# What, if anything, should the state do about heresy?



## Haeralis (Mar 16, 2018)

This is an issue which I have been wrestling with for quite a while. Obviously, no Reformed Protestant could possibly say that the government can make people Christians. Only God in His grace and mercy can do such a thing.

Still, I'm wondering whether this precludes any role whatsoever for the state in preventing the propagation of heresy and blasphemy. I think it would be impossible for a believer to argue for the social utility of heresy / blasphemy. A prudential argument, though, could definitely be made that if we give the government the power to stop any religious movement, it could just as easily oppress true believers should the tide of the culture change.

I'm a political theory student, but I've went back and forth on this over the years. I think that the law is a reflection of our social values, and if we were a society of Puritans, the law would reflect a God-fearing theology, including legal penalties for heresy and blasphemy. That, therefore, should be our goal though we should be quite reticent about the prospect of this happening any time soon, though nothing is impossible for God.

Should the American government have had the ability to step in and stop Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell from spreading Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witness movement, as well as all of the countless anti-biblical cults which have arisen over the years?

John Calvin on the Death Penalty for Heresy

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 16, 2018)

Haeralis said:


> Should the American government have had the ability to step in and stop Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell from spreading Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witness movement, as well as all of the countless anti-biblical cults which have arisen over the years?



Should they have had the ability? They had the ability and also the _responsibility_. Idolatry is not a natural right to be preserved. Their failure is grave sin and they will answer to God for it. You're on the right track, Koty. Keep studying.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Haeralis (Mar 16, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> Should they have had the ability? They had the ability and also the _responsibility_. Idolatry is not a natural right to be preserved. Their failure is grave sin and they will answer to God for it. You're on the right track, Koty. Keep studying.



I could not agree more that idolatry is not at all a natural right. It is a contradiction in terms to speak of a natural right to do what is wrong. 

When Peter and Paul speak of the role of government, they provide that government should punish what is evil. 1 Peter 2:13-14, for instance: 
"Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as *sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good*." As heresy is undoubtedly evil, it seems to fall under the bounds of legitimate political authority to quash it. God Himself did not tolerate any such wickedness in the OT law, wherein He commanded the Israelites to execute adulterers, blasphemers, sorcerers, etc. 

How do we practically hold a position such as this without going too far in merging the church with the state? The papists, of course, seemed especially prone to conflating the two in a rather unbiblical way, resulting in the enslavement of thousands of lives under a perverse and unholy "other gospel." Were a system of limited religious toleration in place in the Middle Ages, the people of God such as the Lollards, Hussites, and the Waldensians may not have suffered the heinous crimes against them that they did.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 16, 2018)

Haeralis said:


> How do we practically hold a position such as this without going too far in merging the church with the state?



A state that places strictures upon blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, idolatry, etc., is doing nothing more or less spiritual than when they place strictures upon theft and murder. All men are bound by the moral law by virtue of having God as their Creator. It is immoral to commit blasphemy. The civil authorities act in an immoral manner when they turn a blind eye to idolatry or Sabbath-breaking, kicking against the Creator, and are violating 1 Peter 2:13-14 to their own peril.

The church, on the other hand, has no coercive power. Church officers are not to lord over the people and place strictures upon them of a physical sort. They are to guide and lead _ministerially _in a way the civil authority is not enabled to, opening and shutting the kingdom of heaven to people through rulings and judgments in accordance with Christ's word for the church. The church also has responsibility to give sound judgments to the state with a prophetic voice, that it would wield the sword in a way that is right in God's sight (this was a major function of the Westminster Assembly).

These powers are to operate side-by-side in a harmonious way.

That's just a bit of a start. I may come back to this as I think of other items. I hope this has been somewhat helpful!

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 16, 2018)

You don't want the state getting involved with church matters even if it were to clear up heresy. The state needs to stay out of church matters.....far away from church matters. I wish the state would stay out of a lot more other things!

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 16, 2018)

Here is Turretin on the civil magistrate


A godly magistrate can call a council, for magistrates are nurse-fathers to the church (Isa. 49:21-23, p. 308).

_On The Civil Magistrate_

Thirty Fourth Question: What is the right of the Christian magistrate about sacred things, and does the care and recognition of religion belong in any way to him? We affirm.


Thesis: the pious and believing magistrate cannot and ought not to be excluded from all care of religion and sacred things, which has been enjoined upon him by God (316)
“A multiple right concerning sacred things.”
Isaiah 49.23 calls him a “nursing father” to the church.
Magistrates are called “gods” (Ps. 82.6).
Natural law argument: to him is commended the safety of the commonwealth and all things pertaining to it, which includes religion.

Explanation: While magistrates may not usurp the calling of preachers, they may still discharge the duties of their own office.
As ministers may not draw the sword, so magistrates may not take the keys of the kingdom.
Jesus told kings to “Kiss the Son” (Ps 2).

Magistrates have a limited, not absolute sacred right.
Stated negatively
He cannot make new articles of faith.
He cannot preach or administer the sacraments.
He cannot exercise church discipline

Stated positively
Establish sacred doctrine in the state and reform it when it falls, as per Asa, Josiah, etc.
Protect the church, restrain heretics, promote the glory of God.
Open and encourage schools (320).
Convene councils


Political power is occupied with a thing either directly and immediately, or indirectly, mediately, and consequently..
In the former, it is concerned with the external man.
In the latter, with spiritual.
If the title “Head of the Church” is applied to the magistrate, then it can only be applied in an external, defensive way (322).

Can he compel to faith? (323ff)
“No one ought to be forced to faith.”

What about heretics?
Heretics should be punished, but not capitally (327ff).
They can poison a nation just as thoroughly as an “external criminal.” However, Turretin makes a distinction between the ringleaders and those deceived. The latter shouldn’t really be punished.
Turretin gives three propositions:
Heretics can be coerced.
Most heretics shouldn’t be executed.
One may kill blasphemous arch-heretics (332).

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 17, 2018)

The problem is, who determines what is heresy? If the government in question were Roman Catholic, then no doubt all of us would be heading to the gallows. I’m just not sure it is possible for any government to enforce laws against heresy considering the fractured nature of the church. 

As for Joseph Smith, he was essentially executed, and it actually helped the Mormon church to grow.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## earl40 (Mar 17, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> The problem is, who determines what is heresy? If the government in question were Roman Catholic, then no doubt all of us would be heading to the gallows. I’m just not sure it is possible for any government to enforce laws against heresy considering the fractured nature of the church.
> 
> As for Joseph Smith, he was essentially executed, and it actually helped the Mormon church to grow.



The murder of Smith is debatable if that helped that movement grow. I see it as God sending them toward the left coast away from major populations.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 17, 2018)

earl40 said:


> The murder of Smith is debatable if that helped that movement grow. I see it as God sending them toward the left coast away from major populations.



I studied the life of Smith extensively when I was in seminary, and he was literally on the verge of being exposed as a fraud and serial adulterer when he was killed. His death provided a martyr for his remaining followers and galvanized their own belief that they were being persecuted by modern day Egyptians and must head to the western promised land far away from the clutches of the American Pharaoh.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 17, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> You don't want the state getting involved with church matters even if it were to clear up heresy. The state needs to stay out of church matters.....far away from church matters. I wish the state would stay out of a lot more other things!


Until Jesus returns and set up His Kingdom in full upon this earth, God allows for things that you mentioned to be practiced and tolerated. especially here in a republic form of government that we have established.


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 17, 2018)

No, because the perception of heresy is subjective, and would change over time with political winds.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 17, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> No, because the perception of heresy is subjective, and would change over time with political winds.


I think this freedom to act and do, even if against God, was the freedom that the Founders of America put down and codified into the Constitution. They knew Europe fought many wars over expressions of differing religions viewpoints.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 17, 2018)

If we give the power of the sword to the government, if we allow men to take the life of other men, might not they abuse that power and kill the innocent? Absolutely they have and will but that does not negate what God requires (Genesis 9:5-6). Maybe husbands will abuse headship but does that negate headship? Ad nauseam. So let us avoid pragmatics (at least as the foundation). 

Besides, Christians (somewhere) will always be persecuted; that cannot be negated either, whether or not we attempt to create a state that tolerates error of any kind. 

What does God require?

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 17, 2018)

Poimen said:


> If we give the power of the sword to the government, if we allow men to take the life of other men, might not they abuse that power and kill the innocent? Absolutely they have and will but that does not negate what God requires (Genesis 9:5-6). Maybe husbands will abuse headship but does that negate headship? Ad nauseam. So let us avoid pragmatics (at least as the foundation).
> 
> Besides, Christians (somewhere) will always be persecuted; that cannot be negated either, whether or not we attempt to create a state that tolerates error of any kind.
> 
> What does God require?


What does the lord permit at this time, the time before the Second Advent?


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 17, 2018)

This is a non issue, and quite frankly, an absurdity. Last century, the leading cause of human death, second only to natural death, was democide. Any proposal to give the government more power than it already has is historicaly, and logically ignorant.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 17, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Until Jesus returns and set up His Kingdom in full upon this earth, God allows for things that you mentioned to be practiced and tolerated. especially here in a republic form of government that we have established.





Dachaser said:


> What does the lord permit at this time, the time before the Second Advent?



Did you not just answer your own question above? Or are you now not certain?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 17, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Until Jesus returns and set up His Kingdom in full upon this earth, God allows for things that you mentioned to be practiced and tolerated. especially here in a republic form of government that we have established.



Strictly speaking, God in his providence allows everything, but not everything is morally permissible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 17, 2018)

I immediately call upon this government and governments everwhere to cease engaging in heresy.....

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## bookslover (Mar 17, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> You don't want the state getting involved with church matters even if it were to clear up heresy. The state needs to stay out of church matters.....far away from church matters. I wish the state would stay out of a lot more other things!



Exactly! Most people in the federal government or in state governments wouldn't know a Bible if they tripped over one. I'm already laughing at the idea of Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi or some useless Congresscritter fulminating against heretics. What a joke!

Government - stay away!


----------



## jw (Mar 17, 2018)

We are the people of means [that is, God's appointed means, and what He requires (as the Rev. Daniel Kok mentioned above)], and God is the Lord of results. We ought not to shrink back from obedience because of _what we perceive_ to be a bad thing, or has _potential _to be something we _perceive_ to be a bad thing, etc. If the Lord commands it, then we ought endeavor to do it. We acknowledge that the secret things belong to the Lord our God, and to us -to do all the works of the Law. Here is a relevant quotation regarding a typical strawman against Establishmentarianism (i.e. that it creates hypocrites):

Daniel Cawdrey, _Independency a Great Schism_:

Toleration . . . hath done much more towards the rooting of Religion, out of the hearts of many men, in 7 years,than the enforcing of uniformity did in 70 years . . . . To compel uniformity , (in a true, or false way) may, by the corruptions of men’s hearts, breed Hypocrisy, Formality, Atheism and Anxiety of conscience in some. But good and gracious souls, have been discovered, and purified by it, as the three Children, and Martyrs have manifested . . . . Many, at least some that were enforced to conformity in the worship of God, in families, or congregations, have blessed God for that compulsion; who before were Atheists or profane while they had a cursed intolerable toleration, to be of any or no Religion. Lastly, the will indeed cannot be forced to believe; but that professed Christians should be compelled to the external profession of that only way of worship, which Christ hath instituted seems as equal & reasonable , as it is unreasonable, that men be left to their own choice, to worship God, either not at all, or after their own fancies. And he that denies this, seems to me, to be, if not an Atheist, a Skeptic in Religion.​
And -if we're going to be pragmatists- just for the sake of argument: Rightly we decry murder and would see murderers stopped and put down, etc. How much moreso, _then_, soul-murderers (hear Mr. Rutherford)? 

If the Lord:

1. Is decidedly against "freedom of religion" -and He is (_Thou shalt have no other gods before me_), 

and 

2. Has commanded by way of 5th Commandment that men should subdue their callings (and all actions) to Christ in such a way that is not only for their own advancement, but for the advancement, protection, and righteousness of their own superiors, equals, and inferiors -and He has, then -

It stands to reason, both logically and biblically, that is required of those men who rule over a nation -according to their place and station and sphere of authority- to uphold the true religion, and suppress and punish the practice of false religion. 

We are not discussing -at this time- what _*is*_, but what _*ought* _to be. Let us pray and endeavor toward our own duties in such a way that the Lord would be pleased to change the hearts of people that they would desire godly leaders who would do these things. Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to _*any*_ people.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Haeralis (Mar 17, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Exactly! Most people in the federal government or in state governments wouldn't know a Bible if they tripped over one. I'm already laughing at the idea of Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi or some useless Congresscritter fulminating against heretics. What a joke!
> 
> Government - stay away!



If it was mandated by law that you must be a believing Christian to hold civil office, that would have prevented people like Trump and Pelosi from taking power in the first place.

I'm thinking more abstractly here about what would be ideal and biblical, not necessarily what is possible given our current pluralistic and relativistic government. This climate may very well be the result of a social abdication of a Christian understanding of politics, so that's something to consider.

I'm not a theonomist or a reconstructionist, but I do look back at colonial America as well as the America about 100 years after the Constitution and admire how they had state / local provisions against things such as blasphemy first amendment notwithstanding.

In _The People v. Ruggles, _NY Supreme Court Justice James Kent struck down a blasphemers appeal to the First Amendment on the following grounds:

_"Though the Constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offences against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment, or to any particular form of government, but are punishable because they strike at the root of moral obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties. We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all that moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order."_

Were our courts only so wise today.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Haeralis (Mar 17, 2018)

Also worth considering is the view of the Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, appointed by President Madison, who wrote one of the most revered commentaries on the Constitution ever published. Of the First Amendment Freedom of Religion, he said the following:

"_It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape."

"The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age."
_
It seems like Americans closer to the period of the Founding clearly recognized the importance of Christianity to the social fabric of the country even though they upheld the First Amendment's prohibition of an established religion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Exactly! Most people in the federal government or in state governments wouldn't know a Bible if they tripped over one. I'm already laughing at the idea of Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi or some useless Congresscritter fulminating against heretics. What a joke!
> 
> Government - stay away!



Try using church discipline against a high profile homosexual and see if the state isn't involved.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 18, 2018)

This is your friendly govt reminder: the state will involve itself in the church whether you give it permission or not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 18, 2018)

The magistrate, as much as any private individual, is bound by the law of God. And he has been given the sword to uphold and enforce it. It is a moral wrong for the magistrate to not punish heretics.

Let's leave pragmatism aside here. We might talk about abuse of power or who gets to define heresy. But that's avoiding the main point, which is the _responsibility_ of the ruler before God.

Further, I think it cannot be argued persuasively that religious freedom is a concept either found in or consistent with Scripture.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That is a rather exclusive statement.

In a Christian nation with Christian people and Christian rulers, the law of God is above any thought of toleration.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 18, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> The magistrate, as much as any private individual, is bound by the law of God. And he has been given the sword to uphold and enforce it. It is a moral wrong for the magistrate to not punish heretics.
> 
> Let's leave pragmatism aside here. We might talk about abuse of power or who gets to define heresy. But that's avoiding the main point, which is the _responsibility_ of the ruler before God.
> 
> ...


How far are you willing to extend that idea? Should the state suppress Dispensationalists? Baptists? Non-psalm singers? It's a genuine question that you need to think through, if you want the state making these kinds of judgments.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 18, 2018)

iainduguid said:


> How far are you willing to extend that idea? Should the state suppress Dispensationalists? Baptists? Non-psalm singers? It's a genuine question that you need to think through, if you want the state making these kinds of judgments.



That's where it gets difficult. I'm not yet prepared to say how far it should be taken, but I believe the principle stands that the magistrate is responsible before God.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 18, 2018)

beloved7 said:


> This is a non issue, and quite frankly, an absurdity. Last century, the leading cause of human death, second only to natural death, was democide. Any proposal to give the government more power than it already has is historicaly, and logically ignorant.



It is not a question of simply giving the state more power. Rather, the discussion centres on how far godly government is to be pursued.

The basic principle is very straightforward: if the magistrate is a Christian, then he should act in the interests of Christians. (It gets more difficult after that, as has been pointed out. To what actual extent is the magistrate to be involved in matters concerning Christ's church?) Naturally, this is at odds with modern ideas of toleration.


----------



## brendanchatt (Mar 18, 2018)

Haeralis said:


> I could not agree more that idolatry is not at all a natural right. It is a contradiction in terms to speak of a natural right to do what is wrong.



Really enjoying this thread, Koty.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Mar 18, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> The magistrate, as much as any private individual, is bound by the law of God. And he has been given the sword to uphold and enforce it. It is a moral wrong for the magistrate to not punish heretics.
> 
> Let's leave pragmatism aside here. We might talk about abuse of power or who gets to define heresy. But that's avoiding the main point, which is the _responsibility_ of the ruler before God.
> 
> ...



Good thoughts. I think we need to distinguish between the most prudent courses a voting citizen or lesser magistrate may take in an effectively heathen nation to preserve the liberty of true worship from the unbending responsibility of a government before the Law of God.

In the US, the ability for the magistrate (even the President) to punish heresy is minimal and would require a Constitutional amendment to enable which could not happen absent a massive national revival--something we can certainly pray for but which does not appear to be happening at present. Therefore, citizens and magistrates must seek to protect the church, as the US revisions say, and if some believe that it's through a modified libertarianism, that's a matter of prudence and not dogma. The Scriptures do not indicate that Joseph or Daniel attempted or were to attempt prosecution of heathens in (civic) rebellion against their superiors from their positions in foreign kingdoms.

When a nation is governed by Christians who have the ability to determine the laws of the land, however, I do not see how one could escape the conclusions of the original Westminster confession. Heresy is not merely an ecclesial issue, it is rot and moth to the fabric of society. Does rampant theft harm a nation? Heresy does more. Does dishonesty harm a nation? Heresy does more. If, according to Paul, a magistrate in his proper role is a revenger to execute wrath on him that doeth evil, is that to except the false prophets of heresy and peddlers of idols? Even in the US we at least had laws to prosecute violations of part of the first table in the Sabbath laws at one point.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 19, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Exactly! Most people in the federal government or in state governments wouldn't know a Bible if they tripped over one. I'm already laughing at the idea of Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi or some useless Congresscritter fulminating against heretics. What a joke!
> 
> Government - stay away!


You make a very valid point here, as the rules and laws would not be made from a distinctly Christian worldview probably.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 19, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> It is not a question of simply giving the state more power. Rather, the discussion centres on how far godly government is to be pursued.
> 
> The basic principle is very straightforward: if the magistrate is a Christian, then he should act in the interests of Christians. (It gets more difficult after that, as has been pointed out. To what actual extent is the magistrate to be involved in matters concerning Christ's church?) Naturally, this is at odds with modern ideas of toleration.


What if we are under a Republic, Democracy, despot et all though?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 19, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Good thoughts. I think we need to distinguish between the most prudent courses a voting citizen or lesser magistrate may take in an effectively heathen nation to preserve the liberty of true worship from the unbending responsibility of a government before the Law of God.
> 
> In the US, the ability for the magistrate (even the President) to punish heresy is minimal and would require a Constitutional amendment to enable which could not happen absent a massive national revival--something we can certainly pray for but which does not appear to be happening at present. Therefore, citizens and magistrates must seek to protect the church, as the US revisions say, and if some believe that it's through a modified libertarianism, that's a matter of prudence and not dogma. The Scriptures do not indicate that Joseph or Daniel attempted or were to attempt prosecution of heathens in (civic) rebellion against their superiors from their positions in foreign kingdoms.
> 
> When a nation is governed by Christians who have the ability to determine the laws of the land, however, I do not see how one could escape the conclusions of the original Westminster confession. Heresy is not merely an ecclesial issue, it is rot and moth to the fabric of society. Does rampant theft harm a nation? Heresy does more. Does dishonesty harm a nation? Heresy does more. If, according to Paul, a magistrate in his proper role is a revenger to execute wrath on him that doeth evil, is that to except the false prophets of heresy and peddlers of idols? Even in the US we at least had laws to prosecute violations of part of the first table in the Sabbath laws at one point.


Would the Christian policy then allow for a freedom religion, so that there would be Reformed, Charismatic, Baptist, Dispensational, old earth, new earth etc?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Would the Christian policy then allow for a freedom religion, so that there would be Reformed, Charismatic, Baptist, Dispensational, old earth, new earth etc?



Depends. Old School Covenanters would probably prosecute anyone who didn't hold to the Solemn League and Covenants. Most, however, don't take that line.

Gary North suggested something along the lines of an Athanasian Pluralism. I have a blog post on it that I will try to find later.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 19, 2018)

The Lord and civil government would be established and set up to maintain the order as in law and order, but not necessarily be involved in whose religion would be emphasized and enforced!


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Lord and civil government would be established and set up to maintain the order as in law and order, but not necessarily be involved in whose religion would be emphasized and enforced!



Should the civil govt curb the religious views of the Church of Satan? 

I happen to believe that Hollywood is a blood cult that has paedophilia as a sacrament. For all practical purposes it is a ritual. I believe a godly govt should bring maximum sanctions against most directors.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What if we are under a Republic, Democracy, despot et all though?



Obviously, we cannot expect a godless government to uphold God's law. They are not exempted from it, of course, being, along with everyone else, bound to obey it. So we do not expect a Nero to act in a godly manner.

We are speaking of ideals, what is right before God. And what is right is that men obey him.

Also, the type of government is not really at issue here. It is conceivable to have a Christian republic, aristocracy, monarchy, etc.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Lord and civil government would be established and set up to maintain the order as in law and order, but not necessarily be involved in whose religion would be emphasized and enforced!



I'm not quite sure what is meant by this


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 19, 2018)

So where does this leave me as a baptist? I would like the State to disallow Muslim immigrants from the US (their views are incompatible with American freedom if they are consistent in the least), but in the past the State has also persecuted "errant" Christians as well, such as Zwingli's drowning of the Anabaptists. There is no guarantee that once the cork is unplugged and the genie is out of that bottle that those in office will not expand the definition of "heresy" to include other Christians.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> So where does this leave me as a baptist? I would like the State to disallow Muslim immigrants from the US (their views are incompatible with American freedom if they are consistent in the least), but in the past the State has also persecuted "errant" Christians as well, such as Zwingli's drowning of the Anabaptists. There is no guarantee that once the cork is unplugged and the genie is out of that bottle that those in office will not expand the definition of "heresy" to include other Christians.



Also think realistically: Baptists are the largest Protestant denomination. I doubt some small paedobaptist groups will ever take the govt and start persecuting Baptists.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 20, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> So where does this leave me as a baptist?



I doubt you would have been a Baptist during the reformation in that the Anabaptists probably held to many distinctive tenants you do not hold on to today.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 20, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> There is no guarantee that once the cork is unplugged and the genie is out of that bottle that those in office will not expand the definition of "heresy" to include other Christians.



There's no guarantee no matter what. The cork is already unplugged, it just so happens that the god currently worshipped by most secular states is satisfied with the blood of preborn infants (for now). As believers, we must be consistent enough to say to our government that Christ's religion and his laws are best for them, and not just in their private lives but also in their official capacities.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 20, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> As believers, we must be consistent enough to say to our government that Christ's religion and his laws are best for them, and not just in their private lives but also in their official capacities.



Yes, exactly.


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 20, 2018)

Roger Williams is sometimes held up as a hero of religious freedom by Baptists. I would submit the following quote of his for consideration:



> Let every man speak freely without fear--maintain the principles that he believes--worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse or loss of property for his religious opinions.



It's _stunning_ to me that so many Baptists (and even some Presbyterians) can look at that statement and say "amen", while I see a policy that is contrary to the law and _detestable_ in the sight of the Lord.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Here are some musings I did onhow to have a godly society without religiously cleansing all the Baptists in the world.
https://negatingthevoid.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/politics-as-athanasian-pluralism/


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 20, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Should the civil govt curb the religious views of the Church of Satan?
> 
> I happen to believe that Hollywood is a blood cult that has paedophilia as a sacrament. For all practical purposes it is a ritual. I believe a godly govt should bring maximum sanctions against most directors.


Depends on if we are a republic, a Democracy, or what, as the Lord does allow for sinners to have whatever wrong theology they have, as long as it does not involve breaking the law. For example, I could practice Voodo in my house, but If I was to start killing off animals and people to do my rites, that makes it illegal activity.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 20, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I'm not quite sure what is meant by this


Until the time of the Second Coming, God has established civil government as mainly to keep the peace, protect its citizens, and to enforce that law and order is kept. There is however no national government that is mandated to strictly keep "Christian Laws" at this time.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 20, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> So where does this leave me as a baptist? I would like the State to disallow Muslim immigrants from the US (their views are incompatible with American freedom if they are consistent in the least), but in the past the State has also persecuted "errant" Christians as well, such as Zwingli's drowning of the Anabaptists. There is no guarantee that once the cork is unplugged and the genie is out of that bottle that those in office will not expand the definition of "heresy" to include other Christians.


I am also a Baptist, and do value each person, regardless if saved or not, as the right to exercise and practice their own views as long as it is not done in illegal fashion.


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> For example, I could practice Voodo in my house, but If I was to start killing off animals and people to do my rites, that makes it illegal activity.



I see this as similar to adopting a policy in my house that my children can pray to whatever god they want in the privacy of their rooms, but must only pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in my hearing.

Let me ask you this as a follow-up: Should it be legal or not for a person to post a video to YouTube explaining the truth and virtues of the Voodoo religion?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 20, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> Roger Williams is sometimes held up as a hero of religious freedom by Baptists. I would submit the following quote of his for consideration:
> 
> 
> 
> It's _stunning_ to me that so many Baptists (and even some Presbyterians) can look at that statement and say "amen", while I see a policy that is contrary to the law and _detestable_ in the sight of the Lord.


God allows for that until the Second Advent of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> the right to exercise and practice their own views



The problem here is that you seem to think governments have the ability to create a right out of thin air, despite God forbidding all men everywhere from practicing idolatry or breaking the Sabbath.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Depends on if we are a republic, a Democracy, or what, as the Lord does allow for sinners to have whatever wrong theology they have, as long as it does not involve breaking the law.



That has nothing to do with the mode of govt. Monarchs, too, follow laws. We have a tendency to read Louis XIV back into all forms of monarchy. The only people who don't follow the laws are the traitors in the deep state.


Dachaser said:


> For example, I could practice Voodo in my house, but If I was to start killing off animals and people to do my rites, that makes it illegal activity


If someone is practicing Voodoo in his basement (by the way, I have evangelized students who were looking into Voodoo), then no one will know. But that's true of most crimes, so it is irrelevant.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God allows for that until the Second Advent of Jesus Christ.



In logic that is called an assertion, not an argument.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 20, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> The problem here is that you seem to think governments have the ability to create a right out of thin air, despite God forbidding all men everywhere from practicing idolatry or breaking the Sabbath.


God however does not place prohibition on secular governments, as that will be fully instituted at the time of the return of Christ.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am also a Baptist, and do value each person, regardless if saved or not, as the right to exercise and practice their own views as long as it is not done in illegal fashion.



Fair enough. I pass a law making going to a Baptist church illegal. You have the right to practice your religion privately.

That's more or less what the Soviets did. They allowed religious gatherings but you couldn't evangelize.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 20, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> I see this as similar to adopting a policy in my house that my children can pray to whatever god they want in the privacy of their rooms, but must only pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in my hearing.
> 
> Let me ask you this as a follow-up: Should it be legal or not for a person to post a video to YouTube explaining the truth and virtues of the Voodoo religion?


In the type of republic that USA is established to be, yes.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 20, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> In logic that is called an assertion, not an argument.


There will be no Theonomy form of government established by God until the time of the Second Coming.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> In the type of republic that USA is established to be, yes.



You are now using your Christian faith to inform legal decisions. What right do you have to stop someone from sticking pins in dolls?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> There will be no Theonomy form of government established by God until the time of the Second Coming.



That is called an assertion, not an argument. Anyway, I am not a theonomist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 20, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> Roger Williams is sometimes held up as a hero of religious freedom by Baptists. I would submit the following quote of his for consideration:
> 
> 
> 
> It's _stunning_ to me that so many Baptists (and even some Presbyterians) can look at that statement and say "amen", while I see a policy that is contrary to the law and _detestable_ in the sight of the Lord.



For those interested in learning more about how Williams’ thinking was influenced by his dealings with Coke and Bacon in England, and later with the Puritans in New England, I would recommend this book. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143...F8&qid=1521565225&sr=1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 20, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You are now using your Christian faith to inform legal decisions. What right do you have to stop someone from sticking pins in dolls?


None at the current time.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> None at the current time.



That contradicts your post here. Who determines what is illegal? I say that Satanists in Oklahoma City should have their liberties curtailed. The US Supreme Court curtailed the liberties of the Temple of Aphrodite in Ca. years ago. Were those actions just?

In any case, what constitutes illegal and legal changes, so we need something besides that.


----------



## Haeralis (Mar 20, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The US Supreme Court curtailed the liberties of the Temple of Aphrodite in Ca. years ago. Were those actions just?



I've never heard of this and am interested in learning about this incident. Would you mind elaborating or linking me to information about this topic? I googled it to no avail.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Haeralis said:


> I've never heard of this and am interested in learning about this incident. Would you mind elaborating or linking me to information about this topic? I googled it to no avail.



Not directly. I heard it in a Bahnsen lecture. He was referencing an event in Southern Cal in the early 90s. It was a front for prostitution.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> For example, I could practice Voodo in my house, but If I was to start killing off animals and people to do my rites, that makes it illegal activity.



No (related to animals). Santeria laws are on the books following Supreme Court rulings for various animal sacrifices.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 20, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That is called an assertion, not an argument. Anyway, I am not a theonomist.


I did not hink


BayouHuguenot said:


> That contradicts your post here. Who determines what is illegal? I say that Satanists in Oklahoma City should have their liberties curtailed. The US Supreme Court curtailed the liberties of the Temple of Aphrodite in Ca. years ago. Were those actions just?
> 
> In any case, what constitutes illegal and legal changes, so we need something besides that.


Here in the USA, its our Constitution that determines what is considered to be legal/illegal, not the Bible, as much as we would want the scriptures to be.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Depends on if we are a republic, a Democracy, or what, as the Lord does allow for sinners to have whatever wrong theology they have, as long as it does not involve breaking the law. For example, I could practice Voodo in my house, but If I was to start killing off animals and people to do my rites, that makes it illegal activity.



What? The Lord is only bothered when we break a country's laws?

If a religion involves deliberate jaywalking, is that more hateful to God than a religion that denies the Trinity?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God allows for [pluralistic civil government] until the Second Advent of Jesus Christ.



Prove it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Here in the USA, its our Constitution that determines what is considered to be legal/illegal, not the Bible, as much as we would want the scriptures to be



So, the Scriptures are acceptable at home, with family, and at church. But they have no place in government? Interesting view, if I'm understanding you correctly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I did not hink
> 
> Here in the USA, its our Constitution that determines what is considered to be legal/illegal, not the Bible, as much as we would want the scriptures to be.



All the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a federal church (it allowed for the already existing state churches). So there isn't anything in the Constitution about allowing Lavey's disciples to worship freely.


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 20, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> All the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a federal church (it allowed for the already existing state churches). So there isn't anything in the Constitution about allowing Lavey's disciples to worship freely.



I used to get Anton and Vincent Price mixed up....hahahahahaha....


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 20, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> I used to get Anton and Vincent Price mixed up....hahahahahaha....



Vincent Price is one movie role. LOL. He is the quintessential "Satanic" villain.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 21, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> What? The Lord is only bothered when we break a country's laws?
> 
> If a religion involves deliberate jaywalking, is that more hateful to God than a religion that denies the Trinity?


There is no mandate from the scriptures to have any nation set up under directly the Laws of God, as Israel was under the old Covenant between them and God.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 21, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> All the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a federal church (it allowed for the already existing state churches). So there isn't anything in the Constitution about allowing Lavey's disciples to worship freely.


It falls under the area of a citizen of this land being freely allowed to attend and perform their religious activities, or prefer to not have any at all.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 21, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> So, the Scriptures are acceptable at home, with family, and at church. But they have no place in government? Interesting view, if I'm understanding you correctly.


This republic was based on a scripture viewpoint regarding its moral basis, and standards for laws, but was a Republic being set up, not a Theonomy. The ways of God was used indirectly in our formation, but we were not set up to be as Israel was under the old Economy.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 21, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Prove it.


God tells us in Romans what the function of the State, national Government is, but he did not command all nations to be directly under His law.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 21, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> All the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a federal church (it allowed for the already existing state churches). So there isn't anything in the Constitution about allowing Lavey's disciples to worship freely.



Actually, the constitution says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 21, 2018)

I am late to this parade, so apologies if someone has already raised this point but where, in scripture, has God *forbidden* the state from upholding the first table of his law? Since all men everywhere are bound to obey both tables of the law, then what reason have we to believe that the civil magistrate is forbidden from upholding the first and third commandment by punishing notorious heretics?

Under the United States Constitution, this question is hypothetical. Until such a time as the prohibition on the federal government establishing true religion is replaced with a Christian amendment, then the American civil government cannot prosecute heresy. 

That is why I dissent from the US Constitution and would not vote in American elections, despite the fact that I largely align with the Trumplican Republicans on other issues.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 21, 2018)

Haeralis said:


> I'm wondering whether this precludes any role whatsoever for the state in preventing the propagation of heresy and blasphemy




Yes. The civil magistrate _ought_ to prevent idolatry. The civil magistrate is required to uphold the first table just as much as the second.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 21, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> There is no mandate from the scriptures to have any nation set up under directly the Laws of God, as Israel was under the old Covenant between them and God.





Dachaser said:


> This republic was based on a scripture viewpoint regarding its moral basis, and standards for laws, but was a Republic being set up, not a Theonomy. The ways of God was used indirectly in our formation, but we were not set up to be as Israel was under the old Economy.





Dachaser said:


> God tells us in Romans what the function of the State, national Government is, but he did not command all nations to be directly under His law.



I think you are missing a key point in this discussion, which is that _all men are to obey God. _You seem to have it in your head that only governers ruling a theonomy ought to "kiss the Son" (Ps. 2).

You have repeatedly asserted, without justification, that your "republic" is somehow exempt from obedience to God.

Again, the political system is not the issue. It's not about whether it's a republic or a kingdom or a commonwealth or an aristocracy. It's simply that God's law is to be obeyed by all men, high and low. Of course not all men will honour him, but they should.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 21, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Actually, the constitution says this:
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.



Right, and since many of the states who ratified that clause already had existing state churches, it is obvious that it didn't mean _that_.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 21, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> It falls under the area of a citizen of this land being freely allowed to attend and perform their religious activities, or prefer to not have any at all.



That's what it means today, after its many reinterpretations by enemies of the cross (and America, for what it's worth). That's not what it originally meant.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 21, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Right, and since many of the states who ratified that clause already had existing state churches, it is obvious that it didn't mean _that_.



I was responding more to your assertion that there is nothing in the constitution that protects Lavey’s right to worship freely. This clause most certainly does protect the right of people to worship freely and has repeatedly been interpreted as such. Of course the issue is, just what constitutes a religion, and how far does this right extend. Obviously human sacrifice would not be protected.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 21, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I was responding more to your assertion that there is nothing in the constitution that protects Lavey’s right to worship freely. This clause most certainly does protect the right of people to worship freely and has repeatedly been interpreted as such. Of course the issue is, just what constitutes a religion, and how far does this right extend. Obviously human sacrifice would not be protected.



Correct. Today those who believe in blood and sex magick do have the same rights (if not more) than me or you. It's one of the reasons I no longer bother with "strict constructionist" views of the constitution. The constitution protects our rights only to the extent that Leftist judges will allow it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 21, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Correct. Today those who believe in blood and sex magick do have the same rights (if not more) than me or you. It's one of the reasons I no longer bother with "strict constructionist" views of the constitution. The constitution protects our rights only to the extent that Leftist judges will allow it.



I am curious as to what you believe was originally intended by this clause if it was not intended to protect religious liberty? Have you ever read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association? http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/jefferson-to-danbury.pdf


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 21, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I am curious as to what you believe was originally intended by this clause if it was not intended to protect religious liberty? Have you ever read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association? http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/jefferson-to-danbury.pdf



Jefferson's letter at the time had zero legal authority. The 13 states were 13 republics within one larger Republic. 

The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the federal govt. Therefore, the prohibitions were then aimed at the Federal govt, not the state govt.

Of course, none of that is true today. The Constitution is now a joke and only used when it can marginalize conservatives.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Haeralis (Mar 21, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I am curious as to what you believe was originally intended by this clause if it was not intended to protect religious liberty? Have you ever read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association? http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/jefferson-to-danbury.pdf



Jefferson is not an authority on the meaning of the United States Constitution. He wasn't even at the Constitutional Convention and had zero role in the creation of the First Amendment. Someone who _was_ was Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, a Madison appointee, who wrote the most important commentary on the United States Constitution ever published. In it, he said of the First Amendment's Religious Establishment Clause:

*"It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape."*

"_*The right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice."

"And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects."*_

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 22, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Jefferson's letter at the time had zero legal authority. The 13 states were 13 republics within one larger Republic.
> 
> The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the federal govt. Therefore, the prohibitions were then aimed at the Federal govt, not the state govt.
> 
> Of course, none of that is true today. The Constitution is now a joke and only used when it can marginalize conservatives.



I think I understand what you are saying. The first amendment only applied to the federal government, but the states were free to establish or prohibit religion as they saw fit. I would agree with that assessment, but as you pointed out, this understanding of the constitution has long been disregarded.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 22, 2018)

The Bill of Rights originally existed to chain down the federal govt, not the state. The prohibitions could not have applied to the states. Of course, that is illegal today, given the 14th amendment.

Now, the Federal Govt protects the people from the state governments.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 22, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am late to this parade, so apologies if someone has already raised this point but where, in scripture, has God *[you]forbidden[/you]* the state from upholding the first table of his law? Since all men everywhere are bound to obey both tables of the law, then what reason have we to believe that the civil magistrate is forbidden from upholding the first and third commandment by punishing notorious heretics?
> 
> Under the United States Constitution, this question is hypothetical. Until such a time as the prohibition on the federal government establishing true religion is replaced with a Christian amendment, then the American civil government cannot prosecute heresy.
> 
> That is why I dissent from the US Constitution and would not vote in American elections, despite the fact that I largely align with the Trumplican Republicans on other issues.


It's times like this that I wish I could hit the _Like_ button over and over again. In the words of American Fundamentalism, _Preach it, brother!_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 22, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Bill of Rights originally existed to chain down the federal govt, not the state. The prohibitions could not have applied to the states. Of course, that is illegal today, given the 14th amendment.
> 
> Now, the Federal Govt protects the people from the state governments.



Agreed, but still, it seems that the sentiment to apply the first amendment to the states was present almost from the time when the ink was still drying on the constitution. Here are two more letters, one from Washington and one from Patrick Henry, both addresssed to concerned Baptist associations. 

http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/GWashingtonLetter.pdf
http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PatrickHenryLetter.pdf


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 22, 2018)

Tolerationism: It is a sin for the state to uphold the first commandment.

If that position does not jar with you, there has to be something wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 22, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Agreed, but still, it seems that the sentiment to apply the first amendment to the states was present almost from the time when the ink was still drying on the constitution. Here are two more letters, one from Washington and one from Patrick Henry, both addresssed to concerned Baptist associations.
> 
> http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/GWashingtonLetter.pdf
> http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PatrickHenryLetter.pdf



I agree that Worshipful Master Washington wanted to see the undoing of the Establishmentarian system.

Henry saw the difficulty with prosecuting Baptists in a new land. That being said, even Brother Senior Warden Washington, noting the Satanic similarities between his cult and Lavey's, would have forbidden Lavey from practicing. Henry probably would have had him (justly) executed.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 22, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I agree that Worshipful Master Washington wanted to see the undoing of the Establishmentarian system.
> 
> Henry saw the difficulty with prosecuting Baptists in a new land. That being said, even Brother Senior Warden Washington, noting the Satanic similarities between his cult and Lavey's, would have forbidden Lavey from practicing. Henry probably would have had him (justly) executed.



I agree, but it is not easy to conceive of how governmental prosecution of heretics could be administered fairly in a society like that of the United States, which is by its very nature is pluralistic. This of course has no impact on what should be, but does have quite an impact on what could be.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 22, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I agree, but it is not easy to conceive of how governmental prosecution of heretics could be administered fairly in a society like that of the United States, which is by its very nature is pluralistic. This of course has no impact on what should be, but does have quite an impact on what could be.



That's true today. The original America was a practically Trinitarian pluralistic society. It didn't imagine the chaos today.

But the ultimate question is what _ought _to be the case, not what it is today


----------



## Haeralis (Mar 22, 2018)

America until basically 1900 was not a pluralistic society and its political mechanisms didn't have any qualms with enforcing Protestant homogeneity in public schools. All of this, of course, changed with the liberalization of immigration policies which brought in tons of other religious affiliations into the country, such as Roman Catholics and adherents to East Asian religions. This coincided with a Protestantism which found itself greatly weakened by liberal theology.

All of this is simply to point out that pluralism was not the inevitable result of the First Amendment.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 22, 2018)

Whether the original intent of the First Amendment was only to protect freedom of conscience among those who adhered to generic Christianity is an interesting question. I have my own opinion on the subject, but it is largely beside the point. As a result of immigration policies, the First Amendment is now understood as justifying pluralism. 

Please don't misunderstand me as saying that the First Amendment is all bad. While I am no free speech fundamentalist, the First Amendment is preferable to the hate speech laws that we have in the United Kingdom (i.e. criticise leftist sacred cows or make a joke that offends someone and you end up in jail).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

The Law of god should be obeyed by all persons, buty only Christians actually are under the mandate from God to do that, as sinners who are still in their lost state would fall more under the jurisdiction of the government itself, and God has not commanded any nation to be set up under His law as israel used to be under the old Covenant Economy.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's what it means today, after its many reinterpretations by enemies of the cross (and America, for what it's worth). That's not what it originally meant.


Its means that the general Government shall not dictate to any citizen what religion they must have, or even if they have any religion.
The government steps in only when the practice of a religions involves breaking the law, such as child sacrifices for example.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I am curious as to what you believe was originally intended by this clause if it was not intended to protect religious liberty? Have you ever read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association? http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/jefferson-to-danbury.pdf


Jefferson was reacting to a Christian church that wanted to make sure that the Federal Government would not step in and try to force them to do what was required by the state! He was assuring them that they would have freedom to worship and teach as they saw fit.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Its means that the general Government



Does "general" mean federal or state?


Dachaser said:


> The government steps in only when the practice of a religions involves breaking the law, such as child sacrifices for example.



But what if my religious belief demands such a sacrifice? At that point the government is telling me what I can and can't do with my religion.

But let's take it a step further: if my religion demands sacrificing puppies and kittens, is that okay?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Tolerationism: It is a sin for the state to uphold the first commandment.
> 
> If that position does not jar with you, there has to be something wrong.


There is no direct mandate from God in the scriptures to have the government enforce that, but there is a mandate on each individual to obey the Lord.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Does "general" mean federal or state?
> 
> 
> But what if my religious belief demands such a sacrifice? At that point the government is telling me what I can and can't do with my religion.
> ...


Yes, as the Supreme Court has allowed for chickan sacrifices I believe.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, as the Supreme Court has allowed for chickan sacrifices I believe.



I said little kittens, not chickens. Most people are comfortable with the idea of killing chickens.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> There is no direct mandate from God in the scriptures to have the government enforce that, but there is a mandate on each individual to obey the Lord.



Is there a mandate for the civil magistrate--an individual--to obey the Lord?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 23, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's true today. The original America was a practically Trinitarian pluralistic society. It didn't imagine the chaos today.
> 
> But the ultimate question is what _ought _to be the case, not what it is today



Yes, and I would argue that the framers of the constitution did not have non-Christian religion in mind at all. The original 13 colonies were partially founded by people from various branches of Christianity who had been persecuted to one degree or another by the state church in England. Their intention was to prevent the federal government from establishing an official branch of Christianity and thus allowing the others to risk being persecuted as in England.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 23, 2018)

On the point about Laveyan Satanism: Some folks may remember a controversy from last year about erecting monuments with Satanic imagery on public land, alongside monuments with Christian imagery. The matter was discussed on a Christian radio program that I sometimes listen to on my way home from work. They were maintaining that the Satanists had no right to have their monument (which was dedicated to fallen veterans, if I remember correctly). I called in to play Devil's Advocate (hehe). I asked why they did not think that Satanists were protected under the First Amendment, and could have their monument on public land along with the Jews, Christians, etc. They basically said that the First Amendment intends to protect sincerely held monotheistic belief. Frankly, their interpretation seemed to be extremely arbitrary. It was as though they pulled it out of thin air. And the main guest on the show is a pretty high-profile lawyer and writer. It seemed like he was grasping at straws.

My point, of course, was to show that religious pluralism is an untenable position. It _is _ridiculous to allow the Laveyan Satanists to erect monuments on public land (or private land, for that matter), but to forbid it in our legal context is arbitrary.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I said little kittens, not chickens. Most people are comfortable with the idea of killing chickens.


The same legal justification would apply though I think.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is there a mandate for the civil magistrate--an individual--to obey the Lord?


Who would be one in our government?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

They extended that religious freedom though to Protestants, jews, and Catholics, so would they have only applied freedom towards people who help to the Bible, or to others, such as Muslims?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> On the point about Laveyan Satanism: Some folks may remember a controversy from last year about erecting monuments with Satanic imagery on public land, alongside monuments with Christian imagery. The matter was discussed on a Christian radio program that I sometimes listen to on the way home. They were maintaining that the Satanists had no right to have their monument (which was dedicated to fallen veterans, if I remember correctly). I called in to play Devil's Advocate (hehe). I asked why they did not think that Satanists were protected under the First Amendment, and could have their monument on public land along with the Jews, Christians, etc. They basically said that the First Amendment intends to protect sincerely held monotheistic belief. Frankly, their interpretation seemed to be extremely arbitrary. It was as though they pulled it out of thin air. And the main guest on the show is a pretty high-profile lawyer and writer. It seemed like he was grasping at straws.
> 
> My point, of course, was to show that religious pluralism is an untenable position. It _is _ridiculous to allow the Laveyan Satanists to erect monuments on public land (or private land, for that matter), but to forbid it in our legal context is arbitrary.


Either religious freedoms would apply towards all, or to none, for satanists and Christians alike can have their clubs in schools after hours. the framers/Founders were well aware of what happens when the nation itself, through its government, officially declares and define just what makes for a true religion.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Who would be one in our government?



Whoever the magistrate is, though that raises other questions about covenant and federalism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The same legal justification would apply though I think.



You are okay with letting a group that sacrifices kittens have the same legal protection as Christians?


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Either religious freedoms would apply towards all, or to none, for satanists and Christians alike can have their clubs in schools after hours. the framers/Founders were well aware of what happens when the nation itself, through its government, officially declares and define just what makes for a true religion.


So, you believe that God is pleased when the US government defends and protects Satanism?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> There is no direct mandate from God in the scriptures to have the government enforce that, but there is a mandate on each individual to obey the Lord.



God has not forbidden the state from obeying the first commandment. To assume that he has is an obvious absurdity. Did you not get the memo that natural/moral law, which includes the first commandment, binds all men everywhere? Prove to me that the civil magistrate is exempt from the dictates of natural law.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You are okay with letting a group that sacrifices kittens have the same legal protection as Christians?


Yes, if that was part of their religious beliefs.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> So, you believe that God is pleased when the US government defends and protects Satanism?


No, but as Hs really not pleased either with Gay marriages and Abortion, as He permits those sinful activities to continue in this present age .
I am discussing this from not the position of God likes what will get done, but from the position what does He permit and allow for under our form of government, and religious liberties would extend to all or to none.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> God has not forbidden the state from obeying the first commandment. To assume that he has is an obvious absurdity. Did you not get the memo that natural/moral law, which includes the first commandment, binds all men everywhere? Prove to me that the civil magistrate is exempt from the dictates of natural law.


He is not requiring any government choose to do that though either.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 23, 2018)

So, you are saying that the state is bound by a regulative principle and is thus founded in positive law?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 23, 2018)

According to tolerationist reasoning, God must be fine with a civil magistrate worshipping himself, which is the logical conclusion of denying that the state is bound by the first table of the law. If the magistrate is forbidden from proscribing idolatry, then he must also be forbidden from proscribing self-idolatry. Someone should share that bit of wisdom with Herod.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> No, but as Hs really not pleased either with Gay marriages and Abortion, as He permits those sinful activities to continue in this present age .
> I am discussing this from not the position of God likes what will get done, but from the position what does He permit and allow for under our form of government, and religious liberties would extend to all or to none.


So, God is not pleased with governments countenancing Satanism, but they ought to do it anyway?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 23, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> So, God is not pleased with governments countenancing Satanism, but they ought to do it anyway?


No, I am just saying that God allows for us here in America, due to being a republic, to choose to do things and act in ways that are sinful and things that God hates, but still permits to be done for now.


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> No, I am just saying that God allows for us here in America, due to being a republic, to choose to do things and act in ways that are sinful and things that God hates, but still permits to be done for now.



Has it occurred to you that the Lord can permit evil to continue on this earth because he is God and has all sovereignty and wisdom, but a man is not at all like God in these ways? For a mere man to say, "Though I could confront it, this evil shall continue because it fits in with God's overall purpose," is towering arrogance.

_The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law._ Deuteronomy 29:29

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Law of god should be obeyed by all persons, buty only Christians actually are under the mandate from God to do that...



This is rather obviously inconsistent.



Dachaser said:


> There is no direct mandate from God in the scriptures to have the government enforce that, but there is a mandate on each individual to obey the Lord.



We're going around in circles here.

You have yet to establish that those in government are exempted from obedience to the moral law.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> No, I am just saying that God allows for us here in America, due to being a republic, to choose to do things and act in ways that are sinful and things that God hates, but still permits to be done for now.



You keep saying that, but you have not given any support for it.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, [sacrificing kittens is okie-dokie] if that was part of their religious beliefs.



So killing kittens to please idols is fine. But what are the limits? How about polygamy? Child slavery? By what standard do you determine what is and isn't acceptable among the unbelievers who are permitted to dwell alongside us? Not the Bible, surely! Then the whim of a ruler?

It all seems more than a bit arbitrary.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 23, 2018)

*Psalm 2:10-12*

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, if that was part of their religious beliefs.



O.....K


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 23, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> But what are the limits? How about polygamy? Child slavery?



Bingo. What if, ala Joseph Smith, my religion teaches I can have many womens? As to child slavery, to use the old libertarian mantra, "But what if the child consents?"


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 23, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> No, I am just saying that God allows for us here in America, due to being a republic, to choose to do things and act in ways that are sinful and things that God hates, but still permits to be done for now.


So, should the government protect and defend Satanism or not?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God allows for us here in America, due to being a republic, to choose to do things and act in ways that are sinful


So, God *respects* our form of government, as an allowable exception to the mandate to worship and serve Him rightly and alone?
Prior to independence, then, were the American colonies obliged to submit to God, only to be 'liberated' from that obligation on July 4th, 1776?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2018)

Is it a sin for the civil magistrate to forbid a Satanist from sacrificing a cat on a pentagram and chanting, "So mote it be"?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 24, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> This is rather obviously inconsistent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What scriptures would you point to to support that God requires a government to uphold His law/Moral Code if not under a theonomy though?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 24, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> You keep saying that, but you have not given any support for it.


Does God permit the abominable things such as On demand Abortion and gay weddings in this nation or not?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 24, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> So killing kittens to please idols is fine. But what are the limits? How about polygamy? Child slavery? By what standard do you determine what is and isn't acceptable among the unbelievers who are permitted to dwell alongside us? Not the Bible, surely! Then the whim of a ruler?
> 
> It all seems more than a bit arbitrary.


In our type of Government, a Republic, the final law of this land is not the scriptures, but the US Constitution. Should it be the Bible? yes, but that is not the current situation.


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What scriptures would you point to to support that God requires a government to uphold His law/Moral Code if not under a theonomy though?



David,
What "law", if not God's Law, will all men be judged by on the day of judgment?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 24, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> *Psalm 2:10-12*
> 
> Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
> 
> ...


The passage refers to the time when all of the earth is under the direct reign of the Lord Jesus though.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 24, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Bingo. What if, ala Joseph Smith, my religion teaches I can have many womens? As to child slavery, to use the old libertarian mantra, "But what if the child consents?"


those are both illegal acts, as per our Constitution and Supreme Court decisions. The point is that here in the US, the final arbitrator for all things done would be the Constitution, as applied and understood by the Supreme Court.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 24, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> David,
> What "law", if not God's Law, will all men be judged by on the day of judgment?


They will be judged by the Lord Jesus Himself, and again, the Law of God is not at this current time the basis for legality here in America. that is our Constitution.


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> They will be judged by the Lord Jesus Himself, and again, the Law of God is not at this current time the basis for legality here in America. that is our Constitution.



That is not a proper answer to the question asked: I believe it was something like "What should the State do about heresy"? With that being the question, a good answer would be that the State should do what is right in the eyes of God. Insofar as they continue to do evil, it seems to me, is the degree of wrath each of those men/women are heaping up for themselves on the day of wrath.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 24, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> That is not a proper answer to the question asked: I believe it was something like "What should the State do about heresy"? With that being the question, a good answer would be that the State should do what is right in the eyes of God. Insofar as they continue to do evil, it seems to me, is the degree of wrath each of those men/women are heaping up for themselves on the day of wrath.....


The Government should of course do what the Lord had revealed and shown to us is the right things to do, to uphold His ways, but God has not set America up as a Theonomy.


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Government should of course do what the Lord had revealed and shown to us is the right things to do, to uphold His ways, but God has not set America up as a Theonomy.



Thenomy is not required for people to do what is right. Trucking out Theonomy doesn't really deal with the ought that is required by all men....


----------



## Steve Curtis (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Government should of course do what the Lord had revealed


Bingo! That is the right answer to the OP. The question wasn't what they *do, *nor what they believe the Constitution allows them to do, but what *should* they do.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> those are both illegal acts, as per our Constitution and Supreme Court decisions. The point is that here in the US, the final arbitrator for all things done would be the Constitution, as applied and understood by the Supreme Court.



Let's say that the Constitution is amended to allow for polygamy, now what?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Government should of course do what the Lord had revealed and shown to us is the right things to do, to uphold His ways, but God has not set America up as a Theonomy.



No one on this thread has advocated theonomy. 

Do you understand the difference between "is" and "ought"?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 24, 2018)

In case anyone is interested, I have taken the main question from this thread and created a poll. Looking forward to seeing the results!


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 24, 2018)

kainos01 said:


> Bingo! That is the right answer to the OP. The question wasn't what they *do, *nor what they believe the Constitution allows them to do, but what *should* they do.


I agree with that sentiment, but my point has always been that under our type of Government, the IS Constitution, and not the Bible, is the rule of the land.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 24, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Let's say that the Constitution is amended to allow for polygamy, now what?


The same answer as for Abortion and gay marriages, explain to this culture what the scripture say to the matter.
If a pastor of Jesus, do not perform any ceremonies.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 24, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one on this thread has advocated theonomy.
> 
> Do you understand the difference between "is" and "ought"?


What God would like to have done, and what He permits to be actually done.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What God would like to have done, and what He permits to be actually done.



Should we only rest content with what he permits to be done?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I agree with that sentiment, but my point has always been that under our type of Government, the IS Constitution, and not the Bible, is the rule of the land.



Our type of govt is what the leftist judge today (maybe not tomorrow) says what the constitution means. I hope no one seriously thinks strict constructionism is the law of the land.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2018)

The original post asked what the state *should* do regarding heresy? Should connotes ought. I know what rights tide pod eaters have in America. But that's not the question. Our current govt allows furries to get married, but only the most militant Klinean would say that is a good thing.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> [M]y point has always been that under our type of Government, the IS Constitution, and not the Bible, is the rule of the land.



There is a considerable semantic difference between_ is_ and _ought to be.
_
And what if we live in a country like North Korea? How far must we abide by their constitution (or whatever it is they have)? After all, God did not set North Korea up as a theonomy, but as a Democratic People's _Republic._

I do not think that Kim's regime should be expected to obey God. But the point (which you are still missing) is that they should obey God.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Does God permit the abominable things such as On demand Abortion and gay weddings in this nation or not?



This is a very poor argument. "Even though God disapproves, since he apparently allows it we should just let it slide."


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What scriptures would you point to to support that God requires a government to uphold His law/Moral Code if not under a theonomy though?



How about the Decalogue? The Moral Law is for _all men_.

Yet again, you have suggested without reason that magistrates are somehow excepted from that.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 24, 2018)

This is an interesting thread, which I've ignored up until tonight. Reading through all the replies I think it is a given that we would agree government should ideally forbid and prosecute heresy, but we live in Sodom and Gomorrah as it were.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Herald (Mar 24, 2018)

I responded to the poll thread but did not see this one until later. Here is what I said in that thread:



Herald said:


> _What _the state should do and what it _actually _does are two different things. As an Amillennialist, I do not see the state ever fulfilling its duties under the Establishment View, however, that does not mean we should practice willful compromise in our lives.



The power of the church is not found in politics but in the Spirit. Might there be a movement of God upon the civil magistrate in the United States, Canada, the UK et al? Only God knows. I do not believe the answer is found in the ballot box but through godly obedience. Neither the church nor individual Christians can force a change to Establishmentarianism, but we can live "as if".


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 24, 2018)

Not to mention the Deep State. As long as the Deep State exists, _*nothing*_ will change for the better for Christians or patriots (or humanity in general).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Should we only rest content with what he permits to be done?


I that would be His will for now, yes.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I that would be His will for now, yes.


 If given the opportunity, would you bother to change the situation in Hitler's Germany? Your above answer implies "no."


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

Herald said:


> I responded to the poll thread but did not see this one until later. Here is what I said in that thread:
> 
> 
> 
> The power of the church is not found in politics but in the Spirit. Might there be a movement of God upon the civil magistrate in the United States, Canada, the UK et al? Only God knows. I do not believe the answer is found in the ballot box but through godly obedience. Neither the church nor individual Christians can force a change to Establishmentarianism, but we can live "as if".


I am very sure that the only time when cultures actually experience real and lasting change is when God does a sovereign act of revival in that nation.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If given the opportunity, would you bother to change the situation in Hitler's Germany? Your above answer implies "no."


For whatever reason, known only to God, Nazi Germany seemed to be part of His overall plan, perhaps the way to have Israel reestablished as a nation afterwards?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Our type of govt is what the leftist judge today (maybe not tomorrow) says what the constitution means. I hope no one seriously thinks strict constructionism is the law of the land.


it should be is my point.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not to mention the Deep State. As long as the Deep State exists, [you]_*nothing*_[/you] will change for the better for Christians or patriots (or humanity in general).


What is the Deep State?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> it should be is my point.



Right, but the fact Strict Constructionism is not happening, nor likely will it ever again. So you can't argue against Establishmentarian views based on what the Constitution currently allows when you mean what it should allow.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> For whatever reason, known only to God, Nazi Germany seemed to be part of His overall plan, perhaps the way to have Israel reestablished as a nation afterwards?



So we were wrong to go to war against Hitler and try to stop him, since God's permissive will allowed him to rise?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What is the Deep State?



The Deep State is the shadow government that runs DC. It is everything from black ops to rogue intelligence agencies, etc. Although I believe Antichrist will be a person, the Deep State runs a close second.

I know many of these videos are sensationalist, but this is pretty accurate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What is the Deep State?



Those who speak of this, from both the left and the right, have in mind the sort of bureaucracy (of various agencies and cabinet departments, particularly ones dealing with intelligence, thus involving covert operatives as well) that continues unabated despite elections. 

Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex and many have seen some form of that to wield a great deal of power regardless of who controls the political branches of government (the legislative and executive ones especially). 

This is not something observed simply in America but is alleged to exist worldwide. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So we were wrong to go to war against Hitler and try to stop him, since God's permissive will allowed him to rise?


No, for both events were part of the predetermined will of God.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Those who speak of this, from both the left and the right, have in mind the sort of bureaucracy (of various agencies and cabinet departments, particularly ones dealing with intelligence, thus involving covert operatives as well) that continues unabated despite elections.
> 
> Eisenhower warned of a military-industrial complex and many have seen some form of that to wield a great deal of power regardless of who controls the political branches of government (the legislative and executive ones especially).
> 
> ...


This would be the economic/military/ establishement then?
This does seem to at times veer off though into those seeing the Illuminati pulling the strings all over the world.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 26, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> So, should the government protect and defend Satanism or not?


@Dachaser, you never answered my question. I'd like to hear your answer.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> @Dachaser, you never answered my question. I'd like to hear your answer.


Sorry about that, as must have missed it, and the answer i would give is that in a perfect world, with Jesus here directly reigning, Satanism would be be permitted, but under the current scheme of things, in this nation, yes, they have religious freedoms provided to them to worship as they see fit. The caveat being that they still have to obey laws regarding killing other people for example.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Sorry about that, as must have missed it, and the answer i would give is that in a perfect world, with Jesus here directly reigning, Satanism would be be permitted, but under the current scheme of things, in this nation, yes, they have religious freedoms provided to them to worship as they see fit. The caveat being that they still have to obey laws regarding killing other people for example.


You sidestepped the question. What is their duty before God? Do they have a duty before God to protect Satanism or not? It's a yes-or-no question.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Sorry about that, as must have missed it, and the answer i would give is that in a perfect world, with Jesus here directly reigning, Satanism would be be permitted, but under the current scheme of things, in this nation, yes, they have religious freedoms provided to them to worship as they see fit. The caveat being that they still have to obey laws regarding killing other people for example.



Will Satanists be judged according to God's Law (idolatry, etc.) or by the Constitution on the last day?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Will Satanists be judged according to God's Law (idolatry, etc.) or by the Constitution on the last day?


They will be judged by Jesus as being still found in their sins, as they did not believe upon the Name of the Son of God/Messiah, to save them from their sin judgment.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> No, for both events were part of the predetermined will of God.



In light of your answer here, should America have intervened? I am not asking what God's hidden will is, nor am I asking what actually happened. We are debating ought-ness, not is-ness.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> They will be judged by Jesus as being still found in their sins, as they did not believe upon the Name of the Son of God/Messiah, to save them from their sin judgment.



Would one of their sins be not ruling in the fear of God?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> You sidestepped the question. What is their duty before God? Do they have a duty before God to protect Satanism or not? It's a yes-or-no question.


Who, the government officials, who are Christians?


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> They will be judged by Jesus as being still found in their sins, as they did not believe upon the Name of the Son of God/Messiah, to save them from their sin judgment.



God's Law or the Constitution?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> In light of your answer here, should America have intervened? I am not asking what God's hidden will is, nor am I asking what actually happened. We are debating ought-ness, not is-ness.


We were raised up by God to confront Hitler and Nazism head on.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Would one of their sins be not ruling in the fear of God?


Under a non theonomy government, do not believe so.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> God's Law or the Constitution?


The Law of God , of course.


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Law of God , of course.



Then, by necessity, Satanism is evil and every living creature should reject it without hindrance and regardless of of what the Constitution says, no?


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Who, the government officials, who are Christians?


The government as a whole--do they have a duty before God to protect and defend Satanism, or not?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Under a non theonomy government, do not believe so.



I keep forgetting that sin isn't sin in a republic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 26, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> The government as a whole--do they have a duty before God to protect and defend Satanism, or not?



I am looking forward to a simple affirmative or negative response to this question. The suspense is killing me!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Under a non theonomy government, do not believe so.



So if he spurns God's moral law as a magistrate, that's not a sin? You do understand that the Reformed confess that God's moral law is universally binding?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Then, by necessity, Satanism is evil and every living creature should reject it without hindrance and regardless of of what the Constitution says, no?


God does not require all to do that in this present Age.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> So if he spurns God's moral law as a magistrate, that's not a sin? You do understand that the Reformed confess that God's moral law is universally binding?


Yes, to him/her would be sin to go against the law of God, but would be different than a non believer leader doing that also...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Here is a post about how lovely Satanism is in our society. Even if O'Brien's claims about some presidents are false, her claims about Satanic ritual abuse are true. They are also close to my house.
https://negatingthevoid.wordpress.com/2018/01/12/review-trance-formation/


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, to him/her would be sin to go against the law of God, but would be different than a non believer leader doing that also...



That's called situation ethics, and not only is it morally wrong, it is logically fallacious.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God does not require all to do that in this present Age.



Without question, He requires it. Not only so, every evil decision is storing up judgment for the wicked.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Here is a post about how lovely Satanism is in our society. Even if O'Brien's claims about some presidents are false, her claims about Satanic ritual abuse are true. They are also close to my house.
> https://negatingthevoid.wordpress.com/2018/01/12/review-trance-formation/


I would never allow for satanic abuse of persons, but would permit them to worship as they saw fit.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's called situation ethics, and not only is it morally wrong, it is logically fallacious.


You do not see that believers have a responsibility to heed and obey God in a different fashion than lost sinners do?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Without question, He requires it. Not only so, every evil decision is storing up judgment for the wicked.


I am just saying that God is not killing off right now all who disobey Him...


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I would never allow for satanic abuse of persons, but would permit them to worship as they saw fit.



And by "permitting" them to worship Satan, are you not engaging in evil?


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am just saying that God is not killing off right now all who disobey Him...



David, 
No one (and I mean no one) has suggested this. You have introduced the scent of a red herring, to get the attention off of the logical conclusion of your theology...


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> You do not see that believers have a responsibility to heed and obey God in a different fashion than lost sinners do?



I don't know what that means. Everyone is morally obligated to bow down.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I would never allow for satanic abuse of persons, but would permit them to worship as they saw fit.



That. _Is_. How. They. Worship.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Is drinking human blood wrong? Or rather, is the magistrate sinning in preventing the Satanist to religiously drink human blood?


----------



## Herald (Mar 26, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> The government as a whole--do they have a duty before God to protect and defend Satanism, or not?


Tyler,

The short answer is an emphatic "No!". Of course, there is a longer explanation.

As I read my own confession (1689 LBC 24.1) in light of Romans 13:1-7, the role of the civil magistrate is clear, although it is not clear that Paul was writing specifically about God-fearing magistrates. We are obligated to obey all leaders and authorities over us unless doing so causes us to break God's law. As to whether the government has a duty to protect and defend Satanism, I already gave you the answer every Christian should respond with. However, in the United States, we have a constitutional government that protects pluralism when it comes to religion. The free exercise clause (1st Amendment) was never envisioned by the founding fathers to include heinous religious practices but nor did it exclude them. Perhaps the founders thought common sense and decency would prevail over two centuries later. Abortion and same-sex marriage should dispense with the notion that the Constitution is primarily concerned with protecting a Christian ethos. 

I believe the civil magistrate should govern righteously and punish evil. Romans 13:3 makes that clear, but is anyone willing to hold their breath waiting for that type of magistrate this side of eternity? I wrote in a previous post that we should live "as if". My postmillennialist brethren actually believe that day will come. I am not so optimistic, although I would rejoice to be proven wrong!


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 26, 2018)

Herald said:


> Tyler,
> 
> The short answer is an emphatic "No!". Of course, there is a longer explanation.
> 
> ...


Bill,
That's a fair answer. I'm interested to see David's response, though--he hasn't been clear at all about what the government _should_ do. You've given a clear answer that distinguishes your conviction about the duty of the magistrate from your expectation.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 26, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> The government as a whole--do they have a duty before God to protect and defend Satanism, or not?


@Dachaser, I see that you have made several comments since I posted this one in response to your question in post #178.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> And by "permitting" them to worship Satan, are you not engaging in evil?


I am not myself, and by this logic, there should be no alcohol ever sold....


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

Herald said:


> Tyler,
> 
> The short answer is an emphatic "No!". Of course, there is a longer explanation.
> 
> ...


I am not taking in this question that we are discussing the role of a Christian government in making sure just the law of God is obeyed, but that we are describing things that have to be permitted, even though we wish they were not, in a Republic as we were founded on being.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> @Dachaser, I see that you have made several comments since I posted this one in response to your question in post #178.


My response is that a non christian government, based upon our kind of republic, has to grant even them religious freedom to worship satan, as long as not harming anyone or anything else.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Bill,
> That's a fair answer. I'm interested to see David's response, though--he hasn't been clear at all about what the government _should_ do. You've given a clear answer that distinguishes your conviction about the duty of the magistrate from your expectation.


The government, in this nation, should make sure that even satanists have their religious rights enforced, but also make very sure that they are not abusing their right, by engaging in say hurting/abusing children, human sacrifices for example.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 27, 2018)

Westminster teaches that the magistrate is an ordinance of God, and in that sense it is broadly theonomic in its outlook. Westminster confines the magistrate’s sphere to nature in distinction from the sphere of grace in which the Church functions, but theonomy denies the nature-grace distinction and derives the authority of the magistrate from Christ as Mediator. Whereas Westminster teaches the connection of Church and State by means of Christian constitutionalism and guards against persecuting measures, theonomy separates the two and makes the State an agency for propagating the Christian religion independently from the Church. Westminster teaches that the rule of the magistrate is the moral law of God which gives normative direction for law-making, but theonomy advocates the magistrate is bound to the whole law of God as it prescribes specific actions in particular situations. Finally, Westminster maintains that a Christian magistrate over a covenanted nation may suppress blasphemies and heresies with the liberty to alter the kind and degree of punishment, but theonomy makes the Old Testament punishments binding and unalterable on all nations. Westminster and theonomy clearly set forth two divergent schemes as to the nature and function of the civil magistrate.

Conclusion
There can be no doubt that the Christian Church needs to give more serious attention to the law of God and its application to modern society. Those churches that subscribe to the Westminster formulary have less excuse than others for not being more active in this regard, when it is considered that their subordinate standards amply testify of the social responsibility of Christians. It may well be that the theonomic movement has helped to create a greater awareness of the need to develop a biblical social ethic, but theonomy itself falls too far short of the wisdom and balance of the Westminster formulary to be a useful ethical system.

The theonomic view of law does not have its roots in Puritanism but in the separatist ideals of Brownism. It rejects the natural law tradition which was fundamental to the Puritan system of ethics and fails to distinguish between moral and situational commandments. The theonomic view of the civil magistrate has more in common with Erastianism than with the Presbyterianism of the Assembly of divines. Although it follows the modern separation of Church and State, theonomy ascribes to civil power a commission under Christ to nurture and advance His kingdom by means of the sword. There is no recognition of the distinct spheres of nature and grace nor any acknowledgment of the Christian constitutionalism which is evident in the writings of the Westminster divines.

The only appearance of similarity between the two systems is in the formal appeal to the Old Testament punishments, but there is no substantial agreement. When the divines of the Assembly appealed to these punishments it was for the purpose of preventing the slide of a Christian commonwealth into atheism and schism. Their only concern was to show that a Christian civil magistrate has the power to suppress blasphemy and heresy by means of the sword, and they left room for the free use of reason and prudence to determine how this might be best accomplished. Theonomy, however, presents the civil punishments as a cure to the immorality of modern non-Christian States, and insists the magistrate is bound to enforce these punishments because they are revealed by God. Do the Westminster Confession and Catechisms teach “the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail?” If the system of doctrine as a whole is observed, and the original intention of the divines is respected, the answer must be a definite ‘no.’” pp 88, 322.​
Quotation from “_The Westminster Assembly & the Judicial Law: A Chronological Compilation and Analysis_". The Confessional Presbyterian, vol. 5 (2009). Part One: Chronology, by Chris Coldwell (1–55); Part Two: Analysis” (56–88) by Matthew Winzer.

Src: 
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...chronological-compilation-and-analysis.78672/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am not myself, and by this logic, there should be no alcohol ever sold....



Satanism=alcohol.....hmmmmm.

I like stouts and bourbons.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

Well, I have heard it described as demon rum.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> My response is that a non christian government, based upon our kind of republic, has to grant even them religious freedom to worship Satan, as long as not harming anyone or anything else.


Is that their duty before God, then?


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Well, I have heard it described as demon rum.



By Fundy's . I describe it as smooth and tasty.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 27, 2018)

I'm getting a headache here.

I need it explained to me, @Dachaser, why a "republic" is somehow exempt from the moral law. And not once have you provided biblical support.

You have repeatedly rejected the idea that the Ten Commandments are for all men at all times. I do not see how that possibly can fit with in a biblical, Reformed framework.

And it might help, as we continue this discussion, to define what you mean by "republic". The First French Republic was a republic too. (You know, the chaps that were chopping off heads left, right and centre.) North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic, another beacon of religious freedom and toleration. Just what exactly do you mean by republic, or what sort of republic do you have in mind? Are non-republics, such as Westminster parliamentiary democracies, excluded from your view? Are the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others still required to uphold the moral law?


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am not myself, and by this logic, there should be no alcohol ever sold....



Let's not forget that Jesus made water into wine. But then, perhaps he was only _permitting_ the wedding guests to drink it. Toleration and all that.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Steve Curtis (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I have heard it described as demon rum.


I have, too! In fact, I grew up hearing that. And I believed it - and taught it, too. Then, one day, I decided to look for that - and a whole host of other things I had believed - in the Bible. And, you know what? I couldn't find it (or them) there.

David, please, this is what so many of us have tried to say in so many ways: build a case from God's Word for what you are saying - not from cliches and catch-phrases handed down in revivalist tents and Wednesday night prayer meetings. Search the Scriptures. Be ready to give a defense -* from the Bible* - for what you believe and why.

In this thread, you are actually making the incredulous claim that some people - simply because they have been voted into office in a secular, republican government - have been given a pass from falling on their face before the holy, almighty, sovereign God of the universe. Step back for a moment - clear your head of all that you have been taught - and consider what it is that you are saying here!

God commands that all men everywhere repent - even US senators, congressmen - and presidents! One cannot say, "Well, as a man, I should repent and worship God, but as an elected official in a Republic, I can discharge my duties irrespective of God's revealed will, and He won't mind (because of the whole 'elected official in a Republic' bit...)."

I will again reiterate what has also been said several times in this thread: we are not discussing what is *likely* to happen, or even what *has* happened in the near or distant past. We are discussing what *should* happen. So, *ponder and respond to this line of questioning, please*: should every human being (regardless of whether they are senators, pastors, or plumbers) love God with all of their heart, soul, and mind? Are they not, in fact, commanded to do so by their Creator? How, then, can there be any situation whereby they gain an exemption from that requirement?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Steve Curtis (Mar 27, 2018)

EDIT: David, I pray that you don't feel as though we are all piling up on you even as we, well, pile up on you! Seriously, cognitive dissonance is a tough nut to crack. When we have been "indoctrinated" into a biblical and/or worldview for so long, other, competing views - even if they make perfect sense! - are often rejected, simply because they challenge our indoctrination. I speak as one who has been there, and who struggled mightily to break free of the bondage of my indoctrination (primarily, dispensational theology). But let me also encourage you: it is tremendously liberating when you finally do break free! So, keep wrestling with these issues - and challenge your own presuppositions, too. It's healthy and wise to do so! In the process, there really is wisdom in the notion of being slow to speak and quick to listen.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Haeralis (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The government, in this nation, should make sure that even satanists have their religious rights enforced, but also make very sure that they are not abusing their right, by engaging in say hurting/abusing children, human sacrifices for example.



Why do Satanists have a "right" to practice Satanism? Who gave it to them? We know that God did not bestow a natural right to them to practice their wicked religion. If they have a right to worship whichever god that they wanted, then they'd conceivably have an excuse before God. 

In light of this, some may deny any role for God whatsoever in authoring natural rights and they instead become an artifice created by individual people. If we do that, I don't see how we can avoid a Hobbesian understanding of rights in which they are nothing more than what the government says that they are. Might makes right.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

