# What Should the State do about Heresy? (Poll)



## Parakaleo (Mar 24, 2018)

I hope people have had an opportunity to read through the thoughtful comments on this thread. Since there are a lot of people posting in favor of government strictures placed upon violations of the first four commandments, I thought it would be interesting to do a quick poll and get some actual data about where people on the Puritan Board stand on this issue.

Because there's a character limit in the poll option fields, I'm going to write the options out here.

_1. Civil authorities who would penalize people for public promotion of heresy or practice of idolatry are guilty of gross overreach in the sight of God.

2. While it may be of some interest to the civil authorities to penalize people for public promotion of heresy or practice of idolatry, this can't be implemented rightly by civil authorities and therefore should not be attempted.

3. Civil authorities are not only bound to officially recognize the authority of Christ over their land, but also to bring the power of the sword against those who work evil (publicly promoting heresy, outward acts of idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, blasphemy, etc.)._


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Mar 24, 2018)

I don't know enough about this subject to give a valid opinion. It does seem though that the apostles saw clear distinctions between church and state and didn't seek a revolution.


----------



## Herald (Mar 24, 2018)

_What _the state should do and what it _actually _does are two different things. As an Amillennialist, I do not see the state ever fulfilling its duties under the Establishment View, however, that does not mean we should practice willful compromise in our lives.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 24, 2018)

Herald said:


> _What _the state should do and what it _actually _does are two different things. As an Amillennialist, I do not see that state ever fulfilling its duties under the Establishment View, however, that does not mean we should practice willful compromise in our lives.


The Lord Himself has allowed for sinners to keep on doing wrong things, as He allows sin to grow worse, and His own people to trust in and obey Him, until the Second Coming.


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 24, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Lord Himself has allowed for sinners to keep on doing wrong things, as He allows sin to grow worse, and His own people to trust in and obey Him, until the Second Coming.



Yet the Lord holds man culpable for the wickedness they do and for the evil they allow to continue, under their watch. The Lord warned Ezekiel blood would be on his head merely for failing to _warn _the evildoer in the land.

A quick scan of the books of the Kings in Scripture will show several descriptions used for the various kings of Israel and Judah. Some did what was "evil in the sight of the Lord" while others did what was "right in the sight of the Lord".

How would you classify a government that decides not to be so judgey about murder, and has a policy of giving people a free pass for taking life as they saw fit? Even if the heads of that government never _personally _murder anyone, will they not have blood upon their hands in the sight of the Lord, for what they allowed to take place under their authority?

If you're with me up to this point, here's what I see you saying:
- God is right to judge rulers for allowing rampant murder to continue under their authority, but...
- God is not right to judge rulers for allowing rampant blasphemy or public spreading of heresy to continue under their authority.

I don't see how you can make that kind of distinction without dictating to God what he should see as good or evil, contrary to what he has already declared to be good or evil.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 25, 2018)

No, of course the apostles didn't seek a revolution.

And church and state are not the same thing, so they are obviously divided to some degree. But how far are they divided? There is an unavoidable relationship between them. And what if the magistrates (the king, nobles, or the members of parliament, or the congressmen -- governors of whatever system) are Christians? Should they be reined in by ungodly laws of toleration? Should Josiah have pursued reform, as he did, or should he have followed in the course of his predecessors?

Expressed briefly, if all men are bound to obey the moral law, then the unavoidable conclusion is that magistrates, who are also thus bound, must uphold that law.

And because there seems to be some confusion on this bit, I am not advocating an overthrow of authorities. Indeed, since I am an amillenialist, I do not _expect_ a Christian government to be established anywhere. However, it is right for rulers to pursue godliness, as it is right for all men.

(I do think there are situations when armed rebellion is morally right; however, that is getting into another topic.)

What I and others are saying is merely that God requires obedience of all men, including magistrates, and it is for this that the magistrate bears the sword.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 25, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Lord Himself has allowed for sinners to keep on doing wrong things, as He allows sin to grow worse, and His own people to trust in and obey Him, until the Second Coming.



It is honestly a bit shocking to read this. How can a Christian think it is OK to tolerate paganism, satanism, and all kinds of heresy? And not only tolerate, but protect them!

And this on the grounds that "God permits it"? If God hates a thing, we ought to hate it too.

You also seem to reduce human action so as to make it inconsequential. Are not men, and especially believers, the instruments by which God accomplishes his purposes? So the magistrate. And are not all men, and especially believers, to obey God? And again, so too the magistrate.

"God permits such-and-such an evil thing, so we ought not set out to change it." To speak thus is to ignore the fact that believers are instruments by which God's purposes are brought about. We Christians are Christ's people on earth, and we ought to show it, whatever our station. We _must_ obey him.

So a Christian barber shop owner should be honest in all his dealings. And so a Christian king should punish evil.

I do not mean to sound as though I am accusing you, but I do hope you can see the inherent problems in your perspective.

Where there is evil, the Christian ought to oppose it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 25, 2018)

As far as the magistrate’s involvement in subduing heresy, it helped me to understand that after the time of the apostles, no one in the church possessed the means to successfully convene (i.e. enforce) councils for the purpose of identifying and codifying orthodoxy in doctrine and practice. Emperors and kings were the ones who gathered the churches to Nicea and following assemblies, all the way up to Westminster, to save the church from heresy and destruction. They served in this way as the nursing fathers of the church (Isaiah 49:23). Their motives for protecting the church in this way may have been for reasons beyond a pure love for the truth, but God turned their hearts in the direction He chose, not them (Proverbs 21:1) and his will was done.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 25, 2018)

I have a question: what makes the practical difference between denominations that hold to establishmentarianism and those that do not? For instance, the RPCNA holds to something close to it with their mediatorial Kingship of Christ, but rejects that section of the WCF that speaks to the authority of the magistrate to convene church councils. While the FC(C) and some others do not reject that language. So, practically speaking, in the everyday life, prayers, and practice of both the families in the churches and the churches themselves, what difference does it make in the prayers and the outlook whether they hold to establishmentarianism as defined by the WCF or not?

In other words, what will we do differently or how will we pray differently or think differently depending on what we believe about the authority from God to the magistrate to call the church together? What harm is caused or potentially caused by rejecting the WCF on this point? 

I’ll add that I think we ought to hold to and not reject this portion of the WCF simply because we believe it to be biblical, not necessarily because we can define a practical reason for holding to it. But if it’s biblical, there ought to be consequences we can define for rejecting it. I hope my convoluted wording makes sense.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 25, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I don't know enough about this subject to give a valid opinion. It does seem though that the apostles saw clear distinctions between church and state and didn't seek a revolution.



Ryan,

Here is a Facebook post of mine from a while back that might be of use to you:

Skimming through Franciscus Junius's preface to his book, _The Mosaic Polity_, he notes that the early church did not spend much time discussing the judicial laws because they were not in a position to administer justice while living under a heathen ruler. Instead, "they were most wisely busying themselves so that their own piety would be useful in all circumstances ...". That observation raises a rather interesting question: was much of the theonomy debate a rather enormous waste of time? If Reformed Christians had been in power, then one could understand focusing so much attention on the subject. But that was not the case when this debate raged the loudest. It may (note I say may) have been much wiser to have focused on other issues.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Mar 26, 2018)

I voted for #1, as we don't live in a theocracy. There has been but one legitimate theocracy (ancient Israel) and, thanks to human sin, we all know how _that_ worked out.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

bookslover said:


> I voted for #1, as we don't live in a theocracy. There has been but one legitimate theocracy (ancient Israel) and, thanks to human sin, we all know how _that_ worked out.



No one is arguing we live in a theocracy or we should. That has nothing to do with it. The civil magistrate will always punish based on religious presuppositions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Lord Himself has allowed for sinners to keep on doing wrong things, as He allows sin to grow worse, and His own people to trust in and obey Him, until the Second Coming.



I am going to change a few words in your quote and we will see how it works out.



Dachaser said:


> The Lord Himself has allowed for *Hitler * to keep on *Gassing Jews*, as He allows *the Holocaust* to grow worse, and His own people to *not try to change the government*, until the Second Coming.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Mar 26, 2018)

Jacob:

Your word change may or may not be fair to David. 

If David believes, Lutheran-like, in two kingdoms and that no resistance theory may be employed in such cases (as Hitler and other atrocities), then what you change in his quote seems fair. 

However, "to trust in and obey Him" need not be constructed in that way and in a classic Reformed understanding would include resistance theory. 

I would not assume that David would adopt a classic Lutheran approach here but would be more in line with believing that there is a right of resistance/rebellion in the case of tyrants, whether in the fashion of Calvin, Knox, Buchanan, or other resistance theorists. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am going to change a few words in your quote and we will see how it works out.


Wow. Interesting thought Jacob.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Wow. Interesting thought Jacob.



Everyone seems upset when God has advice on how society should be run, but nobody does anything when the IRS claims the power over the grave and does inheritance taxes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Jacob:
> 
> Your word change may or may not be fair to David.
> 
> ...



Maybe it's not fair, but David regularly confused is and ought in the other thread. To help him out, I am using shock tactics to break that confusion. It is asked what the state *should *do, which is a moral question. David responds on what the Constitution currently allows, which is not the question.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 26, 2018)

bookslover said:


> I voted for #1, as we don't live in a theocracy. There has been but one legitimate theocracy (ancient Israel) and, thanks to human sin, we all know how _that_ worked out.



It's not a question of theocracy. It's simply this:_ What is right before God?_


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 26, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> _3. Civil authorities are not only bound to officially recognize the authority of Christ over their land, but also to bring the power of the sword against those who work evil (publicly promoting heresy, outward acts of idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, blasphemy, etc.)._


Which establishment view? For Presbyterianism there is pre Revolution settlement, and then there is the Free Church's rejection of persecuting principles (maybe someone knows where they define that but I don't recall they do).


----------



## bookslover (Mar 26, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> It's not a question of theocracy. It's simply this:_ What is right before God?_



And I would say that the state should stay out of the interpretation-of-Christian-theology business. The separation of church and state appears to be God's will in that there has been no legitimate theocracy since ancient Israel. Historically, when the state has been given such power, you wind up with things like the Spanish Inquisition and the English Civil Wars. The state has its realm and the church has its realm.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

bookslover said:


> And I would say that the state should stay out of the interpretation-of-Christian-theology business.



Historically, the Reformed viewed that as magistrates can't take upon themselves ministerial function, but they may concern themselves on things circa sacra. This is the historic Reformed position.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

bookslover said:


> and the English Civil Wars.



Should the Reformed churches have simply let Charles impose Anglo-Catholic worship? He had that right has head of the English church. The Civil War was a good thing in that it broke the back of papism in key parts of Europe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

No one, moreover, is arguing that the government should make conciliar decisions. Let's consider:

1) Neutrality is impossible.
2) The government is going to enforce religious decisions, anyway.


----------



## Tallifer (Mar 26, 2018)

What about the Presbyterian-dominated government of Scotland between 1638 and about 1650 or so. Is that not an appropriately Reformed model for us? Or Calvin's Geneva?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> It is honestly a bit shocking to read this. How can a Christian think it is OK to tolerate paganism, satanism, and all kinds of heresy? And not only tolerate, but protect them!
> 
> And this on the grounds that "God permits it"? If God hates a thing, we ought to hate it too.
> 
> ...


Should we as Christians continue to advocate in society, and in politics, for evils things be set right? By all means yes, as we were fundamental to having slavery abolished here in American and England, and so should strive to have things such as abortion/gay marriages make illegal once again. The point is still though that we should always try to keep on having the ways of God being promoted in this land, being a Republic, not a Theonomy nor Monarchy. we are limited into how much we can actually have stopped. I am NOT advocating for sin to be allowed to run in a rampant fashion but I am going to keep on supporting the rights of citizens to be able to freely keep on doing what as been determined as being allowed by our law.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Jacob:
> 
> Your word change may or may not be fair to David.
> 
> ...


We as believers do not just lay down, and state that it is the will of God for a Hitler, so do not even try to stop him. I hold that God allowed Hitler to come to power, but God also raised up the Allied nation to stop him in WW II, and that God caused Israel to come about as a result of the wickedness of the Nazi under Hitler. The Christians in Nazi Germany should have of course tried to do anything legal to influence what was being done while under the reign of Hitler.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> It's not a question of theocracy. It's simply this:_ What is right before God?_


Also, what and how much does God permit to be done against His Law in a republic/Democracy?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

Tallifer said:


> What about the Presbyterian-dominated government of Scotland between 1638 and about 1650 or so. Is that not an appropriately Reformed model for us? Or Calvin's Geneva?


Would under a Geneva type leadership, those such as JW be put to death for not holding to the Trinitarian viewpoint?


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Also, what and how much does God permit to be done against His Law in a republic/Democracy?


Try applying this principle to your personal life. God allows you to sin in the sense that he doesn't immediately intervene to prevent every sin. Does that mean that it is okay for you to sin in any sense?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Try applying this principle to your personal life. God allows you to sin in the sense that he doesn't immediately intervene to prevent every sin. Does that mean that it is okay for you to sin in any sense?


God has commanded as as a Christian to obey Him directly, but do not see Him commanding non Theonomy governments to directly obey Him, as in making sure all laws enacted are in accord with the scriptures.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God has commanded as as a Christian to obey Him directly, but do not see Him commanding non Theonomy governments to directly obey Him, as in making sure all laws enacted are in accord with the scriptures.


Do you believe that your congressman has a duty to legislate in accord with God's law, or is he free to legislate in whatever way he wants? Does he have a moral responsibility to fight against abortion legislation, or can he favor legislation allowing parents to kill their children?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Do you believe that your congressman has a duty to legislate in accord with God's law, or is he free to legislate in whatever way he wants? Does he have a moral responsibility to fight against abortion legislation, or can he favor legislation allowing parents to kill their children?


I believe that Christian representatives must uphold the views of the scriptures on each issue, but those who are not saved would be free to do as they wanted, , as long as not illegal.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I believe that Christian representatives must uphold the views of the scriptures on each issue, but those who are not saved would be free to do as they wanted, , as long as not illegal.


So, when the unbeliever stands before God on judgment day, he will not be held accountable for passing abortion legislation?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 26, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Christians in Nazi Germany should have of course tried to do anything legal to influence what was being done while under the reign of Hitler.



_Anything legal_? You are aware, though, that the gospel itself was illegal in Nazi Germany?


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 26, 2018)

David,

We can keep running around in circles. You keep making the same claims ("republic, not a theonomy") but you haven't yet given a whit of biblical support.

You say that you don't think sin should be let run rampant. Well, I hate to say it, but run rampant it does. The tragedy of abortion has claimed many times as many lives as the Holocaust. Does that not tell you that something is wrong? Should such heinous sin go unpunished because church and state should be kept separate?

(And anyway, church and state are never separate. In Canada, for example, the government has begun dictating secular righteousness to religious bodies. It is now a punishable offence to call homosexuality sin.)

Honestly, I understand where you're coming from. I had the same view once, but it fell apart after I became a Reformed Christian and I pressed for logical consistency. It took me a long time to turn from my assumptions of the sacredness of democracy, free speech and religious toleration.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Historically, the Reformed viewed that as magistrates can't take upon themselves ministerial function, but they may concern themselves on things circa sacra. This is the historic Reformed position.



That may be the historically Reformed view, but we're a long way from Reformation and post-Reformation times, when a majority of the population was at least familiar with the Bible's basic contents. As I said on some other thread, it would be laughable for the US Government to start conducting heresy trials. I suspect that most of those Congresscritters wouldn't know a Bible if they tripped over one. Besides, the _last_ thing those people need is more power.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

bookslover said:


> That may be the historically Reformed view, but we're a long way from Reformation and post-Reformation times, when a majority of the population was at least familiar with the Bible's basic contents. As I said on some other thread, it would be laughable for the US Government to start conducting heresy trials. I suspect that most of those Congresscritters wouldn't know a Bible if they tripped over one. Besides, the _last_ thing those people need is more power.



You are confusing "is" and "ought." We are asking what is morally normative, not what the situation looks like on the ground.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 26, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You are confusing "is" and "ought." We are asking what is morally normative, not what the situation looks like on the ground.



Precisely.

Boiled down, it's a simple question of right and wrong.

Is it wrong to tolerate, protect and support murder? How about soul-murder?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 26, 2018)

Furthermore, I am basically a doom-and-gloom amillennialist or a pre-wrath tribulationist. The Deep State has more or less taken over. But that only means we must witness and public to the unchanging standards of God's justice.

Of course, I understand that _how _we do that in a neo-pagan culture is a different matter. I don't focus on theocracy anymore simply because that isn't the immediate battle.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> So, when the unbeliever stands before God on judgment day, he will not be held accountable for passing abortion legislation?


Yes, as that is against God, but the trick again here, we are not discussing what they have to do, but that God has permitted under our kind of government to happen.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

bookslover said:


> That may be the historically Reformed view, but we're a long way from Reformation and post-Reformation times, when a majority of the population was at least familiar with the Bible's basic contents. As I said on some other thread, it would be laughable for the US Government to start conducting heresy trials. I suspect that most of those Congresscritters wouldn't know a Bible if they tripped over one. Besides, the _last_ thing those people need is more power.


God does not demand in our republic the death penalty for someone who is a Muslim or practicing Judaism, does He?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Precisely.
> 
> Boiled down, it's a simple question of right and wrong.
> 
> Is it wrong to tolerate, protect and support murder? How about soul-murder?


Do you think we should have the government be allowed to kill of practicing gays and lesbians, as that sexual deviant behavior is against the moral law of God?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Do you think we should have the government be allowed to kill of practicing gays and lesbians, as that sexual deviant behavior is against the moral law of God?



What should be the punishment? If you believe the behavior should not be allowed in America--and given the current post-Obergfell climate I hope that is your position--then one must be ready to bring sanctions.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God does not demand in our republic the death penalty for someone who is a Muslim or practicing Judaism, does He?



Nor did he back then. Israel had many "strangers in the land," most of whom were probably idolaters, yet God didn't say kill them. The problem was when they went public with their idolatry.

With Muslims they will force things to a head: what are rules concerning halal? Any kind of ruling is necessarily a religious ruling.

As to modern practicing Judaism, there is no such thing, since there is no temple and no sacrifice.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, as that is against God, but the trick again here, we are not discussing what they have to do, but that God has permitted under our kind of government to happen.



That is the exact opposite of what this thread is about. We are precisely discussing what they *have* to do, not what is permitted. You brought in that red herring.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, as that is against God, but the trick again here, we are not discussing what they have to do, but that God has permitted under our kind of government to happen.



In post #30 you said the following:


Dachaser said:


> God has commanded as as a Christian to obey Him directly, but do not see Him commanding non Theonomy governments to directly obey Him, as in making sure all laws enacted are in accord with the scriptures.



You claimed in post #30 that God does not command "non Theonomy governments" to "make sure all laws enacted are in accord with the Scriptures."

In post #40, you said that they will be held accountable for passing laws that countenance sin.

Do you see your inconsistency? If God doesn't require them to do it, they won't be held accountable for it on Judgment Day. Conversely, if they are held accountable for it on Judgment Day, then God _has_ required them to do it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, as that is against God, but the trick again here, we are not discussing what they have to do, but that God has permitted under our kind of government to happen.



David,
If you look at the title of this thread, you should quickly realize it is you who has redefined the argument.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> So, when the unbeliever stands before God on judgment day, he will not be held accountable for passing abortion legislation?





TylerRay said:


> Do you believe that your congressman has a duty to legislate in accord with God's law, or is he free to legislate in whatever way he wants? Does he have a moral responsibility to fight against abortion legislation, or can he favor legislation allowing parents to kill their children?



I thought this was about the first table.

Will rulers, Christian or not, be held accountable on judgment day for any of the following? If not, why not?

Allowing Mosques to operate? (By "operate" I include public contradiction of true religion by them and any and all of the following groups, among others unnamed.)

Allowing Jewish synagogues to operate?

Allowing American Indian worship?

Allowing Mormons to practice their religion?

Allowing JWs to practice their religion?

Allowing Unitarian churches to operate?

Allowing Roman Catholic churches and ministries to operate?

Allowing Arminian churches to operate. (The Belgic Conf. calls Arminianism heresy.)

Allowing charismatic and pentecostal churches to operate? (Heresies abound.)

Allowing Lutheran and Anglican churches to operate, with their 2nd Commandment violations, etc. ? (Include anything with "images of Christ" here.)

Allowing Congregationalist or Independent churches to operate?

Allowing otherwise sound anti-establishmentarian churches to operate? (I'm thinking not only of private opinions but of advocating something like the American revisions to the WCF, Escondido 2k, or fill in the blank.) 

Allowing congregations with women officers (whether deacons or elders) to operate, assuming they appear to be orthodox otherwise?

Allowing antipaedobaptist churches of any kind to operate? (The WCF calls neglect and condemnation of baptism to be a "great sin." This necessarily includes neglect and condemnation of infant baptism. What penalty was there in the OT for failing to circumcise? What penalty for parents who neglect to present their infants for baptism? How much sinning in the religious sphere may the godly ruler tolerate?)

Also--at what point should a government that tolerates wickedness be overthrown so that true religion may be established?


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 27, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> I thought this was about the first table.
> 
> Will rulers be held accountable for any of the following? If not, why not?
> 
> ...


Right. I understand the law of God to be a consistent whole. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one _point_, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." If they have a duty respecting the law of God, they have a duty respecting the whole of the law of God.

As to your yes-or-no questions, I'd say yes to all but the the one about the antipaedobaptist churches. The reason is that these are true believers, holding to the true religion, with a few errors in nonessential matters. The matter would require a great deal of discretion on the part of the magistrate. I don't think it's inconsistent to say, "Yes, they may worship, but they are separate from the established church, and don't enjoy its privileges." Speaking hypothetically, in a Christian land where there are no immersionists, it would probably best to legislate against it, to prevent corruptions.

As to your last question, I'm not a revolutionary. Magistrates should be appealed to, not overthrown (unless by another lawful magistrate, when his duty before God and toward his people requires it).


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Right. I understand the law of God to be a consistent whole. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one _point_, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." If they have a duty respecting the law of God, they have a duty respecting the whole of the law of God.
> 
> As to your yes-or-no questions, I'd say yes to all but the the one about the antipaedobaptist churches. The reason is that these are true believers, holding to the true religion, with a few errors in nonessential matters. The matter would require a great deal of discretion on the part of the magistrate. I don't think it's inconsistent to say, "Yes, they may worship, but they are separate from the established church, and don't enjoy its privileges." Speaking hypothetically, in a Christian land where there are no immersionists, it would probably best to legislate against it, to prevent corruptions.



Is it your position that the Reformers were wrong about this? If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't just the blatant heresies that caused the anabaptists to be persecuted. And all of them were not of the character of Muntzer. As for heresies among Baptists, I don't have much hesitation in saying that there are more semi-Pelagian Baptists in this country than there are Calvinistic Baptists of any type. And most of the Calvinistic Baptists are anti-Sabbatarian, as are most "conservative" Presbyterians, whether functionally or officially.

Here's another question: How much of a Calvinist do you have to be to be allowed to operate? How about J.C. Ryle, so long as he is Presbyterianized? He rejected definite atonement.

I also forgot to ask if Congregationalist or Independent churches should be allowed to operate. I'll add that to the post. I'm guessing you'd say yes with the caveat of not having the privileges of the established church. But how many people can they draw away from the established church before it becomes a problem in the establishmentarian scheme? I also added questions on women officers and anti-establishmentarian churches.

For what it's worth, Unless we're going to believe the Landmarkers, the anabaptists weren't immersionists, at least in the beginning. It seems to me that mode didn't really become an issue until the capital "B" Baptists made it an issue in the 17th Century.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 27, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> Is it your position that the Reformers were wrong about this? If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't just the blatant heresies that caused the anabaptists to be persecuted. And all of them were not of the character of Muntzer. As for heresies among Baptists, I don't have much hesitation in saying that there are more semi-Pelagian Baptists in this country than there are Calvinistic Baptists of any type. And most of the Calvinistic Baptists are anti-Sabbatarian, as are most "conservative" Presbyterians, whether functionally or officially.
> 
> Here's another question: How much of a Calvinist do you have to be to be allowed to operate? How about J.C. Ryle, so long as he is Presbyterianized? He rejected definite atonement.
> 
> ...


Chris, I hold to the establishment principle. As far as the details of how the establishment principle is applied, I don't have all the answers. In certain respects, it will depend on the circumstances of any given nation.

And no, I don't think the anabaptists should be allowed to operate, on account of their damnable heresies.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> What should be the punishment? If you believe the behavior should not be allowed in America--and given the current post-Obergfell climate I hope that is your position--then one must be ready to bring sanctions.


I still would have to say that those who do those shameful acts are free to do those things, just as we are free to expose and witness to them.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Nor did he back then. Israel had many "strangers in the land," most of whom were probably idolaters, yet God didn't say kill them. The problem was when they went public with their idolatry.
> 
> With Muslims they will force things to a head: what are rules concerning halal? Any kind of ruling is necessarily a religious ruling.
> 
> As to modern practicing Judaism, there is no such thing, since there is no temple and no sacrifice.


Again, how God ran Israel was.is not the same as our republic, Apples to oranges!


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That is the exact opposite of what this thread is about. We are precisely discussing what they *have* to do, not what is permitted. You brought in that red herring.


What they have to do while in a republic, or while being run like a New Geneva?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Right. I understand the law of God to be a consistent whole. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one _point_, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." If they have a duty respecting the law of God, they have a duty respecting the whole of the law of God.
> 
> As to your yes-or-no questions, I'd say yes to all but the the one about the antipaedobaptist churches. The reason is that these are true believers, holding to the true religion, with a few errors in nonessential matters. The matter would require a great deal of discretion on the part of the magistrate. I don't think it's inconsistent to say, "Yes, they may worship, but they are separate from the established church, and don't enjoy its privileges." Speaking hypothetically, in a Christian land where there are no immersionists, it would probably best to legislate against it, to prevent corruptions.
> 
> As to your last question, I'm not a revolutionary. Magistrates should be appealed to, not overthrown (unless by another lawful magistrate, when his duty before God and toward his people requires it).


So then God does not grant to humans the "right" to hold to false religious views and practices?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So God does not grant to humans the "right" to hold to false religious views and practices than?



No!
Acts 17:30 (KJV)
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

BTW - I just read all the posts in this thread. Previously I did not have the time, but now I might participate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So then God does not grant to humans the "right" to hold to false religious views and practices?


How does this statement comport with the first commandment?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So then God does not grant to humans the "right" to hold to false religious views and practices?


Correct. No one has the right to sin.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> Is it your position that the Reformers were wrong about this? If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't just the blatant heresies that caused the anabaptists to be persecuted. And all of them were not of the character of Muntzer. As for heresies among Baptists, I don't have much hesitation in saying that there are more semi-Pelagian Baptists in this country than there are Calvinistic Baptists of any type. And most of the Calvinistic Baptists are anti-Sabbatarian, as are most "conservative" Presbyterians, whether functionally or officially.
> 
> Here's another question: How much of a Calvinist do you have to be to be allowed to operate? How about J.C. Ryle, so long as he is Presbyterianized? He rejected definite atonement.
> 
> ...


If we just hold to Presbyterians and reformed baptists as allowed to only be the churches to operate, on what basis are we to exclude those churches whose theology we do not like, but though still members of Christ body?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> How does this statement comport with the first commandment?


It doesn't, IF we are in the governing of God directly as King over the nation.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Correct. No one has the right to sin.


You are correct, but God permits them to sin all of the time though, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 27, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> No!
> Acts 17:30 (KJV)
> And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
> 
> BTW - I just read all the posts in this thread. Previously I did not have the time, but now I might participate.


God will judge all those who have rejected Jesus as their Lord, but does he not permit them to still sin ?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God will judge all those who have rejected Jesus as their Lord, but does he not permit them to still sin ?



God's decretive will allows, yea, predestines men's sins, but we are responsible and will be judged based on his revealed will. And that will is stated in the verse you quoted.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> It doesn't, IF we are in the governing of God directly as King over the nation.


Is there _one King and one Kingdom_ or _two Kings and two Kingdoms_, the latter wherein we should cease efforts to transform the kingdom of the world into the kingdom of Our Lord?


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> It doesn't, IF we are in the governing of God directly as King over the nation.



I thought Christ IS (present tense) King over all things. I'm curious to know who is king in His absence?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> You are correct, but God permits them to sin all of the time though, correct?


Does this active permission grant a "_right_" (a fundamental norm of entitlement)? Or may it perhaps be that _God wills righteously what men do wickedly_?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What they have to do while in a republic, or while being run like a New Geneva?



What they have to do before God? As it stands, unless the Constitution is radically altered and the Deep State hanged, nothing will change. I don't think conservatives really understand that. 

The original post was a theoretical question, not a question on how to get this done tomorrow. We just don't have that state of affairs right now.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Again, how God ran Israel was.is not the same as our republic, Apples to oranges!



Even in meanie-theocratic OT Israel outside religions were left alone if they didn't perform their rites publically.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> If we just hold to Presbyterians and reformed baptists as allowed to only be the churches to operate, on what basis are we to exclude those churches whose theology we do not like, but though still members of Christ body?



I already answered that with my post on Athanasian Pluralism


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I still would have to say that those who do those shameful acts are free to do those things, just as we are free to expose and witness to them.



Hypothetical question--well, given America probably a real life question: My religion says I must perform pornographic acts in public. Therefore, I am free to do so? 

Corollary: Does the magistrate sin in forbidding my religious expression?


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 27, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> You are correct, but God permits them to sin all of the time though, correct?


You're equating two different meanings of the word _permission._ You can talk about permission in a moral sense, in which God allows something as indifferent, like eating cheese or not eating cheese. On the other hand, there is a kind of permission that applies to God not stopping someone from doing something that he has forbidden. Do you see the difference? In the second sense of the term, the person is morally culpable for disobeying God's law, even though God let him do it.

It is in the second sense of the term _permission_ that God permits individuals and governments to disobey his law in the present age. They _shouldn't _do it, but God lets them sin against him, and he will hold them accountable for it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 28, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> I hope people have had an opportunity to read through the thoughtful comments on this thread. Since there are a lot of people posting in favor of government strictures placed upon violations of the first four commandments, I thought it would be interesting to do a quick poll and get some actual data about where people on the Puritan Board stand on this issue.
> 
> Because there's a character limit in the poll option fields, I'm going to write the options out here.
> 
> ...



May I ask what you mean by the magistrate being “bound to officially recognize the authority of Christ”?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 28, 2018)

Follow up: is it for the well-being or being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Mar 28, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Follow up: is it for the well-being or being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ?



I think it is of the "being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ." "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. (Romans 13:4) There is only one definition of "good," (Romans 7:12) and that is the Law of God. Therefore that is his God-given role. According to Paul, the magistrate is as much a minister of God as is a minister of the gospel is from God. I know we are not accustomed to thinking in these terms, but I think that that is what the Scriptures teach. A gospel minister can be a faithful or unfaithful minister as we all know. So too the civil magistrate can be faithful or unfaithful to fulfill his calling. Since the civil minister is from God "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." (vs. 5)

From: Matthew Poole's Commentary on Romans 13:4 - "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. Etc.

For he is the minister of God to thee for good: q.d. That is the end of his office, and for this reason God hath invested him with his authority. The Scripture applieth the same title to him that preacheth the word, and to him that beareth the sword; both are God’s ministers, and there is one common end of their ministry, which is the good and welfare of mankind.

But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: this is the reason why he that trangresseth the moral law of God, or the wholesome laws of the country where he lives, should be afraid of the magistrate, because

he beareth not the sword in vain. The sword is figuratively put for power and authority: he alludes to the custom of princes, who had certain officers going before them, bearing the ensigns of their authority: q.d. The magistrate hath not his authority for nothing, or for no purpose; but that he may punish the evil, as well as defend the good.

For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil: here is another reason why evil-doers (as before) should be afraid of the magistrate; or rather, the same reason in other and plainer words; because he is God’s officer to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil; he is in God’s room upon earth, and doth the work which primarily belongeth unto him: see Romans 12:19. By wrath, here, understand punishment: so in Luke 21:23 Romans 2:8. The word execute is not in the text, but aptly enough supplied by our translators.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 28, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Follow up: is it for the well-being or being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ?


With love and due respect to my brother Ed, in my opinion, it is of the well-being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ, and not the being, insofar as a magistrate's power can still be valid and legitimate even if he doesn't acknowledge Christ. For proof, see the Scriptures' acknowledgement of the authority of pagan magistrates. A couple of examples that come to mind are Romans 13:1-5 and Daniel 2:37-38.

That is not to diminish the fact that it is the magistrate's _natural duty_ to obey the Law of of God, which should lead him to "kiss the Son."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Mar 28, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> and not the being, insofar as a magistrate's power can still be valid and legitimate even if he doesn't acknowledge Christ. For proof, see the Scriptures' acknowledgement of the authority of pagan magistrates.



Would you believe it was early in the morning? Well, I don't believe it either. Of course, I was wrong about the being vs. well-being. And I agree with your critique. We must obey lawful authority except when so doing would cause us to sin.

I am more awake now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 28, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Would you believe it was early in the morning? Well, I don't believe it either. Of course, I was wrong about the being vs. well-being. And I agree with your critique. We must obey lawful authority except when so doing would cause us to sin.
> 
> I am more awake now.


No worries, brother. I could tell from your post that you weren't _really_ speaking to the being of the magistrate, but to his natural duty.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Is there _one King and one Kingdom_ or _two Kings and two Kingdoms_, the latter wherein we should cease efforts to transform the kingdom of the world into the kingdom of Our Lord?


There is the Kingdom of God here in part, but not in full, as that happens when the Second Coming occurs.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> I thought Christ IS (present tense) King over all things. I'm curious to know who is king in His absence?


Jesus is the lord, but He is permitting this worlds system/Kingdom operate until His Second Coming.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Does this active permission grant a "_right_" (a fundamental norm of entitlement)? Or may it perhaps be that _God wills righteously what men do wickedly_?


I think more in line with your second aspect of your statement.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> You're equating two different meanings of the word _permission._ You can talk about permission in a moral sense, in which God allows something as indifferent, like eating cheese or not eating cheese. On the other hand, there is a kind of permission that applies to God not stopping someone from doing something that he has forbidden. Do you see the difference? In the second sense of the term, the person is morally culpable for disobeying God's law, even though God let him do it.
> 
> It is in the second sense of the term _permission_ that God permits individuals and governments to disobey his law in the present age. They _shouldn't _do it, but God lets them sin against him, and he will hold them accountable for it.


I understand stand what is happening as God still has His demands of the law and Holiness here, but that He is permitting sinners to still act in a sinful way, until the time of the Second Coming of Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> I think it is of the "being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ." "For he is the minister of God to thee [you]for good[/you]. (Romans 13:4) There is only one definition of "good," (Romans 7:12) and that is the Law of God. Therefore that is his God-given role. According to Paul, the magistrate is as much a minister of God as is a minister of the gospel is from God. I know we are not accustomed to thinking in these terms, but I think that that is what the Scriptures teach. A gospel minister can be a faithful or unfaithful minister as we all know. So too the civil magistrate can be faithful or unfaithful to fulfill his calling. Since the civil minister is from God "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also [you]for conscience sake[/you]." (vs. 5)
> 
> From: Matthew Poole's Commentary on Romans 13:4 - "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. Etc.
> 
> ...


I think that the government is acting for God in the strict sense in that passage though of enforcing rule of civil law, to make sure wicked and guilty are punished, not in the broader sense of also applying His rules throughout all society, as Jesus and Apostles pretty much left pagan Rome go on its way, but did start the movement to save sinners and translate them from this Kingdom on earth to the Kingdom of Christ.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I think that the government is acting for God in the strict sense in that passage though of enforcing rule of civil law, to make sure wicked and guilty are punished, not in the broader sense of also applying His rules throughout all society



No one disagrees with this in the broad sense, but it comes down to whether a particular law is just or not. Is God pleased with unjust laws?


Dachaser said:


> as Jesus and Apostles pretty much left pagan Rome go on its way



John the Baptist got killed because he didn't leave pagan Herod alone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I understand stand what is happening as God still has His demands of the law and Holiness here, but that He is permitting sinners to still act in a sinful way, until the time of the Second Coming of Christ.



Then the real question is this: should we pass laws that curb the opportunities for sin?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one disagrees with this in the broad sense, but it comes down to whether a particular law is just or not. Is God pleased with unjust laws?
> 
> 
> John the Baptist got killed because he didn't leave pagan Herod alone.


True, but that was due to him as a prophet addressing Herods Martial adultery.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I understand stand what is happening as God still has His demands of the law and Holiness here, but that He is permitting sinners to still act in a sinful way, until the time of the Second Coming of Christ.


Right--then it follows that God's allowance of sin in the present is no _right_ to sin, and civil magistrates are not warranted in protecting sin on that basis.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Then the real question is this: should we pass laws that curb the opportunities for sin?


yes, but realize that in our type of government, there will still be those allowed to do things that we morally object with. We can and should outlaw murder, rape, abortion, robbery, but there will still be other religious viewpoints that might offend, but would still be available.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Right--then it follows that God's allowance of sin in the present is no _right_ to sin, and civil magistrates are not warranted in protecting sin on that basis.


I agree that our laws that are set up here should be used to permit some sins, but in the area of religious freedom, we would still have to tolerate non christian viewpoints.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 28, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> it is of the well-being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ, and not the being, insofar as a magistrate's power can still be valid and legitimate even if he doesn't acknowledge Christ.



Agreed.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> yes, but realize that in our type of government, there will still be those allowed to do things that we morally object with. We can and should outlaw murder, rape, abortion, robbery, but there will still be other religious viewpoints that might offend, but would still be available.



You don't get it. My religion says I get to do those things.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> True, but that was due to him as a prophet addressing Herods Martial adultery.



But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother's wife, *and all the other evil things he had done,*


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I agree that our laws that are set up here should be used to permit some sins, but in the area of religious freedom, we would still have to tolerate non christian viewpoints.


You have already admitted that laws which "tolerate non-Christian viewpoints," that is, that protect sin, do not please God. I don't know how you can still hold that governments can justly sanction sin.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Should the state allow public p0rnography?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Should the state allow public p0rnography?


No


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> in the area of religious freedom, we would still have to tolerate non christian viewpoints.



“He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” Matt. 12:30

Love for God necessitates intolerance and hatred for idolatry.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> You have already admitted that laws which "tolerate non-Christian viewpoints," that is, that protect sin, do not please God. I don't know how you can still hold that governments can justly sanction sin.


I do not see other religions being granted by state religious freedom to exercise their religion in same way as murder/rape/abortion etc! Ban those activities, by all means.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” Matt. 12:30
> 
> Love for God necessitates intolerance and hatred for idolatry.


Yes, on an individual basis, but God does not command that for any government not set up as a Theocracy.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> No



Why not? It's a victimless crime (so-called). And my religion, the Religion of Great Dionysius, demands it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, on an individual basis, but God does not command that for any government not set up as a Theocracy.



Red herring


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I do not see other religions being granted by state religious freedom to exercise their religion in same way as murder/rape/abortion etc! Ban those activities, by all means.



Why?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> on an individual basis



All men are bound to the moral law. Individuals are governing authorities or are part of a collective. Thus governing authorities are bound to the moral Law.


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I do not see other religions being granted by state religious freedom to exercise their religion in same way as murder/rape/abortion etc! Ban those activities, by all means.


So it is okay to allow individuals to sin against God, so long as they are not sinning against their fellow man?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Red herring


How so? God has not yet put all kingdoms under the feet of Christ, so he does allow for states to allow for religious freedoms, worshipping other gods so called.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Why not? It's a victimless crime (so-called). And my religion, the Religion of Great Dionysius, demands it.


A religion may demand murdering others, but the state can make that murder.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> So it is okay to allow individuals to sin against God, so long as they are not sinning against their fellow man?


we are sin all the time still while alive here though, and my main point is still that I see no scripture to indicate that God demands all nations to have its citizens to not have religious freedoms other than Christians.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> So it is okay to allow individuals to sin against God, so long as they are not sinning against their fellow man?


It is never OK to have anyone sin against God, but there is no current government that is set up to have those doing sin period be jailed/executed.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> A religion may demand murdering others, but the state can make that murder.



Why won't the state respect my religious rights? Sounds like of like imposing Christian morality on me.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> How so? God has not yet put all kingdoms under the feet of Christ, so he does allow for states to allow for religious freedoms, worshipping other gods so called.



We've already gone over your confusion on the term _allow_. So we are back at square one. God _allowed _Hitler. Implied conclusion: we were wrong to oppose Hitler.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> It is never OK to have anyone sin against God, but there is no current government that is set up to have those doing sin period be jailed/executed.



You are talking about what currently _is _the case. We are talking about what is morally binding.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> It is never OK to have anyone sin against God, but there is no current government that is set up to have those doing sin period be jailed/executed.



Not sure what you mean??? We punish murderers, thieves, liars (perjurers), etc. And, what we can't do now we may have the opportunity to do someday. We can plan for the future. Can't we?
But still, I may have missed your point.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I think more in line with your second aspect of your statement.


Then no "right" is conferred.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> we are sin all the time still while alive here though, and my main point is still that I see no scripture to indicate that God demands all nations to have its citizens to not have religious freedoms other than Christians.


What is the purpose of the first commandment if not to demand that the One, true, God be worshipped above all other gods?

That there exist numerable violations of the command does not abrogate the command.

David, I think rather than just peppering the thread with questions and rejoinders, you should take the time to lay out a more complete summary of what you have been arguing in this thread. This will help us better understand your reasoning processes and position. Do that. More than a brief paragraph, too. Give us something tangible to work with or, at least point to some other reference that you believe captures what you have been saying in this thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 28, 2018)

@Dachaser,

Saying a thing a hundred times does not actually make it more convincing.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 28, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What is the purpose of the first commandment if not to demand that the One, true, God be worshipped above all other gods?
> 
> That there exist numerable violations of the command does not abrogate the command.
> 
> David, I think rather than just peppering the thread with questions and rejoinders, you should take the time to lay out a more complete summary of what you have been arguing in this thread. This will help us better understand your reasoning processes and position. Do that. More than a brief paragraph, too. Give us something tangible to work with or, at least point to some other reference that you believe captures what you have been saying in this thread.


The OP was stating what should the givernment do about heresy, and my answer would be that the government if under a Theocracy/Theonomy king of government should indeed enforce the law of the Lord, and to have the scriptures as having the final authority in the land. But, in this present age, under our republic, we have to allow for religious freedoms and so others can freely worship false gods.
I have no problem agreeing with what should be done, but do not see that being what will be done.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> But, in this present age, under our republic, we have to allow for religious freedoms and so others can freely worship false gods.



Let's say a Christian gets elected. Does he still have to condone false gods?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 28, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The OP was stating what should the givernment do about heresy, and my answer would be that the government if under a Theocracy/Theonomy king of government should indeed enforce the law of the Lord, and to have the scriptures as having the final authority in the land. But, in this present age, under our republic, we have to allow for religious freedoms and so others can freely worship false gods.
> I have no problem agreeing with what should be done, but do not see that being what will be done.


David,

By your terse response, it is obvious you did not take my request for a more full-throated explanation of your position seriously. Was I not plain enough in stating what I was requesting? Brother, I would rather be edified by a treatment from you at length explaining what you are claiming versus being provoked by your short quips.

You continue to assert we _have_ to do this or that, to _allow_ others to do this or that. When pressed, you even state that God "allows" it, thus it is a God-given _right_. It is not. You are wrong on an epic level. When you make a declarative, "_we have to allow for religious freedoms and so others can freely worship false gods_", you need to tease out your underlying "why" of such a statement.

Until that happens, you are going to be met with what you are being met with in this thread: more questions, more hypotheticals, _What about this scenario?_, etc. I would ask that you stop _chatting_ with us, and start _discussing_ with us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 28, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Let's say a Christian gets elected. Does he still have to condone false gods?



I think I asked that question a while ago, but I got no reply. This conversation has stalled because one party is not going further than making unsupported claims, such as that a "republic" (undefined as it is) is somehow required to violate the First Commandment and permit the violations of other Commandments.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 30, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Let's say a Christian gets elected. Does he still have to condone false gods?


Define Condone, as he needs to make sure religious freedoms are enforced, being the chief agent to do that in the USA.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 30, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> By your terse response, it is obvious you did not take my request for a more full-throated explanation of your position seriously. Was I not plain enough in stating what I was requesting? Brother, I would rather be edified by a treatment from you at length explaining what you are claiming versus being provoked by your short quips.
> 
> ...


In our type of Government, a Republic, our constitution grants "God given" rights to all of its citizens, and these include religious freedoms.
The right to worship false/other gods in not being given to them directly by God in this case, but the basis for those religious freedoms derive form the US Constitution itself.
Are you saying also that a President can outlaw any other religion except Christianity then? If so, can he also outlaw any church whose understanding of Christianity differs from how reformed and Baptist see as being correct Christian doctrines and practices?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 30, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I think I asked that question a while ago, but I got no reply. This conversation has stalled because one party is not going further than making unsupported claims, such as that a "republic" (undefined as it is) is somehow required to violate the First Commandment and permit the violations of other Commandments.


My concern with this topic is that I have not yet seen scriptures that would indicate that a president , or any other political leader in our type of government is required by God to demand to have the Law of God as the law of the land. Would we be better off it it were, yes, but our Constitution set up would not allow for that to happen.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Define Condone, as he needs to make sure religious freedoms are enforced, being the chief agent to do that in the USA.



Why does he need to "make sure"?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> My concern with this topic is that I have not yet seen scriptures that would indicate that a president , or any other political leader in our type of government is required by God to demand to have the Law of God as the law of the land. Would we be better off it it were, yes, but our Constitution set up would not allow for that to happen.



But we have already shown that the Constitution doesn't ground rights and is often changing, so who cares what the Constitution says?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Are you saying also that a President can outlaw any other religion except Christianity then? If so, can he also outlaw any church whose understanding of Christianity differs from how reformed and Baptist see as being correct Christian doctrines and practices?



I've responded to this at least twice specifically in my posts on Athanasian Pluralism.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 30, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Why does he need to "make sure"?


His duty as being the Chief executive of the land.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 30, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But we have already shown that the Constitution doesn't ground rights and is often changing, so who cares what the Constitution says?


We have to as Americans, as that is the basis of the rule of law in this land.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 30, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I've responded to this at least twice specifically in my posts on Athanasian Pluralism.


What posts would those be?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What posts would those be?



You do realize that the most successful theocratic regime on the planet was headed by Independents and Baptists?
https://negatingthevoid.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/politics-as-athanasian-pluralism/


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> We have to as Americans, as that is the basis of the rule of law in this land.



What grounds that rule of law?


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> His duty as being the Chief executive of the land.



Would he sin by not allowing Satanists to drink blood? Don't bring in the Constitution or anything like that. Just answer the question: yes or no?


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 30, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You do realize that the most successful theocratic regime on the planet was headed by Independents and Baptists?
> https://negatingthevoid.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/politics-as-athanasian-pluralism/


The basic problem is that the scriptures do not state to us that we must be governed by the law of God as a nation, but as in our personal lives as believers in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 30, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Would he sin by not allowing Satanists to drink blood? Don't bring in the Constitution or anything like that. Just answer the question: yes or no?


As long as not human blood.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> As long as not human blood.



Let's say they were there when person x died of natural causes and they drained the blood immediately. And the deceased agreed to it beforehand. Is that allowable?

Also, you just justified Satanism in the public square.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The basic problem is that the scriptures do not state to us that we must be governed by the law of God as a nation, but as in our personal lives as believers in Jesus Christ.



Dualist Ethics 101. And strictly speaking, I never said anything about the law of God in that sense. Further, you didn't deal with the article above (which provided for Baptist liberty)


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> My concern with this topic is that I have not yet seen scriptures that would indicate that a president , or any other political leader in our type of government is required by God to demand to have the Law of God as the law of the land. Would we be better off it it were, yes, but our Constitution set up would not allow for that to happen.



It is you who have the burden to prove that the Moral Law is somehow not applicable to all men. I am still waiting for that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 30, 2018)

We have veered off into particulars when the fundamental pieces of this discussion have not been settled. The way I see it, we can't have a proper conversation until we take these topics in order.

1. _Is the Moral Law binding on all men?_

2._ Is the Moral Law binding on the magistrate? If not, why not? (If the type of government is said to be relevant here (ie. monarchy, republic, theocracy), such must be proven, not merely asserted.)_

3. _If the magistrate, as much as any other man, is bound by the Moral Law, is he also bound to uphold it? If yes, what verses in Scripture would you point to? If no, how can it be explained that a ruler might be individually bound by the law, but not bound to enforce it?_

4. _If the magistrate fails to uphold God's commandments, does he sin therein?_

It seems to me that only once we have established these points can we really begin to consider the particulars of what it might look like for a Christian ruler to rule as a Christian.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 31, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> 1. _Is the Moral Law binding on all men?_


Yes. See WCF 4.2

We are created with reasonable and immortal souls (a moral _quality_), have the law of God written in our hearts (a moral _ability_), and we are left to the liberty of our own will (a moral _liberty_). Accordingly, we are abled moral agents and culpable for our own actions.

The moral concepts of _good_ and _evil_ are to be determined by the will of God. God has revealed what is _good_ and what is _evil_ in the moral law. The moral law is naturally, perpetually, and unchangeably binding, something we are to meditate upon always (Psalm 1:2).

Per the WLC:
Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and bonding *every one* to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it. Deut. 5:1-3, 31, 33; Luke 10:26-27;Gal. 3:10; 1 Thess. 5:23; Luke 1:75; Acts 24:16; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:10, 12.



Tom Hart said:


> 2._ Is the Moral Law binding on the magistrate? If not, why not? (If the type of government is said to be relevant here (ie. monarchy, republic, theocracy), such must be proven, not merely asserted.)_


Yes it is. See above, _every one_.



Tom Hart said:


> 3. _If the magistrate, as much as any other man, is bound by the Moral Law, is he also bound to uphold it? If yes, what verses in Scripture would you point to? If no, how can it be explained that a ruler might be individually bound by the law, but not bound to enforce it?_


Yes he is. See WCF 23.3 (and proof texts):


Spoiler



3. 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 (2 Chron. 26:18 with Matthew 18:17 and Mathew 16:19; 1 Cor. 12:28,29; Eph. 4:11,12; 1 Cor. 4:1,2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4): 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 (Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23,25-28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5,6,12; 2 Kings 18:4; 1 Chron. 13:1-9; 2 Kings 23:1-26; 2 Chron. 34:33; 2 Chron. 15:12,13). 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 (2 Chron. 14:8-11; 2 Chron. 29 and 30; Mt. 2:4,5).



The American version of the same offers no escape from the duty of preserving the _good_ over the _evil_, for therein the magistrate...
_Yet, as *nursing fathers*, it is *the duty* of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord_.

The moral law binds all forever, no matter regenerate and unregenerate. The moral law instructs us good is to be rewarded and is evil to be punished. Given that the moral law defines what is good and what is evil, and the magistrate is the minister of God to us for good and a revenger to execute wrath upon us that does evil (Romans 13:4), the magistrate cannot be exempted from his duty to enforce the moral law.



Tom Hart said:


> 4. _If the magistrate fails to uphold God's commandments, does he sin therein?_


Yes he does.

Per the WLC:

Q. 24. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.

See also Acts 12:20-23.

Now that I have answered the questions, I have one for the reader: _What is the moral law_? I will answer with the observation that the Ten Commandments are not the moral law, rather the commandments _summarily comprehend_ the moral law, per WSC 41, WLC 98. There are positive and negative aspects of the moral law. For example, to not kill necessarily implies to preserve life, and so on.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 31, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yes. See WCF 4.2
> 
> We are created with reasonable and immortal souls (a moral _quality_), have the law of God written in our hearts (a moral _ability_), and we are left to the liberty of our own will (a moral _liberty_). Accordingly, we are abled moral agents and culpable for our own actions.
> 
> ...



Brilliant. Thank you for this answer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 31, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> It is you who have the burden to prove that the Moral Law is somehow not applicable to all men. I am still waiting for that.


The Moral law of God is applicable to all men, in that it is the standard of what is right/wrong, and men shall be judged on that basis, but that does not mean that God will not allow for governments to not uphold it, as in making the Scriptures themselves the supreme law of the land.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 31, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> We have veered off into particulars when the fundamental pieces of this discussion have not been settled. The way I see it, we can't have a proper conversation until we take these topics in order.
> 
> 1. _Is the Moral Law binding on all men?_
> 
> ...


How would a Christian President rule in a nation like ours thought that practices plurality of religious expressions, and whose basis of law is not the scriptures, but the US Constitution?
IF he was ruling in an area where the scriptures are the final say for that nation, of course should make sure their standards are upheld.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 31, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Moral law of God is applicable to all men, in that it is the standard of what is right/wrong, and men shall be judged on that basis, but that does not mean that God will not allow for governments to not uphold it, as in making the Scriptures themselves the supreme law of the land.


You still don’t seem to be understanding that the question of the OP is what a magistrate *should* do and be responsible for. The question of the OP doesn’t so much concern what *is* currently the status. 

Whether our constitution allows for it or not, the proposed idea is that God will hold kings and leaders accountable for how whether they ruled according to God’s Law. Ideally, part of a righteous rule should be a leader’s concern for the peace and purity of the true Christian church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 31, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> You still don’t seem to be understanding that the question of the OP is what a magistrate *should* do and be responsible for. The question of the OP doesn’t so much concern what *is* currently the status.
> 
> Whether our constitution allows for it or not, the proposed idea is that God will hold kings and leaders accountable for how whether they ruled according to God’s Law. Ideally, part of a righteous rule should be a leader’s concern for the peace and purity of the true Christian church.


The Magistrate who is ruling in the situation that you are describing to me should always be making sure to see that the scripture viewpoint in regard to morality are being followed.


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 31, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> You still don’t seem to be understanding that the question of the OP is what a magistrate *should* do and be responsible for. The question of the OP doesn’t so much concern what *is* currently the status.
> 
> Whether our constitution allows for it or not, the proposed idea is that God will hold kings and leaders accountable for how whether they ruled according to God’s Law. Ideally, part of a righteous rule should be a leader’s concern for the peace and purity of the true Christian church.



Excellent, Jeri. Additionally, because God's judgment isn't immediate only means it isn't immediate. I also hope no one is supposing God is restrained by the U.S. Constitution.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 31, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Excellent, Jeri. Additionally, because God's judgment isn't immediate only means it it isn't immediate. I also hope no one is supposing God is restrained by the U.S. Constitution.


God is not restrained by the US Constitution, but He has not directly implemented his law across the nation yet either.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 31, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God is not restrained by the US Constitution, but He has not directly implemented his law across the nation yet either.


You keep making this point, which is ok I guess if you want to keep repeating it, but it’s kind of obvious to all that God is permitting rampant disobedience to his word in the U.S. ( see Gforce9’s comment on God’s judgment). Instead of continuing to repeat the obvious, do you have an argument against the establishment principle, or have you ever studied the issues involved? That’s what’s under discussion when speaking of the magistrate’s duty to suppress heresy.


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 31, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Magistrate who is ruling in the situation that you are describing to me should always be making sure to see that the scripture viewpoint in regard to morality are being followed.



David, the first four commandments are also summarizations of moral law. A civl authority that turns a blind eye to blasphemy or Sabbath-breaking is turning a blind eye to real, harmful, society-crushing *immorality*.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 31, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God is not restrained by the US Constitution, but He has not directly implemented his law across the nation yet either.





Jeri Tanner said:


> Instead of continuing to repeat the obvious, *do you have an argument against the establishment principle, or have you ever studied the issues involved*? That’s what’s under discussion when speaking of the magistrate’s duty to suppress heresy.


David,

Indeed, *that* is a key issue in this thread. Please avail yourself of past discussions of the matter such that you are able to interact substantively, for example:
https://www.puritanboard.com/search/5586208/?q=establishment+principle&o=date&c[user][0]=1012


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 31, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Indeed, *that* is a key issue in this thread. Please avail yourself of past discussions of the matter such that you are able to interact substantively, for example:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/search/5586208/?q=establishment+principle&o=date&c[user][0]=1012


I have read through the article http://www.westminsterconfession.or...xercise-of-civil-authority-about-religion.php On the reformed Books Online site, and i am still coming back to the point that we are discussing how a King, or someone in a solely Christian state can mandate and keep the rules of God, but not in a society set up as the USA is at this present time.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 31, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I have read through the article http://www.westminsterconfession.or...xercise-of-civil-authority-about-religion.php On the reformed Books Online site, and i am still coming back to the point that we are discussing how a King, or someone in a solely Christian state can mandate and keep the rules of God, but not in a society set up as the USA is at this present time.


David,

I assume you mean to say you have read two items, the one you provide a link to and something on the Reformed Books Online site. It is not clear what you are saying given the grammar being used.

Would that RBO item(s) be this one:
https://reformedbooksonline.com/the...tminster-standards-and-early-american-states/ ???

Can you be a wee bit more specific about what you have specifically read?


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 31, 2018)

@Dachaser,

I think it would really help all of us if you just explained how you've arrived at certain conclusions. You have made the same assertions repeatedly, but, frustratingly, still you have not provided any support.

You must realize that it's very hard to take your position seriously when all you do is repeat the same assertions over and over.

I might repeatedly say, "I'm a purple dragon. I'm a purple dragon." I might even add, "I'm a purple dragon because God made me a purple dragon."

But you're still unlikely to be convinced that I'm a purple dragon.

Now, if I provided a selfie of myself as a purple dragon, that might be getting somewhere. You don't have to believe the selfie is real (it could be doctored), but at least I'm going somewhere towards supporting my claim.

Do you see what I mean? Make a claim, but don't just stop there. Give some support, ideally from Scripture. We might disagree on your interpretations, but at least we'd have something to work with. You've got to do better than what you're doing now.

If you are not prepared to have a serious discussion, then I'm not sure why you keep engaging with us.

I hoped you would respond to the questions I listed, so that we could have a more structures discussion. Ask Mr. Religion supplied very satisfactory answers, with support from the Bible and from the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 31, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Moral law of God is applicable to all men, in that it is the standard of what is right/wrong, and men shall be judged on that basis, but that does not mean that God will not allow for governments to not uphold it, as in making the Scriptures themselves the supreme law of the land.



Let me spell it out for you:

P
R
O
V
E

I
T

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## TylerRay (Mar 31, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Now, if I provided a selfie of myself as a purple dragon, that might be getting somewhere.


I'd like to see that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 3, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> I assume you mean to say you have read two items, the one you provide a link to and something on the Reformed Books Online site. It is not clear what you are saying given the grammar being used.
> 
> ...


This article was on the Board The Westminister Presbartarina 
http://www.westminsterconfession.or...xercise-of-civil-authority-about-religion.php
The original author was Thomas M'Crie


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 3, 2018)

I am addressing myself to answering this question from the viewpoint of what should a leader do while here in the United States. in regards to upholding and enforcing the scripture morality?
The Apostle Paul stated to us in Romans 13 that the State, the government, is the sword of the Lord to enforce judgment and to execute punishment upon the wicked, but Paul did not addres here how that relates to governing exclusivekly from a Christian based perspective, as he no doubt would have ancient Rome enforce the laws against Murder, Rape, stealing, but do not see Him commanding Rome to obey the scriptures except in a general basis. There seemed to be a clear distinction between what God demanded for a Christian state, and a secular government.


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> This article was on the Board The Westminister Presbartarina
> http://www.westminsterconfession.or...xercise-of-civil-authority-about-religion.php
> The original author was Thomas M'Crie



What do you mean by linking this? Is it in support of your view? If so, could you provide a summary of some sort? The document is quite long.


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am addressing myself to answering this question from the viewpoint of what should a leader do while here in the United States. in regards to upholding and enforcing the scripture morality?
> The Apostle Paul stated to us in Romans 13 that the State, the government, is the sword of the Lord to enforce judgment and to execute punishment upon the wicked, but Paul did not addres here how that relates to governing exclusivekly from a Christian based perspective, as he no doubt would have ancient Rome enforce the laws against Murder, Rape, stealing, but do not see Him commanding Rome to obey the scriptures except in a general basis. There seemed to be a clear distinction between what God demanded for a Christian state, and a secular government.



OK, now we're getting somewhere.

I'll reply later, though, when time allows.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 6, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> What do you mean by linking this? Is it in support of your view? If so, could you provide a summary of some sort? The document is quite long.


Basically, its stating that one of the chief duties for those who are ruling for/in the place of God is to make sure to mandate and enforce that the society reflects His moral Law, and that the scripture morality is upheld. The caveat being here though was written in 1807, and the climate for doing that is much different and harder than it was back then.


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Basically, its stating that one of the chief duties for those who are ruling for/in the place of God is to make sure to mandate and enforce that the society reflects His moral Law, and that the scripture morality is upheld. The caveat being here though was written in 1807, and the climate for doing that is much different and harder than it was back then.



So in fact M'Crie is arguing precisely against your position. But it was over two centuries ago, so... Well, that was then and this is now.

Please explain what exactly was different in Scotland in the early 19th century compared to now, and explain why the moral law was applicable then but not now.

By the way, Scotland in 1807 had been in union with England for 100 years. They were governed by the parliament at Westminster, which, while it did include some upright men of strong Christian character, did not really care to uohold the same establishmentarianism of the kind we have been discussing. I just want to be clear that M'Crie is likely not intending to be dealing with a present reality. (I have yet to read the document.)

M'Crie's biography of John Knox is great. Read it if you get a chance. I think it was cheap on Kindle.


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 6, 2018)

I think David's opining is not what a magistrate "should" do ideally or what a magistrate "ought" to aim for, but rather a more practical question: What ought a Christian magistrate to do governing in the current system of the USA? Certainly, while they ought to reform the form of government in the USA and seek to protect the church to the degree that laws allow, there is only so much that they can do within the current system. So what ought a Christian governor in today's USA to do? I think that is the question that David is trying to answer.

Or to put it in more careful terms, I think that David is dealing with the application of the moral law that establishmentarians would make in the present system of things. He has specifically said that a Christian in a Christian government ought to enforce God's law, and that his question is what ought a Christian to do in the present system in enforcing Scriptural morality?

Of course, the poll is not dealing with that question (which is also an interesting question; and it's made more complicated by the fact that Christian establishmentarianism is a super-added duty to the Christian magistrate, although all magistrates are obligated to enforce the entirety of the moral law, e.g., see Gillespies 111 Propositions or Rev. Matthew Winzer's article about Theonomy in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal, which includes duties towards true religion). The poll is dealing with the moral law itself. What ought a magistrate to do? What kinds of laws ought they to make? It is dealing with the moral law, not necessarily the practical application of the moral law to a Christian serving in the present system of government.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 6, 2018)

We have been over this ad nauseum.

The question is not _What is the present situation?_

The question is _What ought the magistrate to do?
_
"That was than and this is now" is hardly a persuasive argument.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 7, 2018)

Afterthought said:


> I think David's opining is not what a magistrate "should" do ideally or what a magistrate "ought" to aim for, but rather a more practical question: What ought a Christian magistrate to do governing in the current system of the USA? Certainly, while they ought to reform the form of government in the USA and seek to protect the church to the degree that laws allow, there is only so much that they can do within the current system. So what ought a Christian governor in today's USA to do? I think that is the question that David is trying to answer.
> 
> Or to put it in more careful terms, I think that David is dealing with the application of the moral law that establishmentarians would make in the present system of things. He has specifically said that a Christian in a Christian government ought to enforce God's law, and that his question is what ought a Christian to do in the present system in enforcing Scriptural morality?
> 
> Of course, the poll is not dealing with that question (which is also an interesting question; and it's made more complicated by the fact that Christian establishmentarianism is a super-added duty to the Christian magistrate, although all magistrates are obligated to enforce the entirety of the moral law, e.g., see Gillespies 111 Propositions or Rev. Matthew Winzer's article about Theonomy in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal, which includes duties towards true religion). The poll is dealing with the moral law itself. What ought a magistrate to do? What kinds of laws ought they to make? It is dealing with the moral law, not necessarily the practical application of the moral law to a Christian serving in the present system of government.


You have articulated here exactly what I am attempting to do with answering this OP question.
Maybe we need to expand and broaden it towards the larger context of how a Christian governs in this present Government system, as I thought was being asked here?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 7, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> So in fact M'Crie is arguing precisely against your position. But it was over two centuries ago, so... Well, that was then and this is now.
> 
> Please explain what exactly was different in Scotland in the early 19th century compared to now, and explain why the moral law was applicable then but not now.
> 
> ...


Again, should a Christian leader enforce the scriptures morality? Of course. but my concern really is how that applies in a government such as ours, which is a Republic and has religious plurality set up in our Constitution?


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 7, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> We have been over this ad nauseum.
> 
> The question is not _What is the present situation?_
> 
> ...


He should always attempt to uphold the moral laws of God in the scriptures, when possible.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> He should always attempt to uphold the moral laws of God in the scriptures, when possible.



We're glad you at least admit he should enforce the ten commandments.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 7, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Again, should a Christian leader enforce the scriptures morality? Of course. but my concern really is how that applies in a government such as ours, which is a Republic and has religious plurality set up in our Constitution?



So we're in agreement. The magistrate should uphold the moral law. Sadly, we do not see our governments doing that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 7, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> So we're in agreement. The magistrate should uphold the moral law. Sadly, we do not see our governments doing that.



Agreed, and there is little at the moment. But we can use this same scenario and hypothetically apply it backwards to the 1st century to show how faulty the reasoning is "Well, Paul didn't say go kill Caesar, therefore we shouldn't strive for a biblical govt."

Therefore, since we can't apply God's law right now, we shouldn't try to reform govt according to biblical standards.

Something seems off about that.


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 8, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Agreed, and there is little at the moment. But we can use this same scenario and hypothetically apply it backwards to the 1st century to show how faulty the reasoning is "Well, Paul didn't say go kill Caesar, therefore we shouldn't strive for a biblical govt."
> 
> Therefore, since we can't apply God's law right now, we shouldn't try to reform govt according to biblical standards.
> 
> Something seems off about that.



Yes. David has at least accepted the statement that the magistrate _should_ do right in upholding the moral law, even if his other statements (that we _should_ in fact do nothing, and that government _should_ in fact protect the evils of idolatry and heresy) are incongruous with it.

I'll leave David to sort out that inconsistency.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> He should always attempt to uphold the moral laws of God in the scriptures, when possible.


One thing to sort out is what is meant by “the moral laws of God.” Do you believe that the moral law still includes the 4th commandment (the setting apart and regulated keeping of the Sabbath/Lord’s day), and the 2nd commandment (including no depictions of Christ), for instance? In other words, all 10 of the commandments? 

There was once a time in this country when those two laws and the rest of the 10 were at least prominent in people’s minds and the law reflected it (we had the Sunday blue laws, for instance, and actually in many instances still do). That’s something to sort out in your mind. If God requires the magistrate to honor and enforce the 6th and 8th commandments, then he also requires him to honor and enforce the other 8. 

I know it’s strange to consider, from a recent dispensational background, that the requirement to keep the Sabbath holy is a moral issue, obligatory on all men including the magistrate, just as murder and theft are. Yet that may be something you need to deal with and resolve.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> One thing to sort out is what is meant by “the moral laws of God.” Do you believe that the moral law still includes the 4th commandment (the setting apart and regulated keeping of the Sabbath/Lord’s day), and the 2nd commandment (including no depictions of Christ), for instance? In other words, all 10 of the commandments?
> 
> There was once a time in this country when those two laws and the rest of the 10 were at least prominent in people’s minds and the law reflected it (we had the Sunday blue laws, for instance, and actually in many instances still do). That’s something to sort out in your mind. If God requires the magistrate to honor and enforce the 6th and 8th commandments, then he also requires him to honor and enforce the other 8.
> 
> I know it’s strange to consider, from a recent dispensational background, that the requirement to keep the Sabbath holy is a moral issue, obligatory on all men including the magistrate, just as murder and theft are. Yet that may be something you need to deal with and resolve.


Yes, I do see that God requires us today to uphold the Moral Law as in the 10 Commandments, and to set aside for worship and teaching the lord's Day now, but my conflict is more on how that practically applies today in a pluralistic Republican form of government that the USA is under now.


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, I do see that God requires us today to uphold the Moral Law as in the 10 Commandments, and to set aside for worship and teaching the lord's Day now, but my conflict is more on how that practically applies today in a pluralistic Republican form of government that the USA is under now.



Then start a new thread. That is not the question we are dealing with.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, I do see that God requires us today to uphold the Moral Law as in the 10 Commandments, and to set aside for worship and teaching the lord's Day now, but my conflict is more on how that practically applies today in a pluralistic Republican form of government that the USA is under now.


It was once the will of the people in the U.S. that the Lord's Day be set apart, that adultery and other such immorality be illegal, and so forth. So my understanding is that under our form of government, it would once again have to become the will of the majority and the magistrates would need to be men who share that will- something obviously that only God can bring about. I have heard it said that we should pray for "reforming times." God has done and is able to do that (see the reforming kings in the OT). Changes like that, historically, have come accompanied with a lot of upheaval and violence. Maybe those times will never come again before Christ's return, but maybe they will.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> It was once the will of the people in the U.S. that the Lord's Day be set apart, that adultery and other such immorality be illegal, and so forth. So my understanding is that under our form of government, it would once again have to become the will of the majority and the magistrates would need to be men who share that will- something obviously that only God can bring about. I have heard it said that we should pray for "reforming times." God has done and is able to do that (see the reforming kings in the OT). Changes like that, historically, have come accompanied with a lot of upheaval and violence. Maybe those times will never come again before Christ's return, but maybe they will.


Our political leaders should always try to get laws passed that reflct what the moral code of the scriptures are, but fear that will not be fully realized until the Lord Jesus returns again.
We can still have a real revival though sweep our Lord if God so willed that to happen, as that would cause many to turn back to him and the scriptures, and we would have laws more in accord with ways of God then getting implemented.


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 10, 2018)

Again, _is_ versus _should_.

We have agreed that the magistrate ought to uphold the moral law. Obviously, that is not what we see happening today. How do we go about ushering that sort of government? Well, that's another big question. The question we are dealing with is utterly simple: _What is right?_

What has me confused, David, is that you have previously said that "a republican government like ours" (those terms being still undefined) should tolerate and protect idolatry of the worst sort. That you, a Christian, say that, even while declaring the moral imperative of the magistrate to uphold God's law, is rather perplexing.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Again, _is_ versus _should_.
> 
> We have agreed that the magistrate ought to uphold the moral law. Obviously, that is not what we see happening today. How do we go about ushering that sort of government? Well, that's another big question. The question we are dealing with is utterly simple: _What is right?_
> 
> What has me confused, David, is that you have previously said that "a republican government like ours" (those terms being still undefined) should tolerate and protect idolatry of the worst sort. That you, a Christian, say that, even while declaring the moral imperative of the magistrate to uphold God's law, is rather perplexing.


I have an obligation to God, but also to this nation, and so the balancing act is that in this current republican government, I can uphold a higher standard, but still need to allow for diversity positions to be held and done. President trump could sign an Executive order banning all l other religions to be observed/followed save for Christianity, but the Supreme Court would see that down quickly as not Constitutional.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 10, 2018)

David, do you accept or reject the establishment principle as stated in the original WCF? That's basically what the OP poll is getting at.

There are varying convictions about it on the Puritanboard you know, so it's not a trick question.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Our political leaders should always try to get laws passed that reflct what the moral code of the scriptures are, but fear that will not be fully realized until the Lord Jesus returns again.
> We can still have a real revival though sweep our Lord if God so willed that to happen, as that would cause many to turn back to him and the scriptures, and we would have laws more in accord with ways of God then getting implemented.


It's really not about your thoughts on our current form of government or what you think God may or may not do. Either God, in his word, obligates the leaders of a country to suppress heresy, or he doesn't (whether or not they currently can or are willing to is another question).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I have an obligation to God, but also to this nation, and so the balancing act is that in this current republican governmen



Am I obligated to my neighborhood to allow Satanic groups to perform blood rituals in their vicinity? Does that really promote the commonweal and quality of life? Your position logically requires you to say, "Yes."


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> It's really not about your thoughts on our current form of government or what you think God may or may not do. Either God, in his word, obligates the leaders of a country to suppress heresy, or he doesn't (whether or not they currently can or are willing to is another question).


He obligates the spiritual leaders of the churches to do that, but would not be mandating that the federal Government be doing that, not unless there is a move by him to hearts and minds changed in order to have new laws made to confirm to His standards in the scriptures.
Render unto God His things, and unto Caesar his.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Am I obligated to my neighborhood to allow Satanic groups to perform blood rituals in their vicinity? Does that really promote the commonweal and quality of life? Your position logically requires you to say, "Yes."


Do you allow for Muslims to practice their prayers unto their false God daily?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Do you allow for Muslims to practice their prayers unto their false God daily?



I am not in a position to allow or disallow them, as I am not a magistrate. In any case, even in a dreaded theocracy, it's impossible for the state to criminalize what you do privately in your own home.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am not in a position to allow or disallow them, as I am not a magistrate. In any case, even in a dreaded theocracy, it's impossible for the state to criminalize what you do privately in your own home.


I actually long for the Theocracy, but only directly under Jesus himself.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I actually long for the Theocracy, but only directly under Jesus himself.



You missed my point. It was a reductio ad absurdum. Let's take the most horrible situation imaginable--a society where the magistrate criminalizes Satanists and other blood cults. A society run by Christians. A society worse than Hillary, worse than Islam, worse than anything. Even in that society, what you do in your own home is hard, if not impossible, to criminalize.


----------



## Haeralis (Apr 13, 2018)

I've been reading old primary source texts from colonial America which speak to this issue. One interesting one is the following: 
_
The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts, _1647

Regarding Heresy: 
"Although no humane power be Lord over the Faith and Consciences of men, and therefore may not constrain them to believe or profess against their consciences: yet because such as bring in damnable heresies, tending to the subversion of the Christian Faith, and destruction of the souls of men, ought duly to be restrained from such notorious impiety, it is therefore ordered and decreed by this Court;

That if any Christian within this Jurisdiction shall go about to subvert and destroy the Christian Faith and Religion, by broaching or maintaining any damnable heresy; as denying the immortality of the soul, or the resurrection of the body, or any sin to be repented of in the regenerate, or any evil done by the outward man to be accounted in: or denying that Christ gave himself a Ransom for our sins or shall affirm that we are not justified by his Death and Righteousness, but by the perfection of our own works; or shall deny the morality of the fourth commandment, or shall endeavor to seduce others to any heresies aforementioned, every such person continuing obstinate therein after due means of conviction shall be sentenced to banishment." 

http://plaza.ufl.edu/edale/Laws and Liberties.htm

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 23, 2018)

I had earlier offered a number of hypothetical situations that illustrate the bankruptcy of Roger Williams/political pluralism. But now we can draw upon real life issues. The following incidents will make some uncomfortable, not only because of the disgust factor, but also because it involves "America's Greatest Ally."

We know Jews circumcise. But Orthodox Jews take it to another level. They bring a mohel in do to a Bris. It involves sucking the blood from the....well....that which just got circumcised.

Not surprisingly, a high number of STDs have been reported in Jewish infants in New York.

Now, does the magistrate have the authority to prohibit that religious expression?
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-what-is-oral-suction-circumcision-1.5311796


----------

