# The Dark Side of Protestantism?



## Minh (Sep 22, 2019)

One of the accusation that is hurled at Protestants relies on the history. Our opponents charge that in the past, while Protestants claim to believe in religious toleration, in reality, such religion also has its own hand dripped in blood as well. Take England for example. While we claim that the reign of Queen Mary I was one of the most atrocious monarchs in history because of her intense Popish zeal in persecuting Protestantism, we neglect the fact that under the reign of Queen Elizabeth who is a moderate Protestants, Ireland, which was predominantly Catholic, become a killing field. In high school, I was taught that Johnathan Swift wrote a satire called a "Modest Proposal" in response to the plight of the Irish people under British Rule. And the reason for this poverty was obvious: religion.

I also watched yesterday Dr. Ryan Reeves lecture on "Catholics in America". Despite of being renowned for religious liberty, the United States, under Protestant influences, was also notorious for its anti-Catholic sentiments during the 19th century and even in the 1960s during the Kennedy election campaign.

Such accusation allows our Romanist opponents to play what I called "the martyr card", because Papist religion would deserve authenticity partly for its endurance of persecution.

My question was: why would Protestantism, as the gateway to religious freedom, could have its own "dark side" on this matter? We believe that heathens are converted to Christ solely through hearing the preaching of the Gospel. What are your opinions on this?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 22, 2019)

Minh said:


> Our opponents charge that in the past, while Protestants claim to believe in religious toleration, in reality, such religion also has its own hand dripped in blood as well.



Which magisterial Protestants believed in toleration? The problem with your post is that it is based on the mistaken assumption that Protestantism was traditionally in favour of something that it was not, e.g. unbounded toleration for false religion.

Reactions: Like 14 | Love 1


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 22, 2019)

Both Catholics and Protestant killed over religion. Only the Anabaptists.....wait....

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 22, 2019)

Be wary of a simplistic view of history which some will put forward to advance their own aims.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------



## Joseph Knowles (Sep 22, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Which magisterial Protestants believed in toleration? The problem with your post is that it is based on the mistaken assumption that Protestantism was traditionally in favour of something that it was not, e.g. unbounded toleration for false religion.


I think this is the key. It's true as far as it goes that some Protestants later came to be closely associated with religious toleration. However, to say that the magisterial reformers who got the whole thing off the ground were avid proponents of religious toleration is simply not supported by the historical record.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Sep 22, 2019)

There is no such thing as religious toleration.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 22, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Which magisterial Protestants believed in toleration? The problem with your post is that it is based on the mistaken assumption that Protestantism was traditionally in favour of something that it was not, e.g. unbounded toleration for false religion.



This error of toleration is one of the five changes I oppose in the so-called American Revision to the Westminster Confession of Faith. There were only 145 words changed. What harm could that possibly do? Much in every way.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Joseph Knowles (Sep 22, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> There is no such thing as religious toleration.


It depends on how you define your terms, doesn't it? Could we fairly say that some people believe the civil magistrate should bear the sword against those who deviate from the Reformed faith and that some people believe otherwise the civil magistrate should not do so (or at least should not do so in the same number of situations)? I think that's the idea behind phrases like "religious toleration."


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 22, 2019)

Well they do say this was the Original Geneva Gown

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 22, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> View attachment 6291 Well they say this was the Original Geneva Gown


What am I missing here?


----------



## Smeagol (Sep 22, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> What am I missing here?


I felt the Doom of the proposed “Protestant Dark Side” from the thread title. My fallen brain immediately went to Star Wars when I read the thread title and the OP.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Henry Hall (Sep 22, 2019)

Joseph Knowles said:


> some people believe the civil magistrate should bear the sword against those who deviate from the Reformed faith


A straw man if by “deviate” you mean “don’t believe in.”

But if you meant something stronger, it would have been good to include that in such a seemingly thoughtfully crafted expression. 

But whichever meaning you attach to “deviate,” I don’t think you *tolerate* this civil magistrate’s response to it, hence your comment.


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 22, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I felt the Doom of the proposed “Protestant Dark Side” from the thread title. My fallen brain immediately went to Star Wars when I read the thread title and the OP.


Oh... I am really dumb. I hadn't paid attention to the title!


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 23, 2019)

Henry Hall said:


> A straw man if by “deviate” you mean “don’t believe in.”
> 
> But if you meant something stronger, it would have been good to include that in such a seemingly thoughtfully crafted expression.
> 
> But whichever meaning you attach to “deviate,” I don’t think you *tolerate* this civil magistrate’s response to it, hence your comment.



Sorry, but I'd like to avoid a Reformed Shariah law. The Muslims also say things like this; you can have your own religion. You don't have to believe in Islam. Just pay the Dhimmi tax. And don't ever criticize Islam or the Prophet. Many Reformed people say that religious dissenters would not be hassled in their own ideal version of the Theocracy, but we saw how Roger Williams was treated in the American Colonies. And Obadiah Holmes. 
http://www.brucegourley.com/baptists/persecutionoutline.htm

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 24, 2019)

Protestants did not originally believe in religious tolerance or diversity, as has already been said. When the Reformation happened in Scotland popery was outlawed and for the next hundred years and more there was a constant battle between Presbyterianism and episcopacy (which the crypto-papist monarchs were trying to force on the Scottish people). The desire of the Christians in Scotland was that Scotland would be Presbyterian.

There was also a desire and indeed an attempt to bring all of the UK under the Reformed religion. That was the intention of the Solemn League and Covenant. And indeed it was a major driving force behind the English Civil War.

With respect to what happened under the various monarchs one should not think the two sides were just the same: that romanist monarchs persecuting Protestants and romanists killed or imprisoned under Protestant monarchs is the same thing. Monarchs like Mary Tudor were motivated by their hatred towards true Christianity to persecute the Protestants. Protestant monarchs were protecting their countries. One has to bear in mind that romanists (once the Reformation had been effected) were traitors. Their loyalty was to Rome which, at that time, was literally waging war on the Protestant nations (she still is but in different ways). Religion was not a private matter so to ally oneself with Rome was to ally oneself with a foreign state which was at enmity with one's own country. In such circumstances the state was within its right to take action.

As to later "anti-Catholic" laws I see no problem with these. Why should we allow the Antichrist a foot in our land? The toleration acts were a travesty and Rome's influence has spread and spread throughout our nations now. I see no reason why we should allow any religion other than Protestantism in our nations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 24, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> As to later "anti-Catholic" laws I see no problem with these. Why should we allow the Antichrist a foot in our land? The toleration acts were a travesty and Rome's influence has spread and spread throughout our nations now. I see no reason why we should allow any religion other than Protestantism in our nations.



Below are both the original Westminster Confession on the civil magistrate compared to the American revision's gutting of it. This is the most extreme change as far as the number of words is concerned in the revision. Note that the establishment principle is overturned and religious equality or egalitarianism has been instituted instead. Under this revision, we are to treat heretics equally with the true religion. And we are seeing the fruit of this played out in our country as unbelievers are winning the day.

*The Original Wording*
_(the real deal)_​*Chapter XXIII
Of the Civil Magistrate*
III. 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. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

*The American Revision*​*Chapter 23
Of the Civil Magistrate*
3. (Completely rewritten) _Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance_.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Sep 24, 2019)

Listening to Sam Waldron this morning, he mentions that a state with no official religion was ever heard of until 300-400 years ago, thus this is something new in time. 

I believe France tried it, though they went farther and intentionally tried to erase any religious references in their civil administrations, even converting the calendar to a 10 day week. Among other things the church didn't go along with it, so they switched back after 12 years.

And of course, there is our US Constitution prohibiting any establishment of religion. 60 million slaughtered babies later I question whether this has worked out better than the Westminster ideal would have.

@Ed Walsh how does the American revision come down to toleration of heretics? Is it that in absence of a set doctrinal standard that such is a necessity?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 24, 2019)

Harley said:


> how does the American revision come down to toleration of heretics? Is it that in absence of a set doctrinal standard that such is a necessity?



If I understand your question correctly, I think the last sentence in the American Revision (AR) of, Of the Civil Magistrate, says it all.

_It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance_.​
To better understand the AR's intention, it is helpful to read the original to see that the AR offers equal protection under the law. A man can believe, practice, and teach whatever seems good to himself. If you think about it, treating heretics as equally entitled to teach their views is not equality at all. It is showing favoritism to the blasphemer or atheist to treat him the same as a true Christian. This "equality" is the opposite of the way God treats the righteous and the wicked.

(Let me know if I got your question wrong.)

Proverbs 11:31 (KJV)
Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.

Psalms 11:5 (KJV)
The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Psalms 7:11 (KJV)
God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

Proverbs 12:7 (KJV)
The wicked are overthrown, and are not: but the house of the righteous shall stand.

Proverbs 21:12 (ESV)
The Righteous One observes the house of the wicked; he throws the wicked down to ruin.

Proverbs 10:28 (ESV)
The hope of the righteous brings joy, but the expectation of the wicked will perish.

Proverbs 3:33 (ESV)
The Lord's curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the dwelling of the righteous.​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Sep 24, 2019)

Ed Walsh said:


> If I understand your question correctly, I think the last sentence in the American Revision (AR) of, Of the Civil Magistrate, says it all.
> 
> _It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance_.​
> To better understand the AR's intention, it is helpful to read the original to see that the AR offers equal protection under the law. A man can believe, practice, and teach whatever seems good to himself. If you think about it, treating heretics as equally entitled to teach their views is not equality at all. It is showing favoritism to the blasphemer or atheist to treat him the same as a true Christian. This "equality" is the opposite of the way God treats the righteous and the wicked.
> ...



I think you got it. So whether Christian, atheist, KKK, Muslim, Ba'hai, all will receive exact same protection for their religious acts?

Yet the American revision still holds to the countenancing of the church, but not one of supporting one and not the other? So does Benny Hinn or Steve Anderson have the same shot at support from tax dollars as Joel Beeke under that idea? Or is the role of the nursing father to protect the church but nothing more--which is what is given to all other religions and blasphemies, and essentially making the government a nursing father to Muhammud as well?


----------



## Minh (Sep 24, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> As to later "anti-Catholic" laws I see no problem with these. Why should we allow the Antichrist a foot in our land? The toleration acts were a travesty and Rome's influence has spread and spread throughout our nations now. I see no reason why we should allow any religion other than Protestantism in our nations.



I understand how dangerous Popery is. I read of course how they use the Jesuits to conduct assassination attempts at government officials in Europe of the 1600s. Nowadays, I would be so outrageous to hear evangelical converts to Romanism offering "biblical" defenses for infused righteousness, Mary worshipping, relics veneration, papal infallibility, etc...

But whether we should impose anti-Romanist law in our nations is still questionable for me. It's our task to covert unbelievers through the mean of preaching of the Gospel. I find no where in the New Testament a command to convert heathens by swords. Augustine said:"no man can believe against his will."

But if you mean we should eradicate Roman Catholicism out of a Protestant nation because of the danger they posed to our sovereignty and of their influences on our religion, then I would say just deport them.


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 24, 2019)

The revision states that the role of nursing father directly pertains to "_the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians_._" _

The broader liberty is limited to allowing that _"all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance_."

As one who holds credo-baptist convictions, I for one am grateful for such tolerance, especially in view of the physical persecution that even the peaceable English Anabaptists and Baptists suffered at the hands of both the Anglican and Presbyterian state churches.

Also, I've wondered how how one fully reconciles a strict state-enforced religious subscriptionism with WCF 20.2: 

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also."​
Of course key in this is what is surely "contrary to his Word." Yet on issues like baptism true believers can differ while honestly seeking to be true to the Word.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Sep 24, 2019)

Minh said:


> I understand how dangerous Popery is. I read of course how they use the Jesuits to conduct assassination attempts at government officials in Europe of the 1600s. Nowadays, I would be so outrageous to hear evangelical converts to Romanism offering "biblical" defenses for infused righteousness, Mary worshipping, relics veneration, papal infallibility, etc...
> 
> But whether we should impose anti-Romanist law in our nations is still questionable for me. It's our task to covert unbelievers through the mean of preaching of the Gospel. I find no where in the New Testament a command to convert heathens by swords. Augustine said:"no man can believe against his will."
> 
> But if you mean we should eradicate Roman Catholicism out a Protestant nation because of the danger they posed to our sovereignty, then I would say just deport them.


We never converted anyone with swords. Unlike the inquisition, our laws have generally been in the form of prohibitions - not that one must become an Protestant, but that one may not proselytize for papism, or observe mass, pray to Mary, etc in the public worship of the established church, and commanding the removal of idols and relics from churches, etc. The closest thing I can think of to coercion is the requiring of (mere) attendence to services in some places. Now, unless one thinks public idolatry is a God-given right, I don't see how such laws can be objected to.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Sep 24, 2019)

So does such a view necessarily mean unrighteous persecution of the godly? Was the beating Obadiah Holmes an unavoidable consequence, or was it simply a misapplication? How does such a view deal with differing opinions among the orthodox? Far as I know Robert Haldane a Baptist lived in Presbyterian Scotland and got through just fine. I would be interested to hear different takes.

Also, I'd be interested to know, if we are not to make Christ's law the basis of our laws and government, and we are not to enforce them, on what basis do we intend to outlaw sodomy and cease to recognize it as marriage? On even what basis could we outlaw abortion? Or defend one's right to not work on the Sabbath? Seems like you would be stuck appealing to natural law, though that's obviously not agreed upon by all.

A few thought experiment questions .

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ed Walsh (Sep 24, 2019)

Harley said:


> Or is the role of the nursing father to protect the church but nothing more



My opinion of the AR's use of _nursing father_s means about nothing. It is just a remnant of the original for effect or nostalgia. That is about the only two words that were in the original Confession.

Just mu 2¢


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 24, 2019)

Minh said:


> It's our task to convert unbelievers through the mean of preaching of the Gospel. I find no where in the New Testament a command to convert heathens by swords. Augustine said:"no man can believe against his will."


The _magistrate_ bears the sword, not the church (Rom. 13:4).

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 24, 2019)

Minh said:


> One of the accusation that is hurled at Protestants relies on the history. Our opponents charge that in the past, while Protestants claim to believe in religious toleration, in reality, such religion also has its own hand dripped in blood as well. Take England for example. While we claim that the reign of Queen Mary I was one of the most atrocious monarchs in history because of her intense Popish zeal in persecuting Protestantism, we neglect the fact that under the reign of Queen Elizabeth who is a moderate Protestants, Ireland, which was predominantly Catholic, become a killing field. In high school, I was taught that Johnathan Swift wrote a satire called a "Modest Proposal" in response to the plight of the Irish people under British Rule. And the reason for this poverty was obvious: religion.
> 
> I also watched yesterday Dr. Ryan Reeves lecture on "Catholics in America". Despite of being renowned for religious liberty, the United States, under Protestant influences, was also notorious for its anti-Catholic sentiments during the 19th century and even in the 1960s during the Kennedy election campaign.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what's 'dark' about the magistrate enforcing God's moral law. Whence is he supposed to take his queues as a ruler, if not from the objective principles of morality that God has written into the heart of man and into the pages of Scripture?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Minh (Sep 24, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> I'm not sure what's 'dark' about the magistrate enforcing God's moral law.



My opinion is I'm just not sure whether its wrong or not to punish someone for their conscience. I would concur with Charles that by imposing anti-false religion (e.g. anti-Romanist law), we prohibit any adherent to any false belief from displaying their faith in public, or "public idolatry". However, I would feel uncomfortable to read history about violent religious persecutions.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 24, 2019)

Minh said:


> My opinion is I'm just not sure whether its wrong or not to punish someone for their conscience. I would concur with Charles that by imposing anti-false religion (e.g. anti-Romanist law), we prohibit any adherent to any false belief from displaying their faith in public, or "public idolatry". However, I would feel uncomfortable to read history about violent religious persecutions.


I don't know of any protestant magistrate ever punishing someone for his conscience. They punish(ed) people for their actions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 25, 2019)

Minh said:


> I understand how dangerous Popery is. I read of course how they use the Jesuits to conduct assassination attempts at government officials in Europe of the 1600s. Nowadays, I would be so outrageous to hear evangelical converts to Romanism offering "biblical" defenses for infused righteousness, Mary worshipping, relics veneration, papal infallibility, etc...
> 
> But whether we should impose anti-Romanist law in our nations is still questionable for me. It's our task to covert unbelievers through the mean of preaching of the Gospel. I find no where in the New Testament a command to convert heathens by swords. Augustine said:"no man can believe against his will."
> 
> But if you mean we should eradicate Roman Catholicism out of a Protestant nation because of the danger they posed to our sovereignty and of their influences on our religion, then I would say just deport them.



I'm certainly not advocating conversion by the sword. I think in normal times it would suffice to ban romanism and leave conversion to the preaching of the Gospel. However in the 16th century especially there was also the political dimension to the religious controversy. When a nation is under the threat of violence and war because of religion and a monarch has subjects who by their romanism have professed their loyalty to that very foreign power threatening the nation then that has to be dealt with.


----------

