that seminary. There seems to be to be a lot of wisdom in that statement, and a lot of room for folly and error as well.
 
Regrettably most discussions about the role of the civil magistrate are accommodated to the reality of the lawless societies in which we live. If the people were all Christian citizens, there would be no debate that the magistrate had a duty to suppress false religions. And we already accept it to a certain degree anyway. I am sure we all agree that the magistrate should suppress jihad in the interests of preserving life. He also suppresses tribal religions by the recognition of property rights. The values both of life and property are derived from biblical ethics. But biblical ethics also teaches the value of worshipping one God. Why are folk willing to accept the former but not the latter as within the sphere of civil authority? Isn't it because civil ethics are being shaped by the reality in which we live rather than the biblical model?
 
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Hmmm. True. If we can't decide, then how "should" error be surpressed? How CAN it? For example, If I publish a book on refuting the Federal Vision, as Guy Waters did, that seems to be picking up the guantlet a bit since such a book extends past denominational influence. APM for example, does that. I get emails from everyone under the sun.

How, then, do you think it would best serve the church to correct error? Ideally, it should be from the pulpit. But because everyone is not ont he same page, should we then not "worry" about those who are not on the same page with "me"?

I find this to be an intriguing question. FOr If I didn't worry, I'd never write anything polemically outside my own circles. But I do, all the time.

It seems to me that a minister's mandate is to preach Christ's gospel, not his own take on it. What we see in our day is a personalized gospel being preached to the many ( see the thread, "Very Interesting" ) in the name of Christ. Sadly, this is also true in our own circles. We won't clean ourselves of the errors in others if we refuse to see the errors in ourselves. So it begins with looking at ourselves, it seems to me. And ministers of the Word especially have a heavy burden in that respect.

Eventually, of course, personal differences in religious beliefs and/or opinions leads to a disturbance in the peace of a church, if it is not held in check. The Reformed churches have articles in their Church Orders for that. So if there is disturbance, it is humbling for a church as much as it is a mandate to clear up the disturbances of the peace in the church.

So, it seems to me, the first thing in dealing with errors in the congregation is to respect the person even though you disagree with his opinions. Then, if he begins to cause things in the church by constant reference to that opinion, then he ought to be reminded of the mutuality of that respect that is due to others as it is due to him.

I don't have the text of the Book of Order here in front of me, but if I recall, it puts it in terms of addressing the disturbance, not so much the error. This is in keeping with the text from the Confession which, from Scripture, entitles each person to freedom of conscience, even though the church believes and holds to a singleness of truth in all things. It recognizes our own weaknesses, the several states or levels of santification as a person grows in righteousness, knowledge, and faith, ( imitating Christ as he matures in the Word; bearing the image of God ) the command for unity where no two people are the same, and a humble spirit before a holy God, knowing that Christ loved us, and died for each of us while we were yet sinners.

So suppressing error has to do with a work done in love and concern. If we keep good order in the churches, then we will have an atmosphere in the church where error may be suppressed, where faithfulness will be championed; and where every member of the body may be encouraged.

Well, that's my opinion, anyways. If nothing else, it may help foster more discussion.

By the way, Matt, where was that quote taken from?

[Edited on 7-18-2006 by JohnV]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top