# Westminster Confession vs Regulative Principle of Civil Government



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 2, 2014)

What are the best arguments to use if you were trying to convince somebody that the Westminster Standards reject the concept of a regulative principle of civil government (hereafter, RPCG)?

One of the most obvious problems that I can think of are the inconsistency of the RPCG with the general equity clause and the three-fold division of the law (19:4), because how is the notion of a RPCG possibly congruous with the idea of a general equity of expired laws which _may_ apply (not _must_ apply in all circumstances) to modern nations?

Second, the WCF places limits upon Christian liberty which are not consistent with the RPCG. For instance, it says that " God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in *any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith on worship*" (20:4). According to the Confession, in all aspects of life we are free from obedience to commands which are contrary to the word of God. In matters pertaining to faith and worship, furthermore, we are free from any command which is beside the word of God. In other words, nothing can be imposed upon us in matters of faith and worship except what is commanded in scripture. But the Confession does not apply this regulative principle to matters of civil ethics, because in the civil realm we are to obey all laws which are not contrary to God's moral law - even though such laws may not be expressly mentioned in scripture (traffic laws, for instance).

Third, the Confession states that the civil magistrate is to "maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth" (23:2). How is this principle consistent with a RPCG? Surely if the RPCG is correct each commonwealth could not have its own "wholesome laws", but, instead, every nation would essentially be bound to OT judicial law alone (except for what has been modified in the NT)? Moreover, if the Confession taught a RPCG, why does it only list a small number of areas which the civil ruler is absolutely forbidden from interfering in (preaching the word, administering the sacraments and church discipline) in 23:3?

Is there anything else in the standards that you would cite in opposition to the RPCG?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Apr 2, 2014)

If a "Regulative Principle of Civil Government" was taught in the Confession of Faith, we would expect the same kind of language, i.e., the language of elements and circumstances, pertaining to Civil Government. For instance, in chapter 21, "Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day" there are element of worship listed--those things commanded by God as regulative, and in Chapter 1.6 there is a discussion on circumstances which pertain to the worship of God. The same is true if one includes the Form of Presbyterial Church Government, in that we have in that document a statement on Presbyterianism, the Government of the Church, and in the Confession itself chapter 31 on Synods and Councils, and that coupled in 1.6 with the statement on circumstances. In other words, when the divines desire to regulate, in accordance with Scripture, worship and Church Government, they do so in the language of elements and circumstances. Elements are those things required by God, and circumstances those attendant things, those "handmaidens of the elements" that facilitate their use. The elements are fixed and specifically required in their several seasons, the circumstances generally governed by "the light of nature, Christian prudence, and the general rules of the Word." There is no such contemplation or regulation of civil government in our Confessional documents.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 2, 2014)

Thanks, Rev. Ruddell. It seems strange that the divines would not use such language, especially in chapter 23, if their intention had been to teach that the civil government was bound by the RPCG. In view of this, we need to ask advocates of the RPCG to explicitly spell out what are the elements of civil government and what are the circumstances of civil government. If they refuse to do this, their attempt to build a regulative principle for the state is futile. They also need to demonstrate how such a concept is congruous with the Confession's apparent silence on the issue of an RPCG.


----------



## Logan (Apr 2, 2014)

It seems like it would be difficult to argue either way from the confession. The assembly members were mainly concerned with the church government and not civil government, were they not?

Were they spelling out the "ideal" government, or working within the framework of the current one?

Were they working under commission of their current government? Would Parliament have approved vast "reforms" to itself?

Seems hard to draw concrete conclusions on this topic.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 2, 2014)

Logan said:


> Seems hard to draw concrete conclusions on this topic.



But I think that this is just Daniel's point: there is no positive statement of such a principle, but civil government is defined in only the broadest terms. There is no "if there's no positive warrant for it, it is forbidden" rule for civil government as there is with the RPW. 

BTW, while I believe that Presbyterian government is biblical and thus mandated, I do not believe that the details of such are stipulated (in the same way that they are for worship), though I believe some clear principles as well as details are; I do not believe that we have, in other words, a regulative principle of ecclesiasatical government (RPEG) in the same way that we do for worship. I don't say this to distract this thread--which I find worthy and commend--I just note that historically, even among divine-right Presbtyerians, there have been differing ways of construing this, some of us believing that while there is an RPW, there's not a RPEG. Some others do believe that there is an RPEG, however. This is a legitimate point of difference between Westminster Confessionalists, not whether there is a RPCG, which there clearly is not (for reasons that Daniel, Todd, and others elsewhere have stated). 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 2, 2014)

Logan said:


> It seems like it would be difficult to argue either way from the confession. The assembly members were mainly concerned with the church government and not civil government, were they not?



So you agree that the Confession does not demand a belief in the RPCG? Obviously, this omission is a rather strange one if that is what they believed in.



Logan said:


> Were they spelling out the "ideal" government, or working within the framework of the current one?



If the "current" government did not conform to the RPCG then surely they would have been violating the RPCG by working within its framework. If the regulative principle applies to civil government in the same manner that it applies to worship, then it is a sin to partake in uncommanded elements of civil government. If the Westminster divines' believed in an RPCG, they must have violated their own principle by partaking in uncommanded elements of statecraft.


----------



## Logan (Apr 2, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> If the "current" government did not conform to the RPCG then surely they would have been violating the RPCG by working within its framework. If the regulative principle applies to civil government in the same manner that it applies to worship, then it is a sin to partake in uncommanded elements of civil government. If the Westminster divines' believed in an RPCG, they must have violated their own principle by partaking in uncommanded elements of statecraft.



You read too much into my comment. Your initial post had to do with whether the WCF _rejects_ this RPCG. I was simply commenting that defining civil government's role was not the purpose of the document. The only time civil government really seems touched on is in its relation to church government. I don't see how one could draw concrete conclusions on whether the Divines rejected it based on a document that was not meant to address it.

Perhaps you have more of a precise definition of what you call RPCG (i.e., as being a biblical mandate instead of a proposed ideal). Regardless, I am not trying to be antagonistic. This seems to be a subject you feel very strongly on.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 2, 2014)

Logan said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > If the "current" government did not conform to the RPCG then surely they would have been violating the RPCG by working within its framework. If the regulative principle applies to civil government in the same manner that it applies to worship, then it is a sin to partake in uncommanded elements of civil government. If the Westminster divines' believed in an RPCG, they must have violated their own principle by partaking in uncommanded elements of statecraft.
> ...



I was not saying that you held that view, but I was thinking of how one would respond to an advocate of the RPCG who tried to employ such reasoning. I realise that you are only trying to explain how other people could perceive things, which is a perfectly legitimate exercise. 

Your point about the WCF being primarily concerned with the church is an interesting one; perhaps that tells us something significant about the priorities of the Puritans and Covenanters as opposed to the priorities of modern RPCG thinkers.


----------



## Logan (Apr 2, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Your point about the WCF being primarily concerned with the church is an interesting one; perhaps that tells us something significant about the priorities of the Puritans and Covenanters as opposed to the priorities of modern RPCG thinkers.



Possibly, but if I understand the history correctly, wasn't the Assembly commissioned by Parliament to try to come up with some sort of unity of religion between Scotland and England? If so, I would imagine the commissioners were given a very specific role and to reform or define civil government was outside of that. I just don't find it very surprising that the role of civil government (except as it relates to the church) is not discussed much, from any viewpoint, let alone that of RPCG.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 2, 2014)

The Westminster Assembly originally worked to revise the Thirty-Nine Articles (in June/July 1643) and then, after the Solemn League and Covenant was entered into with the Scots (August 1643), turned to one Form of Kirk Government and Directory for Public Worship as well as Confession of Faith and Catechisms. So, yes, the purpose of the Assembly was to advise the Parliament with respect to a unified church in England and Scotland. 

I disagree, however, that the Assembly only narrowly addressed the state (only as it had to do with the church). WCF 23.1-2 treat civil government in a general way and WCF 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 31 all address issues having to do with it. That civil government is left to develop on its own (in keeping with its own interpretation of its responsibilities under God) is clear from 31.5, which forbids the church from dictating to it (which it could only do if there were an RPCG). 

Daniel seems to be reflecting on the folk who claim that civil government can act only with an explicit positive command from Scripture in the same way that the church can only hold as doctrine what Scriptures teach or what may by good and necessary consequence be deduced therefrom as well as what God positively commands in worship. But the Scriptures do not lay down such a rule. If the Westminster Divines thought they did they would have addressed it, like they did the right of the magistrate to declare a just war (WCF 23.2). Magistrates, for instance, are not required to justifiy every law that they pass by proving that they have divine warrant to pass that law. While the church must prove that the Bible teaches what the Church confesses or does in worship, the magistrate is not under the same requirement. Laws of the state may not conflict with the Bible but may be "beside it" in a way that matters pertaining to "faith or worship" may not be "beside" the Bible. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 2, 2014)

If you were going to have a RPCG you would need to address the form of civil government mandated by Scripture, whether monarchy, constitutional monarchy, republican dictatorship, republican democracy, etc, This would seem very central to a RPCG. I'm not aware that it is adressed by the WCF, and maybe because it is only generally and tangentially addressed by Scripture, maybe some would say, not at all.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 3, 2014)

Peairtach said:


> If you were going to have a RPCG you would need to address the form of civil government mandated by Scripture, whether monarchy, constitutional monarchy, republican dictatorship, republican democracy, etc, This would seem very central to a RPCG. I'm not aware that it is adressed by the WCF, and maybe because it is only generally and tangentially addressed by Scripture, maybe some would say, not at all.



As it happens, I am currently re-reading Lex, Rex (on Sabbaths) and Samuel Rutherford is adamant that the form of civil government (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) may vary. That is a difficult position to reconcile with belief in an RPGC.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 3, 2014)

Someone needs to do a new edition of Lex Rex; I groan when I look at the footnoting. Folks above are correct that the WA was a civil advisory committee called by and subject to parliament.


----------



## timmopussycat (Apr 3, 2014)

Daniel: 

Is the proponent of the RPCG that you mean to controvert a Reconstructionist or something else? It seems to me that a difference here might entail a difference in one's response.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Apr 3, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Your point about the WCF being primarily concerned with the church is an interesting one; perhaps that tells us something significant about the priorities of the Puritans and Covenanters as opposed to the priorities of modern RPCG thinkers.





Reformed Covenanter said:


> What are the best arguments to use if you were trying to convince somebody that the Westminster Standards reject the concept of a regulative principle of civil government (hereafter, RPCG)?



Use the beliefs of the commissioners and others who are like-minded. Lex Rex comes to mind. Filled with logical deductions from first principles and natural revelation and Bible of course. He even writes about what is the best form of government (constitutional monarchy as I recall) but does not argue from some supposed RPCG nor was dogmatic as I recall.

So, another good argument (psychologically) is to ask the imaginary protagonist to read Lex Rex. Sometimes people just have to see for themselves.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Apr 3, 2014)

Oh but Rev. Mathis, why read a book of some 234 pages when you can get everything you need on 5 or 8 blog-sites? **sigh**


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 3, 2014)

timmopussycat said:


> Daniel:
> 
> Is the proponent of the RPCG that you mean to controvert a Reconstructionist or something else? It seems to me that a difference here might entail a difference in one's response.



The proponent would not claim to be a Reconstructionist, but is one who holds certain older Reformed views on civil government alongside some notions that reflect remnants of Reconstructionist thinking.


----------



## timmopussycat (Apr 4, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel:
> ...



Then I would take the tack you outlined in your OP when you wrote: 

"One of the most obvious problems that I can think of are the inconsistency of the RPCG with the general equity clause and the three-fold division of the law (19:4), because how is the notion of a RPCG possibly congruous with the idea of a general equity of expired laws which _may apply (not must apply in all circumstances) to modern nations?"
_
Included in this, I would make sure that I emphasize the Westminster Divines definition of "moral law" to mean the decalogue alone thus eliminating possible equivocation over this term.


----------

