# Question about civil government and a theocracy



## Toasty (Nov 16, 2015)

Would there be a difference between a civil government allowing or prohibiting what God wants it to allow or prohibit and a theocracy?


----------



## yeutter (Nov 16, 2015)

Civil authorities doing what is just and right according to the Word of God; do not constitute a theocracy. A theocracy must be under the oversight of ecclesiastical authorities, or the civil authorities must be regarded as divinely guided.


----------



## Jake (Nov 16, 2015)

Yes, the state is to work in cooperation with the church, but the civil authorities have separate duties from ecclesiastical officers. 

Gavin Beers has done a good job explaining the position I'm trying to give a quick summary of in these conference messages. I believe it to be what is taught in the Westminster Standards, and not incompatible with the teachings of the original Belgic Confession. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...e-Establishment-Principle?p=962377#post962377


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 16, 2015)

The Old Testament theocracy was a unique institution not to be replicated in the the New Testament. It taught the childhood church about the kingdom of God. 

For instance the death penalty - where it was used - was a radical form of excommunication or "cutting-off". In the NT church discipline and civil justice are clearly distinguished. The king in Israel was the Lord's anointed, a pointer to Christ's kingly mediatorial office. Kings and presidents in the NT are not the Lord's anointed, but are God's civil ministers.

While Church and State are distinguished in a different way in the NT, the state is obliged to follow the principles of the moral law in its legislating and governing, and the general moral equity of the judicial law. In a democracy this only effectively happens as the Church grows big and strong and healthy within a nation, and is salt and light to the society.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 16, 2015)

Henry,

In a day and age where the word Theonomy is considered (the boogeyman) unbiblical or radical, one should consider the documents attached to the Westminster standards (I.E. The solemn League and Covenant). Also, one should consider the "establishment principle" in the Westminster Confession chapter on the Civil Magistrate, the "general equity" clause, and even the Belgic confession. I believe the covenanters had it right in understanding that God's Law, particularly the Judicial Laws and their punishments, were meant to be used and executed by the civil magistrate, which is God's deacon of justice.

Belgic Confession Article 36:

We believe that, because of the depravity of mankind, our gracious God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers.1 He wants the world to be governed by laws and policies,2 in order that the licentiousness of men be restrained and that everything be conducted among them in good order.3 For that purpose He has placed the sword in the hand of the government to punish wrongdoers and to protect those who do what is good (Rom 13:4). Their task of restraining and sustaining is not limited to the public order but includes *the protection of the church and its ministry in order that the kingdom of Christ may come, the Word of the gospel may be preached everywhere,4 and God may be honored and served by everyone, as He requires in His Word*.

Westminster Confession Ch.23:

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; *yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed*. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The Scottish Confession of Faith, Ch. 24:

We further confess and acknowledge, that such persons as are placed in authority are to be loved, honoured, feared, and held in most reverent estimation because they are the lieutenants of God, in whose sessions God himself does sit and judge (yea even the judges and princes themselves), to whom by God is given the sword, to the praise and defense of good men, and to revenge and punish all open malefactors. Moreover, to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but *also for maintenance of the true religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever: as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied.*


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 16, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Henry,
> 
> In a day and age where the word Theonomy is considered (the boogeyman) unbiblical or radical, one should consider the documents attached to the Westminster standards (I.E. The solemn League and Covenant). Also, one should consider the "establishment principle" in the Westminster Confession chapter on the Civil Magistrate, the "general equity" clause, and even the Belgic confession. I believe the covenanters had it right in understanding that God's Law, particularly the Judicial Laws and their punishments, were meant to be used and executed by the civil magistrate, which is God's deacon of justice.
> 
> ...



Theocracy is not the same as theonomy, nor is theonomy the same as establishmentarianism.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 17, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Henry,
> 
> In a day and age where the word Theonomy is considered (the boogeyman) unbiblical or radical, one should consider the documents attached to the Westminster standards (I.E. The solemn League and Covenant). Also, one should consider the "establishment principle" in the Westminster Confession chapter on the Civil Magistrate, the "general equity" clause, and even the Belgic confession. I believe the covenanters had it right in understanding that God's Law, particularly the Judicial Laws and their punishments, were meant to be used and executed by the civil magistrate, which is God's deacon of justice.
> 
> ...



The Westminster divines didn't subscribe to a theonomic approach to the judicials which approach they called Brownism. This was clearly shown in a study by Puritanboard's Chris Coldwell and Rev. Matthew Winzer which was published in The Confessional Presbyterian journal (Volume 5 ?). I believe the study of the views of the Westminster divines on this important subject may still be online.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 17, 2015)

The theocracy was the government of OT Israel, was unique and cannot be replicated again.

Theonomy is the attempt to take the judicial law elememnts of the theovrscy and apply them with little or no change for redemptive-historical and other situational aspects to NT societies and nation states, when they were part of the OT administration of the OT Church.

Establishmentsrianism in various forms and applications was the "wave of the past" of the Reformers and Westminster Divines, and DV, will be the wave of the future.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 17, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Henry,
> ...



Yes and I've read the study, which I disagree with. Also, there is many things as to which I feel Rev. Winzer did not address. There are a few studies that counter his approach. Yet I would rather not get into that discussion at the moment.

Also, this statement "The Westminster divines didn't subscribe to a theonomic approach" is debatable since I am not sure what you mean by "theonomic". The covenanters were theonomic and the Divines subscribed to the Solemn League and Covenant.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Nov 17, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew P.C. said:
> ...



While there is a broad sense in which you could call them "theonomic" (e.g. the theonomy vs. autonomy distinction of Van Til), it's unhelpful and tendentious to do so without careful qualification as the term today is too closely associated with modern American reconstructionism to be applicable to European Reformed or Covenanting thought even while all embrace establishmentarianism.

In any case, the OP did not ask about theonomy and bringing it up while associating it with establishmentarian statements in the confessions seems more likely to bring confusion than clarity to the particular question and topic addressed here.


----------



## MW (Nov 17, 2015)

The New Testament church is the theocracy -- a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, 1 Peter 2:9 -- and is the continuation of the Old Testament theocracy. Theonomy teaches the State must assume this unique identity and thereby confuses Church and State.

The doctrine of establishmentarianism is that there is a spiritual independence of the church which the civil powers have no right to interfere with. The civil powers are bound by the profession of Christianity to recognise the church as the institution of Christ the Redeemer, and to make laws which protect and promote the church so that she may carry out her spiritual functions without hindrance. It does not teach that the civil powers may assume the spiritual functions of the church or seek to do what only the church can do for the spiritual benefit of society.

The covenanters were not Theonomists. Read the first few lines of the Solemn League and Covenant. The covenant was framed on the understanding that "by the providence of God" the civil and ecclesiastical powers were "under one king" and "of one reformed religion." The covenanting movement as a whole progressed on the basis of a Christian and Reformed profession of faith. The conflict with the civil powers related to the Christian constitution of the three kingdoms, not with civil magistracy itself.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 17, 2015)

A tangential point that has to do with definitions: many advocates of a Christian "theocracy" will say it is ruled by God and not the priest-class. Fair enough. But rulership implies civil mediation. So, you might say "We are ruled by God," and that is your prerogative, but unless this is a libertarian paradise, this "ruled by God" will have some form of human mediation.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 17, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> A tangential point that has to do with definitions: many advocates of a Christian "theocracy" will say it is ruled by God and not the priest-class. Fair enough. But rulership implies civil mediation. So, you might say "We are ruled by God," and that is your prerogative, but unless this is a libertarian paradise, this "ruled by God" will have some form of human mediation.



Jacob,

Reformed writers seem to have historically used "theocracy" to describe a government which is prescriptively regulated by God. That is why it may be applied only to the OT civil institutions and to the Church in all ages.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 17, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > A tangential point that has to do with definitions: many advocates of a Christian "theocracy" will say it is ruled by God and not the priest-class. Fair enough. But rulership implies civil mediation. So, you might say "We are ruled by God," and that is your prerogative, but unless this is a libertarian paradise, this "ruled by God" will have some form of human mediation.
> ...



I know how they used it. I am simply summarizing how Christian ethicists have approached the problem (O'Donovan, _Desire of the Nations_). Rulership implies mediation. If the Morecraft-style theonomists want to say they advocate a theocracy, and I've heard Morecraft say it, then they need to face some of the terminological and conceptual difficulties of using that term.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 17, 2015)

MW said:


> It does not teach that the civil powers may assume the spiritual functions of the church or seek to do what only the church can do for the spiritual benefit of society.



This is such a horrible misrepresentation of theonomy. One would have to close their eyes and plug their ears to conclude that men like Bahnsen, Rushdoony, or even McDurmon teach such things. I don't agree with many things of the "theonomist" movement, but this is a misrepresentation. The magistrate was never to hold the keys, which is Erastianism, not theonomy. 



MW said:


> The covenanters were not Theonomists.



Right... So men like Knox, Melville, or Buchanan did not think that the magistrate should uphold the Judicial case laws?




MW said:


> Read the first few lines of the Solemn League and Covenant.



Right... one only needs to read the approval or praise of the Solemn League and covenant to understand what the purpose of it was:

Assembly at EDINBURGH, August 17, 1643. Sess. 14. 
The General Assembly’s Approbation of the SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.
THE Assembly having recommended unto a Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of the Honourable Convention of Estates, and the Commissioners of the Honourable Houses of the Parliament of England, for bringing the kingdoms to a more near conjunction and union, received from the foresaid Committees the Covenant after mentioned, as the result of their consultations: and having taken the same, as a matter of so publick concernment and so deep importance doth require, unto their gravest consideration, did, with all their hearts, and with the beginnings of the feelings of that joy, which they did find in go great measure upon the renovation of the National Covenant of this kirk and kingdom, All with one voice approve ad embrace the same, as the most powerful mean, by the blessing of GOD, *for settling and preserving the true Protestant religion with perfect peace in his Majesty’s dominions, and propagating the same to other nations*, and for establishing his majesty’s throne to all ages and generations. And therefore, with their best affections, recommend the same to the Honourable Convention of Estates, that, being examined and approved by them, it may be sent with all diligence to the kingdom of England, that, being received and approven there the same may be, with publick humiliation, and all religious and answerable solemnity, sworn and subscribed by all true professors of the reformed religion, an all his Majesty’s good subjects in both kingdoms.



MW said:


> The covenant was framed on the understanding that "by the providence of God" the civil and ecclesiastical powers were "under one king" and "of one reformed religion."



and amen.





MW said:


> The conflict with the civil powers related to the Christian constitution of the three kingdoms, not with civil magistracy itself.



This doesn't make sense. The conflict with the civil powers is not with civil magistracy? I don't think I need to point out the ridiculousness of this statement. The Solemn League and Covenant was for the NATION of Scotland. The Westminster Divines subscribed to this document for their nations as well, wanting this document to be for other nations. 

As pointed out, if you think that theonomy = Erastianism then you misunderstand theonomy. At least from my readings and understanding of Bahnsen and Rushdoony (although they have said things I disagree with) they believe that the church and state are separate but have different functions under one Lord, i.e. Jesus Christ and His Law.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 17, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> Reformed writers seem to have historically used "theocracy" to describe a government which is prescriptively regulated by God.



So applying God's Law to a society is not being regulated by God? Also, why is it that someone like John Cotton and the Mass. Bay Colon would NOT be considered a theocracy based on this definition?



TylerRay said:


> That is why it may be applied only to the OT civil institutions and to the Church in all ages.



That still needs to be demonstrated.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 17, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > Reformed writers seem to have historically used "theocracy" to describe a government which is prescriptively regulated by God.
> ...



God has not prescribed a polity or system of judicial laws for any nation other than OT Israel. Those things are necessary for a theocracy.


----------



## MW (Nov 17, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> This is such a horrible misrepresentation of theonomy. One would have to close their eyes and plug their ears to conclude that men like Bahnsen, Rushdoony, or even McDurmon teach such things. I don't agree with many things of the "theonomist" movement, but this is a misrepresentation. The magistrate was never to hold the keys, which is Erastianism, not theonomy.



There is no misrepresentation. If the civil magistrate derives its authority to use the sword from Christ, and Christ sends His ministers to make disciples of all nations, it naturally follows that the civil magistrate has a duty to make disciples of all nations by means of the sword.

As I demonstrate in my paper Theonomy holds the same tenets as Erastianism when it comes to the civil magistrate deriving his power from Christ as Mediator. For Bahnsen it comes in the way of calling the State a Christocracy. For Rushdoony it is part of his neo-Calvinist view of redemption as the restoration of creation with no neutrality. It is good they restricted their Erastian views, or were bound to restrict them because of their confessional heritage, but there is nothing in their theonomic view which warrants this restriction.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Right... So men like Knox, Melville, or Buchanan did not think that the magistrate should uphold the Judicial case laws?



No. If they appealed to them it was owing to their belief that there is an equity in these laws which is based in natural right.



Andrew P.C. said:


> I don't think I need to point out the ridiculousness of this statement.



In my paper there are quotations from Rutherford and Gillespie on the superadded obligations on Christian magistrates. If you think they are ridiculous, that is your prerogative, but don't claim you are espousing the covenanted cause when you consider their views to be ridiculous.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 18, 2015)

MW said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > This is such a horrible misrepresentation of theonomy. One would have to close their eyes and plug their ears to conclude that men like Bahnsen, Rushdoony, or even McDurmon teach such things. I don't agree with many things of the "theonomist" movement, but this is a misrepresentation. The magistrate was never to hold the keys, which is Erastianism, not theonomy.
> ...



The only thing I can say after this is you need to re-read Theonomy in Christian Ethics since you are in fact misrepresenting the position. Your logic doesn't follow. Nations will come to Christ through the preaching of the gospel. The natural conclusion from this is that they will obey God's Law and establish a civil government based upon God's Law. Your lack of representing the position correctly is border line 9th commandment violation.





MW said:


> In my paper there are quotations



Taken out of context.

This is silly. If anyone is interested in actually knowing Bahnsen's position one should read "Theonomy in Christina Ethics" Chapter 20 which is titled "Separation of Church and State". 

Here are a couple of quotes:

"It is no surprise, then, that Christ declares that the iron sword is not appropriate for use in the advance of His kingdom" (Bahnsen, Pg. 403). 

"The kingdom of Christ would not be one which comes with swords loud clashing" (Bahnsen, Pg. 402). 

"Christ's truth is not defended by violence; by taking up the sword, the Christian will not establish faith but will simply perish with the sword" (Bahnsen, Pg. 404).

"The kingdom of Christ is entered by faith-response (repentance, belief, obedience)to the word of the heralded gospel; it is advanced without the instrumentality of a warrior's sword" (Bahnsen, Pg. 404).


----------



## Ed Walsh (Nov 18, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> The only thing I can say after this is you need to re-read Theonomy in Christian Ethics since you are in fact misrepresenting the position. Your logic doesn't follow.



I agree completely. An I ought to know. I helped prepare the latest manuscript of Theonomy in Christian Ethics. I should also add that I do not consider myself a full-fledged capital "T" Theonomist but I am sympathetic with some to many of their beliefs.

I could post a searchable pdf of the book if that would be helpful. I might have to double check the copyright first.


----------



## Toasty (Nov 18, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> A tangential point that has to do with definitions: many advocates of a Christian "theocracy" will say it is ruled by God and not the priest-class. Fair enough. But rulership implies civil mediation. So, you might say "We are ruled by God," and that is your prerogative, but unless this is a libertarian paradise, this "ruled by God" will have some form of human mediation.



There has to be some human mediation. God does not speak to us like He did to Adam and Eve.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 18, 2015)

Toasty said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > A tangential point that has to do with definitions: many advocates of a Christian "theocracy" will say it is ruled by God and not the priest-class. Fair enough. But rulership implies civil mediation. So, you might say "We are ruled by God," and that is your prerogative, but unless this is a libertarian paradise, this "ruled by God" will have some form of human mediation.
> ...



God doesn't speak to His priests and elders as He did during the theocracy, nor does he present the same basic rationale for the death penalty.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 18, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > ReformedReidian said:
> ...



He spoke to Samuel, Gideon, Nathan, sometimes David, Solomon.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 18, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > Toasty said:
> ...



Priests, and particularly elders, and the congregation were involved in civil justice in the OT. Sometimes God had to indicate by special revelation what was to be done, e.g. indicating whether someone had sinned presumptuously enough to be without a sacrifice for sin and be cut-off (excommunicated) by death. E.g. Numbers 15.

The situation has changed greatly since the OT.


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> The only thing I can say after this is you need to re-read Theonomy in Christian Ethics since you are in fact misrepresenting the position.



That is the only thing you can say. You can make a charge of misrepresentation but have nothing to say to substantiate it. Very poor!


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2015)

Ed Walsh said:


> I should also add that I do not consider myself a full-fledged capital "T" Theonomist but I am sympathetic with some to many of their beliefs.



Thankyou for adding that important qualifier, Ed. It would be a shame if one's sympathies closed the door against further instruction and stopped one from coming to a better understanding. And it just might be, in coming to a better understanding, one might more easily see the faults in one's sympathies.


----------



## MW (Nov 18, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Nations will come to Christ through the preaching of the gospel. The natural conclusion from this is that they will obey God's Law and establish a civil government based upon God's Law. Your lack of representing the position correctly is border line 9th commandment violation.



You haven't gone the length to which Bahnsen goes. As far as Bahnsen was concerned, it was not a "theocracy" into which the nation would be brought, but a "Christocracy."

What you call "misrepresentation" on my part is simply your failure to accept the extent to which Bahnsen was willing to take his view.


----------

