# Heidelcast May 2, 2010 Jason Stellman on the FV, PNW, Relevance, and the 2K



## R. Scott Clark (May 2, 2010)

Joining me on the Heidelcast this week is my good friend the Rev. Mr Jason Stellman, pastor of Exile Presbyterian Church (PCA) in the Seattle metro. Jason is author of Dual Citizens: Worship and Life Between the Already and Not Yet and proprietor of the widely read blog creedcodecult.com

Jason Stellman on “Relevance” and the Two Kingdoms


----------



## Scott1 (May 3, 2010)

If the topic of the radio broadcast is appropriate for another forum, please move this.

My post here is not on the 'federal vision' part of the interview, but the latter part which seems to be about "two kingdoms."

Realizing this area seems to have a life of its own, and its own terminology (e.g. "R2K" and "2k"), it might be helpful to have a bit more understanding of this so it could benefit a wider audience.

When listening to the discussion, which appears to be interrupted mid way, Mr. Stellman has been talking about what "two kingdoms" means as opposed to theocracy and theonomy. I'm not sure many would see those clearly in contrast to one another, but it seems the way two kingdoms is discussed:

It almost sounds like Christians are not in any sense "extending the Kingdom of God" to anything outside of the visible church. As if we are only to suffer and learn our lessons here in humiliation while awaiting our Lord's Return. Granted, suffering and humiliation are part of dying to sin, glorifying God, things He uses to work other things, etc.

But is R2K being taken to mean:

1) No speaking out of the church on moral issues (e.g. abortion)
2) Not trying to change culture and laws toward what is more pleasing to God (knowing it will not be completed until He comes)

I've always thought of reformed theology as embodying a notion of "separatism" in the sense of from sin, and being absorbed by the sinful process of this world, but yet tilting toward TRANSFORMATION, in the sense of the kingdoms of this world becoming the kingdom of our God, now and forever.

That is, that Christians are involved in every sphere of life, and God using them in many ways to change things toward redemption, for His Honor and His Glory.

I'm probably not getting the full scope of the discussion here, and am not arguing the point, only trying to understand how this is being presented.

It obviously is a passionate issue, maybe we can shed some light, not heat on it here.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 3, 2010)

Scott,

Try the download/feed/itunes feed again.

We spent a good bit of time discussing the very issue of whether the Lordship of Christ pertains to every square inch and how it does so. I asked him that exact question. You should hear his answer.


----------



## Scott1 (May 3, 2010)

Actually, I did listen through to where the discussion cuts off at 44:21.

It is beginning about 23:30, that part.

Listening again, it almost sounds like the "redemptive" part of the kingdom does not extend redemption or God's Kingdom to any other "realm" at all.

I'm not sure we would call it theocracy to believe the redemptive aspect has effect on everything, including the culture.

And it would seem better to describe Mr. Calvin's practice and effect around Geneva as having a practical effect, at least, of changing it, toward the better. 

It's almost as if this implies we don't expect common grace or Christian influence to do anything out of the immediate bounds of the church.

Perhaps I'm not understanding this part of the discussion... but that's how it sounds.


----------



## mvdm (May 3, 2010)

Scott: 

Your hearing is just fine. As you surmised, the interview does not adequately address the points you raise in your first post. What the interview does demonstrate, however, is that:

1. R2k proponents either do not listen very well to their critics or they are being willfully obtuse. 

2. A Q&A session between two persons who hold the same theology cannot satisfactorily elucidate whether their shared theology is "radical".


----------



## Scott1 (May 3, 2010)

Mark,

Just for information for the many trying to understand this.

I notice you are in the same denomination, a good one, as Mr. Clark.

Do you have a sense about what is the predominate view in the denomination?


----------



## mvdm (May 3, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Mark,
> 
> Just for information for the many trying to understand this.
> 
> ...


 
Without burdening you with geographic breakdowns, in the main I do not believe that Dr. Clark's R2k is the predominant one in our federation. I believe the federation has a balance Reformed worldview of grace reforming nature, special revelation as normative for the civil realm, and the church's role in proclaiming the full counsel of God to all men, including the magistrate.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 4, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Actually, I did listen through to where the discussion cuts off at 44:21.
> 
> It is beginning about 23:30, that part.
> 
> ...


 
Scott,

1. We discussed Ursinus' distinction between the KOG defined broadly, which includes everything and the KOG defined narrowly which is manifested institutionally in the church.

There's a HC broadcast on this topic here:

http://heidelblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/heidelcast-14-feb-2010.mp3

I found Ursinus' discussion very helpful. 

2. A lot of this discussion comes down to definitions. If the KOG is defined as God's eschatological rule and reign then we're speaking in Ursinus' broad category (under HC Q. 123). If, however, we're talking about God's redemptive activity in the world, then we're talking about the manifestation of the KOG in the church, or the KOG in the narrow sense. 

Strictly speaking, only humans are sinners and only they need to be "redeemed." I don't know off the top of my head where Scripture speaks of us "redeeming" anything and I think only sinners are redeemed.

If everything is under Christ's lordship/dominion under his general providence, i.e., the KOG broadly considered, then nothing needs to be "redeemed" since it is already under his dominion. 

We could ask whether everything needs to acknowledge his dominion. Sure, everything and everyone should but is that "redeeming" (being purchased by Christ's obedience and death)? No, not really. 

You should read Dave VanDrunen's latest book on before you make up your mind about the two kingdoms analysis. 

I've posted a lot of resources on this topic:

New on the WHI: VanDrunen on the Two Kingdoms 

Natural Law and Two Kingdoms in Stereo (Updated) 

Once More: Resources on the Two Kingdoms 

There's no question whether Christians and the Christian faith makes a difference in society. That's not in doubt. The question is what the institutional church as such ought to do, what it's primary vocation is.


----------



## Scott1 (May 4, 2010)

Thanks very much, Dr. Clark.

A few thoughts about how this sounds are below:



> *R. Scott Clark*
> 1. We discussed Ursinus' distinction between the KOG defined broadly, which includes everything and the KOG defined narrowly which is manifested institutionally in the church.
> ....
> 
> ...



Yes, believers don't actually redeem, but God doesn't God use them by them applying His Word and His ways in all situations and circumstances He appoints for them?



> If everything is under Christ's lordship/dominion under his general providence, i.e., the KOG broadly considered, then nothing needs to be "redeemed" since it is already under his dominion.



Isn't there an "already but not yet" aspect to this- redemption goes all the way future to the point, in the future when we receive glorified bodies... and when Christ (future) returns as judge?



> We could ask whether everything needs to acknowledge his dominion. Sure, everything and everyone should but is that "redeeming" (being purchased by Christ's obedience and death)? No, not really.



But doesn't Christ, in a sense, make all good that happens to all men, at all times possible?



> You should read Dave VanDrunen's latest book on before you make up your mind about the two kingdoms analysis.
> 
> I've posted a lot of resources on this topic:
> 
> ...


Thanks for the resources.




> There's no question whether Christians and the Christian faith makes a difference in society. That's not in doubt. The question is what the institutional church as such ought to do, what it's primary vocation is.



Isn't it an ordinary incident of the lives of Christians to be used of God to bring redemption, and in that sense extend the Kingdom of God, everywhere they go.... even outside the bounds of the visible church?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 4, 2010)

Scott,

One of my concerns about the broader use of "redeem" is that it isn't biblical. Indeed, it is the way the old liberals used to use biblical language. It takes a very important biblical metaphor (i.e., buying back out of slavery) for salvation and applies it to things that don't need to be "saved." In the process it waters down the very notion of salvation by applying it indiscriminately. It's a form of allegorizing. 

Second, it's a mistake to speak about "saving" or "redeeming" things that are a part of common life. Kuyper had two aspects to his program, to identify that which was "common" (_Gemene_) and that which is not (i.e., the antithesis between belief and unbelief). The latter exists at the epistemic level. Christians and non-Christians don't interpret the world in the same way. The heavens declare the glory of God. We see that. We acknowledge that but the pagan seeks to suppress that truth in unbelief. Nevertheless, we do have things in common. This is the supposition of Belgic Art 35 when it speaks of common food. There is genuine commonality. If we deny that we run the risk of gnostic dualism. This is where the language of "redeeming x" is problematic. It seems to imply an ontological problem where there is and can be none. If you'll check out the links to the HB where I've discussed this at length you'll see that I like to talk about plumbing. That is an activity that is the same whether it is done by Christians or non-Christians. We don't need to "redeem" plumbing. Christian plumbers need to fulfill their honorable vocations before God according to his Word to his glory but they don't need to "take back" plumbing. It's part of God's general providence. Any good plumber can tell you the basic laws of physics that apply to plumbing. Any plumber who defies those laws will discover it doesn't work or pay! The work of the Christian and non-Christian plumber will, if they are both skilled, be largely indistinguishable. There's nothing "sinful" about plumbing such that it needs to be "redeemed." The plumber needs to be redeemed, if he has not repented and trusted the Savior.

A third reason this way of speaking is problematic is that it seeks to make the faith significant through cultural transformation. Again, I see no evidence of any program of cultural transformation in the NT. The only cultural transformation I see under Moses and David is holy war against unbelief. In the NT, that holy war is transformed into the great commission but that is a churchly ministry of the preaching of the gospel, the administration of sacraments, and the administration of discipline. 

Christians must live as Christians, according to God's abiding moral law, in every sphere of life, whether ecclesiastical or in their daily vocation. The question is not the sovereignty of God but sphere in which one lives. Whether we speak of 2 kingdoms (as that radical John Calvin did) or two spheres (borrowing from Kuyper) we have to distinguish how God's sovereignty and kingdom apply.

I am always a citizen of the kingdom but just because I'm plumbing doesn't make my plumbing kingdom labor, not in the narrow sense. When I travel abroad I am an American and informally a representative of the USA but I am not an ambassador and my being abroad doesn't make where ever I am "America." There are, however, designated spaces of American national sovereignty where I am: the American Embassy/consulate. The visible church is like those embassies. They are official representations of the KOG (narrowly defined) in foreign territory. We are always citizens of heaven (Phil 3:20) but we are not in heaven now.


----------



## TimV (May 4, 2010)

> It seems to imply an ontological problem where there is and can be none.



Every time a Christian pulls a weed he is in the process of bringing back fallen nature into it's pristine state.

When the FV is countered in a way that the FV is lumped together with a theonomistic or related world view all that's achieved is to make the FV seem more attractive. I'm personally grateful for the work you've done on the FV but the last broadcast of yours I listened to (and I complimented you and thanked you for it here) you bashed theonomy. I posted the link to the broadcast on another Reformed, anti FV board and a very solid woman who had asked for resources about the FV said



> After listening to this broadcast I am very saddened by the misunderstandings among reformed Christians and truly hope and pray that the LORD will makes us like minded. For me it was as though listening to two extremes: the anti-theonomists vs. the Federal Vision crowd.



I find myself not even wanting to listen to this new one. Please accept this as constructive criticism rather than a rant!


----------



## Tim (May 4, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> > *R. Scott Clark*...Strictly speaking, only humans are sinners and only they need to be "redeemed." I don't know off the top of my head where Scripture speaks of us "redeeming" anything and I think only sinners are redeemed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, believers don't actually redeem, but God doesn't God use them by them applying His Word and His ways in all situations and circumstances He appoints for them?



I listened to this podcast and other relevant material and I can't see how this can be incorrect (i.e., I agree with Scott1's point). 



> *R. Scott Clark* Again, I see no evidence of any program of cultural transformation in the NT.



Perhaps I am missing something, but I can't see how "cultural transformation" cannot happen with Christianity. If I, a person who is part of a given culture, become a Christian and seek to order my life according to God's Word, how is culture not changing with respect to my small but real part of that culture? This links up with Scott1's point above. My thought is that cultural transformation cannot help but "spill out" of the kingdom of God/formal ecclesiastical sphere into all areas of earthly life.

My level of understanding of this issue is not as sophisticated as those who have posted above, but I hope that someone might respond to what I have written.

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

The other thing is if the church as a Biblically organized institution speaks/preaches Truth to people who, by the universal nature of the Gospel, come from _all areas of earthly life_, is the church not _in effect_ speaking to the "other kingdom", since those to whom the message is given effect the "other kingdom" as part of their worldly endeavors. 

But, on the other hand, has the proclamation by that time become "non-official"?


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (May 4, 2010)

TimV said:


> > It seems to imply an ontological problem where there is and can be none.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
_Nature_ is fallen? The physical world shares in the sufferings of the fall, but do we really want to say nature itself is fallen? And even if it is, or if we define "fallen" and "nature" in such a way as to make biblical sense of the statement, no amount of human work will bring it "back to its pristine state." That does not mean we don't improve the world and glorify God by vocational labor and work (as every R2K theologian will agree), but we don't transition into the new heavens and new earth and final glorification one weed at a time, we receive them at the consummation. Am I misunderstanding your complaints against R2K?


----------



## TimV (May 4, 2010)

> but do we really want to say nature itself is fallen?



If there was a time in history past and will be a time in the future where a lion will eat grass nature is fallen. How could it be otherwise? When God cursed the ground was that a good thing for nature? In the Garden did rhinos get anthracnose?


----------



## Scott1 (May 4, 2010)

> *R. Scott Clark*
> 
> One of my concerns about the broader use of "redeem" is that it isn't biblical. Indeed, it is the way the old liberals used to use biblical language. It takes a very important biblical metaphor (i.e., buying back out of slavery) for salvation and applies it to things that don't need to be "saved." In the process it waters down the very notion of salvation by applying it indiscriminately. It's a form of allegorizing.



I think I understand your point, we certainly don't want to allegorize redemption- it is a real thing.

But it's not as if believers are doing the redeeming, really. God alone can save, but He has also chosen to use ordinary means to accomplish that. He has chosen to use the preaching of the gospel as a way to do that. He has chosen, ordinarily, to use people in relationship to do that (accepting of course He is not limited in any way to any means).

That fact that God "redeems" people by saving them from sin can be distinguished toward bringing help, healing, and truth to dark and broken situations and circumstances. That, too, is a form of redemption. It's not that of regeneration and faith, but it is a form of redeeming that God would use to further His Kingdom, which is over everything.

As I understand it, Mr. Calvin summarized three uses of the law:

1) to point people to their need for Christ
2) to restrain evil
3) as a "mirror" of what the Christian life ought look like

It would seem to me all three of these can apply toward unbelievers. Pointing them toward Christ, say through work testimony as plumbers as you mention. Restraining evil so that all may live peaceable and godly lives- everyone benefits from this. As a mirror of life when people "love their neighbor as thyself" makes everything better for everyone.

I think of the story of a violent border town overrun by drunkenness, fighting, gambling, prostitution, idleness. A few Christians moved in, got involved, even in the local politics(!) and over time, the public drunkenness and all that went with it got cleaned up. It began to attract people, jobs were created. Someone found they could grow crops and amazingly (providentially) crops grew amazingly well, larger and healthier than anywhere else nearby.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 4, 2010)

RE: cultural transformation in the NT.

It seems to me that if this is truly not an issue, as the advocates of R2K claim, then Demetrius the silversmith and his friends in Acts 19 had nothing to rally about. Their livelihood was not in any genuine danger. The temple of Diana was in not in jeopardy. Principled pluralism was apparently the message of Paul and his companions. The merchants would surely have realized that the gospel that Paul preached was merely for the church. He never intended to transform the culture of that city.

Indeed, can’t we go to Ephesus today and marvel at the temple where Diana’s worshippers still buy little idols and worship her image?


----------



## mvdm (May 4, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> As I understand it, Mr. Calvin summarized three uses of the law:
> 
> 1) to point people to their need for Christ
> 2) to restrain evil
> 3) as a "mirror" of what the Christian life ought look like


 
I'd clarify the 3 uses of the law as:

First, to show man his sin and drive him to Christ
Second, the civil use, including the restraint of evil and promotion of good.
Third, our rule for grateful Christian living.

R2k relies heavily on the first use, de-emphasizes the third, and has little use for the second.


----------



## Scott1 (May 4, 2010)

I'll interact with how the reasoning sounds, below to follow the train of thought:



> *R. Scott Clark*
> Second, it's a mistake to speak about "saving" or "redeeming" things that are a part of common life.
> Really?
> 
> ...


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (May 4, 2010)

TimV said:


> > but do we really want to say nature itself is fallen?
> 
> 
> 
> If there was a time in history past and will be a time in the future where a lion will eat grass nature is fallen. How could it be otherwise? When God cursed the ground was that a good thing for nature? In the Garden did rhinos get anthracnose?


 
Might we not say that nature is cursed and suffers the consequences of the fall, but is not fallen? Being fallen seems to be a state satisfiable by moral agents only, and maybe animals included to a lesser extent. But do we or can we really say the weeds are "fallen" (which seems to entail, "the weeds are evil" and likewise for all other physical objects)?

Also, RE: scott, 




> I'll interact with how the reasoning sounds, below to follow the train of thought:
> 
> . . .
> 
> Yes, the plumber needs to be redeemed, to fear God, and as part of that, obey Him in every aspect of His life, including the way he does his job.



It is significant that all of your counter-examples or qualifications to prof. Clark's comments involve what human moral agents bring to a vocation, and for that reason seem to fail to discredit any R2K applications. The proponent of R2K will of course want to say non-Christians (and Christians, in fact far too often!) bring many sins to a vocation. Any task can be done with godly intentions, with godly virtues, and with godly consequences, and those can all come apart--but that says nothing about whether, say, there is a distinctly Christin way of plumbing, or whether plumbing as a possible set of actions, materials, and institutions is inherently in need of redemption in the way human wills are. Also, the R2K proponent will likely accept all your qualifications, but note (what's usually the heart of the matter), that there is a difference between what the Christian as a plumber does, and what the church as an organization does. The church doesn't send lobbyists to uphold the status of quality plumbing, but individual or separate groups of Christians might do so Monday morning. No?


----------



## jwright82 (May 4, 2010)

I think the distinction made by Dooyweerdian thought might be helpful here, note: I do not agree with everything he said but only somethings (I do not agree with their view of Scripture or the conffessions, on both those issues I affirm the orthodox reformed view). There is the creational aspect of say something like Culture, with a capital "C", and the particuler direction and development culture1 has taken, labled by "culture1". Culture as a creational aspect is good but the certian developments and direction taken, in ageneral sense, in culture1 may not be good, seculerism as a anti-religous philosophy is an example. This was the same sort of distinction that Kuyper made and Dooyweerd expanded on it (although I could be wrong about Kuyper being that I got this from a Dooyweerdian).

So plummbing is a good vocation within the creational realm but if all plumbing unions in the U.S.A. got together and decided to cheat their customer's and only hire people who agreed with them than that would be a sinful direction taken by the majority of plumbers. But that says nothing about whether or not plumbing is a good thing or not. 

So to me the question of Christ and Culture comes in at the culture1 level and not the deeper, good creational Culture level. At the culture1 level there are many different opinions on what the realtionship should be but we can all agree on the Culture level. Also Christ is Lord of both so we can rest assured His will will be done. I am a pratical theonomist but I don't see any reason why everyone should agree with me and why stronger views of the 2K aproech cannot be legitmate points of views. Except for radical theonomy, FV, and radical withdrawing from Culture completly schools of thought of course. If you ask me the Church needs all of the different opinions to function right.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 4, 2010)

TimV said:


> > It seems to imply an ontological problem where there is and can be none.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
On this logic, then, when a weed grows back is it another fall?

Have you ever dealt with Bermuda grass?


----------



## TimV (May 4, 2010)

> On this logic, then, when a weed grows back is it another fall?



Kind of like a guy who struggles with a particular sin needing to repent of it again?



> Have you ever dealt with Bermuda grass?



Yes, more than you, or anyone you know. It takes more work than digger pines or bears, but it can be beaten. I've defeated it on two different continents. Like the guy who defeats p&rn or gambling, but who doesn't assume no other guy in history will struggle with those sins.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 4, 2010)

Scott,

The plumber is not called to pray with his customer. He may, if the customer is willing, but neither that example nor the example of Demetrius is really what is in view when people say "cultural transformation." 

Responding to the example of Demetrius, it's true that there aren't any temples to Diana but there are hardly any churches in Asia Minor today! One of our grads is busy planting churches among Muslims in Turkey -- pray for him -- but his goal is not to "redeem" plumbing. 

This needs to be thought through very carefully. 

Is there any clear, biblical warrant for speaking of Christian engagement in cultural pursuits as "redeeming"? 

Are those cultural pursuits (as distinct from overtly Christian acts of worship and piety) in need of "redeeming" or "cleansing"? Are they dirty? 

If we think that they are dirty, haven't we given in to a kind of dualism that we say we reject? What happened to the goodness of creation? We're not Manicheans. We don't think the human problem is ontological, do we? 

I understand that pietist world-flight is a genuine problem but let us not make the response/reaction to world flight as bad as the problem.

Maybe there is a reason why the Protestants spoke about "vocation" and not about "redeeming" cultural or "common" pursuits (see definition of "common" above).


----------



## Scott1 (May 4, 2010)

> *CatechumenPatrick*
> 
> that there is a difference between what the Christian as a plumber does, and what the church as an organization does. The church doesn't send lobbyists to uphold the status of quality plumbing,



Of course there is a difference between what a Christian as plumber does and what the church as an organization does... I don't think that addresses anything we are talking about, though.

And yes, the church doesn't send lobbyists for better quality plumbers... it sends Christians who have a skill of plumbing.

But what is sent is not merely a skill... it is a person. A person redeemed by God with the Word of God tucked in His heart, the Holy Spirit resident in Him- what happens is not just the skill of plumbing. There is a lot more going on in that.

---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 PM ----------




R. Scott Clark said:


> Scott,
> 
> The plumber is not called to pray with his customer. He may, if the customer is willing, but neither that example nor the example of Demetrius is really what is in view when people say "cultural transformation."
> 
> ...


.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 4, 2010)

TimV said:


> > On this logic, then, when a weed grows back is it another fall?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not really. One is indwelling sin and hopefully growing in sanctification. The other, well, you know Tim. BTW, I think your illustration about pulling weeds is out there Tim. Man is redeemable and a new Creation. The creation will only be recreated. It didn't sin and doesn't need redeeming.

And another side note. Cleansing and Redeeming are not necessarily the same thing. I hope you guys take baths. Everytime someone takes a bath and cleanses are they redeeming something?


----------



## MW (May 4, 2010)

R. Scott Clark said:


> his goal is not to "redeem" plumbing.


 
I hope that his goal is to see the redemption purchased by Christ applied to men through the Spirit blessing the appointed means. According to Titus 2:14, that redemption purifies to Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Hence plumbers will be expected to produce good works in their occupation as a product of the redemption purchased by Christ. It may even be hoped that the man's zeal to do good in his occupation leads to moral reformation of business practice. At that point we may say that the redemption of Christ has produced good effects in the plumbing industry. No, the industry has not been redeemed. It is doubtful whether anyone intended to literally claim that it could. But it should be a part of the Christian minister's message that redemption produces good works and moral reformation in this world.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 4, 2010)

Amen Rev. Winzer!


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 5, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Not really. One is indwelling sin and hopefully growing in sanctification. The other, well, you know Tim. BTW, I think your illustration about pulling weeds is out there Tim. *Man is redeemable and a new Creation. The creation will only be recreated. It didn't sin and doesn't need redeeming.*
> 
> And another side note. Cleansing and Redeeming are not necessarily the same thing. I hope you guys take baths. Everytime someone takes a bath and cleanses are they redeeming something?



"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. " (Isa. 65:17, cf. Isa. 66:22; 2 Peter 2:13; Rev. 21:1)

Given such language, how can it be said that the redemption of creation is merely a “recreation” as opposed to a new creation? Both man and his surroundings will be recognizable for what they were before. Christ came to set in motion the redemption of His creation. It is not simply “on hold” until He comes again. 



> 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
> 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
> 21 *because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. *
> 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
> 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8)


While creation did not sin, creation was affected by the sin of the federal head, the first Adam, and thus is in need of redemption by the work of the last Adam. 


> No more let sin and sorrows grow,
> Nor thorns infest the ground;
> He comes to make His blessings flow
> Far as the curse is found.


----------



## mvdm (May 5, 2010)

A helpful schematic description of the "radical" in R2k:

Iron Ink :: Theocracy Simply Explained ... The "R" in R2Kt Exposed >>>


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 5, 2010)

tcalbrecht said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Not really. One is indwelling sin and hopefully growing in sanctification. The other, well, you know Tim. BTW, I think your illustration about pulling weeds is out there Tim. *Man is redeemable and a new Creation. The creation will only be recreated. It didn't sin and doesn't need redeeming.*
> ...



Okay, I don't have a lot of time here. But when I became a new creation in Christ my body was not changed nor totally destroyed and reinvented. Remember 2 Corinthians 5:17. 



> (2Co 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, *he is a new creature*: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.



Was this an annihilation of the body? I think not. What body are you suppose to be resurrected in? Well let's look at JOB. 



> (Job 19:26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:



Yes, Creation groans and hates the result of our sin. But it is still God's creation. It will be revamped and renewed. It didn't need to be redeemed. Man did. It only needs restoration. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Scott1 (May 6, 2010)

> From the link, post 29#
> Iron Ink :: Theocracy Simply Explained ... The "R" in R2Kt Exposed >>>
> 
> 
> The “radical” in Radical two Kingdom theology is found in the reality that the R2Kt folks deny that the church has any role in advising the state, or that the state has any role in protecting the church. Their vision is one where the state is responsible to God to make sure that no church, faith, or religion becomes ascendant in the culture. For the R2Kt guys God desires that His way and rule never become THE way or rule. Instead what God wants in the Radical Two Kingdom arrangement is that the state keeps all the gods, including Himself, on a level playing field. In short, God turns over His sovereignty to the state to make sure that the state does not allow Him to be God.



It does sound as if "two kingdoms" would say the church has no role advising the state, or even speaking out toward it (e.g. re abortion) 

however,

I'm not sure it is saying the state has no role protecting the church or that it is responsible "to make sure that no church, faith, or religion becomes ascendant in the culture." That implication doesn't quite seem to come out of the original post recording. 

Not to put words in either speaker's mouths here, but I get the sense from the broadcast recording above anyway, that "two kingdoms" means the church doesn't "speak out" to the government, even in cases extraordinary and that Christians don't actively get involved to influence the government (or the culture, or their vocation) for the better, because its not really "their" kingdom. 

But they might say the government must protect the church, all religions, and might favor Christianity, but on the basis of popular will. I'm not sure I have a basis for concluding this, so

Perhaps Mr. Clark will address this for us.


----------



## Tim (May 6, 2010)

Yes, please. Scott has articulated my question precisely.


----------



## mvdm (May 6, 2010)

Here's an example of the boundary line between church/state drawn by R2k:

Or Maybe He Should Have Stayed Home? 

You can find many more entries at Clark's blog which will address your questions. I'd also encourage you to read the "two kingdoms" categories at the Old Life blog of Darryl Hart, another leading carrier of R2k theology. Eye opening stuff.


----------



## Scott1 (May 6, 2010)

> *R. Scott Clark* on Heidelberg blog
> 
> 
> Or Maybe He Should Have Stayed Home?
> ...



Well, first thing, I would not think a state senator or representative is representing Caesar. 

In the Roman Empire, maybe, where the head of state was taken as a deity and later as something of head of the (Christian) church, but not at in the context spoken of here.

It's obvious (e.g. I Timothy) we are to pray for our leaders, to the end we might all (believer and nonbeliever) enjoy the benefits of a quiet and peaceable life. We all reap benefits from this, and I think that is the context here, including God's dispositive will- that even all men would come unto salvation. (We understand this in the general sense that God is pleased with people repenting, obeying Him, and glorifying His Son... not that He is unable to save, or must have man to do something to begin salvation on their own, etc.- another topic)



> 1 Timothy 2
> 
> 1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
> 
> ...



The illustration regarding the sabbath


> do we have any business doing so to open legislative sessions?


does not seem to prove the point. It seems to show the need for the opposite, e.g. Christians being involved in and influencing the process.

One reason for having Christians involved in the process is to influence all to rest and set apart the day. This benefits all men, and community in terms of rest, but also is a testimony of God and His attributes of creation and redemption. Everyone, everywhere benefits.

"Ceasing" from the pursuit of money and seeking to entertain oneself, and "setting apart" helps restrain evil (e.g. idolatry), points men to their need for Christ, and lets that fourth command be a mirror of what the Christian life ought look like (e.g. loving your neighbor by not requiring your workers to burn themselves out).

Remember, the fourth commandment applies to "the stranger in your midst"- it's not only applicable to God's people.



> Exodus 20
> 
> 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:



This all would seem to say Christians ought be all the more involved in the process, not abstain from it.


----------



## TimV (May 6, 2010)

Nathan leaves the priesthood to say Thou art the man. Then gets re-instated to preform the next sacrifice. Can't go around polishing brass on sinking ships, can we?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 6, 2010)

If folks really want to know what the historic doctrine of the 2 kingdoms has been they probably won't learn it from theocratic blogs or from hostile critics on the PB. I'm glad, however, that Mark now regards the HB as "eye-opening." 

The thing to do is to read responsible books such as Dave VanDrunen's volume on the history of the doctrine. It's really the basic text for this discussion now.

I've always said that Christians as Christians have a moral imperative to be involved in society. The church as a the visible institution established by Christ for the administration of the Word, sacraments, and discipline, has to be very careful how it speaks to social issues.

I don't think there's ever been any consensus that the church as church can _never_ speak to the state. Indeed, WCF 31:4 says,



> 4. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.



This doctrine of the assembly (and of all confessional Presbyterians) has been described as the doctrine of the "spirituality of the church." The church, as such, as an institution, is to address _ordinarily_ only those matters that are properly before it.

In extraordinary cases, when the magistrate verges on ecclesiastical territory or when the magistrate seeks to require of believers something that is contrary to conscience then the church as institution has a right to address the magistrate.

This would not include policy disagreements. Thus, both on the political/cultural right and left this distinction is routinely ignored. The mainliners complain about "liberal" issues (e.g., third-world debt relief) and the sideliners complain to the magistrate about "conservative" issues (e.g., women in the military). I'm not saying that Christians as private persons or that Christian organizations cannot speak to the magistrate about such issues but that the church as church has to be very cautious and when and where she speaks to the magistrate.

Ch 21 of the WCF (as amended by the American Presbyterians) says:


> 1. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers.
> 
> 2. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto: in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth; so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.
> 
> ...



The confession clearly permits and encourages civil involvement by Christians. I've always encouraged the formation of Christian organizations (the Dutch tend to call them "societies") to address social questions. 

Clearly, however, in this chapter there is a division of labor between 2 spheres, the spiritual and the civil. The church is not to arrogate to herself civil authority and the state is not to arrogate to herself spiritual authority.

This is the clear teaching of WCF ch. 30:



> 1. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.
> 
> 2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.



If this distinction is clearly articulated in the WCF, it can hardly be "radical"!

I'm grateful to those who are pointing PBers to the HB. I've put together some resource posts to help introduce people to these issues:

Christ and Culture Reading List (Updated) 

Once More: Resources on the Two Kingdoms 

Don't forget that the WSC faculty did a conference on this topic in January:

The audio is here:

The Bookstore at WSC: Christ, Kingdom and Culture by WSC Faculty

The videos are online and free:

Westminster Video Resources


----------



## Scott1 (May 6, 2010)

Thanks, Dr. Clark for the materials you have referenced- we all need to understand something of what these biblical theologians were saying.



> *R. Scott Clark*
> I don't think there's ever been any consensus that the church as church can never speak to the state. Indeed, WCF 31:4 says,
> 
> 4. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.
> This doctrine of the assembly (and of all confessional Presbyterians) has been described as the doctrine of the "spirituality of the church." The church, as such, as an institution, is to address ordinarily only those matters that are properly before it.



Yes, there does not seem to be biblical or "good and necessary" consequence evidence that the church can never speak authoritatively to the government. I would add to that the culture.

Not to overly parse the words here, but the clause,


> "unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by


 would seem to stand alone, that's why the semicolon- that in extraordinary cases, the church may address the government.

One would certainly think the ongoing killing of one of every three live births in our land would be one of those kinds of situations.

That it is just, good and proper for the church to speak to it, effect policy related to it, and be involved in stopping it, slowing it, and providing alternative to it, and ministering to the victims of it. But even that, not to the point of losing its primary focus, or to the extent of distracting its focus.

I think we might agree that one of the consequences of sin, its blindness, its misery, is that it takes more and more time to maintain and address the effects of. That's why the larger it becomes, the more it comes to dominate, the more time, energy and effort everyone has to spend cleaning up its horrid consequences.

Hence, I Timothy 2 tells us to pray to avoid this as much as possible, so that we might live "quiet and peaceable" lives.

So, we have an opening here...

But I don't take this summary of doctrine to mean that Christians, in voluntary organization outside of the church cannot, should not address their work, their culture or anything else to try and conform it toward God's revealed will. Knowing of course that will not be completed until He returns, and understanding that there are risks of many kinds in selecting those issues with which to respond.

There certainly is an element of truth, and even a principle here that needs to be protected in what one hears in the audio recording.

The visible church is not to be focused on anything other than the worship of our resurrected Lord and the incidents of covenant community that maintain that. That is the biblical focus and priority, through which the ordinary means of grace come, and must come, until He returns.

But even the church can, and ought speak "extraordinarily" to great and clear violations of moral law. I think that is implicit in Westminster XXXI.

And there is the broader question- what do Christians, in voluntary association with themselves, do to bring God's ways to the situations and circumstances that God ordains for them?

It seems to me they do this far beyond the realm of the Church, because God is resident in them, and has hidden His revealed will in their heart.


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 6, 2010)

R. Scott Clark said:


> The thing to do is to read responsible books such as Dave VanDrunen's volume on the history of the doctrine. It's really the basic text for this discussion now.



Not to be snarky or argumentative, but doesn’t the phrase “responsible books” overstate the case? E.g., what church council or broadly-representative Reformed body has determined that DVD’s book accurately depicts the things contained therein and is therefore worthy of the appellation “responsible”? Have these ideas been defended in a reputable theological journal? 

BTW, I just got DVD’s book and hope to start in on it soon. I may like it, but that would only be my opinion. 

One other thought, it seem to me that the “R” in RK2 does not relate so much the separation of the ecclesiastical offices from the civil offices. It think all Reformed folks would agree on that principle. Rather it has to do with the explicit denial that the civil magistrate has the duty to make and enforce laws based on the summary of God’s moral law in the Ten Commandments, all Ten Commandments, rather than some inexact, undocumented “natural law.”


----------



## jetbrane (May 6, 2010)

It has been my observation that people, on the whole, do not realize the vast implications of accepting the R2Kt matrix as a Reformed Theology. It touches issues of the relationship between nature and grace, the continuity between the covenants, the issue of total depravity in its impact on fallen man's epistemological capacity, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the applicational impact of the Scriptures, the calling, nature and character of the Church.

Given that R2Kt has so many tentacles much needs to be said concerning it. For those who are interested in reading the anti-R2Kt portion of the conversation I invite you to peruse the expansive resources on the subject that can be found at Iron Ink.

Iron Ink :: Category: R2Kt virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology) >>>

I would only finish w/ the observation that allowing Christian societies to speak to issues that the Church refuses to speak to will inevitably result in as many different Christian societies supporting as many different polar opposite issues as "Christian" as one can possibly imagine. It will result in a situation where, "Every society does what is right in their own eyes," since there is no one to speak a "Thus Saith The Lord."

Bret L. McAtee
Pastor -- Charlotte Christian Reformed Church


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 6, 2010)

You guys and your links are making my head hurt. 

It also seems like the two sides speak past each other in some instances. For instance the guys on the 2K side do believe in being involved politically and I think I have seen that denied by the anti 2K crowd in some instances. I have heard 2K guys say we should remind the civil side that they are accountable to God and His law. (the decalogue) I am no expert on this topic and struggle with it. But it does seem from a historical context that the Reformers did hold to a theocracy where the whole decalogue was applicable. The second reformation is definitely a promoter of it. Also during those times they lived under supposed Christian monarchies. That is very different from Caesar and the new world order which is the United States. We are working under different pretenses during this time of history. 

When Paul spoke to Caesar he didn't command Caesar to reform his Government. He made a defense for the Kingdom of the Gospel. Now, is that to say that Civil Government shouldn't realize it gets its authority from God and that it is responsible and accountable before the Lord? I think it should. 

I would like to see a civil discussion or debate on these matters where things can be brought into focus a bit more. Does anyone know where I can find this type of discussion. I would like to see a discussion where points can be addressed and discussed in a topically defining fashion. I would like to see a discussion where people are not speaking past each other with drive by accusations. Does anyone know where I can read or see this?


----------



## mvdm (May 6, 2010)

tcalbrecht said:


> Not to be snarky or argumentative, but doesn’t the phrase “responsible books” overstate the case? E.g., what church council or broadly-representative Reformed body has determined that DVD’s book accurately depicts the things contained therein and is therefore worthy of the appellation “responsible”? Have these ideas been defended in a reputable theological journal?



I've read the book. It is fairly readable and does a thorough job in organizing historical material on kingdom theology and natural law. But Van Drunen's effort to paint the historic Reformed 2k view as representative HIS idosyncratic R2k is an utter failure. I would note that it was helpful before reading the book to have listened to Van Drunen's inaugural lecture where he advances his "dual ethic" principle. For me at least, that lecture puts this whole movement in better perspective, and further illuminated R2k's connection to the Klinean merit covenant paradigm that is being aggressively promoted. 

I do also recall that PB member Rev. Winzer mentioned he is doing a scholarly review of DVD's book and I trust it will be a helpful guide to the church in responding to this growing challenge. 



tcalbrecht said:


> One other thought, it seem to me that the “R” in RK2 does not relate so much the separation of the ecclesiastical offices from the civil offices. It think all Reformed folks would agree on that principle. Rather it has to do with the explicit denial that the civil magistrate has the duty to make and enforce laws based on the summary of God’s moral law in the Ten Commandments, all Ten Commandments, rather than some inexact, undocumented “natural law.”



Precisely. What you have just done in summary fashion is measured R2k up against Belgic 36 and Canons III/IV art. 4.and found it wanting.


----------



## Covenant Joel (May 6, 2010)

mvdm said:


> I do also recall that PB member Rev. Winzer mentioned he is doing a scholarly review of DVD's book and I trust it will be a helpful guide to the church in responding to this growing challenge.



I am quite aware that many on the board do not appreciate significant portions of Dr. Frame's work, but for what it's worth, he has written a fairly extensive review of Van Drunen's book here. It gives some good food for thought.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 8, 2010)

tcalbrecht said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > The thing to do is to read responsible books such as Dave VanDrunen's volume on the history of the doctrine. It's really the basic text for this discussion now.
> ...


 
Tom,

1. I'm glad you've got the book. "Responsible" was a short-hand way of saying, peer-reviewed, edited, careful etc. This volume is built on years of careful research into primary sources and secondary literature. This research was published in several peer-reviewed journals in multiple fields. It was finally published in a series which accepts few submissions supervised by one of the leading scholars of legal history in the world. So, "responsible" is a fair adjective. 

2. This volume is primarily a historical survey of Reformed thought on this question.

3. Yes, VanDrunen is not a theocrat, i.e., he agrees with the American revisions of the Westminster Confession and of the Belgic Confession removing the theocratic language. This means he agrees with Abraham Kuyper's approach to Belgic 36 and with Charles Hodge and B B Warfield (among others) on the WCF. These fellows were hardly "radicals"!


----------



## mvdm (May 8, 2010)

> VanDrunen is not a theocrat, i.e., he agrees with the American revisions of the Westminster Confession and of the Belgic Confession removing the theocratic language. This means he agrees with Abraham Kuyper's approach to Belgic 36.



It is misleading to claim that Van Drunen and R2k agrees with Kuyper's approach to Belgic 36. For R2k, it is natural law, not the Bible, that is normative for the magistrate. In contrast, for Kuyper (as with all the Reformed) the magistrate and the civil realm is normed by the Word of God. 

Kuyper explains this in his Stone lecture on the magistrate's responsibility:

"_They have to recognize God as Supreme Ruler, from Whom they derive their power. They have to serve God by ruling the people according to His ordinances. They have to restrain blasphemy, where it directly assumes the character of an affront to the Divine Majesty. And God's supremacy is to be recognized by confessing His name in the Constitution as the Source of all political power, by maintaining the Sabbath, by proclaiming days of prayer and thanksgiving, and by invoking His Divine blessing. Therefore, in order that t*hey may govern, according to His holy ordinances, every magistrate is duty bound to investigate the rights of God, both in the natural life and in His Word. Not to subject himself to any decision of any Church, but in order that he himself may catch the light which he needs for the knowledge of the Divine Will.*"_

So Kuyper affirms 1. the Word's normative role for the magistrate, and 2. that this specifically includes principles from the 1st table of the law. Both of these are consistently rejected by R2k proponents.


----------



## TimV (May 9, 2010)

Mark, is there anything you'd recommend reading who more fairly explains historic Reformed thought on this matter?
Thanks


----------



## mvdm (May 10, 2010)

Tim, I am told these are good readings on the topic:

Herman Dooyeweerd, The Christian Idea of the State

E.L. Hebden Taylor, The Christian Philosophy of Law, Politics, and the State

E.L. Hebden Taylor, The New Legality: In the Light of the Christian Philosophy of Law 

Henry R. Van Til, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture

Personally, I like to read the primary sources, as I find someone's else's "history" of other theologians' work suspect at times, which certainly was the case with Van Drunen's book. I have profited from Kuypers' Lectures on Calvinism, Calvin's Institutes' sections on the magistrate, and Calvin's Sermons on Deuteronomy. Recently a friend recommended Veenhof's short work "Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck", which I intend to get to when time permits, but I would prefer to finish my way through Bavinck's "Reformed Dogmatics" first.


----------



## TimV (May 10, 2010)

Thanks, I just ordered the Christian idea of the state. I can't believe something so bloodless as R2K would have been held in anything other than contempt by the Reformers.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (May 10, 2010)

TimV said:


> Thanks, I just ordered the Christian idea of the state. I can't believe something so bloodless as R2K would have been held in anything other than contempt by the Reformers.


 
Could you give an example instead of just your estimation of what you think reformers would have felt?


----------



## TimV (May 10, 2010)

> Kuyper explains this in his Stone lecture on the magistrate's responsibility:
> 
> "They have to recognize God as Supreme Ruler, from Whom they derive their power. They have to serve God by ruling the people according to His ordinances. They have to restrain blasphemy, where it directly assumes the character of an affront to the Divine Majesty. And God's supremacy is to be recognized by confessing His name in the Constitution as the Source of all political power, by maintaining the Sabbath, by proclaiming days of prayer and thanksgiving, and by invoking His Divine blessing. Therefore, in order that they may govern, according to His holy ordinances, every magistrate is duty bound to investigate the rights of God, both in the natural life and in His Word. Not to subject himself to any decision of any Church, but in order that he himself may catch the light which he needs for the knowledge of the Divine Will."



I'd assumed what was quoted above.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (May 10, 2010)

TimV said:


> > Kuyper explains this in his Stone lecture on the magistrate's responsibility:
> >
> > "They have to recognize God as Supreme Ruler, from Whom they derive their power. They have to serve God by ruling the people according to His ordinances. They have to restrain blasphemy, where it directly assumes the character of an affront to the Divine Majesty. And God's supremacy is to be recognized by confessing His name in the Constitution as the Source of all political power, by maintaining the Sabbath, by proclaiming days of prayer and thanksgiving, and by invoking His Divine blessing. Therefore, in order that they may govern, according to His holy ordinances, every magistrate is duty bound to investigate the rights of God, both in the natural life and in His Word. Not to subject himself to any decision of any Church, but in order that he himself may catch the light which he needs for the knowledge of the Divine Will."
> 
> ...


 
Well, since you claimed the "reformers" I'd expect a quote from a reformer. Abraham is no doubt a good theologian but he is not in the same era as Calvin.

Also, may I add you said "the reformers" as if all would feel this way.


----------



## mvdm (May 10, 2010)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Well, since you claimed the "reformers" I'd expect a quote from a reformer. Abraham is no doubt a good theologian but he is not in the same era as Calvin.
> 
> Also, may I add you said "the reformers" as if all would feel this way.



First, I don't think Tim was suggesting that Kuyper was one of the reformers; rather that the reformers' thinking would line up with Kuyper's and that such would not line up with R2k.

Second, it is not seriously disputed that the reformers were "theocratic" in their theological formulation of the magistrate's duties. 

Third, there is no debate over whether R2kt is a revision of the theocratic view regarding the normative role of special revelation/both tables of law in the civil sphere, as representatively described by Kuyper above. R2k claims their revisions to this tradition are in still in line with the American revisions to the WCF and Belgic. This unproven claim is where much of the dispute lies.


----------



## jetbrane (May 11, 2010)

Andrew P.C. said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > > Kuyper explains this in his Stone lecture on the magistrate's responsibility:
> ...



You might want to try these thoughts from the Reformers and their Heirs on this subject,

W.C.F. Chapter 23:3 [Of the Civil Magistrate. ]
” The Civil Magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath 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 ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.”

[Second Helvetic Confession on magistrates].
” In like manner, let him govern the people, committed to him of God, with good laws, made according to the word of God in his hands, and look that nothing be taught contrary thereto. … Therefore let him draw forth this sword of God against all malefactors, seditious persons, thieves, murderers, oppressors, blasphemers, perjured persons, and all those whom God has commanded him to punish or even to execute. Let him suppress stubborn heretics (who are heretics indeed), who cease not to blaspheme the majesty of God, and to trouble the Church, yea, and finally to destroy it.”

The Scots Confession ““ John Knox
Chapter 24 - The Civil Magistrate
We confess and acknowledge that empires, kingdoms, dominions, and cities are appointed and ordained by God; the powers and authorities in them, emperors in empires, kings in their realms, dukes and princes in their dominions, and magistrates in cities, are ordained by God’s holy ordinance for the manifestation of his own glory and for the good and well being of all men. We hold that any men who conspire to rebel or to overturn the civil powers, as duly established, are not merely enemies to humanity but rebels against God’s will. Further, we confess and acknowledge that such persons as are set in authority are to be loved, honored, feared, and held in the highest respect, because they are the lieutenants of God, and in their councils God himself doth sit and judge. They are the judges and princes to whom God has given the sword for the praise and defense of good men and the punishment of all open evil doers. Moreover, we state the preservation and purification of religion is particularly the duty of kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates. They are not only appointed for civil government but also to maintain true religion and to suppress all idolatry and superstition. This may be seen in David, Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others highly commended for their zeal in that cause.

The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXXVI
The Magistracy (Civil Government)
We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, has appointed kings, princes, and magistrates; willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose He has invested the magistracy with the sword for the punishment of evil-doers and for the protection of them that do well.

Their office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also to protect the sacred ministry, that the kingdom of Christ may thus be promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, as He commands in His Word.

The French Confession - John Calvin
XXXIX. We believe that God wishes to have the world governed by laws and magistrates,[1] so that some restraint may be put upon its disordered appetites. And as he has established kingdoms, republics, and all sorts of principalities, either hereditary or otherwise, and all that belongs to a just government, and wishes to be considered as their Author, so he has put the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against the first as well as against the second table of the Commandments of God. We must therefore, on his account, not only submit to them as superiors,[2] but honor and hold them in all reverence as his lieutenants and officers, whom he has commissioned to exercise a legitimate and holy authority.

1. Exod. 18:20-21; Matt. 17:24-27; Rom. ch. 13
2. I Peter 2:13-14; I Tim. 2:2

Quote:
John Calvin 1509-1564
But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

[Deut 13:6-10].
” Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. It is not in vain that he commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost deprives men of their nature in order that nothing may hinder their holy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity exacted but that we may know that God is defrauded of his honour, unless the piety that is due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is to be asserted, humanity must be almost obliterated from our memories.”

Quoted in P.Schaff; History of the Christian Church vol 8 :791f.(Eerdmans 1981). The context is the defence of the execution of Servetus

on Psalm 2
…without a doubt he is speaking of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus. He admonishes all kings and authorities to be wise and to take heed to themselves. What is this wisdom? What is the lesson He gives them? To abdicate it all? Hardly! But to fear God and give homage to His Son…Furthermore, Isaiah prophesies that the kings will become the foster fathers of the Christian church and that queens will nurse it with their breasts (Isa. 49:23). I beg of you, how do you reconcile the fact that kings will be protectors of the Christian Church if their vocation is inconsistent with Christianity?

Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 79
Quote:
Martin Bucer 1491-1551
[Penal sanctions].
” But since no one can describe an approach more equitable and wholesome to the commonwealth than that which God describes in his law, it is certainly the duty of all kings and princes who recognize that God has put them over his people that they follow most studiously his own method of punishing evildoers. For inasmuch as we have been freed from the teaching of Moses through Christ the Lord so that it is no longer necessary for us to observe the civil decrees of the law of Moses, namely, in terms of the way and the circumstances in which they described, nevertheless, insofar as the substance and proper end of these commandments are concerned, and especially those which enjoin the discipline that is necessary for the whole commonwealth, whoever does not reckon that such commandments are to be conscientiously observed is certainly not attributing to God either supreme wisdom or a righteous care for our salvation.
Accordingly, in every state sanctified to God capital punishment must be ordered for all who have dared to injure religion, either by introducing a false and impious doctrine about the worship of God or by calling people away from the true worship of God (Deut 13:6-10 and 17:2-5); for all who blaspheme the name of God and his solemn services (Lev.24:15-16); who violate the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-15, and 35:2; Num. 15: 32-36); who rebelliously despise the authority of parents and live their own life wickedly (Deut.21:18-21); who are unwilling to submit to the sentence of a supreme tribunal (Deut.17: 8-12); who have committed bloodshed (Ex.21:12; Lev. 24:17; Deut. 19:11-13), adultery (Lev. 20:10), rape (Deut.22:20-25), kidnapping (Deut. 24:7); who have given false testimony in a capital case (Deut. 19:16-21).”

” The Fourteenth Law: The Modification of Penalties” in Pauck ibid. pp.378-9
Quote:
Theodore Beza
The duty of the civil authority in this matter is hedged about by these three regulations: (1) It must strictly confine itself to its own sphere, and not presume to define heresy; that belongs to the church alone. (2) It must not pass judgment with regard to persons, advantages, and circumstances but with pure regard to the honor of God. (3) It must proceed after quiet, regular examination of the heresy and mature consideration of all the circumstances, and inflict such punishment as will best secure the honor due to the divine majesty and the peace and unity of the church

Beza, De Hereticis, quoted in Schaff, History, p. 798

Let this be the conclusion of this argument: those who would bar the Christian magistracy from the care of religion and especially from the punishments of heretics, condemn the plain word of God, reject the authority of the ages, and as a consequence seek the total destruction and extermination of the church.

Beza, De Hereticis, quoted in Verduin, Stepchildren, p. 57

But what , then, is the relevance of this long discussion of the duty of kings and magistrates to maintain religion for deciding whether they may be forcibly resisted if they persecute it? I reply that it is one thing to introduce religion in a country, another to preserve it once it is established or to restore it when it has been buried, as it were, under the connivance, ignorance, and wickedness of men. I hold, then, that religion is planted and increased by the Spirit of God alone, through the Word, which is ordained for teaching, encouraging, and exhorting, since this is the special activity of the Holy Spirit, which works by spiritual means. The duty of a prince who would convert his subjects from idolatry or superstition to true religion is to see that they are given good and lively instruction, while the duty of subjects, correspondingly, is to yield to reason and to truth. The prince, finally, should provide and enforce good edicts against those who, from pure stubborness, would resist establishment of the true religion, as has been done in our time in England, Denmark, Sweden, Scotland, and in a large part of Germany and of Switzerland, against Papists, Anabaptists, and other heretics. And if, instead of believing in the bloodstained whore of Rome, other nations had done likewise, there would be peace not only in religion but in all other public matters, too.

Beza, Right of Magistrates as found in Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century Translated and edited by Julian H. Franklin, p. 134
Quote:
John Knox 1514-1572
[A petition ” to the Quenis Majestie, and Hir most Honourable Privey Counsall etc."].
” The secound that we requyre, is punishment of horrible vices, sic as ar adultery, fornicatioun, open hurdome, blasphemye, contempt of God, of his Word, and Sacramentis; quhilkis in this Realme, for lack of punishement, do evin now so abound, that syne is reputed to be no syne. And thairfoir, as that we see the present signes of Goddis wrath now manifestlie appear, so do we foirwarne, that he will stryck, or it be long, yf his law without punishement be permitted thus manifestlie to be contempned. Yf any object, that punishementis can nott be commanded to be executed without a parliament; We answer that the eternall God in his Parliament has pronounced death to be the punishment for adulterye and for blasphemye; whose actis yf ye putt not to executioun, (seeing that Kingis ar but his lieutennentis, having no power to geve lyefe, whair he commandis death,) as that he will reputt you, and all otheris that foster vice, patronis of impietie, so will he nott faill to punishe you for neglecting of his judgements.”

works of John Knox; collected and Edited by David Laing. vol.2 (Edin.1864) pp.339-340.

[Idolatrie of Queen Mary; capital punishment].
‘” What ye may,” said the uther,[Knox] “be force, I disput nocht; bot what ye may and aucht to do be Godis express commandiment, that I can tell. Idolatrie aucht nocht [only] to be suppressit, but the idolater aucht to dey the deith, unless that we will accuse God."” I knaw,” said Lethingtoun,” the idolater is commandit to dey the deith; but be whome?” “Be the peopill of God,” said the uther;” for the commandiment wes gevin to Israeli, as ye may reid, ‘Heir, Israeli,’sayis the Lorde, ‘the statutis and the ordinancis of the Lord thy God,’ &c. Yea, ane [commandement] wes gevin, That gif it be heard that idolatrie is committit in onie ane cytie, inquisitioune sal be taikin; and gif it be founde trew, that than the whole bodie of the peopill sail aryse and destroy that cytie, spairing in it nether man, woman, nor chylde.”

ibid., p. 441. note that both Lethington and Knox are agreed on the continuing relevance of the punishment for idolatry, the only question is who should carry out the punishment when the idolater is
the Queen of that nation.

It is evident, that principallie it apperteineth to the King, or to the Chief Magistrate, to knowe the will of God, to be instructed in his Lawe and Statutes, and to promote his glorie with his hole hart and studie, which be the chief pointed of the First Table. No man denieth, but that the sworde is committed to the Magistrate, to the end that he shulde punishe vice and meinteine vertue. To punishe vice, I say; not onelie that whiche troubeleth the tranquilitie and quiet estat of the common welth, by adulterie, theft, or murther committed, but also suche vices as openly impugne the glorie of God, as idolatrie, blasphemie, and manifest heresie, taught and obstinatly meinteined, as the histories and notable actes of Ezechias, Josaphat, and Josias do plainlie teach us,…

John Knox, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing, 6 vols. (Edinburgh: James Thin, 1895), 4:398
Quote:
Johannes Wollebius - 1586-1629
(4) Such is the government of the church. We come now to civil authority, by which the church is subject to the magistrate.

Propositions

I. The magistrates are protectors [nutritii] of the church, in that they enforce both tablets of the law, protect [conservere] churches and schools, and defend the truth.

Wollebius: Compendium Theologiae Christianae as found in Reformed Dogmatics edited by John W. Beardslee p. 148

Calling of councils
I. The calling of a council is the privilege of the magistrate, if he is a believer; if he is an unbeliever, either it must be obtained by a petition, or, if he is actively hostile to a council, then as a matter of necessity it must be held with the general consensus of the church.
II. The persons who ought to be present at a council are civil and ecclesiastical presidents, clerks, suitable men chosen for the purpose…
VII. The duty of the civil president is to convene the council, to defend it after it has gathered, to prevent all violence and disorder, to promulgate the regularly adopted decrees by his authority, and to use force against those who are unwilling [to comply].

ibid. p. 149

Chapter IV: The Works Connected with the Second, Third, and Fourth Commandments in General
V. Religion ought to be the concern of everybody, but especially of magistrates and ministers.
The former are indeed the guardians of the church. They are responsible, therefore, for the maintenance of churches and schools, the support of ministers, and so on.
VIII. Religion is not to be forced [upon people] but taught.
IX. Religion is not to be spread by arms, but nevertheless it is to be defended by them.
Examples are pious kings, like the Maccabees, and emperors, especially Constatine the Great and Theodosius the Great.
X. If any abuse enters religion, it is to be reformed by the prince or magistrate.
Examples are Moses, Joshua, David, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, Constatine the Great, Theodosisus, etc.

ibid. 201-202

Chapter VII: The Duties Connected with the Fourth Commandment
XIV. The sanctification of the sabbath is the duty of everyone, but especially of magistrates and pastors.
The magistrate should give heed to Nehemiah’s example, lest the sabbath be persistently violated (Neh. 13:15ff.). It is also his duty to moderate the strict obersavation of this day when necessity requires, in order that considerations of love may also be effective. Examples were given by the Maccabees (I Macc. 2:41), and Constantine the Great, who permitted farm labor whenever weighty necessity required it.

ibid. 223
Quote:
Francis Turretin - 1623-87)

Thirty-Fourth Question: The Political Government of the Church
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

I. After having treated of the ecclesiastical government of the church, we must add something about the political. Concerning this, a grave question is moved in the examination and decision of which it is sinned in different ways, in excess as well as defect.

II. They sin in excess who claim all ecclesiastical power for the magistrate; who oppressed by the liberty of the ministry, deliver the thurible into the hand of Uzziah and think that no power belongs to pastors except what is derived from the magistrate.

They sin in defect who remove him from all care of ecclesiastical things so that he does not care what each one worships and allows free power to anyone of doing and saying whatever he wishes in the cause of religion Or who, although they ascribe to him the care of nourishing and defending the church, so that he may kindly cherish and pwerfully defend it, still leave nothing of recognition and nothing of judgment concerning religion save the execution alone to him. They rest upon this foundation - that this knowledge and judgment about matters of faith is proper to the ecclesiastical order, whose decrees the magistrate is bound to respect and perform. This is the opinion of the Romanists, which Bllarmine sets forth.

III. The orthodox (holding the mean between these two extremes) maintain that 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. Rather this right should be circumscribed within certain limits that the duties of the ecclesiastical and political order be not confounded, but the due parts be left to each. this we embrace in two propositions.

IV. First proposition. “A multiple right concerning sacred things belongs to the magistrate.” It is proved (1) from the divine command. To him was committed the custody of the divine law; on this account he ought to care for the piety and worship of God, which is commanded by the first, no less than for justice and love, which is commanded by the second table: “And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes” (Deut. 17:18,19)

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol.III, pgs. 316-317

XI. Although Christ did not commit his church to Tiberius, but to Peter, still he did not exclude princes from the care of religion (he called them nursing fathers); nor did he who said “Kiss the Son” repel kings as such. The ministry of the word is committed to pastors; but the care of the state no less to the magistrate; in which state if the church exists, why should not the pious magistrate as such both afford entertainment to the church and keep off the wolves, who in the name of pastors lay waste the flock? Otherwise, by the same argument, I shall have denied that the defense of religion belongs to the magistrate because he gave no commands about religion to Tiberius.

ibid. 319

XIV. Affirmatively there are many things which belong to the magistrate in reference to sacred things.
(1) He ought to establish the sacred doctrine and the pure worship of God in the state according to the prescription of the divine word; faithfully to conserve it when established or even to restore and reform it when declining, as is evident from the passages already quoted concerning Asa, Jehoshaphat, Josiah, Joash, Hezekiah. Hence the design of pious princes and Christian magistrates must be praised, according to which they lent a helping hand to the Reformation (which was in vain expected from the Roman court) and used all their endeavors to cherish and sustain it.
(2) He ought to protect the church according to his ability, to restrain heretics and disturbers of ecclesiastical peace, to promote the glory of God, to defend and propagate the true religion and to hinder the confusion of religions.
(3)-(6) my fingers are getting tired…there are more good things he says - CR.

XV. Ecclesiastical power is either internal, direct and formal, occupied with the administration and exercise of sacred things (such as the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments and the dispensation of the keys); or extrinsic, indirect and only objective (such as concerned with sacred things, as to procurement and disposition, that all things be done decently and in order in the house of God). The first belongs to pastors alone, to whom he has committed his church and given the keys of the kingdom of heaven; the latter belongs to Christian magistrates and princes, inasmuch as they ought to be the guardians of both tables; as in a well-regulated family the father disposes and arranges all things, the execution and
performance of which belongs to the domestics.

ibid. 320-321

From pages 327-336 Turretin deals with heretics and especially the Servetus affair. It is a necessity to read the whole passage to guarantee all the nuances and qualifications are thought through but for the sake of time here is a sample:

XLIV. Third proposition. “We think that incurable factious and blasphemous arch-heretics, not ceasing to scatter their poision, against interdicts often and repeated and a pledge given, disturbing both the state and church, can be punished with death.” Yet that this is not resorted to unless all other mild means have been tried without avail to cure them and restore them to a better mind. For when it is evident that such remedies not only do not cure the evil, but rather exasperate and increase it, then at length (although sorrowfully) the magistrate compelled by the necessity of his office will direct his attention to it.; like physicians, who are wont to employ extreme remedies for desperate and extreme maladies that what cannot be corrected and cured may be stopped by the knife and cautery so that the healthy parts may not be affected…

XLV. The reasons why we so determine are various, indicated already by us in Section 32 and the following, to which we add the attrociousness of the crime. for if punishment ought to increase with the greatness of the crime, no one can doubt that the blasphemy and impiety by which the majesty of God is directly assailed, is the greatest of all crimes and one which on that account ought to be visited with the greatest punishment; especially if an obstinate and pertinacious contempt of political and ecclesiastical order is joined with it as also perjury and an insane fury for corrupting others with the same poison. Such monsters of men ought to be regarded as public pests and cancers, as disturbers of the church and state whom it is of the highest importance to remove, whether to vindicate the glory of the offended supreme majesty or to conserve human society.

ibid. 332-333

Quote:
Wilhelmus A Brakel - (1635-1711)

Question:

Does the civil government exercise any authority at all with regard to the church?

Answer:

It has no authority whatsoever in the church, but it does have authority with regard to the church.

We thus most strenuously oppose the Erastians and Arminians who posit all authority and government with the civil government, subordinating all ecclesiastical authority and government to the civil government, from which it is in turn delegated to the church. We have contradicted this notion in the foregoing and shall shortly do so again. We are likewise opposed to the view of the papists who remove all who belong to the church from governmental jurisdiction. At the same time, they maintain that the civil government may not render judgment at all in the realm of religion, and that the civil government must merely follow blindly and execute whatever the church has deemed and judged to be correct. We are also opposed to the view of the Libertines who insist that the government may not be involved with religion at all, but must permit every religion in its territory to proclaim whatever it wishes. We declare that the civil government does indeed have authority with regard to the church and is obligated to make use of this, which is a matter we subsequently shall demonstrate to be so.

Question:

What authority does the civil government not have?

Answer:

It has no authority whatsoever in the church and may not rule over the church as lords and masters. Government officials may not act as if they are servants sent of Christ"”in Christ´s Name preaching, administering the sacraments, using the keys of the kingdom of heaven, commissioning ministers, appointing elders in the church, and decreeing what or what will not be preached concerning divine truths, and what are or are not the fundamental points of the Christian religion. They also have no right to depose and expel ministers who are godly and blameless in doctrine and life, and who have been lawfully called as the ministers of given churches. They may not, as lord and master over the church, reject such men, declare the calling to be null and void, efface it, etc. The government has no authority relative to such ecclesiastical matters, for in doing so she would reach for the crown and scepter of the Lord Jesus, whose prerogative this is. Those governments who are not refrained by the many examples of divine judgment will pay a bitter price for such a practice.

Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service Vol. II, pp. 169-170

The Responsibility of the Civil Government with Regard to the Church

We must now consider also what authority the civil government has with regard to the church. Such use of its authority we wholeheartedly uphold.

The duties of the government with regard to the church are threefold. It has 1) the power of protection, 2) the power to legislate concerning external circumstances, and 3) the power to subdue evil influences.

First, the civil government is empowered to protect the church. It must protect the church from all oppression from without and within, so that no one will disturb or prevent either the exercise of religion or the meetings of consistories, Classes, and Synods. It must preserve the freedoms and the spiritual privileges which Christ has given to the church, so that she may use and exercise them without impediment. It must remove all external obstacles which either could be detrimental to religion or impede the growth and well"“being of the church. It must do everything possible to promote religion so that the church may flourish under its protection and “œ?may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty?"� (?1 Tim. 2:2?). Such was the practice of the godly kings David, Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah"”a fact which can generally be observed in the books of Kings and Chronicles.

Secondly, the civil government has power to legislate concerning external circumstances. As such it can maintain order as far as the external circumstances of public worship are concerned"”such as the most suitable time for and place of worship, as well as that the welfare of the civil state be not impeded. It must also call ecclesiastical synods together, and see to it that other ecclesiastical assemblies are held, so that they in turn may promote the internal well"“being of the church.

Thirdly, the civil government has the power of control with regard to ecclesiastical matters. It must see to it that members of the clergy"”ministers, elders, and deacons"”discharge their duties and not be negligent in this regard, as well as that they adhere to the established church order which is according to God´s Word. It must publicly oppose those who by false doctrine and immorality trouble the church, or who by evil philosophies and opinions disturb the civil state as far as political matters are concerned. It must also prevent the continuation of such practices. It must exterminate false religions. It must promote the reformation of the church if she becomes entirely degenerate in doctrine and morals, and by the use of all political means imaginable restrain opponents and compel those who forsake religion to observe their duty, etc. In this manner Moses (Ex. 32), Asa (?2 Chr. 14?), Jehoshaphat (?2 Chr. 17?), Hezekiah (?2 Chr. 29?, ?30?), Josiah (?2 Chr. 34?), and Nehemiah (?Neh. 13:30?"“?31?) were engaged in the work of reformation. How blessed is the church and the civil state which functions in this way, and where the church and the civil government, each within their own sphere of influence, are faithful in the discharge of their tasks!

We thus observe that none ought to be of the opinion that the government is not to be involved in the church at all, ought not to be concerned about her, and ought merely to be the blind executor of whatever the church wishes her to carry out. There is a certain Jus majestatis circa sacra; that is, a rightful claim, power, or duty of civil governments with regard to that which is holy. The Belgic Confession speaks of this in Article 36:
[quoteAnd their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by everyone, as He commands in His Word.

It is the duty of civil government to uphold not only the second table of the law, but also the first. It must see to it that God is honored. It may not tolerate any idolatry, worship of images, or any false religion within her jurisdiction, but must rather eradicate these. It must prevent the vain use of God´s Name practiced by cursing, swearing, and blasphemy. It must prevent the desecration of the Sabbath, punish violators of this commandment, and see to it that the gospel is proclaimed everywhere within its jurisdiction. It must see to it that the church, as the darling of the Lord Jesus, is protected and preserved; and that neither internal dissension nor any external oppression disturb or destroy the church, but that instead she be safely preserved in the use of the privileges and liberties which her King Jesus has given her.

The government must be engaged with regard to all these things, but not formaliter; that is, by intruding into the very essence of the matter at hand. It must do so objectively; that is, deeming her (the church) to be the object of its activity. Therefore we say that the civil government has authority with regard to the church, rather than in the church. Neither civil governments nor any other individual may exercise power in or over the church, for Jesus is her only King. The civil government has, however, an obligation with regard to the church. There is a significant difference between “œ?in?"� and “œ?with regard to.?"� A civil government has authority with regard to marriage, but no authority in the marriage; with regard to a household, but not within the household. It likewise has authority with regard to the church, but not in the church. We have thus shown what authority the civil government has with regard to the church, and what authority the elders have in the congregation.

Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service Vol. II, pp. 178-179
Quote:
Zanchius

Almost all of our men are of this opinion, that heretics should be punished with the sword.

_"De Magistratu,” Operum Theologicorum [1613][Miscellaneorum], 7:166-88 cited in Turretin Vol. III, p. 334
Quote:
Bucanus

“Is it lawful for the magistrate to proceed against heretics with the sword?” He answers affirmatively

Institutes of Christian Religion 49 [1606], p. 874 cited in Turretin, Vol. III pg. 334
Quote:
Gerhard

“It is not a question concerning the seditious, blasphemous, heretics, who besides the propagation of false doctrine, excite sedition in addition, instigate subjects against magistrates and utter direct and open blasphemies against God; for that they can be capitally punished on account of sedition and blasphemies we do not wholly controvert.”

Locus 24.317, “De Magistratu Politici,” Loci Theologici [1868], 6:446
“No one of us denies that pertinacious heretics can be excommunicated, no one hinders the punishment of seditious heretics, disturbers of the public peace, with the sword.”

Locus 24.355, ibid. , 6:470 both cited in Turretin, Vol. III p. 334
Quote:
James Ussher - Archbishop of Armagh (1580-1655) in a speech published with a controversial work against the Jesuit, Hybernus, defends the oath of fidelity which declared the king to be the sole supreme governor in the kingdom. Thus he distinguishes

“two distinct powers established by God in these lands, one of which is of the keys committed to the church, the other of the sword entrusted to the civil magistrate; the former ordained to operate about the internal man, having an immediate relation to the remission and retention of sins; the latter ordained to operate about the external man, affording protection to the obedient, and inflicting external punishments upon the rebellious”

A Speech Delivered in the Castle-Chamber at Dublin the xxii of November, Anno 1622, pp.304

Although in this way we make the prince and priest guardians of both tables, and although the matter about which they exercise their office can be the same, still the form and mode of governing in it is distinct in every way. One extends itself only to the external man, the other to the internal; one binds or looses the soul; the other attends to the body and things pertaining to it; one has a special regard to the judgment of the future world, the other refers to the present retention or privation of some of the conveniences of this life.

ibid., p. 6

Both citations as found in Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. III, p. 322-323
Quote:
Parliament of Scotland
[21. Act aginst the Crime of Blasphemy].
” OUR Soveraign Lord, and the Estates of Parliament considering that hitherto there hath been no Law in this Kingdom, against the horrible crime of Blasphemy, Therefore, His Majestie, with advice of His said Estates, Doth hereby Statute and Ordain. That whosoever hereafter, not being distracted in his wits, shall rail upon, or curse GOD, or any of the Persons of the blessed Trinity, shal be processed before the chief Justice; and being fpund guilty, shall be punished with Death.”

THE LAWS and ACTS Made in the FIRST PARLIAMENT of Our most High and Dread Soveraign, CHARLES THE SECOND, etc. Holden at Edinburgh the first of January, 1661 etc. Edin 1683. no page numbers
Quote:
A Solemn Testimony Against Toleration, etc. By the Commissioners of the General Assembly 1649
[Punishment of idolaters capital; perpetuity of this law].
“As the Lord by his servant Moses, in the xviiith of Deuteronomy, requires of him that shall reign over his people, that he have a copy of the law of the Lord by him, and that he read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and to keep all the words of that law; so in the xiiith of that book he gives a command to put to death the false prophe, and the brother that speaks to his people to turn them away from the Lord their God; and the reasons taken from the nature of the duty, whereby he persuades unto the obedience thereof, are perpetual and no less binding unto us now, than to them of old.”

Reprinted in Faithful Witness-Bearing Exemplified: Kilmarnock1783. p. 74.
Quote:
James Durham 1622 - 1658
[Job 31: 26; idolatry].
” Vs. 26. // / have looked to the Sun, or moon, when they shined, and my heart hath been secretly enticed or my mouth hath kissed my hand. He gives two reasons why he would riot do this.
[1] Because it is a heinous sin; for as little as folks think of false worship or idolatry; yea, an iniquity to be punished by the judge. Job was not of their religion that plead for toleration. He knew that God’s law gave warrant to them then (and it gives also warrant to us now) to punish idolaters, and the judge ought to do it.”

James Durham, Lectures on Job. Edt. by C. Coldwell. (Dallas, Texas; Naphtali Press,1995) p.170. Note that Durham declares the death penalty decreed by Deut.22:22 to be a moral law. 90 ibid., p. 172
Quote:
Thomas Cartwright 1535-1603
[Judicial Law and equity;].
” And, as for the judicial law, forasmuch as there are some of them made in regard of the region where they were given, and of the people to whom they were given, the prince and the magistrate, keeping the substance and equity of them ( as it were the marrow), may change the circumstance of them, as the times and places and manners of the people shall require. But to say that any magistrate can save the life of blasphemers contemptuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulterers, incestuous persons, and such like, which God by his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death, I do utterly deny, and am ready to prove, if that pertained to this question “.

“SecondReply” 1575 cited in Worksof John Whitgift,1.270. ParkerSoc. 1851
Quote:
William Perkins: A Commentarie upon the Epistle to the Galatians. Lon.1617 [ Pilgrim Press, 1989] pp. 202-204.
Example 3. Hee that blasphemeth the name of God, shall bee put to death, Leuv.24.16. Understand this law of manifest and notorious blasphemies, that pearce through God, as the words import: and then it is a maine fence to the third commaundement. For Gods name may in no wise be abused, and troad under foot: and therefore blasphemers pearcing God, are to be cut off. This is the very law of nature, as appeares by Nabuchadnezzar , who gave in commandement to his people, that whosoever blasphemed the name of the true God should be put to death, Dan.3.29. Here note, that manifest and convicted Atheists, if they bee put to death, have but their deserts.
Quote:
John Cotton (December 4, 1585 ““ December 23, 1652)
Excerpt from a Copy of a Letter from Mr. Cotton to Lord Say and Seal in the year 1636

I am very apt to believe, what Mr. Perkins hath, in one of his prefatory pages to his golden chain, that the word, and scriptures of God do contain a short upoluposis, or platform, not only of theology, but also of other sacred sciences, (as he calleth them) attendants, and handmaids thereunto, which he maketh ethics, economics, politics, church-government, prophecy, academy. It is very suitable to God´s all-sufficient wisdom, and to the fullness and perfection of Holy Scriptures, not only to prescribe perfect rules for the right ordering of a private man´s soul to everlasting blessedness with Himself, but also for the right ordering of a man´s family, yea, of the commonwealth too, so far as both of them are subordinate to spiritual ends, and yet avoid both the churches usurpation upon civil jurisdictions, in ordine ad spiritualia, and the commonwealths invasion upon ecclesiastical administrations, in ordine to civil peace, and conformity to the civil state. God´s institutions (such as the government of church and commonwealth be) may be close and compact, and co-ordinate one to another, and yet not be confounded. God hath so framed the state of church government and ordinances, that they may be compatible to any common-wealth, though never so much disordered in his frame. But yet when a commonwealth hath liberty to mold his own frame I conceive the scripture hath given full direction for the right ordering of the same, and that, in such sort as may best maintain the euexia of the church. Mr. Hooker doth often quote a saying out of Mr. Cartwright (though I have not read it in him) that no man fashioneth his house to his hangings, but his hangings to his house. It is better that the commonwealth be fashioned to the setting forth of God´s house, which is his church: than to accommodate the church frame to the civil state. Democracy, I do not conceive that ever God did ordain as a fit government either for church or commonwealth. If the people be governors, who shall be governed? As for monarchy, and aristocracy, they are both of them clearly approved, and directed in scripture, yet so as referreth the sovereignty to himself, and setteth up Theocracy in both, as the best form of government in the commonwealth, as well in the church.

Cotton, John cited in Puritan Political Ideas 1558-1794 ed. By Edmund Morgan, 1965, p.170-171

Abstract of the Laws of New England

CHAPTER VII.

Of Crimes. And first, of such as deserve capital punishment, or cutting off from a man’s people, whether by death or banishment.

1. FIRST, blasphemy, which is a cursing of God by atheism, or the like, to be punished with death.
2. Idolatry to be punished with death.
3. Witchcraft, which is fellowship by covenant with a familiar spirit, to be punished with death.
4. Consulters with witches not to be tolerated, but either to be cut off by death or banishment.
5. Heresy, which is the maintenance of some wicked errors, overthrowing the foundation of the christian religion; which obstinacy, if it be joined with endeavour to seduce others thereunto, to be punished with death; because such an heretick, no less than an idolater, seeketh to thrust the souls of men from the Lord their God.
6. To worship God in a molten or graven image, to be punished with death.
7. Such members of the church, as do wilfully reject to walk, after due admonition and conviction, in the churches’ establishment, and their christian admonition and censures, shall be cut off by banishment.
8. Whosoever shall revile the religion and worship of God, and the government of the church, as it is now established, to be cut off by banishment.  Cor. 5:5.
11. Profaning of the Lord’s day, in a careless and scornful neglect or contempt thereof, to be punished with death.

Quote:
James Fergusson 1621-1667
[The magistrate’s right to punish idolatry etc.].
” The main question then is, concerning State Toleration. Concerning which some do affirm, That whatever the Church may do in inflicting Church censures on Heriticks, Maintainers of Heterodox Opinions: Yet, Say they, no civil Punishment, such as Death, Imprisonment, Mulcts, or fines, should be inflicted on any Error or Blashemy whatsoever; providing the Maintainers of them carry themselves peaceably, do not trouble the State, or do evil against the Commonwealth in civil Things: We again on the contrary do hold, that it is the duty of the Civil Magistrate to suppress Error, Heresies, and every sin against the First Table, as well as it is his Duty to suppress Adultery, Fornication, Sedition, and other sins against the Second Table: And that he is not only bound to suppress Errors and Blashemies, that are contrary to fundamental Truths, or the Light of Nature; but all Error contrary to other points of Truth.”

81 James Fergusson, A Brief Refutation Of The Errors Of Toleration, Erastianism, Independancy And Separatbn. 1692. pp. 51-52. These sermons were originally preached in 1652 but published posthumously by his son.

The magistrate’s power to punish blasphemy and heresy].
” If it was the approven practice of Kings and Magistrates under the Old Testament to suppress Error, Heresie, and Blasphemy, then Magistrates under the New Testament are bound to do the like.”

ibid., pg. 54. Later [pp.61-62], Fergusson says That whatever was commanded to be done by Magistrates under the Old Testament as a part of their duty, this Magistrates under the New Testament are obliged to as a part of their duty also, ."he cites Exod.22.20; Lev.24.15,16;Deut.13.1
Quote:
David Dickson 1583-1663
[Chapter 20; Of Christian Liberty, Quest. IV; Magistrate to punish by the law].
“Do not lastly the Lutherans, Anabaptists, Arminians, Quakers, and all sort of Hereticks, and Sectaries err, who maintain, ( under the pretext of Christian Liberty) that the Civil Magistrate, is not obliged in duty, to punish any man with the sword, for errors in doctrine, but that they ought to be tolerated, and suffered, providing such persons as own them, do not trouble, or molest the Common-wealth? Yes: By what reasons are they confuted? … The Lutherans, Anabaptists, Arminians, and other sectaries are confuted? (1) Because, it is evident, from many examples of Godly Magistrats, who did extirpat Idolatry, and inflict punishment upon Idolaters, as did Jacob the Patriarch, … Of Asa, who decreed that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel (according to the law of God; Deut. 13.9.) should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man, or woman; 2 Chron.15.13….(4) It is evident from the office of the Magistrat, who is the Minister of God against them, that do evil, and beareth not the sword in vain: Rom. 13.3,4. (5) Because, it is expressly commanded in Scripture, that punishment be inflicted upon Idolaters, even by the nearest relations. If then, the Father may kill the Son, may kill the Daughter, the Husband the Wife of his bosom: and if one brother may stone another brother with stones, that he die, for being Idolaters; much more may the Civil Magistrat do this; Deut.13.6 to the 13 verse;
Deut.17.2 to the 7 verse; Lev.24.16 (8) Because, Ezra did esteem it, a great favour and blessing of God, conferred upon the Church; for which he thanked God, that had inclined the heart of Artaxerxes, to publish a Decree, for the punishment of those, that did not observe the Law, whether it be, (saith the Text) unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment; Chap.7.23,25,28 “.

David Dickson, Truth’s Victory Over Error. Edin. 1684. pp. 157-162

[WCF. chapter. 23; Of the Civil Magistrate Quest.1. Magistrate; Power of sword].
” CHAP. XXIII. Of the Civil Magistrate. Question 1. Hath God armed the Civil Magistrat, with the power of the Sword, for the defence, and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers? Yes. Rom.13.1,2,3,4. I Peter 2.13.14. Well then, do not the Socinians err, who maintain, that it is not the duty of the Civil Magistrate, to punish the guilty with death? Yes. By what reasons are they confuted? (1) Because, GOD hath expressly commanded, that transgressing Idolaters be put to death; Deut.17.7. Deut. 19.21. (2) Because, it appertains to the office, and duty of the Magistrate, to punish the guilty with death; Rom. 13A I Peter 2.14. (3) Because, the capital punishment of evil doers makes others stand in awe, and fear to offend; Deut. 13.11 Deut. 19.20:...”

ibid., p. 206. Dickson further cited Exod. 21.12. The use of Case law confirms that by “evildoers” in Romans 13, is meant transgressors of the Law of God.

[WCF. chpt. 23 Quest. II. Civil magistrate; punishment of blasphemies, etc.]
” Quest.II. Is it the duty of the Civil Magistrate, to take order, that all Blaspemies, and Heresies be suppressed, all the ordinances of God duely settled, administered, and observed; all abuses in worship, and discipline reformed, all Idolaters, Gainsayers, and other obstinate dissenters, be obliged and forced to quite their tenets and opinions, and conform themselves to the true worship , and service of
God, according to his law? Yes (5) Because, whosoever blasphemed the name of the Lord, was surely put to death; lev.24.16….(6) Because, the supream magistrate is Custos utriusque Tabulae, a keeper of both tables of the law of God. as well the first Table, which relates to Religion, and our duty to God; as of the second which relates to righteousness, and our duty to our neighbour. If then, he may punish evil doers, who offend against the second Table, and force and compel them to obedience, by the sword of justice, which God hath put into his hand, much more may he punish Idolaters, and Blashemers, who offend against the first Table, and force and compell them to obedience:...”

ibid., pp. 210-211. Dickson uses an afortiori argument (from the lesser to the greater), which depends on a belief in the right of the magistrate to punish 2nd. table crimes. Thus the Christian may be a Civil magistrate.. ” (3) Because, the Magistrate exercises, and executes Gods judgements; Deut.1.17."p.212
Quote:
Samuel Rutherford ** 1600 - 1661
[Magistrate’s to punish idolatry, as keeper of two tables of the law].
“And this is the cause (I conceive) why great Divines have said the object of the Magistrates power as a Magistrate is the externall man, and earthly things, because he doth not in such a spirituall way of working, take care of the two Tables of the Law, as the Pastor doth; and yet the spirituall good and edification of the Church in the right preaching of the Word, Sacraments, and pure discipline is his end. It is true, whether the blashemer professe repentance, or not, the Magistrate is to punish, yea and to take his life, if he in seducing of many, have prevailed, but yet his end is edification, even in taking away the life; for he is to put away evill, that all Israel may feare, and doe so no more; but this edification is procured by the sword, and by a coactive power, and so the Church power and the kingly power differ in their formall objects, and their formall ends.”

Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries or, A Peacable Plea, etc. Lon 1644. p. 398

[Deut. 17; Magistrate’s to read the law].
” It is true as King hee is oblieged to read continually in the booke of the Law of God, Deut. 17. and to know what is truth, what heresie, in so farre as hee commandeth that Pastors preach sound doctrine, and that as a Judge hee is to punish heresie.”

ibid., p. 429

[Punishment requires witnesses for all Old Testament crimes which are perpetual as to equity].
” It is clear the question must be thus stated, for all the lawes of the old Testament (which we hold in their Morall equitie to be perpetuall) that are touching blasphemies, heresies, solicitation to worship false Gods and the breach of which the Godly Magistrate was to punish, command or forbid onely such things as may be proved by two or three witnesses, and which husband and wife are not to conceal, and from which all Israel must abstain for fear of the like punishment. Deut. 13.8,9,10,11; Deut. 17.5,6; Levit.20.1,2,3,4,5. But opinions in the minde, acts of the understanding, can never be proved by witnesses and such as neither Magistrates nor Church can censure.”

Samuel Rutherford, A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty ofConscience etc… (Lon-1649). p. 47

[Seducers to idolatry to be punished now as then].
” For neither under Moses more then now, could the sword convert men to the true Religion, yet bodily death was to be inflicted on the seducer, then, as now. Deut.13.11.”

ibid., p. 55.

[Duty of the Magistrate from Deut.13 & Rom.13 perpetual].
“… the intrinsecall worke and end of the Magistrate is to avenge evill doing, and so to remove the fierce anger of the Lord from a land, that the people may feare and not do any such wickednesse, as is cleare, Deut.13:10,11. Exod.32:29,30. Deut. 19:20. Rom. 13:3,4,5. 1 Pet.2:14. Now the false Prophet is such as brings on all these evills, and therefore if Magistrates stand under the new Testament, and if there be such a sin now as thrusting away people from the Lord who hath, in Christ, delivered us from a greater bondage then that of Aegypt, this must be a perpetuall Law.”

ibid., pp. 186-187

[Lev.24:10-14 a perpetual law against blasphemy].
” Levit.24:10,11,12,13,14. which is,ver.15,16. Whosoever curseth his God shall beare his sin, 16. And whosoever blasphemeth the name of the Lord hee shall surely be put to death; and all the congregation shall certainly stone him, as well the stranger as hee that is borne in the land, when hee blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall be put to death: there be two things here for me that proveth this was no judiciall temporary law binding Israel onely. 1. His God, Holdeth forth, that nature abhorreth, and the sum of the first command written in the heart is, hee that curseth his maker whom he is to blesse, love, and serve with all his heart, should dye. 2. This law obliegeth the stranger, and any heathen to be put to death, if hee should blaspheme God, saith it is the law of nature, and obliegeth us under the New Testament as being the highest sin that nature crieth shame, and woe upon;”

ibid., p. 183
Quote:
George Gillespie** 1613-1648
[ The Judicial law; its continuing authority].
” 1. Though we have clear and full scriptures in the New Testament of the abolishing the ceremonial law, yet we no where read in all the New Testament of the abolishing of the judicial law, so far as it did concern the punishing of sins against the moral law, of which heresy and seducing of souls is one, and a great one. Once God did reveal his will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian Magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and show some Scripture for it.”

George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, Lon. 1645 (reprinted in;Naphtali Press, Anthology of Presbyterian & Reformed Literature, Volume 4. Dallas Texas, 1991)
pp.183

[Capital punishment by magistrates].
” It is but a poor argument whereby Bishop Bilson, Of the Government of the Church, chap.4, would prove the cutting off not to be meant of excommunication, because it is applied even to capital offences, such as the law elsewhere appointeth men to be put to death for, as if it were any absurdity to say, that one and the same offence is to be punished sub formalitate scandali with excommunication, and sub formalitate criminis with capital punishment; and who knoweth not that a capital crime is a cause of excommunication, which is also sometimes the sole punishment, the magistrate neglecting his duty. If a known blashemer or incestuous person be not cut off by the magistrate, as he ought by the Law of God, shall he therefore not be cut off by excommunication. If he had proved that all the causes of cutting off in the law were capital crimes, he had said much; but that will never be proved.”

Aaron ’s Rod Blossoming; p. 30

[ The Magistrates duty to enforce punishments against law].
” 2. I heartily yield that a lawful magistrate, whether Christian or heathen, ought to be a keeper or guardian of both tables; and, as God’s vicegerent, hath authority to punish heinous sins against either table, by civil or corporal punishments, which proves nothing against a distinct church government for keeping pure the ordinances of Christ.”

ibid., p. 67
Quote:
Philip Nye ** 1596-1672
[Distinction between civil and ecclesiastical sanctions].
” Blasphemy may be punished with two punishments, if a sin may be punished with two punishments; as for example, theft: if a man were a church member he might be excommunicated first, and hanged afterwards. That was not a fallacy.

There were two places that Mr. Collier had [alleged]. They must not punish idolaters then because the magistrate was so. But for the woman taken in adultery, this was the reason that Christ did not judge her, because he would not meddle with magistratical matters. All the while Christ lived no Jewish rite was abolished.”

Puritanism And Liberty Being the Army Debates (1647-9) from the Clarke Manuscripts, edt. by A.S.P. Woodhouse. Lon-1974 p. 128. All words in square brackets have been added by the editor to
give the sense of the MSS.
Quote:
Thomas Hodges ** d.1672
[Parliament is to enforce God’s Law against blasphemy].
” By your Censures and Punishments, let all the world take notice you are sensible of Gods dishonour, and that there is nothing more you affect, then to do him service in this great businesse: If nothing else will do it, (t) the Seducing Prophet must die the death, for offering to thrust Gods people from him; Eliah slayes (u) Baals Prophets, the like doth (w) Jehu, (x) The People of the land slay Mattan. If any offer sacrifice to Idols on altars, let him be cut off with the sword, says Constantine; Valentinian, Theodosius, Martian , were alike disposed against such persons. I confesse, such executions should be after other means made use of, all endeavor frustrated; desperate Doctrines broached, with Haeresie, Blasphemy, or Sedition mingled. The Thunderbolt smites few, but frights many.”

Thomas Hodges, The Growth and Spreading of Haeresie. Set forth in a Sermon preached before the Honourable House of Commons, Lon. 1647. p.57. The proof texts cited in the margin are (t) Deut.13.5.(u)1 King. 18. (w) 2 King. 10.24. (x) 2 King. 11.18.
Quote:
Richard Vines ** 1600-1655
[Blasphemers and seditious heretics still to be executed].
” For the blasphemous and seditious Haeritickes, both Lutherans and others of the Reformed churches do agree that they may be punished capitally, that is for their blasphemy or sedition; but the Socinian stands out here also, and denies it; alleadging that the punishment of false Prophets in the old Testament was speciali jure by speciali law granted to the Israelites, and therefore you must not looke (saith the Socinian ) into the olde Testament for a rule of proceeding against false Prophets and blasphemers: Nor (saith Calvin and Catharinus ) can you find in the new Testament any precept for the punishment of Theeves, Traytors, Adulterers, Witches, murtherers and the like, and yet they may, or at least some of them bee capitally punisht: for the Gospell destroys not the just lawes of civill policy or CommonÂ¬wealths;… “

Richard Vines, The Authours, Nature, and Danger of Haeresie. Laid open in a sermon Preached before the Honourable House of Commons… March 1646. Lon. 1647 p. 64
Quote:
Nathanial Hardy 1618-1670
[God to be honoured more than Man].
“…divers Nations appoint various punishments, all some, for those that violate Religion, tell me, I beseech you, Is it a capital! crime to speak Treason against the three Estates of the Land, and shall it deserve lesse to belch out blasphemy against any of the three Persons in the sacred Trinity? Is it an offence worthie of punishment to abuse the Sonne of a King? and is it lesse to dishonour the Sonne of God? shall they who rob your houses be condemned, and these that rob your soules escape? are those women which adulterate their husbands beds justly sentenced? and shall those that adulterate Gods sacred Word go free? Fidem ne sen/are Deo levius quam homini? Is it a more veniell offence to break faith with God then man ? “

Nathanial Hardy, The Arraignment of Licentious Libertie, and Oppressing Tyrannie. In a Sermon before the Right honourable House of Peeres.Febr.24.1646 p.18.

Quote:
William Reyner ** d.1666
[How we may prevent idolatry].
” Execute judgment for God, every one as farre as his power will stretch. First, doe judgment upon thine owne selfe for thy sinnes in all wayes of godly revenge, as by Fasting & c. sing mercy and judgment to thy family, as David Psa.101. Doe thy best that judgment that hath beene turned to wormewood and hemlocke, may run downe like a mighty streame, in publique. and where thy hand cannot reach a blow, or cast a stone at an idolater, blasphemer persecutor, & c. let thy heart at least doe it. For if a mans consenting to, or approving of an act of injustice may in guilt him, as I may say, in it as it was with the Jewes, whose state was ruined for killing Christ and the Prophets, though most part of them had never seene any of them Mat.23.37. why may not a mans executing judgment, with his heart, when he can proceed no further, be accepted, in respect of him, for an act of justice, by him that is pleased both in good and evill actions, to accept the will for the deed?
This duty is principally incumbent upon the Magistrate, who is to execute judgment of the Lord, not arbitrarily as himself pleaseth; but according to the rule of the Word, both for mater and manner.
1. For the matter man hath no warrant either to leave grosse and horrid sinnes unpunished in the committers of them; such as are the ring leaders in idolatry and persecution; nor yet to commute or change the nature of the punishment.”

William Reyner, Babylons Ruining- Earthquake and the Restauration ofZion delivered in a sermon before the honourable house of commons… Aug. 28 1644. p.44 Later Reyner questions the motives of Magistrates who punish theft, yet do not pursue idolaters etc.

---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 AM ----------

If you want the History on this subject you will need to turn to 

Law and Revolution, The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition -- Harold Berman

Law and Revolution, II: The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition (v. 2) -- Harold Berman

The Reformation of Rights: Law, Religion and Human Rights in Early Modern Calvinism -- John Witte

Unbelief and revolution: A series of Lectures in History -- Groen van Prinisterer

Veenhof's book that Mark recommends is a must read for it gets behind the issue of the Church & State and examines the relationship between Nature and Grace. It is at this foundational pivot point the the Westminster West crew goes off the rails and so it is this issue that Bavinck (via Veenhof) helps us with.

This should get you started. If you want more I have more. Just ask. 

Henry Van Til is an excellent resources but I would be slow to embrace Dooyeweerd and his Comonomic ideas. Dooyeweerd's problems end up bringing you right back to R2Kt's problems by the time it is all said and done._


----------



## mvdm (May 11, 2010)

Those are mainstream Reformed/confessional quotes provided by Pastor McAtee. For some sharp comparison, here are two representative quotes from a leading R2k advocate:

"My argument is that the basic teachings of Christianity are virtually useless for resolving America's political disputes." 
Darryl Hart, from _A Secular Faith._

“The Bible doesn’t speak to modern constitutional orders or republics. If the Bible does speak about politics, it is either the monarchy of Jesus, or it is the jure divino rule of presbyters. So if the Bible doesn’t specify what government the heathen should have, and if not even the prophets in exile objected to gentile forms of political rule, then how is the Bible clearer about political order than general revelation?”

Darryl Hart, from one of his blog entries.


----------



## TimV (May 12, 2010)

> "My argument is that the basic teachings of Christianity are virtually useless for resolving America's political disputes."
> Darryl Hart, from A Secular Faith.



Have there ever been any godly thinkers that have thought that way anywhere? OT, NT, Church Fathers, Reformers, Puritans...anyone???? This is perverse.


----------



## py3ak (May 12, 2010)

I've only read Hart's biography of Machen (which was very good), but the quotes provided above don't give me enough context. Is he speaking of Scripture not telling us where the balance of power should lie between king and parliament type of questions, or is he including things like individual states putting restrictions on abortion? While either way he may not be right, stating that Scripture doesn't dictate the form of government is a far cry from saying that God's law does not bind magistrates as such.


----------



## mvdm (May 12, 2010)

py3ak said:


> I've only read Hart's biography of Machen (which was very good), but the quotes provided above don't give me enough context. Is he speaking of Scripture not telling us where the balance of power should lie between king and parliament type of questions, or is he including things like individual states putting restrictions on abortion? While either way he may not be right, stating that Scripture doesn't dictate the form of government is a far cry from saying that God's law does not bind magistrates as such.


 
Here is review of _A Secular Faith_ by another R2k advocate. As opposed to our reading a critical review, it can be illuminating to peer into an R2k "echo chamber"--which I think puts some context to the representative quotes I supplied. 

Reformation500: Clark's Review of "A Secular Faith"


----------



## py3ak (May 12, 2010)

Thanks for the link to the review. It certainly cements my idea that Hart's views are not likely to compel agreement.


----------



## mvdm (May 12, 2010)

py3ak said:


> ... Hart's views are not likely to compel agreement.



An elegant understatement.


----------



## Scott1 (May 13, 2010)

While I can see there are several trains of thought that proceed from this, and passion that proceeds from them, a few things seem clear from a general biblical perspective:


1) God does not call us to isolate ourselves from the world- not from its culture, business or civil governance

2) God does call us to separate ourselves from sinful behavior

3) We need God's wisdom and grace to "hate the sin and love the sinner."

4) There are times we need to completely separate ourselves from certain things because of our weakness

5) The church can speak to biblical morality outside the church as long as the issues are clearly biblical, clearly defined, and the church does not lose its primary focus of corporate worship of God through covenant community

6) Christians can and ought be involved in bringing God's ways to every aspect of life (in and outside the church)

7) It is not "theonomy" or "theocracy" necessarily to believe these things


----------



## Peairtach (May 13, 2010)

I certainly believe in the Establishment Principle and the Christian State and its support and countenancing of the Church, and the General Equity of the Mosaic Civil Laws, but not in the execution of Muslims and Roman Catholics, but rather their conversion.

I believe that this is the doctrine of the Free Church of Scotland. She subscribes to the full WCF but in such a way as to avoid counter-productive persecutory principles. In the nineteenth century, the FCoS adopted an act to this effect.

Christian States (super)naturally develop when Christianity is so in the ascendency that it is almost inevitable.

But let's not put our faith in politics, which can't save a single soul, but remember that the Church is the apple of God's eye.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 13, 2010)

Andrew P.C. said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, I just ordered the Christian idea of the state. I can't believe something so bloodless as R2K would have been held in anything other than contempt by the Reformers.
> ...



Baptism was an issue with which they struggled. Read about the Nisbet family. The Nisbest's defended royalty till they were forced to have an Anglican baptize their children. The Reformers struggled with life and truth. One of the Nisbet's lost the all for the cause of Christ. I guess you might need to define what the reformers were also. Ever hear of the ejection and the reformation? I am not trying to be hard. Just informative. Either you stayed like William Gurnall or were ejected. This wasn't a bloodless controversy in my estimation.


----------



## Peairtach (May 14, 2010)

> Thanks, I just ordered the Christian idea of the state. I can't believe something so bloodless as R2K would have been held in anything other than contempt by the Reformers.



Yes, but blood was called for by the enemies of the Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters as well. Were they not creatures of their time? Cromwell and the Covenanters could not even agree on whether Charles I should be executed, and went to war over it. Cromwell, not a Presbyterian, won.

The effectiveness or Scripturalness of propagating or preserving God's Kingdom by killing has since been called into question by Dabney and other good men.

Those who propose theocracy a la Moses don't propose that the killing of, e.g., Muslims and Roman Catholics, should start until Biblical Christianity is in the ascendant. But when that happens, in the real power that I believe it will along with Reconstructionists, there is no need to kill those that still cling to false religions, but it is more effective and biblical to assail them with the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. 

It seems like a much weaker instrument than the sword of iron, or an uzi, but it is conquering this World.

Scott Clark and Jason Stellman don't seem to be postmillennialists but convinced amillennialists, or they assumed amillennialism in their discussion. 

When secular humanism gives up the ghost and Christ's kingdom makes great advances such that a large majority in America and Great Britain are biblical Christians, then you will inevitably see Christian societies and states developing, although I don't believe they will be theonomic in the sense that theonomists believe is biblical, because too many Christians will have realised the errors of simple theonomy.


----------

