# Establishmentarianism



## earl40 (May 18, 2015)

I saw in Turretin's Institutes this..."Although princes may not compel any to faith or religion, nevertheless they have the duty to establish, nourish and protect the true faith. While he may not compel any, he is, however, as a caring father to admonish and encourage his subjects to the faith, and to admonish those ministers delinquent in their duty, and also through external means to ensure good order in the church."

Realizing that in that in most societies where there is little or no recognition of the Christian religion do you think heathen leaders have the duty to do what is espoused above? Also what is the duty of Christian leaders in a democratic society, when the majority of the leaders are unbelievers?

Mods please feel free to have this moved to the appropriate forum, in that the government sub-forum was still closed this Monday morning.


----------



## Andres (May 18, 2015)

Psalm 2:10-12

10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.


----------



## Gforce9 (May 18, 2015)

As Andrew cited in Psalm 2, leaders are obligated to obey Christ, always and everywhere do what is right and everywhere to avoid evil. They will be judged accordingly by the perfect Judge. As to how that works out in a particular society, I could only speculate. Here in the 'States, I believe we have forgotten that with freedom comes great responsibility. Real freedom means, in part, that I am free to do what I want so long as I love God and my neighbor in the process. The present day view totally omits the latter half of that proposition.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 18, 2015)

I do not think this detracts from the OP, so I apologize ahead of time if the OP judges it does.

I also think what, at least in the U.S. has happened is an vain effort to conform to Voluntaryism which is similar to Establishmentarism in part. Voluntaryism holds to a separation of church and state, so does Establishmentarism, but the former does to degree wholly whereas that is abstract and never the case.

Cunningham, William. "Historical Theology: a review of the principal doctrinal discussions in the Christian church since the apostolic age" Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1863. 391.

On Voluntaryism:



> It amounts in substance to this, - that the only relation that ought to subsist between the State and the Church - between civil government and religion - is that of entire separation; or, in other words, its advocates maintain that nations, as such, and civil rulers in their official capacity, not only are not bound, but are not at liberty, to interfere in any religious matters, or to seek to promote the welfare of the church of Christ, as such.



To put it simply, Establishmentarism says church and state are to be friends, not enemies. Voluntaryism says no relationship at all may exist between the two which to me is wholly impossible and abstract. Yet I sometimes wonder how much "Two Kingdoms Theology" is or is similar to the Voluntaryism that Cunningham wrote about in the 19th century. For him Voluntaryism was something new (pages 390-391), 



> We shall begin with the newest or most modern, because it is also, in some respects, the simplest and most sweeping.


----------



## earl40 (May 18, 2015)

Andres said:


> Psalm 2:10-12
> 
> 10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
> Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
> ...



Curious how does one defend oneself as being not a theonomist if one holds to what we believe as described in Psalm 2:10-12? I find this charge is so easially thrown out when discussions ensue on how the duty of the state does not change even if they (the state) are not believers in Jesus.


----------



## timfost (May 18, 2015)

The separation between church and state, I believe, means church is not to be over state and state not over church as they have different functions. However, the church should work with the state because the same law of God applies to both.


----------



## Andres (May 18, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > Psalm 2:10-12
> ...



To quote the ever wise Rev Mark Koller: "I'm a Covenanter, not a theonomist". [emoji4]


----------



## Toasty (May 18, 2015)

earl40 said:


> I saw in Turretin's Institutes this..."Although princes may not compel any to faith or religion, nevertheless they have the duty to establish, nourish and protect the true faith. While he may not compel any, he is, however, as a caring father to admonish and encourage his subjects to the faith, and to admonish those ministers delinquent in their duty, and also through external means to ensure good order in the church."
> 
> Realizing that in that in most societies there is no recognition of the Christian religion do you think heathen leaders have the duty to do what is espoused above? Also what is the duty of Christian leaders in a democratic society, when the majority of the leaders are unbelievers?
> 
> Mods please feel free to have this moved to the appropriate forum, in that the government sub-forum was still closed this Monday morning.



Should individuals do something to try to get the civil magistrate to obey God? How would you go about trying to get the civil magistrate to obey God?


----------



## Miss Marple (May 18, 2015)

That's a question I ponder all the time. Not the first question, I am quite sure that is "yes." The second.

We have the power of the vote. We have prayer. We have evangelism, and the whole effort of the church.

But I would really like to see godly men running for office. I think we need more of that, even or especially in the smaller posts. Also, more political involvement by Christians, i.e., if you are not running, you are donating and/or volunteering.

Thus we would at least hopefully have the covering of the lesser magistrate as the greater magistrates seems to have largely staggered into sin which even very pagan nations seemed to have avoided codifying.


----------



## earl40 (May 18, 2015)

Toasty said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > I saw in Turretin's Institutes this..."Although princes may not compel any to faith or religion, nevertheless they have the duty to establish, nourish and protect the true faith. While he may not compel any, he is, however, as a caring father to admonish and encourage his subjects to the faith, and to admonish those ministers delinquent in their duty, and also through external means to ensure good order in the church."
> ...



To "get" them to do what is right and good in a democratic society we vote for leaders who are of like minded and by lobbying to have good legislation passed. That is how I go about it.


----------



## earl40 (May 18, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> Thus we would at least hopefully have the covering of the lesser magistrate as the greater magistrates seems to have largely staggered into sin which even very pagan nations seemed to have avoided codifying.



I thank the Lord for the lesser magistrates because by and large there appears to be many more Godly people, percentage wise, there than those who who occupy higher positions.


----------



## Peairtach (May 18, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > Psalm 2:10-12
> ...



The judicial laws of Moses were tailored for an underage Church, to teach them about God's kingdom by means of an earthly kingdom. We can learn certain lessons from them for church and state that are appropriate to the New Testament situation. It doesn't sound as if Turretin was a theonomist.



> Realizing that in that in most societies where there is little or no recognition of the Christian religion do you think heathen leaders have the duty to do what is espoused above?



Their first duty is to be converted, but whether or not they are converted, they have a duty as civil magistrates to rule according to God's Word. 

This is complicated in that some societies and governments are more Christianised than others, and politics is the art of the possible especially in democracies.

The more godly a society becomes, and the more the Reformed faith is in the ascendant, the more the Establishment principle "kicks in", but in the meanwhile we don't abandon the ideal, and seek to follow it in totally unideal circumstances. Christ is still King of kings and Lord of lords even when the majority don't acknowledge that.



> Also what is the duty of Christian leaders in a democratic society, when the majority of the leaders are unbelievers?


They've just got to try their best by God's grace to follow God's will, as did e.g. Obadiah under Ahab and Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and Darius.


----------



## Conner (May 18, 2015)

III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7]
WCF 23:3


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > Psalm 2:10-12
> ...



Theocratic, to be sure. But theonomy, particularly in the Bahnsenian sense, is about specific exegesis, and is usually hostile to natural law (which Turretin championed).


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 18, 2015)

Earl:

Theonomy is a hermeneutical problem, in the first instance, that fails to understand the proper discontinuity that pertains between the Old and New Testaments, particularly the expiration of the judicial law with Israel as a State, except insofar as general equity may require (WCF 19.4; most theonomists agree that the ceremonial law is fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding). This is the position of the Westminster Standards.

However, it is also the case that the Standards are (in their original forms) establishmentarian. Thus they are establishmentarian, but not theonomic. And their establishmentarianism is both anti-episcopal and anti-Erastian. The anti-Erastianism becomes clearer in the Scottish context (as does its anti-episcopacy), especially in the Second Book of Discipline (1578), which contains a beautiful polemic for the spiritual independency of the church. Many in the American context (think Stuart Robinson) felt that the proper development of that doctrine expressed itself in the sort of separation of church and state that obtained on these shores. Others disagreed, and even when coming out of a vitiated establishment, as did the Free Church in the Disruption of 1843, did so on establishment principles.

Much more could be said about all of this, but it is quite important to distinguish between historic establishmentarianism and theonomy. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (May 18, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Earl:
> 
> Theonomy is a hermeneutical problem, in the first instance, that fails to understand the proper discontinuity that pertains between the Old and New Testaments, particularly the expiration of the judicial law with Israel as a State, except insofar as general equity may require (WCF 19.4; most theonomists agree that the ceremonial law is fulfilled in Christ and no longer binding). This is the position of the Westminster Standards.
> 
> ...



I see where the establishmentarian is pronounced within our confessions and realize that the form of government in the USA falls outside what that ideal is, especially since the majority appear to have an unchristian view of the world in which we live in today. The reason I asked my question is I, in no way, want to fall within the theonomy camp for exactly the reasons you mention, and understand that GE is a good thing (gracious) and can probably apply to even our form of government in that natural law and the duty of the governmental officials stands even outside of establishmentarianism. Now of course I also do not want to excuse the duty of the pagan ruler to rule as a believer also, for all have the duty to be conformed into His likeness to which I am humbly forever grateful for being on His side by grace. 

Thank you Alan. I can see the resources you mentioned would be a great read and Lord willing I may one day look into. PS. I enjoyed your article on Edwards view on the Lord's supper in contrast with Stoddards.


----------



## MW (May 18, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Realizing that in that in most societies where there is little or no recognition of the Christian religion do you think heathen leaders have the duty to do what is espoused above?



This is precisely what they are doing. Consider the source of morality. Consider the penal system. Consider the imposing of an oath. Consider the institution of marriage. Consider the regulation of days for operating businesses. Consider the system of taxation. Consider the property laws. Consider the religious principles required to maintain a toleration of different religions. The civil government is constantly enforcing an established religion upon the people. The question is whether they are godly, wise, just, and beneficent in so doing.


----------



## earl40 (May 19, 2015)

MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Realizing that in that in most societies where there is little or no recognition of the Christian religion do you think heathen leaders have the duty to do what is espoused above?
> ...



Indeed the duty remains even if they do not perform it in a godly, wise, or just way, and I pray The Lord sends us men who will point us all to Himself in an explicite Jesus honoring way as I believe He did in the past.


----------



## TylerRay (May 19, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Andres said:
> ...



I would take issue with both the terms "theonomy" and "theocracy." The Reformed have usually referred to the unique situation of the Hebrew Republic as theocracy. The New Testament establishment of religion is very different than having a _jus divinum_ civil polity, i. e., a theocracy. It is also very different than carrying over the the judicial law code of that ancient theocracy, i. e., theonomy.


----------



## TylerRay (May 19, 2015)

Andres said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Andres said:
> ...



For what it's worth, I wouldn't call my position a Covenanter one any more than a theonomist or theocrat one.

I describe my opinion regarding establishment of religion as classical, two-kingdom, establishmentarianism. I like to call it the Twa-Kingdoms view, per Andrew Melville:



> And thairfor Sir, as divers tymes befor, sa now again, I mon tell yow, thair is twa Kings and twa Kingdomes in Scotland. Thair is Chryst Jesus the King, and his Kingdome the Kirk, whase subject King James the Saxt is, and of whose kingdome nocht a king, nor a lord, nor a heid, bot a member! And they whome Chryst hes callit and commandit to watch over his Kirk, and govern his spirituall kingdome, hes sufficient powar of him, and authoritie sa to do, bathe togidder and severalie; the quhilk na Christian King or Prince sould control and discharge, but fortifie and assist, utherwayes nocht fathfull subjects nor members of Chryst.



The other "king in Scotland" would be James, of course, who rules over a separate kingdom (i. e., Scotland) than that of Christ as Mediator. He rules it under his Creator, and has moral responsibilities to protect the Church of Jesus Christ and suppress false religion and other breaches of the moral law.


----------



## R Harris (May 19, 2015)

Wh


MW said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Realizing that in that in most societies where there is little or no recognition of the Christian religion do you think heathen leaders have the duty to do what is espoused above?
> ...



Correct. All politics at its very nature is religious; religion and politics are inseparable.
As you indicate, the only question is which religion is followed.

Currently, the official religion of the United States government is secular humanism.


----------



## earl40 (May 20, 2015)

R Harris said:


> Wh
> 
> 
> MW said:
> ...



My question would be did the USA ever have a goverenment that reconized The Son...explicitly? If not did they have the duty to do such? I believe yes they did have the duty, but did not in reality because they protected the right for man to pursue happiness at the expence of true faith. In my most humble opinion the battle was lost then and it took but a couple of hundred years to see the natural outflow of a generic god and that foundation which fruit is now seen as was espoused in the declaration of independence. Is not hindsight of God's past historical providence interesting?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 20, 2015)

Earl:

Answering here as I did above (as a historian), I would note that we can observe significant difficulties historically both with nations that were establishmentarian and those that were not. Not only have the continental churches that were historically established not done well, but even the church in Scotland that wished to maintain both the establishment and sound doctrine found itself forced to come out of the establishment, though, as noted above, on establishment principles.

All this is to say, I believe, that if one wishes to argue for establishment, one must do so on biblical grounds and not by making a historical appeal. The historical appeal, no matter how much many would wish wish otherwise, does not support the claim that establishment is preferable to something like American ecclesiastical voluntaryism. In fact, the argument has tended to go the other way, from before Tocqueville to the 20th century--that the voluntary experiment on these shores has produced a healthier church and society--and it is only in more recent decades that historians and sociologists have called that into question.

I am not debating the issue here, which is an exceedingly complex one (one of the most complex that the heirs of the Reformation confront); rather, I am only pointing out that its too easy in the obvious societal unraveling that we witness to point the finger at a voluntary church when lands that had establishment arguably unraveled earlier. I recognize that many will say "Well it wasn't a proper establishment." Perhaps. In any case, we should not think that we can fathom God's providential working in the past more than is warranted. 

If America has come apart because of disestablishmentarianism, why did an established church in Europe (including Scotland) not better protect those lands? The argument for establishment cannot properly be made by saying "look at our history." It has to be a biblical argument. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## R Harris (May 20, 2015)

earl40 said:


> My question would be did the USA ever have a goverenment that reconized The Son...explicitly? If not did they have the duty to do such? I believe yes they did have the duty, but did not in reality because they protected the right for man to pursue happiness at the expence of true faith. In my most humble opinion the battle was lost then and it took but a couple of hundred years to see the natural outflow of a generic god and that foundation which fruit is now seen as was espoused in the declaration of independence. Is not hindsight of God's past historical providence interesting?



You are correct; no official _federal_ document of the U.S. explicitly recognizes Jesus Christ as the Supreme Governor of the universe. That is why the National Reform Association was founded in 1863 with representation from 11 different denominations, all who plainly recognized that fact, in opposition to David Barton, John Eidsmoe, DeMar, and several others who fall all over themselves trying to prove that the founders were as godly as the Apostles, which simply isn't true, and the neglect of specifically naming Christ or endorsing the Christian faith is prime example number 1. The Puritan colonies recognized Christ; why couldn't they in the new national charter, the U.S. Constitution?


----------



## Toasty (May 20, 2015)

R Harris said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > My question would be did the USA ever have a goverenment that reconized The Son...explicitly? If not did they have the duty to do such? I believe yes they did have the duty, but did not in reality because they protected the right for man to pursue happiness at the expence of true faith. In my most humble opinion the battle was lost then and it took but a couple of hundred years to see the natural outflow of a generic god and that foundation which fruit is now seen as was espoused in the declaration of independence. Is not hindsight of God's past historical providence interesting?
> ...



I would like to add that Eidsmoe, in one of his books, compiled a list of the Founding Fathers along with their denominational affiliations. Just because someone is affiliated with a Christian denomination does not mean that he is godly.


----------



## earl40 (May 20, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Earl:
> 
> Answering here as I did above (as a historian), I would note that we can observe significant difficulties historically both with nations that were establishmentarian and those that were not. Not only have the continental churches that were historically established not done well, but even the church in Scotland that wished to maintain both the establishment and sound doctrine found itself forced to come out of the establishment, though, as noted above, on establishment principles.
> 
> ...



Of course I agree with what you wrote though no matter what caused the fall of establishmentarian (which was according to God's proper will). I think that the concept of what our standards do indeed teach (establishmentarianism) as being true, and the revision did little to changing the original intent of what the duty of the magistrate is. So far as my example of what has happened to us historically I can say without reservation that the establishment of the right to practice false religion is what allowed the fall of what is good and true in our society and not being the historian on the Scottish situation and how that panned out I shall demure to your expertise which I appreciate so much. In saying what I do I really do hold to GE and that principle strongly, and in doing so the magistrate still has the duty to work toward a God pleasing governing establishment.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 20, 2015)

Another resource that is worthwhile on this subject is American Covenanter James M. Willson's work Bible Magistracy: Christ's Dominion Over the Nations.

Willson does a good job of laying out the position in clear, unambiguous terms. 

This book also includes a critique of the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## MW (May 20, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> The argument for establishment cannot properly be made by saying "look at our history." It has to be a biblical argument.



We can only wonder what the Bible would look like in an alternate universe where the circa sacra principle had never been accepted.

Also, if the biblical principle of establishment had not been ingrained in the fabric of American thought prior to the sewing together of a voluntary system, it is likely the system would have unravelled long before now. An anti-Christian socialist totalitarianism would have filled the vacuum.


----------



## earl40 (May 21, 2015)

MW said:


> Alan D. Strange said:
> 
> 
> > The argument for establishment cannot properly be made by saying "look at our history." It has to be a biblical argument.
> ...



So In other words, we can look to history to see why a fall (or rise) of any form of govermant can be from either good or bad actions of men? Also the "anti-Christian socialist totalitarianism" that we see now is a result of a view of history and the base it was founded on as being built on sinking sand. 

Alan just a quick question....Do you think the framers of the WCF voiced their views of establishmentarianism based on scriture and can we not see the results of the failure to continue the work of establishing establishmentarianism? I ask because did the Scotts give up on this part of confession based on biblical priciples and if so what exacly was that priciple that took over?

PS. This is indeed a deep area and your question as to "why did an established church in Europe (including Scotland) not better protect those lands?" .....the answer may be they abandoned the biblical principles of establishmentarianism as defined in our confessions. Alan I thank you for our contributions and I realize you did not ask the above but was simply making a point by phrasing this question. 

Blessings


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 21, 2015)

Earl:

The Scots did not give up on this part of the confession. Where the American Presbyterian Church, from the time of the Adopting Act of 1729, embraced a view that laid the groundwork for the institutional separation of church and state, the several branches of the Scottish church continued to espouse establishmentarianism, including the Free Church in principle at and after the 1843 Disruption. 

My point is this: we cannot look to history and say "Here we see that the voluntary principle in our doctrine of the church ruined the American state and establishmentarianism saved the Scottish (or some continental) state." In fact, the American state retained some sort of general Christian patina and allegiance far longer than Europe. In other words, the fuller effects of the Aufklärung, including the secularization of the state, came to bear much earlier and more fully in a host of lands that had some form of an established church than it did in America, which did not have an established church.

Part of my caution here, and I think that it is borne out in various ways historically, is to be careful that we not say "if we have this or that form of things, that is what will secure our spiritual welfare; that we lack such explains our spiritual impoverishment." History does not bear out that an established church, even one that is for a time generally sound, secures the Christian faith in a land. My whole point here was that this cannot be solved by an appeal to history. The history does not bear out that an established church will "save our state." Nothing replaces the need for all of us in every generation to trust in Christ alone and to obey Him as those called to follow Him. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## R Harris (May 21, 2015)

In the WCF, what is the Scripture proof that they primarily relied upon in Chapter 23:3? Isaiah 49:23, which says:

"Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. With their faces to the ground they shall bow down to you, and lick the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am the LORD; those who wait for me shall not be put to shame."

Who is the "your" and the "you" in this verse? Zion (the Church), from verse 14.

For those who think this is not applicable to the current new covenant, gospel age, Paul quotes 49:6 in Acts 13:47, and verse 8 in 2 Cor. 6:2. If Paul clearly tells us that verses 6 and 8 were applicable when he wrote and still would be now, why would verse 23 not be also?

So the State is explicitly commanded here and in other passages to promote the peace, prosperity, and advancement of the Church. If the State doesn't, it will eventually perish (Psalm 2:10-12, mentioned in a previous post; and Isaiah 60:12).


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 21, 2015)

Randy,
We don't have kings and queens, explicitly.

Or to ask the question that is left assumed as seeming obvious by your post: _*Who are the "kings" and "queens" in this verse?*_ (Is.49:23)

And again, is this verse a promise, or a dictate? Those are very different things; and given how reluctant God was to give OT Israel a human king according to their wishes, it is a reasonable question to ask whether man should promote him K&Qs in order to "obtain" by work what is offered by promise.

I can make a quick "leap to application," and hastily define K&Qs as "Supreme rulers and/or administrators of different kinds, lands, and times; covering every conceivable form of institutional government."

May K&Qs be conceived for application in other than "political" terms? I certainly think so. The whole notion of the verse has to do with patronage and protection, things usually associated with power and money (in this-world calculus), and which were _epitomized_ in the ancient world by K&Q at the apex of aristocracy.

I think aristocracy of some kind is almost an inescapable concept in social terms. Both anti-aristocratic USA and (defunct) USSR have/had aristocracies with other names. But being aristocratic doesn't instantly transfer into political order and political power.

We have, in various forms, and not necessarily in the government, these K&Qs at present. Some magistrates are even in such position to fulfill such promises toward the church. This is true, even apart from a law, constitution, or policy from on high.

Furthermore, it can be argued that the modern democratic nation-State _qua_ is a dismal and irreformable form of governance precisely because it has no K&Qs. In other words, it just so happens that those in the USA live in delusion both of radical freedom and radical rational governance (via a paper Constitution).

The church in these territories dwelt +200yrs ago in a midst of a huge social experiment, one aspect of which was radical decentralization of power. Re-centralization began almost immediately, but even now has not been finalized.

In the USA there are "institutional caretakers" who manage things for a while, often seeking their personal advantage until their limits have run out. Believing in this sort of system as that which will "take care" of the church, and lodging hope in "the Paradigm," "We, the People," or "the Paper (constitution)" is NOT what this verse promises.

This verse promises _*personal*_ protection, by particularly endowed human beings, to supply worldly protection for the church in a variety of circumstances. It is a tremendous blessing when such persons have the maximum power afforded. Such persons actually OWE Christ their allegiance, whether they acknowledge it or not.

An official (paper) commitment to the Christian religion and Establishment--of particular denomination/s or more broad--as the concept is variously conceived and implemented; whether it is certain and general help to the church across time and generation (as opposed to personal and time/place specific) seems open to judgment.


----------



## R Harris (May 21, 2015)

Well, when we look at WCF Chapter 23, what is this titled? Concerning the _civil magistrate_. So there is no doubt in my mind that the _rulers_ of a nation, whatever particular form of government that may take, is who the Westminster Assembly was referring to. Hence, they regarded Isaiah 49:23 as addressing the civil magistrate rulers and the government itself, regardless of how it is chartered (monarchy, parliamentary, republic, etc).

But looking at WCF Chapter 23:3 (the original, not US version), they obviously had a more active and aggressive view of what Isaiah 49:23 and other passages were conveying than just mere protection of the Church. I think the governments in the late 17th and early 18th centuries where reformers had the majority influence bear that out.


----------



## earl40 (May 21, 2015)

On the OP I asked..."Realizing that in that in most societies where there is little or no recognition of the Christian religion do you think heathen leaders have the duty to do what is espoused above?" And as usual Bruce gives and excellent answer with great insight. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> This verse promises _*personal*_ protection, by particularly endowed human beings, to supply worldly protection for the church in a variety of circumstances. It is a tremendous blessing when such persons have the maximum power afforded. Such persons actually OWE Christ their allegiance, whether they acknowledge it or not.


----------



## earl40 (May 21, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> The history does not bear out that an established church will "save our state." Nothing replaces the need for all of us in every generation to trust in Christ alone and to obey Him as those called to follow Him.



I agree that an established church would not save our state but in reality I believe if you were king the state would be doing a better job at running this country than our kings today, and of course you would protect the Christian church (as defined even in the revision) and its pastors to do their job in saving the people because of the commission they were given, which is different than the commission the state was given.

Was there ever a King Alan in history?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 21, 2015)

Randy,
You very sensibly appealed to Scripture to support your position. And you asked a hermeneutical question as it pertains to the meaning of the verse, and made application from it.

And, as I pointed out, there were other important questions left unasked. On the one hand, we are (correctly, in my opinion) to understand the verse to be directed at the church regardless of the age; so the promise is unto the blessing of the church. This recognition, however, requires first: an awareness of the original audience, the real and conceptual gap between them and us, and the ties that bind. And second: understanding the application to our NT circumstances, i.e. how expressions couched in national and political language and directed toward a unique ethnic/earthly group, are referenced to a modern transnational spiritual entity.

The church is the sentence-Object. On the other hand, the way you presented the verse required a _*literalist*_ interpretation of half the significant terms of the text. The sentence-Subject is? "Kings" and "queens" you gave us to understand in the most political and legal ways; with this important qualifier: lacking actual K&Qs, we are given the unargued "leap to application" (not treated as such) that presumes the fitness of assigning those terms to any figure we suppose is sufficiently connected to any political system, by which they wield some measure of authority.

It seems to me this is a half-and-half hermeneutic. At least in the 17thC UK, they had a monarchy. It's a whole lot easier to make a one-for-one relation between the promise in OT terms, and a political situation 2300yrs later that bears superficial similarity in expression; than it is 350yrs later still, in a place that disavows monarchy.

As I pointed out, the _function_ of these (OT) personages is their patronage and protection. In the ancient world the highest earthly powers were K&Qs; but they represented a widespread, transnational social order that employed patronage and protection on multiple levels. Therefore, I argue that the verse _in its original context_ implies far more than protection merely by the supreme leader. The last, highest _political_ expression of powerful aids incorporates the whole system.

So, the promise of the prophet was that the church should have for its helper in future days, by the grace of God, earthly help that could rise even unto the highest estate. When the church is given respect--hopefully by _believing_ authorities, but helpfully by any authorities--this promise is fulfilled. It is fulfilled, today, with or without Establishments.


The mere fact that the WCF23 (original or amended) expresses faith in divine promise (by appeal to Scripture proof), as pointing to the way things ought to be, does not create an imperative out of the indicative. That is a matter of applying the text, or attending to the many places in Scripture where kings etc. may be instructed.

We can agree that kings, and others like them within their dominions, or found in other political or economic (or other) structures, should succor the church. Least of all ought they oppose the church's mission. Nor do I think it is really possible for officials to be quite neutral. Though, I think it is a noble aim to be impartial--which is a natural principle of equity also enshrined in the Bible. How could it be otherwise?

I can't agree that the original divines conceived their terms for Confession needed also to apply unaccommodated to ANY charter. This was an historical document, even more so than Scripture is. And yes, I think it was a reasonable (if facile) connection to think of their own K&Qs (being a system of government) as exactly fulfilling the express language of Is.49:23. Which is a condition that in the American situation (no matter which church or party) has then to be further applied to altered contemporary context.

Our Westminster divines maintained a very paternalistic view of their Head of State, and his officers as nervous extensions of a Body Politic. Frankly, the system as put in place on this side Atlantic lost in the past two centuries bulwarks for the preservation of the USA Body Politic, originally adorned with a mere presidential "figurehead." For a long time now, the rulers have not let the figurehead sit relatively mute, but have made a sock-puppet of it. This land is coming to the place where it will likely have paternalist Heads (monstrous, cacophonic) like it or not. A new unitary State has risen up, an Empire. Which is as Beastly as any risen up before it; possibly worse for that those who manipulate its force hide behind its intentional *impersonalism*.

We can confess whatever we will about how every secular government ought to be, and to act. What we say in any case should be biblical. But we preach to persons, to individuals. We don't preach to a hydra-headed "government." We don't preach from the text of a Constitution, whether it acknowledges Christ or not. If we had other circumstances than the ones we actually have, perhaps we should then call the officials who sat under our ministry to live up to their oaths and allegiances (made to Christ?).

Shall countless millions of Americans wave the WCF (original or amended) under the noses, figuratively speaking, of our D.C. masters; and all its officers sent thither to eat out our substance? Why? For what? And who are these millions? It is a fantasy, to envision the handful of Christians in this country--and the even smaller number of Reformed believers--thinking that if we "positively confess" that kings shall suppress blasphemies and heresies therefore we shall have it. Name it and claim it?

Let's preach the gospel of Christ; and maybe in another century or two our great-great grandchildren may find it convenient to live in a time and place where their kings and queens and civil magistrates support and defend the church according to their stations. We are called upon to live now, maintaining our present station, bearing our cross.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 21, 2015)

I think to desire ungodly men to magistrate the land is unholy. I think to desire godly men to magistrate the land is holy. I think the preaching of the gospel is how God declares His salvation and is how faith is given by the Holy Spirit (Romans 10). Christ is king and to desire anything else is unholy. To desire the State (the individuals of the State) to be separated from living a holy life, as God declared 'be holy for I am holy', is to deny the work of God in His preaching and working out of His salvation (of course I say this in human terms because God is never denied but people are rebellious and in spite of our rebelliousness God will do as He pleases).


----------



## MW (May 21, 2015)

earl40 said:


> So In other words, we can look to history to see why a fall (or rise) of any form of govermant can be from either good or bad actions of men? Also the "anti-Christian socialist totalitarianism" that we see now is a result of a view of history and the base it was founded on as being built on sinking sand.



Yes. Without the circa sacra principle, there would not be a Westminster Confession to revise; not to mention that the "reformed churches" would have lacked the historical identity they now enjoy. The working ideal of toleration and private judgment could not have emerged without the operation of the circa sacra principle. Remove this socially coherent principle of Christianity from the public square and we will be back to the days when a divine concept of human authority is needed to enforce conscience and obedience. We already see the attribution of divine properties to socialist agendas.


----------



## earl40 (May 22, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The mere fact that the WCF23 (original or amended) expresses faith in divine promise (by appeal to Scripture proof), as pointing to the way things ought to be, does not create an imperative out of the indicative. That is a matter of applying the text, or attending to the many places in Scripture where kings etc. may be instructed.



Thank you Rev. Bruce. The above line sums up my OP questions. From my viewpoint our society obviously has strayed from what we ought not to do, and an example is how many Christians fight for the right of false religions to practice the false religion they espouse. If a devil worshiper wants to sacrafice chickens to satan our leaddrs ought not to allow this but until we have a leader or leaders to enforce such we will bear the cross and suffer for the sin they commit.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 22, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Was there ever a King Alan in history?



I sure hope not! Pity his subjects if there were such a king. 

Perhaps I should ask my wife this. She might say something like, "Only in his mind!"

Peace,
Alan


----------



## py3ak (May 22, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Was there ever a King Alan in history?
> ...



You're forgetting about the king(s) of Brittany! E.g., Alan (or Alain) who ruled in the 500s and Alain le Grand (d.907).


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 22, 2015)

Ruben:

Yes, yes there were those rulers of Brittany (the Alains of the 6th and 10th centuries), but they had that French form. If we're are to talk about that form ("Alain"), I prefer Marie-Claire Alain!

And I am surprised that Zuelch has not said, "I don't know about King Alan, but what about Alan King?"

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40 (May 22, 2015)

Being my birthplace is Roswell New Mexico my wife says I am The King Alien.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 22, 2015)

As you can imagine, I've had countless remarks (and attempts at humor) with respect to my last name all my life. I hardly ever hear anything original or genuinely funny, which is why a grade school wag's paranomasia remains memorable: (going for both names and linking them!): "Alien Strange."

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Peairtach (May 22, 2015)

There was a whole nation of Alans in the Caucasus at one time.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------

