# Magistrate calling synods and supressing heresy



## N. Eshelman (Mar 2, 2008)

Can anyone give me some good reading on why most American Presbyterian churches deny these things in the Westminster Confession of Faith: 

1. The civil magistrate having the right to call synods.

2. The suppressing of error, heresy, and an established church. 

Thanks!


----------



## Kevin (Mar 2, 2008)

No. because there are no good reasons to think that way.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 2, 2008)

nleshelman said:


> Can anyone give me some good reading on why most American Presbyterian churches deny these things in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
> 
> 1. The civil magistrate having the right to call synods.
> 
> ...



Democracy and pluralism. Those are the two twins that dictate American thinking. They are also incompatible with the Confession.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 2, 2008)

Because it leans in the direction of Erastianism and is against the spirit of the Reformation. It is also a denial of the separation between church and state.


----------



## crhoades (Mar 2, 2008)

Poimen said:


> Because it leans in the direction of Erastianism and is against the spirit of the Reformation. It is also a denial of the separation between church and state.


 
I would argue that is in the very spirit of the Reformation. The spirit of the Reformation may be wrong at this point, but it is enshrined in all of the confessions/catechisms of the time as well as the writings.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 2, 2008)

Poimen said:


> Because it leans in the direction of Erastianism and is against the spirit of the Reformation. It is also a denial of the separation between church and state.



Instead it is recognition that both church and state are under the authority of Christ; if the magistrate does not have the authority to call a synod of godly ministers to advise him on civil matters, then the state does not have to listen to the church.

Church and state have separate duties and spheres of authority, but they must co-operate for the glory of God.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 2, 2008)

Perhaps the answer is that the American Presbyterians looked to the example of how the magistrate used this clause to basically destroy Presbyterianism and (Savoy) Independency forever in England and to establish a State Church antithetical to the Confession.

Or maybe they looked and saw that there has never been a government/magistrate that has used this clause to the health of the Church, but always its detriment.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 2, 2008)

On a constructive note to the OP, I would look for 18th century works around the time of the founding of the various American Presbyterian denominations to see if it was discussed, particularly as the Covenanter churches might have objected to the changes. The ARP published their changed standards in 1799, and the PCUSA in 1789.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 2, 2008)

crhoades said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > Because it leans in the direction of Erastianism and is against the spirit of the Reformation. It is also a denial of the separation between church and state.
> ...



Hence (in part), it was known as the "Magisterial Reformation."


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 2, 2008)

Part of the concern in the United States was based upon the structural constitutionalism as well as explicit constitutionalism in the federal compact of separate but equal States. The American Presbyterians updated the Confession in 1789 and the Bill of Rights wasn't added until 1791 to the Federal Constitution. Quite possibly they wouldn't have been compelled to engage the change if the Bill of Rights was added prior to 1789, as they were of the mind that the United States could never exercise jurisdiction over the Church, whereas the State's had official State Churches. Hence, I think it is proper to consider it a defensive in advance of the First Amendment.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 2, 2008)

I do not agree with Lee Irons (for theocratic, not theonomic reasons), but for reference purposes, see his discussions of the 1788 American revisions to the WCF here:

http://www.upper-register.com/papers/1788_revision.pdf
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/1788_theonomy.pdf

It is also worth noting that WLC 191 ("the church...countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate") still affirms the establishment principle, a happy inconsistency.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 2, 2008)

Does anyone know when the RPCNA first rejected WCF 31.2 in its Testimony?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 2, 2008)

Oliver O'Donovan (an anglican of all things) has helpfully suggested that however we view the relation of magistrate to church, it is important that we see how political authority reconstituted under the authority of Christ.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 2, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > Because it leans in the direction of Erastianism and is against the spirit of the Reformation. It is also a denial of the separation between church and state.
> ...



The spirit of the Reformation prevailed against the opinion(s) of the medieval age; the writers of the revised WCF were men of their time _no more_ than the revisers of the original. 

Just read Calvin's _Institutes_, Book 4, Chapter 20 to see what I mean by the spirit of the Reformation.


----------



## MW (Mar 2, 2008)

Poimen said:


> The spirit of the Reformation prevailed against the opinion(s) of the medieval age; the writers of the revised WCF were men of their time _no more_ than the revisers of the original.
> 
> Just read Calvin's _Institutes_, Book 4, Chapter 20 to see what I mean by the spirit of the Reformation.



I don't see the separation of Church and State in either Calvin's Institutes or the American revision of the Westminster Confession.


----------



## Theoretical (Mar 2, 2008)

Here's a good article on the still-theocratic nature of the American WCF from J. Ligon Duncan. Link

Disclaimer in advance: I'm not posting this article to stir up the theonomy debate (as Dr. Duncan's article certainly takes a position in that respect), but only to show that a strong argument can be made that the American WCF notes that the state has distinct responsibilities towards Christ's Church.

One of the footnotes in reference to voluntaryism is particularly choice:



> 8. Not the more extreme "voluntaryism" of British independency which
> operated on the principle that the responsibility for the advancement of
> the cause of Christ rests merely on individual men, rather than rulers and
> nations (see again Historical Theology), but a "moderate voluntaryism"
> ...


There is most definitely a robust role for the state as the guardian of the Church, even within its more constricted role in the 1789 WCF.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 3, 2008)

nleshelman said:


> Can anyone give me some good reading on why most American Presbyterian churches deny these things in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
> 
> 1. The civil magistrate having the right to call synods.
> 
> ...



Concerning point 2, it should be noted that when the United States was formed there were established churches in the states, however, as these were different denominations (Independent, Anglican, Presbyterian) it was not possible to have a established Federal church. Of course, Stephen Perks' view of a Confessional establishment, rather than a denominational establishment might be more attractive to Americans.


----------

