# Witch-Burning Puritans?



## Bondman

How do we respond to this old attack against our noble ancestors in the faith? I have just been likened to one after making it known that I do not support stem cell research.


----------



## Pergamum

The good that men do is interred with their bones, but the evil they do lives on and on...

Our noble forefathers did, in fact, burn a few witches - I think it was a great sin - and this evil is often pointed to as evidence that Christians are at odds with the love displayed by Christ.


This is a lesson for us: we must always walk circumspectly before the watching world and be harmless as doves because if we err, the world WILL take notice and use it against us for years to come.




[bracing myself for nasty replies now...]


----------



## Ivan

Bondman said:


> I have just been likened to one after making it known that I do not support stem cell research.



What does this have to do with burning witches? Burning witches is the same as being against the support of stem cell research on fetuses?


----------



## govols

Also, the vast majority of those "witches" weren't witches, a couple could be considered so, some could be considered personal vendettas against someone, pure accusations.

I am for stem cell research, not fed funded and not on fetuses but from umbilical cords.


----------



## CDM

trevorjohnson said:


> The good that men do is interred with their bones, but the evil they do lives on and on...
> 
> Our noble forefathers did, in fact, burn a few witches - I think it was a great sin - and this evil is often pointed to as evidence that Christians are at odds with the love displayed by Christ.
> 
> 
> This is a lesson for us: we must always walk circumspectly before the watching world and be harmless as doves because if we err, the world WILL take notice and use it against us for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [bracing myself for nasty replies now...]



Keep in mind the burning at the stake of about 20+ TOTAL during this period was in accordance with the civil law of the land (for wrong or right). There were no team of Puritan's with pitchforks kicking down doors and dragging witches off to the stake.

Let's have a few local PB historians chime in on this one.


----------



## turmeric

The case in Salem was particularly egregious, it seems, from a theonomic viewpoint.

1. Samuel Parris did not catechize his slave.
2. He did not have his daughters in subjection.
3. Rather than taking their reaction as guilt, which no doubt it was, and leading them to repentance, he shifted the guilt from his family to person or persons unknown who were "hexing" them...it goes on.

That being said, it was the law of the land in good ol' Anglican England to burn witches. I believe this is one good argument for disestablishmentarianism. (ducking quickly)


----------



## LadyFlynt

I believe it started with a bunch of adolecent girls living off of tales from other lands...then taking advantage of superstition to cause trouble for those they had a grudge against...a spark turned into a flame...turned into embarrassment for the entire community.


----------



## crhoades

*Exodus 22:18 *18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. 

WCF 19.4 To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, *further than the general equity thereof may require.*

Here we have an explicit command. It is very clear. What is the general equity? At least it says that witches should be punished or not suffered...Should a witch be driven out of the land?

Since we are walking in the land of normativity here and not history - assume all due processes were followed with multiple witnesses. 



N.B.
*Deuteronomy 18:9-13 *9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you _any one _that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, _or _that useth divination, _or _an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things _are _an abomination unto the LORD: *and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee*. 13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God. 

We should cry out for mercy because in our land we have let all types of abominations go on. Something tells me God hasn't changed His mind on what he considers abominations. Perhaps we have?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen. 

New verse just found:
Mat 28:21 if they will not believe, burn them.


----------



## Kevin

Blueridge reformer said:


> Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
> Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
> Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.
> 
> New verse just found:
> Mat 28:21 if they will not believe, burn them.



We don't need a new verse brother, verse 20 is clear enough.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Kevin said:


> We don't need a new verse brother, verse 20 is clear enough.



How about a new interpretation of Mark 16:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be burnt!


----------



## Kevin

I think that most of the embarassment that we feel over the old "witch burner" charge is that WE don't believe in witches! So we assume that in every case the person executed was innocent.

It is almost a tautology in the modern world that since we all 'know' that witches can not exist so any person executed as a witch is ipso facto falsely killed (i.e. murdered).

I believe it was Lewis who said that the thing that is shocking is not that witches were killed, what would be truely shocking would to believe that a person WAS a witch and to NOT kill them.


----------



## Kevin

Blueridge reformer said:


> How about a new interpretation of Mark 16:
> 
> He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be burnt!



Careful now brother...

You start talking about baptism and salvation and we will break out the AA/FV pitchfork & torch kit and run you out of town .


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The burning of witches was not exclusive to Puritanism.


But the most remarkable of the superstitions of the seventeenth
century was what went by the name of witchcraft. We have, after a
careful examination of the whole subject, seen nothing to induce the
belief that what went by this name was anything but a compound of
wickedness and credulity; wickedness on the part of those who
professed to have dealings with the Wicked One, and credulity on the
part of those who were duped by designing men and women into the
belief that they wielded supernatural power. It must be admitted,
however, that the wickedness which manifested itself in connection
with the profession of witchcraft was of no ordinary kind. For any
one even to seek to have dealings with the Wicked One in such a way
as to transfer allegiance from the Most High to him is surely one of
the deepest and most daring crimes that can be committed; and that
many who suffered for witchcraft in the seventeenth century were
guilty of this crime their own confessions amply prove. Indeed, cases
are recorded in which the convicted persons were proved to have
written with their own blood an agreement by which they resigned
themselves into the hands of Satan. And if those who acted in this
and similar ways were guilty of fearful sin, they who consulted such
persons evidently aided and abetted them in their wickedness.
Moreover, as the crime thus committed amounted to idolatry in one
of its most horrible forms, we need not wonder that, in an age when
it was considered the duty of the civil magistrate to punish idolatry
with death, the opinion prevailed that convicted wizards and witches
should be capitally punished. We do not, of course, vindicate this
opinion, although we believe that the profession of witchcraft is a
crime that should be punished in some way or other by the civil
magistrate. To take no higher ground, to begin with, the crime in one
of its ordinary aspects amounts to fraud, in the form of raising money
on false pretences; and it may fairly be questioned whether the laws
which treat blasphemy as a crime in the eye of the civil magistrate do
not apply to professing witchcraft as well.

It will thus be seen that the men of the seventeenth century who
proceeded with such rigor against witchcraft were not without
something to say for themselves. They erred, we think, in considering
that the witchcraft of their time had anything supernatural in it, and
they erred in proceeding to such extremes in the mode of
punishment; but these were mistakes which were shared in by men of
all ranks and all classes at that time. Kings, Lords, and Commons,
statesmen and ecclesiastics, all agreed in thinking that there was
something supernatural in the witchcraft that prevailed. King James
had written a treatise against the crime, the legislators of the country
enacted rigorous laws against it, and ecclesiastics of different schools
alike busied themselves in examining offenders; for it cannot be truly
said that Episcopalians differed from Presbyterians in their estimate of
the crime. The examination and burning of witches went on during
the ascendancy of Episcopacy with unabated activity.​
*Cited from: William Ross, *_*Glimpses of Pastoral Work in Covenanting Times, Anthology of Presbyterian & Reformed Literature, volume 4*_ (Dallas, Texas: Naphtali Press, 1991) Chapter Ten: Work of the Kirk Session, in Cases involving Superstition.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Kevin said:


> Careful now brother...
> 
> You start talking about baptism and salvation and we will break out the AA/FV pitchfork & torch kit and run you out of town .



I can't picture you with this pitchfork...from what I've read on your blog, aren't you pro FV?


----------



## crhoades

Blueridge reformer said:


> Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
> Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
> Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.
> 
> New verse just found:
> Mat 28:21 if they will not believe, burn them.


 
I think I might have woke up this morning a little sensitive. If I'm over-reacting, please forgive me and let me know. With that being said...Ultimately the question of what we are to do with witches, if anything, should be answered by Scripture or by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. What I attempted was to show a clear command from Scripture for us to begin working through. I also put up a relevant confessional document regarding judicial laws to help us as a guide...

I have no problem getting hit right between the eyes with an argument or even feirce rhetoric. Ad homs generally slide off my back (getting better at taking them anyway...) - but what I'm sensitive about this morning is the method you used by inventing new Scriptures or manipulating them to make your argument. You could just have easily made the argument without doing that. I assume you doing it for rhetorical force and I understand the thrust of the argument. Out of reverence for the Word it just struck me a little off. Again, I may just being overly sensitive - and if so, please correct me and forgive me.

______________

OK...now for dealing with the actual argument. I believe you are begging the question on the category that you are putting witchcraft in. You are assigning it in the category of unbelief. You are exactly right - if it was indeed that. We are not to punish unbelief. We are to evangelise and disciple it. We send missionaries, not executioners.

However - God placed it in the context of judicially punishable offences. We are to punish/kill murderers. Not because of their unbelief but for their crime. We should still share the gospel with them of course! I would argue that the command to punish/kill witches would fall in the category of all the other capital punishment crimes rather than unbelief.

To show that witches shouldn't be punished today one would:
1. Have to show that we should not punish OT crimes today - but then one would have to differentiate hermeneutically between murder, rape, etc. - by showing scripture repealing the necessity.
2. Provide redemptive-historical changes that do away with it.
3. Provide a general equity of the verse above out of Exodus 22 that means to not punish at all.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

crhoades said:


> I think I might have woke up this morning a little sensitive. If I'm over-reacting, please forgive me and let me know. With that being said...Ultimately the question of what we are to do with witches, if anything, should be answered by Scripture or by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. What I attempted was to show a clear command from Scripture for us to begin working through. I also put up a relevant confessional document regarding judicial laws to help us as a guide...
> 
> I have no problem getting hit right between the eyes with an argument or even feirce rhetoric. Ad homs generally slide off my back (getting better at taking them anyway...) - but what I'm sensitive about this morning is the method you used by inventing new Scriptures or manipulating them to make your argument. You could just have easily made the argument without doing that. I assume you doing it for rhetorical force and I understand the thrust of the argument. Out of reverence for the Word it just struck me a little off. Again, I may just being overly sensitive - and if so, please correct me and forgive me.
> 
> 
> ______________
> 
> OK...now for dealing with the actual argument. I believe you are begging the question on the category that you are putting witchcraft in. You are assigning it in the category of unbelief. You are exactly right - if it was indeed that. We are not to punish unbelief. We are to evangelise and disciple it. We send missionaries, not executioners.
> 
> However - God placed it in the context of judicially punishable offences. We are to punish/kill murderers. Not because of their unbelief but for their crime. We should still share the gospel with them of course! I would argue that the command to punish/kill witches would fall in the category of all the other capital punishment crimes rather than unbelief.
> 
> To show that witches shouldn't be punished today one would:
> 1. Have to show that we should not punish OT crimes today - but then one would have to differentiate hermeneutically between murder, rape, etc. - by showing scripture repealing the necessity.
> 2. Provide redemptive-historical changes that do away with it.
> 3. Provide a general equity of the verse above out of Exodus 22 that means to not punish at all.



I meant it in humor brother! Please forgive my "rough" edges. Yes, in the O.T. witches were to be burned. In fact. a whole assortment of people were to be killed for idolatry, fornication, adultery, working on the sabbath ect.
However, I can find nothing in the N.T. that gives a chrstian church the right to kill anybody. Jesus did not have the woman stoned for her adultery and Paul told us to separate from idolaters, not kill them.
Again, please forgive me for my offence this morning.

BTW, we all deserve death by the law do we not?


----------



## crhoades

Blueridge reformer said:


> I meant it in humor brother! Please forgive my "rough" edges. Yes, in the O.T. witches were to be burned. In fact. a whole assortment of people were to be killed for idolatry, fornication, adultery, working on the sabbath ect.
> However, I can find nothing in the N.T. that gives a chrstian church the right to kill anybody. Jesus did not have the woman stoned for her adultery and Paul told us to separate from idolaters, not kill them.
> Again, please forgive me for my offence this morning.


 
We all have rough edges brother!  I didn't take the offence as against me, just want the Word of God to be treated as it should (Lord forgive me for mishandling Your Word on a regular basis.)

We are looking at the Scriptures the same. I too can find nothing in the NT that gives a Christian church the right to kill anybody. In fact, I can't find anything in the OT either. We should separate ourselves and use church discipline appropriately and evangelise.

I can however find where the O.T. civil magistrate should punish crimes and I can find no portion in the N.T. telling them to stop. In fact the Magistrate is a minister _of God_ and shouldn't bear the sword in vain. 

I'm all for a separation of church and state as were the puritans who punished them. It wasn't the church that did so however.

Love ya, brother.

Just noticed I missed something. Yes I deserve death by the law. We all do. _If_ we are talking about the moral law of God and God's judgment for breaking it. For the wages of sin is death. However temporally speaking - God has decided to forebear with society and has set up only a few things that are death deserving as far as criminal behavior goes. This requires us to differentiate between sins and crimes. The civil and ecclesiastical spheres. Eschatological fulfillment and temporal requirements. The now and the not yet. 

Praise God for His mercy and the willingness to justify sinners like us at Christ's expense!


----------



## Blueridge Believer

crhoades said:


> We all have rough edges brother!  I didn't take the offence as against me, just want the Word of God to be treated as it should (Lord forgive me for mishandling Your Word on a regular basis.)
> 
> We are looking at the Scriptures the same. I too can find nothing in the NT that gives a Christian church the right to kill anybody. In fact, I can't find anything in the OT either. We should separate ourselves and use church discipline appropriately and evangelise.
> 
> I can however find where the O.T. civil magistrate should punish crimes and I can find no portion in the N.T. telling them to stop. In fact the Magistrate is a minister _of God_ and shouldn't bear the sword in vain.
> 
> I'm all for a separation of church and state as were the puritans who punished them. It wasn't the church that did so however.
> 
> Love ya, brother.




The problem is brother, governments, though they are ordained of God, always lead into apostacy. One needs only to read the history of Israel under the kings to see that. The government that Paul wrote about in Romans 13 was Nero, hardly an example of Biblical government. The ideal would be for all people to bow and "kiss the Son" but they won't, and neither will any government in my opinion untill Christ comes in flaming fire taking vengeance.
Love you in Christ dear brother!


----------



## crhoades

Blueridge reformer said:


> The problem is brother, governments, though they are ordained of God, always lead into apostacy. One needs only to read the history of Israel under the kings to see that. The government that Paul wrote about in Romans 13 was Nero, hardly an example of Biblical government. The ideal would be for all people to bow and "kiss the Son" but they won't, and neither will any government in my opinion untill Christ comes in flaming fire taking vengeance.
> Love you in Christ dear brother!


 
And just because we are sinful idiots and blow it at every chance we get both individually and collectively in society - it doesn't invalidate the normativity of the law. Just because I can't keep the sabbath perfectly doesn't mean that the sabbath is no longer binding. We should seek just laws and just punishments in society. People are careless sexually today. This leads to millions of unwanted pregnancies. People rectify this by killing millions of babies in the womb. Should we accept this state of affairs or should we seek to reform the laws to protect the unborn and punish the murderers?

Here is Matthew Henry on Exodus 22:18:


> II. A law which makes witchcraft a capital crime, v. 18. Witchcraft not only gives that honour to the devil which is due to God alone, but bids defiance to the divine Providence, wages war with God's government, and puts his work into the devil's hand, expecting him to do good and evil, and so making him indeed _the god of this world;_ justly therefore was it punished with death, especially among a people that were blessed with a divine revelation, and cared for by divine Providence above any people under the sun. By our law, consulting, covenanting with, invocating, or employing, any evil spirit, to any intent whatsoever, and exercising any enchantment, charm, or sorcery, whereby hurt shall be done to any person whatsoever, is made felony, without benefit of clergy; also pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, or the like, is an iniquity punishable by the judge, and the second offence with death. The justice of our law herein is supported by the law of God recorded here.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

crhoades said:


> And just because we are sinful idiots and blow it at every chance we get both individually and collectively in society - it doesn't invalidate the normativity of the law. Just because I can't keep the sabbath perfectly doesn't mean that the sabbath is no longer binding. We should seek just laws and just punishments in society. People are careless sexually today. This leads to millions of unwanted pregnancies. People rectify this by killing millions of babies in the womb. Should we accept this state of affairs or should we seek to reform the laws to protect the unborn and punish the murderers?
> 
> Here is Matthew Henry on Exodus 22:18:




We are in basic agreement brother. However, I can find no nation on earth who has ever followed the law of God very long before going into complete apostacy. Therefore, in my opinion, because of the total depravity of man governments should be restrained by law themselves. One has only to look at the history of government to see it is not long before they begin killing christians themselves.


----------



## crhoades

Blueridge reformer said:


> We are in basic agreement brother. However, I can find no nation on earth who has ever followed the law of God very long before going into complete apostacy. Therefore, in my opinion, because of the total depravity of man governments should be restrained by law themselves. One has only to look at the history of government to see it is not long before they begin killing christians themselves.


 
 No disagreement here with these statements. All law has to have a moral foundation to rest on. At one time the laws of the U.S. rested on God's law as a foundation. Any more it is making laws on its own authority. It has divorced itself from God and His law. We are now in a state of legal positivism. It is law because the State has declared it to be. It is just as much as theocracy as Israel was but now our God is our bellies and ultimately power. What restraints are there? All I want is to restrain things back to where God restrains them - properly interpreted of course. 

Thanks for the iron sharpening this morning.

I'm afraid we are still left with wrestling with Exodus 22:18 and WCF 19.4.


----------



## CDM

For clarity, let's note that "Puritan's" or the "Church" burned no witches during that period in New England. The State did burn witches (real and falsely accused) by due process according to its laws. 

Yes, many Puritans were judges for the State and handed down executions according to the law of the land. They gave the death penalty for what was a Capital offense.

I say all this to correct the popular mythology of pitch-fork-carrying-torch- wielding-frothing-at-the-mouth illegal lynch mobs.


----------



## Pergamum

In an unhealthy mix of church and state it is quite easy for the religious community to become incensed and then hand over the offending party to the willing civil authorities. 

This is what Rome did to heretics during most of the late Middle Ages.







From Thirdmill, here is an example as to how the Apostle Paul would apply "General Equity". We should strive to emulate Paul:



_John Frame has noted that *the New Testament church "fulfills the Old Testament theocracy*" (Barker 1990, 95). *In applying the Old Testament laws to the church, Paul did not apply them exactly as they were applied in the Old Testament. For instance, In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul addresses a situation where a man is living with his father's wife. According to Old Testament law, the man and the woman should receive capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10). However, this was not recommended by Paul. Rather, the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication (vv. 2, 13). Furthermore, Paul's statement in verse 13 is a quotation of a formula found in Mosaic penal sanctions (Deut. 17:7, 12; 12:19; 19:21, 21:21; 22:21, 24: 24:7). *

*Dennis Johnson has noted that "in the Deuteronomy contexts this formula, whenever it appears, refers to the execution of those deeds 'worthy of death': idolatry, contempt for judges, false witness, persistent rebellion towards parents, adultery, and kidnapping" (Barker 1990, 181). These crimes were to be punished by purging the offender from the covenant community through his execution. Johnson continues, "Paul applies the same terminology to the new covenant community's judging/purging act of excommunication-- *a judgment that is both more severe (since it is 'handing this man over to Satan,' an anticipation of the final judgment), and more gracious (since it envisions a saving outcome to the temporal exercise of church discipline, which may bring about repentance that will lead to rescue from eternal judgment)" (Barker 1990, 181-182). Therefore, it may be safely said that the proper application of those capital offenses of the Mosaic law are properly applied in the church today as excommunication. 3. Conclusion In 1 Timothy 1:8 Paul claims that "we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully." Theonomists take this to mean that the law should be applied largely as it was in the Old Testament, without using it as a means of salvation and taking into account the explicit statements in the New Testament where certain laws have been abrogated. However, it appears that Paul's statements concerning the end of the law are somewhat more inclusive than this. The law, in its ministry of condemnation (2 Cor. 3:9), has been abolished and has replaced with the "ministry of righteousness" by the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:9-11). The law has been written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit. As we walk in the Spirit, we fulfill the law. This does not mean that the Mosaic law no longer applies to the Christian as a rule of life. Rather, it means that the law can no longer condemn us (Rom. 8:1) because Christ has satisfied the demands of the law in His life and paid for our sins on the cross, and He has sent us the Holy Spirit, by whom we are empowered to fulfill the law (Rom 8:2-4)._


----------



## crhoades

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-05.htm

HT to a certain Huguenot...


----------



## Puritan Sailor

crhoades said:


> We all have rough edges brother!  I didn't take the offence as against me, just want the Word of God to be treated as it should (Lord forgive me for mishandling Your Word on a regular basis.)
> 
> We are looking at the Scriptures the same. I too can find nothing in the NT that gives a Christian church the right to kill anybody. In fact, I can't find anything in the OT either. We should separate ourselves and use church discipline appropriately and evangelise.
> 
> I can however find where the O.T. civil magistrate should punish crimes and I can find no portion in the N.T. telling them to stop. In fact the Magistrate is a minister _of God_ and shouldn't bear the sword in vain.


Here's the problem with your argument as I see it. The OT magistrate WERE part of the church. They were covenantally ordained offices set up in the Mosaic legislation as types of Christ governing His people. They did not apply to the rest of the world (unless you believe Moses was a Mediator for the world and not just God's people?). There was a clear covenantal restriction. The antitype has come. Therefore by necessity the type must go away. Christ is the king. The authority of execution among God's people now rests in His hands. 

And in OT Israel there was no seperation of church and state. Kings, prophets, and priests interfered with each others duties all the time and with divine approval (with few exceptions like Uzziah). It was David who instructed the priests how to work in the temple and wrote the liturgy. Solomon consecrated the temple with sacrifice. It was Elijah who slaughtered the prophets of Baal (which the king should have done). Samuel performed all three roles as a judge. In Duet. 17 both judges and preists are given civil authority which must be obeyed upon pain of death. If you are going to use this as a template for modern society, then you will not have a seperation of church and state. Deut. 17 states that to disobey a preist requires death. What should we do today if a parishioner disobeys a pastor? David intervened and designed the temple and it's worship. Should we then be Erastian in our church government? That is the logical conclusion isn't it? 



> Just noticed I missed something. Yes I deserve death by the law. We all do. _If_ we are talking about the moral law of God and God's judgment for breaking it. For the wages of sin is death. However temporally speaking - God has decided to forebear with society and has set up only a few things that are death deserving as far as criminal behavior goes. This requires us to differentiate between sins and crimes. The civil and ecclesiastical spheres. Eschatological fulfillment and temporal requirements. The now and the not yet.



This is an important distinction you conclude with. You can't have types existing with the antitype. Once fulfilled it is done away. Christ is the prophet preist and king of God's people. So if you wish to find the biblical authority for a civil magistrate you must look outside the Mosaic covenant. The only other place to go is back to Noah. The covenant of works and the covenant of preservation are the only covenants made with all men. Every other covenant since is made only with God's people. If you confuse the covenants you will end up with unjust witch burning. You will respond with the sword when you should respond with the gospel. And ultimately you will fall into the trap of the Westminster Divines of defaulting to Erastianism whenever you couldn't settle ecclesiological matters peacefully.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Blueridge reformer said:


> The problem is brother, governments, though they are ordained of God, always lead into apostacy. One needs only to read the history of Israel under the kings to see that. The government that Paul wrote about in Romans 13 was Nero, hardly an example of Biblical government. The ideal would be for all people to bow and "kiss the Son" but they won't, and neither will any government in my opinion untill Christ comes in flaming fire taking vengeance.
> Love you in Christ dear brother!



If governments always lead into apostacy, then how is this an argument against a T/theonomic society? It seems that all you are saying is that a government that is attempting to live Biblically leads to error as well as those that don't care.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

ChristianTrader said:


> If governments always lead into apostacy, then how is this an argument against a T/theonomic society? It seems that all you are saying is that a government that is attempting to live Biblically leads to error as well as those that don't care.




Do you know of any nation on this earth that is trying to live biblically? For a time Israel did well under Joshua, then after him came the judges and 40 year cycles of apostacy. Then came the kings, Saul-apostate, David had his problems but he was a man after God's own heart. Solomon- great revival followed by idolatry. After that the divsion of the kingdom. The ten tribes vanished and Judah had a few godly kings but didn't end up much better.
The Gospel is better than the law. The new is better than the old. The Gospel is our only hope. If God in His sovereign will gives a godly ruler and turns the people to righteousness I will rejoice. Untill then. as far as I'm concerned, 2 Peter ch, 3 is the only answer.
God bless you


----------



## Peter

Puritan Sailor said:


> Here's the problem with your argument as I see it. The OT magistrate WERE part of the church. They were covenantally ordained offices set up in the Mosaic legislation as types of Christ governing His people. They did not apply to the rest of the world (unless you believe Moses was a Mediator for the world and not just God's people?). There was a clear covenantal restriction. The antitype has come. Therefore by necessity the type must go away. Christ is the king. The authority of execution among God's people now rests in His hands.
> 
> And in OT Israel there was no seperation of church and state. Kings, prophets, and priests interfered with each others duties all the time and with divine approval (with few exceptions like Uzziah). It was David who instructed the priests how to work in the temple and wrote the liturgy. Solomon consecrated the temple with sacrifice. It was Elijah who slaughtered the prophets of Baal (which the king should have done). Samuel performed all three roles as a judge. In Duet. 17 both judges and preists are given civil authority which must be obeyed upon pain of death. If you are going to use this as a template for modern society, then you will not have a seperation of church and state. Deut. 17 states that to disobey a preist requires death. What should we do today if a parishioner disobeys a pastor? David intervened and designed the temple and it's worship. Should we then be Erastian in our church government? That is the logical conclusion isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> This is an important distinction you conclude with. You can't have types existing with the antitype. Once fulfilled it is done away. Christ is the prophet preist and king of God's people. So if you wish to find the biblical authority for a civil magistrate you must look outside the Mosaic covenant. The only other place to go is back to Noah. The covenant of works and the covenant of preservation are the only covenants made with all men. Every other covenant since is made only with God's people. If you confuse the covenants you will end up with unjust witch burning. You will respond with the sword when you should respond with the gospel. And ultimately you will fall into the trap of the Westminster Divines of defaulting to Erastianism whenever you couldn't settle ecclesiological matters peacefully.



"It appertaineth not to thee King Uzziah to burn incense unto the Lord but to the priests of Aaron." The Westminster Divines were not Erastian and OT Israel was not Erastian, unfortunately many contemporary Presbyterians are Erastian in their presuppositions. Ironically, in the historic debate against Erastianism by Presbyterians the argument was that church & state were distinct in Israel and now those that hold such a view are accused by fellow Presbyterians of being Erastian.


----------



## crhoades

Indeed. That is a great summary of exactly what David Lachman was saying on the Scottish/Westminsterian view of church state relations. He pointed out that George Gillespie spent the whole first portion of Aaron's Rod Blossoming showing that there was indeed a separation and coordination between the two in the OT. 

Lachman pointed to WCF XXX Sec. 1 to show that the WCF was _not_ Erastian much to the dismay of the Erastians present:

*Of Church Censures*

I. The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.


He went on to state that the Magistrate worked circa sacra and not in sacris.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Peter said:


> "It appertaineth not to thee King Uzziah to burn incense unto the Lord but to the priests of Aaron." The Westminster Divines were not Erastian and OT Israel was not Erastian, unfortunately many contemporary Presbyterians are Erastian in their presuppositions. Ironically, in the historic debate against Erastianism by Presbyterians the argument was that church & state were distinct in Israel and now those that hold such a view are accused by fellow Presbyterians of being Erastian.



 Ditto to Peter and Chris Rhoades. 

_The Two Sons of Oil; or, The Faithful Witness for Magistracy and Ministry upon a Scriptural Basis_ by Samuel B. Wylie


----------



## Peter

What are you reading by Lachman? I have the Sprinkle reprint of Aaron's Rod and Lachman authored the intro.


----------



## crhoades

Peter said:


> What are you reading by Lachman? I have the Sprinkle reprint of Aaron's Rod and Lachman authored the intro.


 
Listening to his lectures on Scottish Presbyterianism from PRTS. 12 lectures in all. See this thread. I've started and stopped Aaron's Rod a couple of times. Would love to have an extended time to slowly work my way through it with pencil in hand and Bible open. I would also like to read his Male Audis as well.


----------



## Kaalvenist

I was under the impression that Separatist (not Puritan) New England didn't *burn* their witches; they *hanged* them. Of course, the end result is the same; just seeking historical accuracy.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Chris,
Does Dr. Lachman interact or take note of any of W.D.J. McKay's _An Ecclesiastical Republic: Church Government in the Writings of George Gillespie_?
http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookId=1023


crhoades said:


> Listening to his lectures on Scottish Presbyterianism from PRTS. 12 lectures in all. See this thread. I've started and stopped Aaron's Rod a couple of times. Would love to have an extended time to slowly work my way through it with pencil in hand and Bible open. I would also like to read his Male Audis as well.


----------



## crhoades

NaphtaliPress said:


> Chris,
> Does Dr. Lachman interact or take note of any of W.D.J. McKay's _An Ecclesiastical Republic: Church Government in the Writings of George Gillespie_?
> http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookId=1023


 
Not in regards to church-state relations. I haven't listened to the lecture all the way through regarding worship though. I have McKay's book but haven't had a chance to go through it. Do you have any thoughts on it?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Kaalvenist said:


> I was under the impression that Separatist (not Puritan) New England didn't *burn* their witches; they *hanged* them. Of course, the end result is the same; just seeking historical accuracy.



In reference to New England, I believe this is true. I am not aware of a single instance of burning a witch in colonial New England.



> Were the victims of the Salem witch trials burned at the stake?
> 
> With the exception of Giles Corey--who was crushed to death for refusing to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, the executed were hanged, not burned. In Colonial America, witchcraft was a felony punishable by death by hanging. However, in Europe witchcraft was considered heresy and punishable by burning at the stake.
> 
> Source





> Did you realize that no witches were burned in Salem?
> 
> Everyone knows about the Burning Times, the period of history when witchcraft hysteria gripped parts of Europe and North America and thousands of people died. These events took place over hundreds of years, and across many different countries. Popular media has created this image of witches being burned at the stake, which persists today. In fact, though many of the accused were burned, most were actually hanged (or executed by other means).
> 
> The most celebrated and well-known of these events are the trials at Salem, Massachusetts that took place during 1692. Though more people died elsewhere, people today frequently associate the killings of witches with this one town. So, these various half-truths of the times have gotten rolled into the "Witch Burnings at Salem".
> 
> That's really not correct.
> 
> According to court records of those trials, there were 20 people put to death for witchcraft in Salem, but none of them died by fire. They were all hanged (save one, who was pressed to death).
> 
> Source


----------



## NaphtaliPress

No; just that he criticizes some of G's argument on the separation of church and state in the OT (if I recall rightly). So may be worth a read sooner rather than later.


crhoades said:


> Not in regards to church-state relations. I haven't listened to the lecture all the way through regarding worship though. I have McKay's book but haven't had a chance to go through it. Do you have any thoughts on it?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

To address the question of the propriety of the State enforcing a law punishing the Satanic practice of witchcraft, see The Decalogue and the Civil Magistrate and Reformed Confessions/Catechisms on the Civil Magistrate Collated.

William Perkins on the general equity of capital punishment for witchcraft:



> Puritan William Perkins (cited in Rossell H. Robbins, Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology [New York: Crown, 1959], p. 382):
> 
> That the witch truly convicted is to be punished with death, the highest degree of punishment, and that by the law of Moses, the equity whereof is perpetual.



Increase Mather on the admission of spectral evidence in judicial proceedings:



> Rev. Increase Mather, Cotton's father, however, became an opponent of spectral evidence - though not until after the Salem hangings had taken place, and not on the basis that it was false testimony by witnesses, but that it might be a deception by demons. He published Cases of Conscience Concerning Evil Spirits Personating [sic] Men, in which he argued that "It were better that ten suspected witches should escape, than that one innocent person should be condemned".
> 
> Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_evidence"


----------



## SRoper

Blueridge reformer said:


> Yes, in the O.T. witches were to be burned. In fact. a whole assortment of people were to be killed for idolatry, fornication, adultery, working on the sabbath ect.



Was fornication really a capital offense?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

SRoper said:


> Was fornication really a capital offense?



particularly if a daughter played the "whore" in her fathers house.


----------



## ChristianTrader

SRoper said:


> Was fornication really a capital offense?



No, fornication itself was "punished" with marriage. To get to capital offense required some other circumstance in addition. Kinda like armed robbery has a certain penalty unless you kill someone while committing the crime.

CT


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Peter said:


> "It appertaineth not to thee King Uzziah to burn incense unto the Lord but to the priests of Aaron." The Westminster Divines were not Erastian and OT Israel was not Erastian, unfortunately many contemporary Presbyterians are Erastian in their presuppositions. Ironically, in the historic debate against Erastianism by Presbyterians the argument was that church & state were distinct in Israel and now those that hold such a view are accused by fellow Presbyterians of being Erastian.



I would agree that in principle the Westminster Divines were not Erastian (and I agree with them). But in practice they were Erastian. They had to enforce church reforms with the sword (and approval) of the magistrate. Can't get more Erastian than that. What right does a magistrate have to control such things in the church? Who is Parliament to judge such things? 

And as I showed from plenty of illustations, there was not a clear distinction between church and state. If there was, then Samuel was in clear violation, as was David and Elijah. 

To appeal to OT kings as an example for our own magistrates completely ignores the OT kings role in the covenant of grace. Magistrates play no part in that covenant anymore with the ascension of King Jesus. This was a hermeneutical flaw in the Westminster Divines in trying to defend a seperation of church and state based upon Israel.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

ChristianTrader said:


> No, fornication itself was "punished" with marriage. To get to capital offense required some other circumstance in addition. Kinda like armed robbery has a certain penalty unless you kill someone while committing the crime.
> 
> CT




Lev 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
Deu 22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 
Deu 22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 
Deu 22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
Deu 22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 
Deu 22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
Deu 22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 
Deu 22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
Deu 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Deu 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

You are of course right in saying that in most cases the penalty for fornication was marriage. However there were a couple of places where it could cost a woman her life.
God bless and keep you dear brother


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Here is an example of the marriage penalty:
Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

That would stop a lot of monkey business if that were followed today!


----------



## Kevin

Blueridge reformer said:


> Here is an example of the marriage penalty:
> Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
> Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
> 
> That would stop a lot of monkey business if that were followed today!



 
You are not kidding! How much is 50 shekels in $us?


----------



## ChristianTrader

Blueridge reformer said:


> Lev 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
> Deu 22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
> Deu 22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
> Deu 22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
> Deu 22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
> Deu 22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
> Deu 22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
> Deu 22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
> Deu 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
> Deu 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
> 
> You are of course right in saying that in most cases the penalty for fornication was marriage. However there were a couple of places where it could cost a woman her life.
> God bless and keep you dear brother



Um it seems that your counter only makes sense if you take the OT laws as arbitrary (sometimes the punishment is X or sometimes it is Y). In the case cited here, there was clear deception/fraud in view. The husband expected a virgin but found that his new wife was not one.

CT


----------



## puritan lad

Puritans kill 20+ witches...

Atheists kill 100 million worldwide, (not counting millions more before they are even born).

Ask him to do the math


----------



## Pergamum

During the Inquisition probably 30,000 to 300,000 "witches" were killed. 

In Protestant Europe, a roughly similar estimate usually is found (in between the outragious claims of 9 million by Wiccans and just a few handfuls by Puritan sympathizers - who are also willing to doctor with unlikeable historic facts to exonerate their theocratic forefathers).


In England, in 1605 capital punishment was made the legal verdict. 


Particularly in times of civil unrest - i.e. the entire period of the Reformation - communities seemed more willing to brand some as witches. Probably cultural divisions and a need to punish outsiders helped to sinfully influence church standards and led to a tolerance of such activites as witchhunting.

The Puritans who came to New England did not pioneer such ideas as were entertained at Salem, but were only acting according to already existent views in Europe.


In New England, though the civil gov't enacted the punishment, the church was very influential and many of the gov't posts were filled by men who also exercised high office in the ecclesiastical gov'ts at that time.



All in all..an embarrassing and dark time in the history of New England...and I think that theologies sympathetic to theocracy had a hand in these events.


----------



## LadyFlynt

trevorjohnson said:


> During the Inquisition probably 30,000 to 300,000 "witches" were killed.



And many of those were never "witches" to begin with...merely healers (the equivalant of a village doctor) and midwives. Some of these played on ppl's superstition (sometimes simply to uplift their patients hopes or thinking), making them "witchy". However, most were accused of "witchcraft" for the simply fact that they were women with herbal or some form of medical knowledge...the bigger part being that they were WOMEN. Others were female business owners...again, their being FEMALE made them easy targets. The church had the idea, much like the taliban, that women were evil and the cause of evil. Men's words could be listened to, a woman's never, unless it suited their purposes. There were also those that were accused for various other reasons, men or other women wanting to be rid of certain women for their own reasonings (just as with medicine and business above...but also for other reasons) and those accused because they were prostitutes or fornicators (very common in a time of castles, dowrys, many knights that would rape and pillage anyhow, and a royal court that didn't exactly lead the nation in setting a good example of moral behaviour.


The Following are portions taken from the paper 
Witches, Midwives, and Nurses
A History of Women Healers
by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English 


> Witches lived and were burned long before the development of modern medical technology. The great majority of them were lay healers serving the peasant population, and their suppression marks one of the opening struggles in the history of man's suppression of women as healers.
> 
> The other side of the suppression of witches as healers was the creation of a new male medical profession, under the protection and patronage of the ruling classes. This new European medical profession played an important role in the witch-hunts, supporting the witches' persecutors with "medical" reasoning:
> 
> ".... Because the Medieval Church, with the support of kings, princes and secular authorities, controlled medical education and practice, the Inquisition [witch-hunts ] constitutes, among other things, an early instance of the "professional" repudiating the skills and interfering with the rights of the "nonprofessional" to minister to the poor." (Thomas Szasz, The Manufacture of Madness)
> 
> The witch-hunts left a lasting effect: An aspect of the female has ever since been associated with the witch, and an aura of contamination has remained—especially around the midwife and other women healers. This early and devastating exclusion of women from independent healing roles was a violent precedent and a warning: It was to become a theme of our history.
> 
> 
> But three central accusations emerge repeatedly in the history of witchcraft throughout northern Europe: First, witches are accused of every conceivable sexual crime against men. Quite simply, they are "accused" of female sexuality. Second, they are accused of being organized. Third, they are accused of having magical powers affecting health—of harming, but also of healing. They were often charged specifically with possessing medical and obstetrical skills. First, consider the charge of sexual crimes. The medieval Catholic Church elevated sexism to a point of principle: The Malleus declares, "When a woman thinks alone, she thinks evil." The misogyny of the Church, if not proved by the witch-craze itself, is demonstrated by its teaching that in intercourse the male deposits in the female a homunculus, or "little person," complete (my note: this is possibly where the anabaptists get that Christ was fully God and never man, they believe that he took nothing from Mary, that He only APPEARED human) with soul, which is simply housed in the womb for nine months, without acquiring any attributes of the mother. The homunculus is not really safe, however, until it reaches male hands again, when a priest baptises it, ensuring the salvation of its immortal soul.
> 
> Witch-healers were often the only general medical practitioners for a people who had no doctors and no hospitals and who were bitterly afflicted with poverty and disease. In particular, the association of the witch and the midwife was strong: "No one does more harm to the Catholic Church than midwives," wrote witch-hunters Kramer and Sprenger.
> 
> The Church itself had little to offer the suffering peasantry:
> 
> "On Sundays, after Mass, the sick came in scores, crying for help,—and words were all they got: "You have sinned, and God is afflicting you. Thank him; you will suffer so much the less torment in the life to come. Endure, suffer, die. Has not the Church its prayers for the dead?" Jules Michelet, Satanism and Witchcraft)
> 
> When faced with the misery of the poor, the Church turned to the dogma that experience in this world is fleeting and unimportant. But there was a double standard at work, for the Church was not against medical care for the upper class. Kings and nobles had their court physicians who were men, sometimes even priests. The real issue was control: Male upper class healing under the auspices of the Church was acceptable, female healing as part of a peasant subculture was not.
> 
> The wise woman, or witch, had a host of remedies which had been tested in years of use. Many of the herbal remedies developed by witches still have their place in modern pharmacology. They had pain-killers, digestive aids and anti-inflammatory agents. They used ergot for the pain of labor at a time when the Church held that pain in labor was the Lord's just punishment for Eve's original sin. Ergot derivatives are the principal drugs used today to hasten labor and aid in the recovery from childbirth. Belladonna—still used today as an anti-spasmodic—was used by the witch-healers to inhibit uterine contractions when miscarriage threatened. Digitalis, still an important drug in treating heart ailments, is said to have been discovered by an English witch. Undoubtedly many of the witches' other remedies were purely magical, and owed their effectiveness—if they had any—to their reputation. (my note: more than like, their abilities earned the the reputation of having "magical" powers by the ignorance of the peasants...regardless if the healer was a "witch" or not).


----------



## LadyFlynt

trevorjohnson said:


> All in all..an embarrassing and dark time in the history of New England...and I think that theologies sympathetic to theocracy had a hand in these events.


----------



## RamistThomist

About three comments to this thread:

1. Chris Rhoades was never answered. He raised the question as to general equity. He was mocked. People invented scriptures to ridicule him, but he was never answered. Score 1.

2. While many theonomists, Gary North and Greg Bahnsen, have argued that they would *not* put witches to death, I would at least urge a caution that we not judge the Bible and say we don't like the parts that modern culture rejects. And before you say, almost like a dispensationalist, "That was for the Old Testament," I refer you again to the "general equity" clause. That clause DEMANDS the application of this law. I didn't make it up. Confession did. So, at least * try * to answer Chris on confessional lines.

3. Let's bring this issue up to date: instead of witches, insert "satanists" or "santiera cult" members. Instead of harmless incantations, subsitute molesting/raping, torturing virgins all in the name of their religion. Now, how would you as a magistrate punish them? Remember, you have to respect their right to worshp according to their conscience. 

And if anyone can find where Greg Bahnsen said the "church" should punish these crimes, I will concede the debate on behalf of all theonomists. If you cannot find this, and yet continue to make these claims, I will call you on slander.


----------



## LadyFlynt

The question first, Jacob, would be how would you first determine these ppl to be witches or satanists? By their own declarations, by deeds (and which ones), or by accusation.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Define "general equity."


----------



## RamistThomist

consequential ethics. Finding our situation in redemptive history, our situation in our context, the present facility of general revelation (e.g., new insights in application of legal theory, etc).

In other words, applying the law to our current situation. For example, and few people think of this, the general equity expired in the state of Israel. Remember the flying ax-head, accidental killing? What if you don't have an axehead? What about a sickle-blade? Does that count as general equity? 

General equity = applying the underlying principle to our current situation.

Mrs Colleen: that's a good question, but given my example, an easy one. I can post newspaper reports from where the Santiera Cult raped and butchered virgins, all in the name of religion and freedom of conscience, of course. That's modern day witchcraft carried to its logical and moral conclusion.

I will now propose a counter-thesis. These evil, intolerant witch-burning puritans--their theology and worldview set the foundation for civil liberty. Had we followed the Klinean "common-grace" ethic, we would have a brutal tyranny. Not because the common-grace advocates would be in power, far from it (they are retreatist by definition), but that "common-grace ethic," left undefined, lacks the necessary logical force to stop a Stalin. 

In our post-Nietszche age, a vague, undefined common-grace ethic cannot logically stop the "will to power." A logical locomotive does not stop because someone yells stop.


----------



## RamistThomist

My above move was a crowbar. Here comes the pile-driver.

I just finished reading Dr Spykeman's essay advocating principled pluralism n God and Politics: Four Views. Suffice to say, and Andrew and Chris R. will agree with me on this, every other view represented (theonomy, National Confessionalism, Christian America) buries his essay.

For principled pluralism to work, certain values must be imposed on those who in some way do not share those values. Should fringe Satanic cults who practice human sacrifice be protected? If the pluralists answers no he denies his own position.

On April 12, 1989, the pluralist attempt to skirt that dificult question lost all credibility and came face-to-face with the ugliness of pagan society. The front-page headlines of every major paper reported that authorities had dug up a number of mutilated human corpses, the vicious results of the religious ritual practiced by a Mexican offshoot of the Santeria culti satanic sacrifices. The problem posed to common grace ethic men is not simply a matter of hypothetical and tritling intellectual games. *Real *Satanists murder *real *people in *real *subservience to their *real *religious choices. Now then, should the civil magistrate respect this religious ritual of Santeria? Or should he rather in good (but morally prejudiced) conscience follow Christian values in giving a civil response to satanic sacrifice? 

And btw, if any of you read World Magazine, a year ago they did an article on the re-rise of the Santiera cult.


----------



## Blue Tick

crhoades said:


> I think I might have woke up this morning a little sensitive. If I'm over-reacting, please forgive me and let me know. With that being said...Ultimately the question of what we are to do with witches, if anything, should be answered by Scripture or by good and necessary consequence from Scripture. What I attempted was to show a clear command from Scripture for us to begin working through. I also put up a relevant confessional document regarding judicial laws to help us as a guide...
> 
> I have no problem getting hit right between the eyes with an argument or even feirce rhetoric. Ad homs generally slide off my back (getting better at taking them anyway...) - but what I'm sensitive about this morning is the method you used by inventing new Scriptures or manipulating them to make your argument. You could just have easily made the argument without doing that. I assume you doing it for rhetorical force and I understand the thrust of the argument. Out of reverence for the Word it just struck me a little off. Again, I may just being overly sensitive - and if so, please correct me and forgive me.
> 
> ______________
> 
> OK...now for dealing with the actual argument. I believe you are begging the question on the category that you are putting witchcraft in. You are assigning it in the category of unbelief. You are exactly right - if it was indeed that. We are not to punish unbelief. We are to evangelise and disciple it. We send missionaries, not executioners.
> 
> However - God placed it in the context of judicially punishable offences. We are to punish/kill murderers. Not because of their unbelief but for their crime. We should still share the gospel with them of course! I would argue that the command to punish/kill witches would fall in the category of all the other capital punishment crimes rather than unbelief.
> 
> To show that witches shouldn't be punished today one would:
> 1. Have to show that we should not punish OT crimes today - but then one would have to differentiate hermeneutically between murder, rape, etc. - by showing scripture repealing the necessity.
> 2. Provide redemptive-historical changes that do away with it.
> 3. Provide a general equity of the verse above out of Exodus 22 that means to not punish at all.



Chris, this is well said. I look forward to the rebuttals.


----------



## SRoper

Draught Horse said:


> Mrs Colleen: that's a good question, but given my example, an easy one. I can post newspaper reports from where the Santiera Cult raped and butchered virgins, all in the name of religion and freedom of conscience, of course. That's modern day witchcraft carried to its logical and moral conclusion.



I'm not so sure it is so easy. It seems to me that the unproven allegations levied against the Santiera Cult is a modern day witch hunt if you'll pardon the expression. I do believe there is sufficient evidence to convict them of witchcraft but not rape or murder.


----------



## Pergamum

If anyone was raping and murdering people in the name of religion, why not just judge them for the rape and murder?





Jacob, you keep making phrases like, Satanists who practice human sacrifice or cults that practice rape and molestation.... 



This weakens your arguments.

Whether the perpetrator went by the name of Jew, Christian or Satanist, they would be punished for the crime. 


I could say, Pentecostals who practice theft. Yes, these should be punished too. Not for being Pentecostals but for being thieves.



Thus, they wouldn't be punished for "witchcraft" but would be punished for the offenses which they did.






Too.... a matter of historical debate....

Which group was more responsible for the civil freedoms of American today, those that followed "puritanical" beliefs or those that were baptistic, congregational and/or independant? 




The choice does not need to be either a form of theonomy such as the above represented or "Klinean Intrusionist ethics". One can value the law immensely but still deny that we should kill witches.





Again from Thirdmill:

_John Frame has noted that the New Testament church "fulfills the Old Testament theocracy" (Barker 1990, 95). In applying the Old Testament laws to the church, Paul did not apply them exactly as they were applied in the Old Testament. For instance, *In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul addresses a situation where a man is living with his father's wife. According to Old Testament law, the man and the woman should receive capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10). However, this was not recommended by Paul. Rather, the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication (vv. 2, 13).[/I*]

Above we have the Apostle Paul's interpretation of General Equity.


It seems that Roger Williams has more to do with religious liberty than Governor Endicott._


----------



## Bondman

puritan lad said:


> Puritans kill 20+ witches...
> 
> Atheists kill 100 million worldwide, (not counting millions more before they are even born).
> 
> Ask him to do the math



I like this. Way to bring things into perspective.


----------



## Pergamum

Bondman;

The trouble is..it does not put things in perspective:


First, because many tens of thousands of "witches" were killed by "Christians"


Two, because Christians have a higher calling than atheists and any historic transgression is much more grievous than the sins of the unbeleivers.

Three, because it appears that we have people on this board who are trying to soft-pedal this historic transgression and make it appears either as legitimate or very rare.


During the Reformation times, witch burning was not common - yet, it occurred more frequently than what we would like to admit.


----------



## MW

I think the adoption of a naturalist worldview has made witchcraft (including the white version) acceptable, whereas the biblical worldview sees it as dancing with the devil and unleashing the powers of darkness upon society. No, witches did not practice their secret arts in accord with the imagery of the classical fairytale; but in the Puritan's mind, taking the Bible for his guide, that fairytale imagery is a good representation of the spiritual reality involved in their secret arts.

Statistics are irrelevant here. Judicial acts must be weighed according to the philosophy which prevailed in a specific time and place. What if the majority of people in a modern democratic State chose to make the practice of witchcraft a crime against humanity on a level with terrorism, and justly deserving capital punishment? How many were executed would not be the issue, but whether or not the philosophy which required the punishment was justified.


----------



## turmeric

My understanding of Santeria is that they sacrifice *cats and chickens*, which is obviously heretical and wrong; but I've not heard of these cult-killings. Should we kill all Adventists because of David Koresh? I don't think so. If an extreme cult of Santeria killed people, they should be executed for murder. We can't protect their "right" to practice their religion when it involves murder, any more than we should have protected Paul Hill's "right" to murder because of his religion. I still haven't seen a theonomistic response to the failure of the people of 17th Century Salem to catechise their slaves, or to have their children in subjection. Would a theonomist say that the whole incident was a judgment on Salem for these failures, or am I following their thought correctly?  Don't know much about theonomy...


----------



## Bondman

trevorjohnson said:


> Bondman;
> 
> The trouble is..it does not put things in perspective:
> 
> 
> First, because many tens of thousands of "witches" were killed by "Christians"
> 
> 
> Two, because Christians have a higher calling than atheists and any historic transgression is much more grievous than the sins of the unbeleivers.
> 
> Three, because it appears that we have people on this board who are trying to soft-pedal this historic transgression and make it appears either as legitimate or very rare.
> 
> 
> During the Reformation times, witch burning was not common - yet, it occurred more frequently than what we would like to admit.


I understand your point. I agree and don't want to in any way seem to condone something which is obviously evil. 

However, I think the post does shine a light on the issue that is helpful when speaking to an unbeliever, and that it is, indeed, putting it into perspective.

What I mean is that while the Puritans were wrong in burning "witches", we don't condone that practice. We call it evil. But the heathen kills millions of unborn and calls it "the right to choose". 

Are you sure about tens of thousands?


----------



## Pergamum

We speak on general equity a lot here...

But we seem to have a clear cut example of general equity in I Corinthians 5 by the Apostle Paul - which is always ignored whenever someone is agitating for the death penalty for witches or false religionists.

Paul, in applying the OT law to the church mitigated the penalty from the death penalty to excommunication. 

This seems to be our example of how the civil law ought to be applied today.


Therefore to say that witches still ought to be killed is not our concern at all. The civil gov't may or may not kill withces, but such a things is certainly not demanded by Christian ethics.



I do not adopt a naturalistic worldview at all. I honor the OT law - in its rightful place and with its right application for our day. I am trying to honor the Word of God and the law of God by both a consideration of its points of continuity, but also in how it is discontinous now that the people of God have no God-sanctioned civil state.





Too, just a short note here:

Whenever the people of God sin and through their influence lead others to sin, this thing ought not to be whitewashed but examined carefully. 

Witch killing at Salem and in Europe during the Reformation times by both Protestant and Catholic was a great sin. 

We ought to examine what theologies led to the allowance of such things and we ought not to poo-poo it as merely 20+ witches or say "good..if they were witches..then they got what was coming to them..." 



Also, another vital point: These "witches" were killed almost entirely for beliefs and not actions, besides mild narcotic use.... i.e. they were not out kidnapping children and cooking them, they were largely gathering in secret just like the early Christians had to do when the civil gov't was oppressive.


(.....they were certainly not judged and burned/hanged/drowned for killing and sacrificing others...such occurrence is 100 times more rare than the occurrences of witch killing by the Puritans.)




A final point: Statistics do matter here. If one or two witches were burned then this would merely point to a historical abberation.




But if thousands were burned, or much of the burning was carried out by Protestants with a certain view on the civil gov't then we can arrive at some conclusions. If a sin is widespread enough among a certain group of people, then we ought to be free to explore the factors that allowed for such sins.

I propose that an unhealthy view on church and state and the role of the church and the state and their interaction in dealing with civil crimes is at the heart of all this. The fact that many on the PB are sympathetic to some sort of civil punishment for witches is evidence of a relationship of thought with these witch-killers that both leads to theocracy and the persecution of minority faiths.


----------



## MW

Consider Acts 25:10, 11, "Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar."

The apostle was on trial for his beliefs and his actions in relation to the Jewish religion. If he was found to be an offender, he would not refuse to die, i.e., it was a just recompense for such a crime. Clearly in 1 Cor. 5 he provides an application of the OT penology to the ecclesiastical situation, where the power of the sword has not been delivered to church officers. That does not prejudice the same application being made to the civil realm where the sword has been given for the purpose of punishing evil-doers. even in religious matters, i.e., in matters which affect the civil peace of a religious society.

No, statistics do not matter. If it is unjust taking away of life, it should be opposed whether it is inflicted on but one person. If it is just, it would not matter ifit were half the population.


----------



## Pergamum

So, Matthew......


What do you advocate?


----------



## puritan lad

trevorjohnson,

I don't think anyone is defending the murder of anyone by Christians. We are to hold to a higher calling.

However, it does bring things into perspective when an atheist brings up the charge (one that I will take no responsibility for, since I have never killed a witch.) It is important to show that atheists have no leg to stand on when it comes to human rights issues. It is also important to show the positive affects that Christianity has had on the world. Indeed, Western Civilation couldn't exist without it.

An evangelical Christian, taken by my screen name, once commented, "so you're a puritan huh? Do you like to burn witches?" I replied, "Not on the sabbath. Witch smoke is bad for my white powdered wig". I think he got the point.


----------



## Pergamum

It is also important not to white wash past sins of Christians.


Atheists are evil, yes, but the thread subject was killing witches and so it must be pointed out that Christians have acted evilly in regards to this subject.

Were they wrong to kill witches? Or not?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

Trevor,

See the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 20, section 4. The civil magistrate has the power to proceed against such practices as disturb the peace of a Christian society. It is for this purpose that God placed the sword in his hand (Rom. 13).


----------



## Larry Hughes

Matthew,

It's simply the fact that Christians err and DO in fact commit great sins, POST conversion. I realize that is to the chagrin of modern evangelicals and pietist everywhere but history is littered with this fact. 

The Puritans, broadly speaking, had a strong tendancy toward experiencial things, some a bit mystical at times and some of that carried over into some very blind superstitions.

Our tendancy today is in the opposing error direction, general tendancy that is.

Ldh


----------



## MW

Hi Larry. I'm not sure what relevance your comments have to the authority of the civil magistrate. Are you saying the experiential Christianity of the Puritans led them to misunderstand the nature of civil liberty? That is a stretch. If anything, WCF 20:4 shows that the Puritans were not mystics, but practical, and that their theology was objective.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Not at all. In some puritan circles there was far more subjectivism in their theology, not all mind you, than say the continental reformers, much more. Especially among the laity, "The Poor and Doubting Christian" was written for this very reason for example. Many Puritans THEMSELVES saw the issue and the problem of subjectivism among them as many of their books address it explicitly.

This is nothing new and well argued by many. Edward's, a Puritan, very own book, deals with this very problem contemporary to himself, at exhaustive length which only he could do I might add. All internalized subjectivism eventually leads, psychologicially to many forms superstition in the civil realm because suddenly the grounding is lost.

The entire new extra-biblical category of "revivalism" (first and second "Great"), quite an American religious phenomena, is another psychological outworking of subjectism, which ironically goes directly against Calvinism.

That's all.


----------



## MW

Leaving to the side your psychological interpretation of Puritan experimentalism, what does this have to do with the civil punishment of witches?


----------



## Larry Hughes

It can lead to excited versions and out of control "witch hunts", a devil behind every door and etc.... It excites the emotions rather than rational thinking.

I wasn't embarking on the civil argument just the original post question and how one might address it to some one a simple way.

That's all.

L


----------



## MW

Sorry Larry, I misunderstood your comments as being a response to what I had written on WCF 20:4.

The Puritan view of witchcraft is well documented in their works on the subject. William Perkins' "Damned Art" would be well worth reading in order to see the biblical basis of their view. No superstition here. It could be the case that crowds allowed their fears to get the better of them. We see the same happening in relation to terrorism today. There no doubt would have been others who used the judicial system to their own financial advantage. There is nothing new in this. But from an historical point of view the Puritan position was grounded upon Scriptural belief concerning the real activity of Satan. It is a modern error to divorce practice from morality.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Think nothing of it Matt, I apologize for the confusion because I was too lazy to read the whole thread. I hadn't even read your's at that time. No disagreements here!

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Arthur Miller also had a huge hand in making the Puritans religious evils and allegorical political conservatives with his Crucible story.

His version of the events are what lives in the pop-culture imagination.

Similarly how Jonathan Edwards' masterful sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is made out to prove that the Puritans were fatalists that resigned themselves to the ****-shoot of divine election who didn't know if they were chosen or not so behaved just incase, this is what is taught in high school American Literature classes in Texas.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

crhoades said:


> http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-05.htm
> 
> HT to a certain Huguenot...



Is this from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?


----------



## crhoades

ChristopherPaul said:


> Is this from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?


 
A newt?

Yes, sir...it is. I'm not a full blown Pythonian though. Probably shouldn't burn em.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

crhoades said:


> A newt?
> 
> Yes, sir...it is. I'm not a full blown Pythonian though. Probably shouldn't burn em.



I have never seen that movie the whole way through but just reading that had me almost in tears with laughter (  )


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

crhoades said:


> A newt?
> 
> Yes, sir...it is. I'm not a full blown Pythonian though. Probably shouldn't burn em.



I guess Chris isn't a six point Calvinist.


----------



## Magma2

ChristopherPaul said:


> I have never seen that movie the whole way through but just reading that had me almost in tears with laughter (  )




YouTube - monty python-witch scene


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Magma2 said:


> http://youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU




You didn't... I will have to check this out tonight at home.


----------

