# Public prayer a la 1 Timothy 2:1-2



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 1, 2020)

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, _and_giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and _for_ all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”

Calvin on public prayer for the magistrate:

_“That we may lead a peaceful and quiet life _By exhibiting the advantage, he holds out an additional inducement, for he enumerates the fruits which are yielded to us by a well regulated government. The first is a _peaceful life_; for magistrates are armed with the sword, in order to keep us in peace. If they did not restrain the hardihood of wicked men, every place would be full of robberies and murders. The true way of maintaining peace, therefore, is, when every one obtains what is his own, and the violence of the more powerful is kept under restraint. 

_With all godliness and decency _The second fruit is the preservation of _godliness_, that is, when magistrates give themselves to promote religion, to maintain the worship of God, and to take care that sacred ordinances be observed with due reverence. The third fruit is the care of public _decency_; for it is also the business of magistrates to prevent men from abandoning themselves to brutal filthiness or flagitious conduct, but, on the contrary, to promote decency and moderation. If these three things are taken away, what will be the condition of human life? If, therefore, we are at all moved by solicitude about the peace of society, or godliness, or decency, let us remember that we ought also to be solicitous about those through whose agency we obtain such distinguished benefits.”

I haven’t seen this kind of due attention to public prayer for the magistrate in churches I’ve been in, although Paul so strongly exhorts the primacy of doing so. Is it because of our loss of a robust holding to the establishment principle? What losses and judgments may have come upon the church for neglecting the Holy Spirit’s command to intercede for the magistrate on the Lord’s day?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 1, 2020)

I had the same experience. Leadership rarely ever mentioned in public prayers. Different situation now. For myself, I didn't pray much just because I didn't think I could expect much. But if godliness hinges on our prayers for them, it's great incentive to pray.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Dec 1, 2020)

We pray for such, generally, in the LORD's Day morning service, and there is typically a more focused "current events" related prayer for such in our afternoon service. We often pray, also, for such in a "big ticket" way at our Wednesday evening prayer meetings. We are exhorted weekly to pray for such in our families and secretly as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 1, 2020)

We need to pray that the churches will
pray!! And I think it would be right to respectfully ask ministers to consider Paul’s exhortation?

And the Lord richly bless those who already do. @Joshua and @RPEphesian, do your pastors have sermons on this topic? I’ll check out Rev. Ruddell’s readings on that passage.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 1, 2020)

We pray publicly for governments and authorities in our regular prayer meetings, though I fear some are thinking more about a certain candidate or issue or law than they are about praying about being permitted to live peaceably. Establishment has nothing to do with this command to pray--it is the duty of all christians under any sort of government. Cuban and Chinese and Russian believers have the same command to pray.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 1, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> Establishment has nothing to do with this command to pray--it is the duty of all christians under any sort of government. Cuban and Chinese and Russian believers have the same command to pray.


Right, my comment had to do not with the command being for all Christians and churches, but with why public prayer is not so offered... perhaps not understanding or believing in establishment weakens the expectation for a godly government.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 1, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> We need to pray that the churches will
> pray!! And I think it would be right to respectfully ask ministers to consider Paul’s exhortation?
> 
> And the Lord richly bless those who already do. @Joshua and @RPEphesian, do your pastors have sermons on this topic? I’ll check out Rev. Ruddell’s readings on that passage.



My pastor did preach on it, but the sermon is not available. Probably for a discretionary reason.



Jeri Tanner said:


> Right, my comment had to do not with the command being for all Christians and churches, but with why public prayer is not so offered... perhaps not understanding or believing in establishment weakens the expectation for a godly government.



For me the change from non-establishment to establishment had a great impact, among other things.

If your view of government is summed up as...*
- Politicians are not required to be godly to execute their offices
- Such ambitions for a government are worldly in themselves
- Such views are just trying to spread the kingdom through unlawful means
- The First Table may _not_ be national law, the Second Table only (to a point)
- It's unbiblical to think of anything such as a Christian nation
- Persecution is better for the church anyway, so praying for easier times for the church means degeneration in holiness
- Constantine endorsed the church, and the church grew fat and worldly...

... your ambitions will be small. And because we never ask God for better, we never get better. For myself, because I couldn't expect much, why pray much?

But if it's more like...
- Christ the God-Man is given authority over nations as well as the church (Mt 28, Eph 1)
- Righteousness to all Ten Commandments exalts a nation while sin against any one is a reproach
- Christ threatens judgment on the rulers and judges and nations who do not fear him or obey His laws (Psalm 2), implying He will bless the nation which does the opposite
- Kings and queens will be nursing fathers and mothers to the church
- Godliness in a leadership is indispensible to true/full peace, quiet, godliness and honesty in a nation per 1 Timothy 2
- We are to _expect_ the conversion of whole nations...

...it brings your prayers and expectations for the Gospel to a far greater level.

One can still pray for nations while not believing the latter things, but those in the latter category have the far greater encouragements, and more things to ask for. In my pre-Establishment days such things were practically forbidden, and asking God for things which we didn't have business asking for, or expecting*. In the Establishment realm, you feel that you ask for too little, and pray too little.

*This post is not intended to sweep all non-establishment views under the same broad brush. Some will differ on what they believe they can expect from government, but this was the type of doctrine I had to move away from.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 1, 2020)

In the churches that I have been in, it was/is customary to pray for the governing authorities at least once every Lord's Day.

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## jw (Dec 1, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> We need to pray that the churches will
> pray!! And I think it would be right to respectfully ask ministers to consider Paul’s exhortation?
> 
> And the Lord richly bless those who already do. @Joshua and @RPEphesian, do your pastors have sermons on this topic? I’ll check out Rev. Ruddell’s readings on that passage.


I don't know of any sermons he has, particularly, on praying for magistrates. That said -and I believe Rutherford mentions it in his _A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_, if I'm rememberin' correctly- in order for us to live in "*all* godliness," we are certainly helped when a magistrate rules as one Who enforces Christ's Law (according to place and station), _a la_ Establishmentarianism (of the True Religion).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 1, 2020)

Joshua said:


> I don't know of any sermons he has, particularly, on praying for magistrates. That said -and I believe Rutherford mentions it in his _A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_, if I'm rememberin' correctly- in order for us to live in "*all* godliness," we are certainly helped when a magistrate rules as one Who enforces Christ's Law (according to place and station), _a la_ Establishmentarianism (of the True Religion).


I enjoyed this from Rev. Ruddell this afternoon- his last year's Scripture reading on 1 Timothy 2. Very encouraging. (I believe he does quote Mr. Rutherford.) https://www.christcovenantrpc.org/audio/scripture-readings/


----------



## KMK (Dec 1, 2020)

When I was a Pastor, I found it difficult to pray for the civil magistrates (although I did) because it was hard to discern where to begin and end. Once you start, you could spend the entire church service and not even scratch the surface! All the moving parts in our civil government are exhausting.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 1, 2020)

Our elders pray for a public official from differing levels of government each week. The church follows up by sending a letter to that person and has received thoughtful replies.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 2, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> My pastor did preach on it, but the sermon is not available. Probably for a discretionary reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The problem with the big ambitions of the establishmentarian is that he's praying for things that God has not vouchsafed. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, and nowhere does the Bible say that there will be a geographical "Christian Nation." If in God's providence the occasional civil magistrate has sprung up that endorses and enforces Christianity, what of it? Seeing the end of those places--look at Geneva today, or Scotland, or England--perhaps the lesson we learn is to NOT look for an earthly kingdom, but to trust God for what He has actually promised: the salvation of all His elect. And we pray with huge ambition, and we pray knowing that God will answer our prayer, because He has promised to redeem Himself a people out of every kindred, tribe and tongue to be His holy nation, without the constraints of physical, political borders.
Surely it is good when a magistrate fears God; surely it is good for the temporal well-being of Christians if righteous decrees are made--but hoping for an earthly theocracy is hoping for the wrong thing, when we are supposed to have our affections and our treasure in Heaven. Pray then, that the magistrate will suffer you to live peaceably, to worship according to conscience (hmm, can we think of a time when the establishment persecuted other Christians because they wouldn't have their consciences wrongfully bound? Where would baptists be today if establishment presbyterians had their way?); pray that unrighteous laws would be suppressed; pray for the salvation of all God's elect. But don't hope for something that God has not promised, and that never worked out in the past anyway.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 2, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> The problem with the big ambitions of the establishmentarian is that he's praying for things that God has not vouchsafed. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, and nowhere does the Bible say that there will be a geographical "Christian Nation." If in God's providence the occasional civil magistrate has sprung up that endorses and enforces Christianity, what of it? Seeing the end of those places--look at Geneva today, or Scotland, or England--perhaps the lesson we learn is to NOT look for an earthly kingdom, but to trust God for what He has actually promised: the salvation of all His elect. And we pray with huge ambition, and we pray knowing that God will answer our prayer, because He has promised to redeem Himself a people out of every kindred, tribe and tongue to be His holy nation, without the constraints of physical, political borders.
> Surely it is good when a magistrate fears God; surely it is good for the temporal well-being of Christians if righteous decrees are made--but hoping for an earthly theocracy is hoping for the wrong thing, when we are supposed to have our affections and our treasure in Heaven. Pray then, that the magistrate will suffer you to live peaceably, to worship according to conscience (hmm, can we think of a time when the establishment persecuted other Christians because they wouldn't have their consciences wrongfully bound? Where would baptists be today if establishment presbyterians had their way?); pray that unrighteous laws would be suppressed; pray for the salvation of all God's elect. But don't hope for something that God has not promised, and that never worked out in the past anyway.



It'd be too long to untangle the multitude of things you've put in here, but I don't think this is a thread meant for a discussion on the validity of the principles anyway. Suffice it to say that I am convinced of the biblical warrant for the petitions I mentioned, of which the end is not an earthly kingdom, but the heavenly one, of which governments are one jurisdiction and tool under Christ to use to such an end. And are to be used to that end.

And I can say that before and after, there has been a _vast_ difference in my prayer life concerning America, missions, etc. Which is the central idea of this thread.

But even so, the extraordinary goodness of God and value of the blood of Christ would still be great grounds on which to ask for such things.

This from a former Baptist, who objected to the establishment principle on the grounds you mentioned.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 2, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> The problem with the big ambitions of the establishmentarian is that he's praying for things that God has not vouchsafed.


An establishmentarian minister in public prayer is praying for the things revealed (i.e. God saves all kinds of men, including kings) to come to fruition, in accordance with 1 Timothy 2:1-2; I would say the difference is likely that a non-establishmentarian doesn’t believe the Christian magistrate is bound to make and uphold laws in accord with the first table of the Law.

I don’t mind some discussion of this, since I did bring it up in the OP, but would like to limit it to how establishmentarianism may or may not influence the mindfulness to pray publicly, accordingly.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 2, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> An establishmentarian minister in public prayer is praying for the things revealed (i.e. God saves all kinds of men, including kings) to come to fruition, in accordance with 1 Timothy 2:1-2; I would say the difference is likely that a non-establishmentarian doesn’t believe the Christian magistrate is bound to make and uphold laws in accord with the first table of the Law.
> 
> I don’t mind some discussion of this, since I did bring it up in the OP, but would like to limit it to how establishmentarianism may or may not influence the mindfulness to pray publicly, accordingly.



I was gonna delete my “off-topic” rejoinder. After all I took time to reply to your reply.

I think I am also conflating in with it my postmillennial style optimism too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777 (Dec 2, 2020)

I’ve never attended a church where there wasn’t weekly prayer for the magistrate. I thought it was normal. So you are saying that there are Reformed churches that don’t?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 3, 2020)

Since @Jeri Tanner has invited some level of discussion, a few thoughts on government involvement, and why past historical events _encourage_ us to pray for our government to do more in regards to religion than just keep the peace and deliver the mail.

If you believe in Christ as being "God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not created, one essence with the Father", or the Spirit being "Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father (original did not contain "And the Son")... who is equally to be adored and glorified with the Father and the Son", and you reject Arianism or any idea that Christ is less than fully God, or Christ as man was deified, or had a beginning, you owe your thanks to Constantine. He called the Nicene Council.

If you believe in Christ having two natures, fully God and fully man, in no way confused, compounded, commingled, diminished, both natures remaining fully intact and separate, all the while not making Christ to be two different persons, you owe your thanks to Emperor Marcion, who called the Chalcedonian Council.

Are you a five-point Calvinist, and do you love the Canons of Dort? You owe your thanks to the General Assembly of the Netherlands, who called the Synod of Dort.

Do you subscribe to the Westminster Confession, or some modification of it? Do you love the Shorter Catechism? Are you thankful to have your heart fully searched to the last degree by the Larger Catechisms on the Ten Commandments? You owe thanks to the English Parliament.

Even if you are a Baptist, the core orthodoxy of the 2LBC is from the Westminster Assembly, called by the English Parliament. Although there was a prior Baptist Confession, the Westminster-based has become the standard. One of my previous RB churches subscribes to the 2LBC as well as Three Forms of Unity, with slight modification.

The effect of these events are (understatedly) not immaterial. You cannot deny the Nicene Creed or Chalcedon Definition without being a heretic, or gross error. It has been so for 1,500 years. And the Westminster Confession and Catechisms (and 2LBC based on them) are the standard for evaluation of orthodoxy nowadays universally across Reformed/Confessional/Covenantal churches, and have been for over 350 years. We have not only sucked the breasts of kings and rulers, but we have _feasted_ because of them.

History is so far from repudiating cooperation between church and state, but the rule of Christ has confirmed how needful it really is. The proof: if you are reading this, you are one of those who has enjoyed the fruits of these past governors either encouraging or calling church councils, and chances are your pastor(s) have studied and borne marvelous fruits from the Standards and Creeds, and preach orthodox sermons weekly because of them—which means you in part owe your godliness to them.

And have not these events been an answer to prayer in 1 Timothy 2, that magistrates would rule in such a way as to promote *godliness and humility*? Isn't that exactly what these creeds and confessions do? It cannot be denied: It is what they do.

History rather confirms, the church has received some of its most significant helps from the supporting and countenancing by magistrates. It'd be a mistake to think that it is needless or immaterial now.

———————

Clarification: my denomination rejects that governments have authority to call synods, as that belongs exclusively to the church, so our testimony holds an exception to Ch 32 of the Westminster. Also, Ch. 23 Sec III where it begins, "Yet he hath authority..." However, it is in accordance with WLC 191 to cite these incidents as reasons why the government should at least _encourage_ even if not mandate the church to deal with doctrinal and practical issues, and even put their money towards it. Thanks @kodos for pointing out WLC 191.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## kodos (Dec 3, 2020)

Consider the Larger Catechism, even as adopted by the PCA - which is not known for being an establishmentarian denomination! Which is why I will use their copy of the Larger Catechism.

According to their website, "Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America take a vow to 'sincerely receive and adopt' these confessional documents “as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures."

And so, we have their version of LC Q. 191 (https://www.pcaac.org/bco/westminster-confession/):

Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition? A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, *countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate*:

Right here, we have instruction on how to pray - and the Scripture proofs provided are what you might expect:
*1 Tim. 2:1–2*. I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 
*Isa. 49:23*. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.

As @RPEphesian says, we inherit the fruit of this doctrine. We are the recipients of many great blessings - both in Creeds and in Confessions due to the Civil Magistrate acting as nursing fathers and mothers.

This really ought to be non-controversial in Reformed churches. The "Magisterial Reformation" came about due to it. That said, this is how we pray at Dallas RPC and so do many other Reformed Churches - RP or not.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 3, 2020)

Simply because God has brought some good out of the civil establishment of religion is no reason to say that it is either required or desirable. When we pray that God's kingdom will come, we are not praying that a political earthly kingdom will be established--leave that to the Dispensationalists. We are praying that God would bring salvation to the hearts of men: a kingdom that is not meat or drink or earthly things, but is a piety worked in the heart by sanctification rather than legislated outwardly. No amount of legislated morality will effect a change in the hearts of men.
I'm astonished that so many people who should know that we seek a city not made with men's hands, eternal in the heavens, are so hung up on seeking one here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 4, 2020)

In post #13 you said, "Seeing the end of those places--look at Geneva today, or Scotland, or England--perhaps the lesson we learn is to NOT look for an earthly kingdom". And you brought up the Baptists. The sum of your agument is that the deemed failures are an argument against the establishment principle, or endorsement of the church by the government.

Then in post #16 I showed from history that the endorsement of the church by magistrates has produced some of the very best, most enduring good that the New Covenant church has ever seen. More than just being "some good" as you've called it, it has been _incalculable_ good among many nations over centuries and millennia, which will serve the church thousands more years if Christ tarries.

Now you are turning around and saying, "Simply because God has brought some good out of the civil establishment of religion is no reason to say that it is either required or desirable." It cannot be both ways. If the bad is an argument against it, the good is an argument for it.

As for the assertion that this is worldly-minded, meaning to establish earthly kingdoms rather than a heavenly, spiritual one... it was put in perspective in post #14 that the end of the governments countenancing and endorsing the church is to be a _means_ of advancing the _heavenly_ one.

The Westminster documents, in which the establishment principle is espoused, _climax_ in certain parts in the coming of final glory. The Shorter and Larger both crescendo in their doctrinal sections (WCS 38 and 90) on the glorified state, which statements I have a hard time believing that worldly-minded men would write such things. Such a spirit was not characteristic of the Puritans, but quite the opposite. I still remember how enthralled I was about heaven and about Christ when I read WLC 87-90.

Also, the full text of the WLC on the second petition "thy kingdom comes" makes it plain that the supporting and countenancing of the church by the government is a _means_ to the bringing in of the _spiritual kingdom_, and not an end in itself:

Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition, (which is, *Thy kingdom come*,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, *countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate*: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him for ever: and *that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world,* *as may best conduce to these ends*.

The last refers to Christ's rule in heaven and earth, and on the earth through governments. My own consultation of JG Vos confirms this, to which he adds in his exposition of the Larger Catechism, "Note that the kingdom of power is not an end in itself, but a means to the furtherance of the kingdom of grace and the hastening of the kingdom of glory. In this statement of the matter the catechism is eminently scriptural."

So, I do not believe an earthly kingdom is the end, the Westminster does not believe an earthly kingdom is the end, the RPCNA does not believe an earthly kingdom is the end. The heavenly kingdom is the end, of which all resources and powers in the world are responsible to work to promote according to gifts, places, opportunities, however that looks like.

But since becoming an RP, I can say looking at my own spiritual life over the past three years I have become much more heavenly-minded than I've ever been, with a much clearer sight of what makes heaven glorious, and I've been determined to keep heaven much more in my thoughts. I owe that, in no small measure, to a God-enthralled pastor fully subscribed to the Westminster (including the Establishment principle), and serious ponderings on the Westminster standards themselves. So if the Westminster is promoting a worldly theology, it's had, ironically and understatedly, a heavenly result.

Per 1 Timothy 2, godliness and humility has been an indisputable result of the supporting and countenancing of the church. Such is tremendous reason to pray earnestly that God would convert our magistrates, bring them to fear Christ, and support and countenance the church, that such wondrous work by the church in councils and assemblies may again occur again at such scales as needed, to the further salvation and edification of many more ages of believers.

Reactions: Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 4, 2020)

kodos said:


> Consider the Larger Catechism, even as adopted by the PCA - which is not known for being an establishmentarian denomination! Which is why I will use their copy of the Larger Catechism.
> 
> According to their website, "Officers in the Presbyterian Church in America take a vow to 'sincerely receive and adopt' these confessional documents “as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures."
> 
> ...


@kodos Thanks for this Pastor Rom. Firstly, I agree with the Establishmentarian position. Secondly, do you think this was an oversight by the American Revision OR do this think the American Revision was NOT intended to remove the Establishmentarian position from the original standards on this subject?


----------



## Taylor (Dec 4, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> I'm astonished that so many people who should know that we seek a city not made with men's hands, eternal in the heavens, are so hung up on seeking one here.


Who here is advocating this?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 4, 2020)

Regardless of what you think of the establishment principle, the argument that it is contrary to being heavenly-minded is clearly nonsense. Is anyone here seriously claiming to be more heavenly minded than the Puritans and many others who argued for it? Also, is it contrary to being heavenly-minded to ensure that your nuclear family is governed on Christian principles? If not, then how can if be contrary to heavenly-mindedness to want your national family to be governed by like principles?

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 5, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> In post #13 you said, "Seeing the end of those places--look at Geneva today, or Scotland, or England--perhaps the lesson we learn is to NOT look for an earthly kingdom". And you brought up the Baptists. The sum of your agument is that the deemed failures are an argument against the establishment principle, or endorsement of the church by the government.
> 
> Then in post #16 I showed from history that the endorsement of the church by magistrates has produced some of the very best, most enduring good that the New Covenant church has ever seen. More than just being "some good" as you've called it, it has been _incalculable_ good among many nations over centuries and millennia, which will serve the church thousands more years if Christ tarries.
> 
> ...


The successes and failures of established religion are not the primary reasons for or against--rather, it is whether we find it in God's word. While we owe much to the Westminster ministers and the puritans of that time, there are places where they went astray: in this subject, for one; in others that we've debated in other places and need not derail this thread with. So their infatuation with establishmentarianism is no good reason to go after it. We must find the establishment principle in God's Word if we are to desire it: it is not there. Christ did not come to establish an earthly political realm; His kingdom is spiritual, His law is written in the hearts of His people.
If you find that longing for established religion on earth makes you more heavenly-minded, I congratulate you. It would not do so for me.
To the point of the OP: we pray for the political leaders not so that they would establish our sort of religion, but that we would have liberty to freely worship according to conscience--without persecution or hindrance. Kings are nursing fathers in that they foster a climate where conscience is free--for some, to baptize their infants and form denominations, for others, to baptize only believers and organize local churches according to their Confession.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 5, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Who here is advocating this?


Everybody who desires the government to establish their form of religion


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 5, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Regardless of what you think of the establishment principle, the argument that it is contrary to being heavenly-minded is clearly nonsense. Is anyone here seriously claiming to be more heavenly minded than the Puritans and many others who argued for it? Also, is it contrary to being earthly-minded to ensure that your nuclear family is governed on Christian principles? If not, then how can if be contrary to heavenly-mindedness to want your national family to be governed by like principles?


I don't think anyone is claiming that. I regret to say that I'm more earthly-minded not only than all the puritans, but than everyone else on this board, and than most of the people at my church. But perhaps that's because my own heart is the only one I can see. Nevertheless, establishmentarianism is less a matter of the heart and the affections, than of wrongly dividing the word of truth. Just because they made some mistakes doesn't mean the Puritans weren't heavenly minded, though.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 5, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> Everybody who desires the government to establish their form of religion


What should government establish, then?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 5, 2020)

As someone who has been moderately friendly to establishmentarianism in the past, there are still hard questions that establishmentarians have to answer and it won't do to simply say, "Oh the power of the gospel will take care of that." For example:

1. Will you establish a denomination, and if so which Covenanter microdenomination will it be?
2. Will it rather be a broadly Reformed establishment, and if so, given the spectrum of Reformed in the PCA, how will that work?

Or to be practical, the only way this will really work is to get what Gary North called

3. Athanasian Pluralism

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 5, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> As someone who has been moderately friendly to establishmentarianism in the past, there are still hard questions that establishmentarians have to answer and it won't do to simply say, "Oh the power of the gospel will take care of that." For example:
> 
> 1. Will you establish a denomination, and if so which Covenanter microdenomination will it be?
> 2. Will it rather be a broadly Reformed establishment, and if so, given the spectrum of Reformed in the PCA, how will that work?
> ...


I'm not really dealing with the specifics of how it would or would not work. I am mainly dealing with the assertion on this thread that those who hold to the confessional position are seeking some sort of Dispensationalist earthly kingdom, which is frankly one of the most asinine and uncharitable things I've read on the Puritan Board in quite a long while.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 5, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I'm not really dealing with the specifics of how it would or would not work. I am mainly dealing with the assertion on this thread that those who hold to the confessional are seeking some sort of Dispensationalist earthly kingdom, which is frankly one of the most asinine and uncharitable things I've read on the Puritan Board in quite a long while.


 That's fair to an extent. Most establishmentarians are far more pious than I am. It's not even close. That said, I've been part of theonomic/postmil churches in my wilder days, and that's exactly how we (I) thought.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 5, 2020)

The government always establishes religion. It’s just a matter of which one. It’s inescapable, regardless of what laws are on the books.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 5, 2020)

Eyedoc84 said:


> The government always establishes religion. It’s just a matter of which one. It’s inescapable, regardless of what laws are on the books.


Exactly what I was going for (eventually) in this post.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 5, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> What should government establish, then?


Government should keep their hands out of religion. Each person in government has a duty to repent and believe the Gospel, but government itself needs to leave the conscience free. Punishing malefactors and defending borders and upholding an economy are a far cry from forcing people into a religion they don't have in their hearts.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 5, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> ...forcing people into a religion they don't have in their hearts.


That’s exactly what establishmentarianism isn’t. A biblical establishment of the church comes about when the hearts of the people are willing and desire to have the law of Christ as their rule.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> That’s exactly what establishmentarianism isn’t. A biblical establishment of the church comes about when the hearts of the people are willing and desire to have the law of Christ as their rule.


So, never on this earth for the majority of the population.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 6, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> So, never on this earth for the majority of the population.


Since when has what _ought_ to be done decided by whether or not we believe it can actually happen in this world?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> That’s exactly what establishmentarianism isn’t. A biblical establishment of the church comes about when the hearts of the people are willing and desire to have the law of Christ as their rule.


That's an interesting perspective. Does it imply democratic establishmentarianism - i.e. the majority voting for the establishment of religion and being happy to see it endorsed (that still presumably leaves an unhappy minority, who still want to celebrate Christmas/not baptize their children, even if only a small percentage of the population)? Surely that wasn't what the Westminster divines had in mind, as monarchists - the king was supposed to establish the true religion and the people had to fall into line? Biblically, in the OT wasn't that usually the case with reforms - they came from a godly king, not a democratic vote of the populace (look at Josiah for an example)? And should it be a tolerant establishmentarianism (the government supports the true religion [as it understands it] but tolerates dissenters) or an intolerant establishmentarianism (the government persecutes those of other denominations)? Just trying to clarify exactly what kind of establishmentarianism you have in mind, and therefore how it relates to OT examples.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Since when has what _ought_ to be done decided by whether or not we believe it can actually happen in this world?


What ought to be done is determined by God's preceptive will. He has not commanded that the government should establish religion during this NT age.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 6, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> That's an interesting perspective. Does it imply democratic establishmentarianism - i.e. the majority voting for the establishment of religion and being happy to see it endorsed (that still presumably leaves an unhappy minority, who still want to celebrate Christmas/not baptize their children, even if only a small percentage of the population)? Surely that wasn't what the Westminster divines had in mind, as monarchists - the king was supposed to establish the true religion and the people had to fall into line? Biblically, in the OT wasn't that usually the case with reforms - they came from a godly king, not a democratic vote of the populace (look at Josiah for an example)? And should it be a tolerant establishmentarianism (the government supports the true religion [as it understands it] but tolerates dissenters) or an intolerant establishmentarianism (the government persecutes those of other denominations)? Just trying to clarify exactly what kind of establishmentarianism you have in mind, and therefore how it relates to OT examples.



That's sort of what my post was getting at. It's easy to say "Establishmentarianism." It fails the moment you try to flesh it out (like, which Covenanter microdenomination will be in charge? Given the turbulent realities of the Second Scottish Reformation, that is still a burning question; it's not an academic one).


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> That’s exactly what establishmentarianism isn’t. A biblical establishment of the church comes about when the hearts of the people are willing and desire to have the law of Christ as their rule.



That's kind of iffy. Let's take the prime example: the Solemn League and Covenant. Swearing to this covenant really wasn't optional. Even Brian Schwertely, a man with whom I am usually in strong disagreement, is quite clear on this point.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 7, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> What ought to be done is determined by God's preceptive will. He has not commanded that the government should establish religion during this NT age.


That's not how God's prescriptive will works. The NT also nowhere commands that women partake in the Lord's Supper, yet we know they must. We also do not limit God's prescriptive will to the NT. It is ironic that you accuse establishmentarians of exercising some Dispensationalist pipe dream, yet this your most recent comment is textbook Dispensationalism.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's kind of iffy. Let's take the prime example: the Solemn League and Covenant. Swearing to this covenant really wasn't optional. Even Brian Schwertely, a man with whom I am usually in strong disagreement, is quite clear on this point.



To be fair, I think that there is a way in which it is possible to say that you both are correct from a certain point of view (pardon me for sounding like Vern Poythress  ). While it is true, as Iain pointed out, that in both the Bible and Scottish church history we see top-down covenanted reformations, I do not think that Jeri's point is without substance. In order for an establishment to legally come about in a constitutional democracy, it would require something like what Jeri has described as people would have to vote for it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> it would require something like what Jeri has described as people would have to vote for it.



No doubt that's true, but if it is going to come about by mass conversion, then it's kind of a moot point since everyone will be Christian, anyway.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 7, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> That's an interesting perspective. Does it imply democratic establishmentarianism - i.e. the majority voting for the establishment of religion and being happy to see it endorsed (that still presumably leaves an unhappy minority, who still want to celebrate Christmas/not baptize their children, even if only a small percentage of the population)? Surely that wasn't what the Westminster divines had in mind, as monarchists - the king was supposed to establish the true religion and the people had to fall into line? Biblically, in the OT wasn't that usually the case with reforms - they came from a godly king, not a democratic vote of the populace (look at Josiah for an example)? And should it be a tolerant establishmentarianism (the government supports the true religion [as it understands it] but tolerates dissenters) or an intolerant establishmentarianism (the government persecutes those of other denominations)? Just trying to clarify exactly what kind of establishmentarianism you have in mind, and therefore how it relates to OT examples.



Thank you Pastor Duguid. My thought is that since the OT, we’ve had only one period of Reformation resulting in an established church, and that was under a monarchy. However even then (focusing on just Scotland) the people by and large wanted it, and that desire came about gradually through the labor of preaching. God brought it about. “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power” (Psalm 110:3). 

My thought is that we wouldn’t expect to be able to predict how God will always bring to pass Isaiah 49:23, or to prematurely solve all the attendant troubles and dilemmas that might go with it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No doubt that's true, but if it is going to come about by mass conversion, then it's kind of a moot point since everyone will be Christian, anyway.



Everyone (or the vast majority) being Christian is not the same thing as the church being countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate. It would be possible for such mass conversion to happen and the existing Voluntary arrangements to remain in place.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No doubt that's true, but if it is going to come about by mass conversion, then it's kind of a moot point since everyone will be Christian, anyway.


I don’t think so since Isaiah 49:23 will never be moot, and as long as there’s the need for the office of civil magistrate there will be the need for their countenancing and protection of the church. Evil-doers, malefactors, plotters, and ne’er-do-wells will be around until Christ returns.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 7, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Thank you Pastor Duguid. My thought is that since the OT, we’ve had only one period of Reformation resulting in an established church, and that was under a monarchy. However even then (focusing on just Scotland) the people by and large wanted it, and that desire came about gradually through the labor of preaching. God brought it about. “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power” (Psalm 110:3).
> 
> My thought is that we wouldn’t expect to be able to predict how God will always bring to pass Isaiah 49:23, or to prematurely solve all the attendant troubles and dilemmas that might go with it.


Jeri, perhaps your knowledge of Scottish history is better than mine. What dates are you thinking of for this _ideal _"Reformed Established Church" that almost everyone in Scotland wanted? Scotland has officially had a "Reformed Established church" from 1560 to the present day, which has always been a very mixed multitude, sometimes better sometimes worse, but never fully Reformed as we would speak of it. The closest would be during the time of the Westminster Assembly, when for an eyeblink it seemed like it might become the official church of England also. But even during that period, I suspect you would have had a hard time finding many solid congregations in the Highlands, for example. There's a reason Bonnie Prince Charlie landed where he did. And within twenty years, you have an anti-Presbyterian monarch again, enforcing antiBiblical religion, utilizing the power of the established church to crush the Covenanters. 

I think the New England Puritans might be a better historical example of a thoroughgoing "established" settlement, of the kind that you envisage (Baptists not welcome). But they quickly ran into the inevitable question of what to do with the next generation: when do you send away your sons and daughters from your country, if they fail to profess the true religion? Or do you force them to stay and violate their consciences? And at what point do you slaughter or exile all the native Americans who refuse to convert on the grounds that they are analogous to the Canaanites left in your new Jerusalem? Or do you settle for a halfway covenant?

It's easy to speak in generalities about the establishment principle, but until people address the real challenges that such an approach brings with it, it's a rather utopian concept that is distant from Biblical examples and real church history.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I don’t think so since Isaiah 49:23 will never be moot, and as long as there’s the need for the office of civil magistrate there will be the need for their countenancing and protection of the church. Evil-doers, malefactors, plotters, and ne’er-do-wells will be around until Christ returns.



That depends partly on a highly specific (and by no means self-evident) interpretation of that passage.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Everyone (or the vast majority) being Christian is not the same thing as the church being countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate. It would be possible for such mass conversion to happen and the existing Voluntary arrangements to remain in place.



You are at least thinking through the very difficult particularities of this. I commend you for that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> I think the New England Puritans might be a better historical example of a thoroughgoing "established" settlement, of the kind that you envisage (Baptists not welcome). But they quickly ran into the inevitable question of what to do with the next generation: when do you send away your sons and daughters from your country, if they fail to profess the true religion? Or do you force them to stay and violate their consciences? And at what point do you slaughter or exile all the native Americans who refuse to convert on the grounds that they are analogous to the Canaanites left in your new Jerusalem? Or do you settle for a halfway covenant?



The halfway covenant and its ensuing disaster is the key to this discussion.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2020)

Similar practical difficulties emerge with various things in life such as church discipline, child-rearing, and running seminaries. Yet I have yet to see anyone abandon those concepts as utopian on account of practical difficulties. Of course, the biblical category of wisdom comes into play with many of these things. The Bible does not always give us cut and dried answers to every possible question that might arise (it would need to be a much bigger book if it did so).

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2020)

One practical problem with modern Voluntaryism: How do you stop the church from splintering into a zillion denominations?


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 7, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> One practical problem with modern Voluntaryism: How do you stop the church from splintering into a zillion denominations?


The establishment principle doesn't necessarily prevent church splits. Witness the abundance of small Presbyterian denominations presently in Scotland who all believe in the establishment principle, but broke off from the Auld Kirk (and subsequently from each other).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> The establishment principle doesn't necessarily prevent church splits. Witness the abundance of small Presbyterian denominations presently in Scotland who all believe in the establishment principle, but broke off from the Auld Kirk (and subsequently from each other).



No, but the church existing as a zillion denominations is inconsistent with establishmentarianism. I am not convinced that the same may be said of Voluntaryism. One point worth keeping in mind in relation to Scotland is that the old doctrine of church unity seems to have been lost with the split between the Protestors and Resolutioners (Chris Coldwell might be able to say more about that issue). From what I can see, the result has been endless purity-spiralling and schism ever since.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> One practical problem with modern Voluntaryism: How do you stop the church from splintering into a zillion denominations?



You know I have the highest possible respect for you and I am only pushing back because I know you have intellectually worked through (or at least are aware) of the tough questions. As we are now at Voluntaryism: what do you do with Baptists? This is a key question because church membership will functionally overlap with political citizenship.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You know I have the highest possible respect for you and I am only pushing back because I know you have intellectually worked through (or at least are aware) of the tough questions. As we are now at Voluntaryism: what do you do with Baptists? This is a key question because church membership will functionally overlap with political citizenship.



By "we" are you talking about the church? Are you asking whether or not they should be accommodated in the established church?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 7, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> By "we" are you talking about the church? Are you asking whether or not they should be accommodated in the established church?



Obviously, the church doesn't have civil judicial power, so it has to be the state. But on this gloss it is going to be a Presbyterian state. I guess. I presume.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Obviously, the church doesn't have civil judicial power, so it has to be the state. But on this gloss it is going to be a Presbyterian state. I guess. I presume.



My answer is to leave it to the discretion of the magistrate to work through on a case by case basis. Is that answer likely to satisfy everyone? By no means. Yet was it not one of the criticisms of theonomy that its adherents were too simplistic and thought that the OT law was like a slot machine, wherein you put a nickel in the slot and the right answer to every question came out of it? If so (and this description of theonomy is a rather bad caricature), then we can hardly complain when establishmentarians refuse to give simplistic answers to such questions.

The reason I asked about the church was that your question occurred straight after a discussion on establishment and schism.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 7, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Jeri, perhaps your knowledge of Scottish history is better than mine. What dates are you thinking of for this _ideal _"Reformed Established Church" that almost everyone in Scotland wanted?


I most definitely am a know-nothing compared to your knowledge (and Chris Coldwell's and many others). And I greatly appreciate your pointing out these gaps in knowledge and mistakes in expression to me. Maybe it's more accurate to say that in the place(s) in scotland during the days of John Knox and following, where Reformation preaching was known and took hold and was embraced, enough people rejected the papacy and prelacy and desired the pure worship of God to cause reformation principles to be accepted, including the desire of the magistrate to countenance and protect the interests of the church. My thoughts are that the establishment of the church is surely an ideal outcome of Isaiah 49:23. And we have seen that in the history of the church since Christ's ascension, it was worked out, of course imperfectly, for a brief moment in time. I pray for such reformation again.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 8, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> That's not how God's prescriptive will works. The NT also nowhere commands that women partake in the Lord's Supper, yet we know they must. We also do not limit God's prescriptive will to the NT. It is ironic that you accuse establishmentarians of exercising some Dispensationalist pipe dream, yet this your most recent comment is textbook Dispensationalism.


I think you misunderstand. Neither the witness of the entire OT, not the further revelation of the NT, have any intention that the civil magistrate shall establish religion after the coming of Christ. The OT theocracy was a type--an imperfect physical picture of a coming, and better, spiritual reality. We should not long for a return to the shadow when we have the reality: Christ reigns in the hearts of His covenant people the entire world over, regardless of political circumstances.
But curiously, to your example: did you know that in the OT, women partook of the Passover?


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 8, 2020)

I have posed this question multiple times here over the years, but have yet to receive even a single nibble (If I recall correctly): How is establishmentarianism compatible with WCF 20.2? My question applies to very evident and deep differences in both Baptist/non-Baptist and intra-Presbyterian convictions.


----------



## B.L. (Dec 8, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> As we are now at Voluntaryism: what do you do with Baptists?



Can't they all just be exiled to somewhere like Rhode Island?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 8, 2020)

Phil D. said:


> I have posed this question multiple times here over the years, but have yet to receive even a single nibble (If I recall correctly): How is establishmentarianism compatible with WCF 20.2? My question applies to very evident and deep differences in both Baptist/non-Baptist and intra-Presbyterian convictions.


Would you mind explaining this? Precisely what difficulty do you think WCF 20.2 presents?


----------



## Taylor (Dec 8, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> I think you misunderstand. Neither the witness of the entire OT, not the further revelation of the NT, have any intention that the civil magistrate shall establish religion after the coming of Christ. The OT theocracy was a type--an imperfect physical picture of a coming, and better, spiritual reality. We should not long for a return to the shadow when we have the reality: Christ reigns in the hearts of His covenant people the entire world over, regardless of political circumstances.



You really believe that establishment folks are after an Israelite theocracy, or some sort of ecclesiocracy? If that is the case, then you and I are talking about two different things. I would suggest listening instead of casting theological aspersions against something about which you are not informed. I found this article to be a helpful read.



Ben Zartman said:


> But curiously, to your example: did you know that in the OT, women partook of the Passover?


Of course. But you were the one who in practice limited the extent of God's prescriptive will to the New Testament revelation in this post.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 8, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> But curiously, to your example: did you know that in the OT, women partook of the Passover?





Taylor Sexton said:


> You really believe that establishment folks are after an Israelite theocracy, or some sort of ecclesiocracy? If that is the case, then you and I are talking about two different things. I would suggest listening instead of casting theological aspersions against something about which you are not informed. I found this article to be a helpful read.
> 
> 
> Of course. But you were the one who in practice limited the extent of God's prescriptive will to the New Testament revelation in this post.


Ben, what do you hope to gain by this point? As a baptist you do not allow OT practice of infant circumcision to justify infant baptism, so women at Passover is no help to your practice of permitting women to the Table. Your own rules of engagement on baptism demand explicit command or indisputable example for permitting women.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 8, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> You really believe that establishment folks are after an Israelite theocracy, or some sort of ecclesiocracy? If that is the case, then you and I are talking about two different things. I would suggest listening instead of casting theological aspersions against something about which you are not informed. I found this article to be a helpful read.
> 
> 
> Of course. But you were the one who in practice limited the extent of God's prescriptive will to the New Testament revelation in this post.


To be fair, a lot of the questions are provoked by the fact that "establishment folks" aren't always clear about what kind of establishment they want - so the link you have provided is helpful in giving more specifics. There are erastian establishmentarians (see Church of England, where the state appoints bishops) and liberal establishmentarians (see Church of Scotland, where the only theological offenses that will get you disbarred from ministry are things like opposing women's ordination). There is nothing _inherent_ in the term "establishmentarianism" that tells us what you have in mind.

In general, the greatest opacity (and this is where you are probably getting most pushback) is "What future do you envisage in your establishment State for real Christians who conscientiously disagree over confessional issues? Are they to be tolerated (provided they hold to some broader definition of "Christianity" than the WCF - if so, what definition do you propose?) Or are they to be persecuted, as baptists have sometimes historically been?" I don't see anything in the article that addresses this vital question - though since it argues for _jus divinum _Presbyterianism (with which I agree!), it's hard to see how you allow New England Congregationalist Puritans to practice their religion.

Do you see where people's concerns come from?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor (Dec 8, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> To be fair, a lot of the questions are provoked by the fact that "establishment folks" aren't always clear about what kind of establishment they want - so the link you have provided is helpful in giving more specifics. There are erastian establishmentarians (see Church of England, where the state appoints bishops) and liberal establishmentarians (see Church of Scotland, where the only theological offenses that will get you disbarred from ministry are things like opposing women's ordination). There is nothing _inherent_ in the term "establishmentarianism" that tells us what you have in mind.
> 
> In general, the greatest opacity (and this is where you are probably getting most pushback) is "What future do you envisage in your establishment State for real Christians who conscientiously disagree over confessional issues? Are they to be tolerated (provided they hold to some broader definition of "Christianity" than the WCF - if so, what definition do you propose?) Or are they to be persecuted, as baptists have sometimes historically been?" I don't see anything in the article that addresses this vital question - though since it argues for _jus divinum _Presbyterianism (with which I agree!), it's hard to see how you allow New England Congregationalist Puritans to practice their religion.
> 
> Do you see where people's concerns come from?


I do not for a second deny the issues, difficulties, or concerns. They are entirely valid. What _I_ am pushing back against is the assertion, yet to be retracted in the thread by Mr. Zartman, that the entire endeavor is merely something that should be "left to the Dispensationalists"—logically entailing that it is Dispensational in its nature to begin with—a charge I found to be most offensive and uncharitable. I do not wish to iron out the difficulties (though I will say that difficulties in practice do not render the underlying theory invalid). I merely wish to ensure that board members are not misrepresenting one another. None of us should tolerate it, certainly not a confessional board such as this.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I do not wish to iron out the difficulties (though I will say that difficulties in practice do not render the underlying theory invalid).



I'll admit I neither understood Mr Zartman's charge nor the responses to it. That said, the difficulties we are raising have to be addressed. Covenanter Political thought has generally not addressed them and might be one of the reasons they have always ended in defeat and disaster. Always. Even among themselves (see the debacle at Bothwell Bridge)

The historic Protestants (and I have analyzed and outlined Turretin and Althusius on this) were establishmentarians, but they never dreamed of the situation in America, so more thought is called for.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 8, 2020)

Phil D. said:


> I have posed this question multiple times here over the years, but have yet to receive even a single nibble (If I recall correctly): How is establishmentarianism compatible with WCF 20.2? My question applies to very evident and deep differences in both Baptist/non-Baptist and intra-Presbyterian convictions.



WCF 20.2 should not be read in isolation from 20.4.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 8, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> Ben, what do you hope to gain by this point? As a baptist you do not allow OT practice of infant circumcision to justify infant baptism, so women at Passover is no help to your practice of permitting women to the Table. Your own rules of engagement on baptism demand explicit command or indisputable example for permitting women.


The passover question is different than the baptism question, but we should discuss that in another place, in order to not derail this thread.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 8, 2020)

Ben Zartman said:


> The passover question is different than the baptism question, but we should discuss that in another place, in order to not derail this thread.



Until then, no explicit example or command is needed in the New Testament that governments should support and countenance the church.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 8, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I do not for a second deny the issues, difficulties, or concerns. They are entirely valid. What _I_ am pushing back against is the assertion, yet to be retracted in the thread by Mr. Zartman, that the entire endeavor is merely something that should be "left to the Dispensationalists"—logically entailing that it is Dispensational in its nature to begin with—a charge I found to be most offensive and uncharitable. I do not wish to iron out the difficulties (though I will say that difficulties in practice do not render the underlying theory invalid). I merely wish to ensure that board members are not misrepresenting one another. None of us should tolerate it, certainly not a confessional board such as this.


I'm sorry that you were offended: I did not intend to imply that the Dispensationalists were seeking the same thing entirely as the establishment crowd; clearly they have a different set of hopes and dreams. But they do expect an earthly political kingdom, and there is a similarity there, however oblique. I do not accuse nor charge anyone here with being Dispensationalist, and I apologize if anyone felt I was calling them such.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 8, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> Until then, no explicit example or command is needed in the New Testament that governments should support and countenance the church.


This doesn't follow, but suit yourself.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 8, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I do not for a second deny the issues, difficulties, or concerns. They are entirely valid.


The problem is that you can't simply set aside problems that lie at the heart of the very enterprise, waving them away to be sorted out after the Reformation comes. It's easy to be in favor of establishmentarianism, if that remains a very vague concept that everyone is free to define in their own way. It's harder if you have to wrestle with exactly what kind of establishmentarianism you think Scripture requires. At one end of the spectrum you have what we might call "hard establishmentarianism", in which only worship within very narrow boundaries is permitted in your realm and those who disagree are still forced to go to your church, where they may or may not be able to be members and/or take communion (see part 4 of the article you linked to). They cannot have their own churches however. You may graciously agree not to imprison them, but they don't get to vote or hold public office. It's not clear if they are permitted to teach their children their beliefs. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the current set up in the UK where a very broad church is "established", and has a few advantages (bishops in the House of Lords), but in practice other denominations are free to do whatever they want, within reason ("soft establishmentarianism"). You could hold a position at a variety of points along this spectrum, but it is reasonable to ask you to define exactly which establishmentarianism you want us to vote for.

I suspect most establishmentarians here lean toward the former, not the latter, but don't seem to have though through the implications. Everyone seems to assume that the established denomination will exactly match their own doctrinal preferences, and they will have arrived at a utopia in which every church in the land is just like theirs. No one seems to imagine it possible that their own views might end up getting suppressed and persecuted. For example, the current Free Church of Scotland holds to the establishmentarian principle, but it believes that it should be the established church, not the Church of Scotland. Yet if hard establishmentarianism held sway, they wouldn't have the freedom to argue that they should be the true established church. They would be forced to go to their local Church of Scotland church and sing hymns and hear vague platitudes along with everyone else.

And if OT Israel is our model, that doesn't give us a whole lot of comfort. They were never, as a nation, on board with the true religion. Every now and then a godly king dragged them forcibly back in the right direction, with the help of a brief and very limited revival. But more often than not, his son re-started the idolatry. It's similar in church history; for every godly leader who helped and encouraged reformation (and there were some signal examples), there were five who persecuted and suppressed the true religion. As I result, I for one am less than excited about the idea that the State enforces a single denomination and suppresses the rest. I'm open perhaps to a kinder, gentler establishment - one in which I don't have to sort out all of my neighbors theological problems, just the ones in my own church - but not the full strength variety. We'll all get our doctrine straightened out perfectly in heaven (including me); until then, I'm okay with the idea that some of my brothers and sisters in Christ aren't getting everything right, and I prefer to defend their right to be wrong than abandon my own right to be right (as I understand the Scriptures).

Oh, and in the meantime, that doesn't prevent me from praying regularly for our present leaders, pagan and Christian alike, in hopes that they will give us a quiet life in which we may pursue godliness according to our understanding of the Scriptures.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 8, 2020)

Pastor Duguid, and others, it occurs to me to ask, where has religious pluralism gotten the witness of the true religion? The church’s speaking with multiple voices and multiple doctrinal stances and multiple forms of worship has been a catastrophe as a witness to the truth.

God has always used the civil magistrate to aid the church toward a visible unity that witnesses to the truth and advances the gospel. Every church council that settled major doctrinal issues, all the way up to Westminster, was called and countenanced by the magistrate. The civil magistrate, in the days of reformation, didn’t and couldn’t decree what constituted the true religion in the nation. The establishments in England and Scotland are unbiblical, and do not represent the true religion, which is why the faithful church had to come out of them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 8, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Pastor Duguid, and others, it occurs to me to ask, where has religious pluralism gotten the witness of the true religion? The church’s speaking with multiple voices and multiple doctrinal stances and multiple forms of worship has been a catastrophe as a witness to the truth.
> 
> God has always used the civil magistrate to aid the church toward a visible unity that witnesses to the truth and advances the gospel. Every church council that settled major doctrinal issues, all the way up to Westminster, was called and countenanced by the magistrate. The civil magistrate, in the days of reformation, didn’t and couldn’t decree what constituted the true religion in the nation. The establishments in England and Scotland are unbiblical, and do not represent the true religion, which is why the faithful church had to come out of them.


Jeri,
I think you've cherry picked your evidence a little bit. The same establishments in England and Scotland that you (rightly) call unbiblical are the ones that summoned the assembly that produced the Westminster Standards. Not every confession came about this way - for example, the Belgic Confession, or the American Revisions to the Westminster Confession (to which I subscribe), or for that matter the 1689 London Baptist Confession. And we may be grateful for the times when, in spite of the establishment principle, faithful churches were nonetheless able to come out from the established church without being hounded to death or excluded from public office. That was not always the case. There is a reason why many of our Presbyterian forebears ended up in the United States, where they had greater freedom to pursue Biblical worship, without being persecuted by the establishment. Divisions, while always lamentable in this fallen world, are not always catastrophic (1 Cor 11:18-19).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 8, 2020)

Has the government not been given the sword by Christ to punish evil and promote good? Does not even the American revision of Westminster include this?

Well what are good and evil if not defined by the full moral law of God? Is it evil to worship Buddha? Is it evil to worship satan in a temple? Is it evil to work your servants on the Lord’s Day solely to make extra profit? Is it evil to dishonor superiors? Is it evil to worship and bow down to statues? Is it evil to speak blasphemies against God? If a magistrate passes a law, is he/she exempt from the bearing of the moral law because they hold the title “magistrate”? Which commands are they exempt from?

Who is to bear a sword against the above evils?

These are the majority of questions that I’ve been unable to answer with other positions. This is part of the reason I embrace the establishment principle along with seeing it in scripture, and Westminster (both original and Americanized).


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 8, 2020)

G said:


> Has the government not been given the sword by Christ to punish evil and promote good? Does not even the American revision of Westminster include this?



No one disputes this.


G said:


> Well what are good and evil if not defined by the full moral law of God?



Since moral law = natural law, no one really disputes this.


G said:


> Is it evil to worship satan in a temple?



Yes, and this highlights ambiguities in the 1st amendment. But all of this is besides the point. Establishmentarians in this thread are trading on an ambiguity: no one really rejects what I call "an Athanasian pluralism," the codification of largely Christian values. That's beside the point. The issue is _specific Christian denominations_. You will have to outlaw some of these. Will you use the sword against your baptist neighbors? You all keep dodging those questions.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 8, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one disputes this.
> 
> 
> Since moral law = natural law, no one really disputes this.
> ...


Jacob my questions were rhetorical.

And no one has been dodging questions. As I read it all the questions have been answered in a pretty clear manner. If the sacraments are not being handled in an appropriate manner then it would first need to fall to the elders to use the keys. If people continue to abuse the sacraments, then yes some form of civil penalty would need to be required. I think it is obvious the establishment principle would require the baptist position to be addressed, so I’m not sure why you keep pressing for this answer. And if we happen to have an established religion that outlaws infant baptism, then (assuming infant baptism be biblical), then this would mean persecution on some level.

So to avoid a degree of persecution we simply make any and all forms of worship to a plurality of idols legal?

So if the Baptist view was the ruling government then we Presbyterians would likely yield in lesser areas and suffer persecution in primary doctrinal convictions.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 8, 2020)

@BayouHuguenot

And this is Merica!!!! If the Presbyterians gain the establishment, we would just tax the stew out of any lingering baptist so we can send all our children to Reformed universities for free and cancel all Presbyterian student loan debt!!!!!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 8, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> The same establishments in England and Scotland that you (rightly) call unbiblical are the ones that summoned the assembly that produced the Westminster Standards.


I’m sure this is obvious but when the confession and confessional establishmentarians speak positively of establishments, it’s understood to be those that are true and biblical ones, brought about by God’s acting to revive and reform his church. I would say that the present establishments in England and Scotland are not true or biblical church establishments, therefore not worthy of the name.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 8, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> The problem is that you can't simply set aside problems that lie at the heart of the very enterprise, waving them away to be sorted out after the Reformation comes.


Again, I am granting the validity of all your questions and issues. I am not "waving them away." I am not even arguing _for_ establishment here! _My sole purpose for engaging in this thread is to address a clear mischaracterization of establishmentarianism that occurred very early on in the thread_—a comment which had nothing to do with the difficulties of the topic_._ That's literally all I endeavored to do. And since Mr. Zartman addressed the statement in question, my reason for engaging is no longer in force.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 8, 2020)

G said:


> Has the government not been given the sword by Christ to punish evil and promote good? Does not even the American revision of Westminster include this?
> 
> Well what are good and evil if not defined by the full moral law of God? Is it evil to worship Buddha? Is it evil to worship satan in a temple? Is it evil to work your servants on the Lord’s Day solely to make extra profit? Is it evil to dishonor superiors? Is it evil to worship and bow down to statues? Is it evil to speak blasphemies against God? If a magistrate passes a law, is he/she exempt from the bearing of the moral law because they hold the title “magistrate”? Which commands are they exempt from?
> 
> ...


Not everything that is immoral -or even evil - is (or should be) illegal. Coveting is evil, but we don't send people to jail for it. I'm not sure I need to jail my Baptist pastor friends; I'd rather have conversations with them here on the PB in which I seek to guide them into a better understanding of the Scriptures.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 8, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Not everything that is immoral -or even evil - is (or should be) illegal. Coveting is evil, but we don't send people to jail for it. I'm not sure I need to jail my Baptist pastor friends; I'd rather have conversations with them here on the PB in which I seek to guide them into a better understanding of the Scriptures.


Iain I made no mention of jail specifically. Nor do I think our reformed baptist brothers need the death penalty.

All I seem to hear from the anti-establishmentarian side is “ just think of how bad it will be if the denomination you’re not a part of is the established religion“. I wish those discussions would end on this topic because frankly it does not matter IF it is biblical. Is the magistrate required or not required to promote and protect the 10 commandments? My answer is a resounding YES right now. I’m still studying the issue and no I do not have my specific denominational penalties in a draft CFR, but I still go back to what does the Bible and our confession require of the civil magistrate?

I have been thankful for your input in this thread, BTW. I still consider myself young on this subject!

We would rather have freedoms to worship any and all gods in any way we feel than risk a chance of persecution? That keeps ringing in my head and I’m still wrestling with this topic, though I still feel very convicted that the establishment principle is biblical and greatly needed today.

P.S. I sent you a PM on a totally unrelated subject.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 8, 2020)

Another one I’ve heard from anti-establishment types: “can you imagine if Hillary Clinton or Pelosi was coming up with the rules of worship, no way man!!!”.

Nonsense. The establishment principle does not require the magistrate to formulate their own rules of worship, but rather to support, protect, and promote rules of biblical worship. Once we get that base line we would at least have a better system than we do now wich is equivalent to the famous line in Judges dealing with eyeballs. Difference being we have learned to like it because our Lord has not yet brought the pillars crashing down.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 8, 2020)

What went wrong with establishment 1638-1688; what should be done different? If we should have establishment that should be one of the case studies.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 8, 2020)

It is interesting that those who deny the original WCF want to use the best examples of dissenters from a future establishment (e.g. orthodox Baptists and others). What about Devil worshippers? What about Jehovah's Witnesses and other Arians? How should the state treat them? I am happy enough to have conversations with such people to convince them of the error of their ways. I am also happy for the state to send the ring-leaders of such cults to prison or worse.

We have also had discussions here about whether or not it is right to swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. I have argued that it is not contrary to God's law to do so because the oath merely recognises the Constitution as the legitimate instrument of government; it does not require you to own the deficiencies of that document as the confession of your faith. (Although I would prefer to take the oath with a declaratory statement acknowledging Christ's kingship, which I think you can still do.)

Other fine Christians here, who, to cite what George Whitefield said about John Wesley  , will be much closer to the throne than I, conscientiously believe that it is wrong to take an oath to the Constitution. As a result, they cannot, in good conscience, hold certain jobs that require them to take the oath. Should the Constitution (or perhaps the very idea of constitutional government) be scrapped because of their conscientious objection? Or do the rest of us just see that outcome as the unfortunate result of a misinformed conscience?

I see their situation being analogous in some way to what might happen to evangelical Baptists were there an established church. They may suffer certain disabilities (such as not being able to hold political office) as a result of being dissenters from the establishment. But, in such a situation, they would not be suffering persecution; they would be living with the consequences of having embraced an opinion that our Confession regards as "a great sin." I mean no disrespect to the persons of any of our Baptist brothers here (several of whom are good friends of mine), but as a confessional Reformed Christian, I cannot be woolly on this subject and pretend that I do not regard anti-paedobaptism as a serious error.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 8, 2020)

G said:


> Another one I’ve heard from anti-establishment types: “can you imagine if Hillary Clinton or Pelosi was coming up with the rules of worship, no way man!!!”.



Now, stop it, Grant. You are just tempting me to post Alex Jones videos.

Reactions: Funny 1 | Praying 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 8, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Not everything that is immoral -or even evil - is (or should be) illegal. Coveting is evil, but we don't send people to jail for it. I'm not sure I need to jail my Baptist pastor friends; I'd rather have conversations with them here on the PB in which I seek to guide them into a better understanding of the Scriptures.


Iain not even the Elders of Christ church can know the internal heart, so are you saying no judgements can be passed on others regarding the command forbidding covetousness? If a sin is committed solely inwardly then I imagine, if unrepentant, the only being existing who could judge is Christ himself.

But also here is a hypothetical since you and Jacob ask for them:

Does stealing another man’s property (Popeyes Spicy Chicken Sandwich) involve coveting? If so could a magistrate not charge a convicted thief also of coveting because his action shows his heart (and belly) guilty of that command as well?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 8, 2020)

G said:


> Does stealing another man’s property (Popeyes Spicy Chicken Sandwich) involve coveting? If so could a magistrate not charge a convicted thief also of coveting because his action shows his heart (and belly) guilty of that command as well?


I would say not because, as far as I know, the Law never gives us civil sanctions for coveting. It does, however, give us civil sanctions for stealing. You are right that coveting is certainly involved in the act of theft, but the fact remains that when someone is punished for theft, they are punished for an outward act, not an internal disposition.

This, by the way, is why the very idea of "hate crimes" is so wicked. Civilly, I ought to be able to hate whomever I wish as harshly as I wish for as long as I wish without fear of civil punishment, as long as I do not _act_ on such feelings. I will certainly to to hell for it, but the civil magistrate does not have the wherewithal to accurately determine my guilt, and my hating someone in my heart has no effect on the prosperity of a society (again, as long as I do not act on my hatred). That is not to say that hatred is good; of course it isn't. However, it _does_ show the wisdom of God, since he knew that if some nation would ever make hate a crime (and we know no country would _ever_ so insane as to do that  ), then there would be no end to the tyranny they would inflict upon their citizenry, defining as "hate" whatever best suits their wicked purposes.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2020)

G said:


> If the sacraments are not being handled in an appropriate manner then it would first need to fall to the elders to use the keys. If people continue to abuse the sacraments, then yes some form of civil penalty would need to be required.



That's the problem. Elders aren't politicians. The elder at the Presbyterian church has no jurisdiction at the Baptist church. He can investigate the baptist church all he wants, but he can't do anything. HE would have to snitch to the government. This is where we are starting to blur the lines and coming very close to either Caesaropapism or Erastianism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2020)

G said:


> Popeyes



Not all sins are crimes. While I reject theonomy this is one of the very good points they made. If I get drunk at home, that's a sin. It's not a crime. If I lust in my bedroom, that's a sin but I am not sure how it could be a crime.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 9, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not all sins are crimes. While I reject theonomy this is one of the very good points they made. If I get drunk at home, that's a sin. It's not a crime. If I lust in my bedroom, that's a sin but I am not sure how it could be a crime.


I agree, really I just did not understand Iain's point that about Coveting. The government and elders has a duty to condemn covetousness and promote contentment. That would look different than how they handle a murder. Example: tobacco is not illegal, but it is obvious that our government is (or has been) in the business of suppressing it's use. What is a way the government can help suppress internal private lust? Well they could ban strip clubs and advertisement billboards thereof. They could make all p0rnography illegal. No none of this would fully eliminate the sin, but it would surely help some by removing stumbling blocks and seem to line upon more with their biblically prescribed duty.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 9, 2020)

What’s missing from this discussion is that the magistrate has an interest in their people being godly, and the well-being of the church is indispensable to that. While the government can only restrain outward behavior, the church’s jurisdiction is the soul. But if you cure the soul, you cure the outward behavior. If you want sodomy banished, abortion ended, end to discrimination, laws can help—but hearts ultimately need to be changed.

The government’s lack of jurisdiction of the soul is not reason to keep the church at arm’s length. Rather, it means the government desperately needs the church. And the sooner she realizes that, the better for her and the nation, as the government cannot possibly hope to have a governable people without the institution by which Christ changes hearts.

Whatever the government’s countenancing looks like, it certainly can’t be “I’m not allowed to talk to you.”

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2020)

G said:


> What is a way the government can help suppress internal private lust?



On one level, nothing. That's not government's job.


G said:


> Well they could ban strip clubs and advertisement billboards thereof



Agreed. Though that has more to do with public decency than private morality. This would fall under Augustine's discussion of res publica and common good in Book 19 of City of God.


G said:


> They could make all p0rnography illegal.



There is a better way to do it. If you try to make it illegal, then you are in the very tough situation of defining what is and isn't p0rn. It will also create a black market for it and increase human trafficking. Just have all the p0rnographers executed. No trial.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> Rather, it means the government desperately needs the church.



Which means we are back to all of the problematic areas that Prof Duguid and I mentioned. Which church? Whose denomination? (Apologies to Alasdair MacIntyre).


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 9, 2020)

The fact that their are still perceived problems with implementation does not negate the biblical duty at all. Any systems implemented by humans will have problems.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2020)

G said:


> The fact that their are still perceived problems with implementation does not negate the biblical duty at all. Any systems implemented by humans will have problems.



As long as you are willing to publicly and honestly say you will criminalize Baptists, then I acknowledge you are consistent with your claims. Still, the problems need to be dealt with. Study the political ramifications of Covenanter history and you will see.

And I repeat my question: will this establishmentarianism be of a small Covenanter micro-denomination or will it be a larger Athanasian pluralism?


----------



## B.L. (Dec 9, 2020)

@Ben Zartman - please PM me the address to your church and let me know where the best places to live in Bristol are.

....just in case I'm exiled to Rhode Island with the other Baptists.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 9, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And I repeat my question: will this establishmentarianism be of a small Covenanter micro-denomination or will it be a larger Athanasian pluralism?


Jacob, you are better than me at being versed in the "isms". So if your actually directing a question at me, then I may need some help with your terms. If this question is more general then some more knowledgeable than me will hopefully answer.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not all sins are crimes. While I reject theonomy this is one of the very good points they made. If I get drunk at home, that's a sin. It's not a crime. If I lust in my bedroom, that's a sin but I am not sure how it could be a crime.


I can’t believe all you quoted from Grant to make this response was the word "Popeye's."


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I can’t believe all you quoted from Grant to make this response was the word "Popeye's."



PB's quote mechanism does that from time to time


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2020)

G said:


> Jacob, you are better than me at being versed in the "isms". So if your actually directing a question at me, then I may need some help with your terms. If this question is more general then some more knowledgeable than me will hopefully answer.



It's from Gary North. Basically Trinitarianism that doesn't reduce to which micro-denomination is most pure.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 9, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's from Gary North. Basically Trinitarianism that doesn't reduce to which micro-denomination is most pure.


 Well to be clear, I would certainly prefer a Protestant Establishment over what we have now.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2020)

G said:


> Well to be clear, I would certainly prefer a Protestant Establishment over what we have now.



Perhaps, though it isn't clear on how Baptists, Lutherans, Reformed, and maybe Anglicans (depending on whether they are still loyal to the Queen as head of the church (and maybe state)) will work this out. Yes, I know I pointed to a broader Trinitarian consensus as preferable to a Covenanter state (which will never happen), but even here it has its problems. Just not as many.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 9, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which means we are back to all of the problematic areas that Prof Duguid and I mentioned. Which church? Whose denomination? (Apologies to Alasdair MacIntyre).



The difficulty doesn’t make any less true what I’ve said. Do you agree or disagree with the church-state mutual need as I described it?

You’ve said elsewhere that the pro-countenancing types here are being dodgy. I’ve brought up the Nicene Council, the Chalcedonian, the Synod of Dort, and the Westminster Assembly and described not a few times that these instances of countenancing and supporting the church have produced extraordinary good. History proves it is needful at some level. But this so far has been downplayed, or unacknowledged.

At the Synod of Dort the Arminians labored and fought to front-load the debate with the most heated questions. It may have concerned God actively reprobating the non elect. The most emotional topics discussed first would have killed the response to the Remonstrants. One has to wonder if we would have the Canons had they succeeded, as something entirely good would have been squelched because, quite out of order, the most emotional issues were discussed first.

No accusation of intentional detailing intended, but there seems to be an echo of that procedure in this discussion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> Do you agree or disagree with the church-state mutual need as I described it?



The problem is that the term "church" used then isn't the same situation as today. Which church? 


RPEphesian said:


> ’ve brought up the Nicene Council, the Chalcedonian,



They were called by the Emperor and received their authority thus. That's partly why the Byzantine Emperor was officially known as "Equal to the Apostles." I'm not sure we want to go that route.

Per Synod, there was an identifiable body of united Reformed doctrine in Western Europe (excluding Baptists). If that situation obtained today, it might be workable.

Per Westminster: that's the only tricky one, in that it was called by Parliament and represented several disparate evangelical bodies (which later splintered under Cromwell)


RPEphesian said:


> supporting the church have produced extraordinary good



Let's take Justinian the Great's response to monophysitism in the . On one hand we are grateful to him for solidifying earlier Chalcedonian gains, but his theological incompetency alienated otherwise sound miaphysites (whom he labeled monophysites) on grounds of vocabulary (which was opposite of what Athanasius intended). The result was that he lost Egypt. The further result is that Egypt was politically, militarily, and spiritually open to the Islamic invasion.

Of course, the negative conclusions don't prove Justinian was wrong, but if we are arguing from conclusions, as you seem to be doing, it's a fair observation.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 9, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The problem is that the term "church" used then isn't the same situation as today. Which church?
> 
> 
> They were called by the Emperor and received their authority thus. That's partly why the Byzantine Emperor was officially known as "Equal to the Apostles." I'm not sure we want to go that route.
> ...



To address your very last sentence first, bringing in the Baptists at all has been an argument from conclusion. "Bad things happen to Baptists whenever there is the supporting/countenancing/establishing of the church by the government, therefore it is unbiblical." Variant, "Certain groups won't get countenanced, (implicit conclusion) therefore it is unbiblical ." If I'm arguing from conclusions, it's because I wasn't the first to do it. I personally would very much prefer a strictly Scripture principles-based discussion where you are not allowed to mention Baptists or Covenanters, or Trump, or Hillary, or Biden.

I'm not sure why the deficiencies (even severe deficiencies) of government leaders militates against supporting/countenancing. Bad men do good things, sometimes even do their duty. But nonetheless they have nursed the church in such capacities, and the work of those councils will richly feed the church worldwide till the Second Coming. We owe to these creeds and confessions our knowledge of God, our sanctification, our faithful preaching every week, very likely our own salvation. No one wants to imagine what we would be had these things not happened.

By "church" I didn't have any time period in mind or any variation, only the one headed by Christ, by which He changes hearts in the preaching of the Gospel. Do you agree or disagree with the state's need of the church as described in post #95?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> "Bad things happen to Baptists whenever there is the supporting/countenancing/establishing of the church by the government, therefore it is unbiblical."



I never once said it is unbiblical. I said it is going to end in disaster. At best, it is adiaphora and not necessary to the bene esse of the church. I don't have to prove it is biblical or unbiblical (you, however, have to prove it is biblical, or at least conducive to the esse and bene esse of the church).


RPEphesian said:


> By "church" I didn't have any time period in mind or any variation, only the one headed by Christ, by which He changes hearts in the preaching of the Gospel.



If that's how you want to define it, then you can't appeal to history as those conditions usually haven't obtained. They almost certainly didn't obtain in the Nicene and Chalcedonian councils, since at best the bishops were Christian as well as some of the laity. Constantine saw a good move and made it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 9, 2020)

Well, we certainly wouldn’t establish a Baptist Church. How could you? Once you did, it would no longer be Baptist! ;-)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 9, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I never once said it is unbiblical. I said it is going to end in disaster


A biblical disaster then?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 9, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> A biblical disaster then?



You missed a category: adiaphora.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Dec 10, 2020)

B.L. said:


> @Ben Zartman - please PM me the address to your church and let me know where the best places to live in Bristol are.
> 
> ....just in case I'm exiled to Rhode Island with the other Baptists.


The best place in Bristol is outside of it...I've now moved to Little Compton. Still, we'll be glad to take all the confessional Baptists here in RI. All sorts of Colonial-era meeting houses, all full of corrupt denominations. I'd like to see a decent RB church in every town, so I didn't have to drive across the entire state to get to mine.
Come on over!


----------



## Phil D. (Dec 12, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> Would you mind explaining this? Precisely what difficulty do you think WCF 20.2 presents?


Full-blown establishmentarianism (man, ya gotta love at least that word...) demands conformity to a particular church, as is seen with states that have had such an arrangement with the RCC or even the COE at various times and places in history. The results have often been very ugly and a bit bloody. WCF 20.2 states that if I can't conform to particular religious beliefs and practices in good conscience, then to do so is a betrayal of my God-given faculties. Thus a measure of incompatibility seems undeniable.

Most establishmentarians here seem to be paedobaptist and they almost always base their position in terms of their party being "in charge". Well, what if a credobaptist state-sponsored church predominated (which in this day and age would be a far more likely scenario)? Would they still insist that all should affirm and submit? I don't think so.

The use of scriptures like Isaiah 49:23 to support establishmentarianism is really no different than credobaptists using scriptures like Jeremiah 31:34 in support of their position. Both are cases of an over-realized eschatology, in my opinion. In the reality of the here and now, the American revisions to WCF 20.4 and 23.3, where the civil government aids and abets the freedom of all orthodox Christian churches, seems eminently wiser and more in line with what 20.2 in effect proposes.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2020)

Phil D. said:


> Full-blown establishmentarianism (man, ya gotta love at least that word...) demands conformity to a particular church, as is seen with states that have had such an arrangement with the RCC or even the COE at various times and places in history. The results have often been very ugly and a bit bloody. WCF 20.2 states that if I can't conform to particular religious beliefs and practices in good conscience it is a betrayal of my God-given faculties. Thus a measure of incompatibility seems undeniable.
> 
> Most establishmentarians here seem to be paedobaptist and they almost always base their position in terms of their party being "in charge". Well, what if a credobaptist state-sponsored church predominated (which in this day and age would be a far more likely scenario)? Would they still insist that all should affirm and submit? I don't think so.
> 
> The use of scriptures like Isaiah 49:23 to support establishmentarianism is really no different than credobaptists using scriptures like Jeremiah 31:34 in support of their position. Both are cases of an over-realized eschatology, in my opinion. In the reality of the here and now, the American revisions to WCF 20.4 and 23.3, where the civil government aids and abets the freedom of all orthodox Christian churches, seems eminently wiser and more in line with what 20.2 in effect proposes.



That's pretty much the issue. I doubt anyone here would reject a general Christian government in charge. That's why appeals to Isaiah 49 are completely beside the point. What denomination is in charge? It's a simple question.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 12, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> What denomination is in charge? It's a simple question.


Jacob, no one can answer that because we cannot predict the future. It is likely if you want individual answers that many would pick their own. However, and AGAIN, the difficulties that would arise do not neglect the biblical requirement (if granted mind you). Regardless of the denomination supported by the magistrate, we the people would be required to submit where conscience allows, pray and work for reform, and rebel against any required sin. I think a few hear have tried to answer your “simple” questions, you just do not accept it as answer and that is OKAY, just reconsider posting the “no body wants to answer comments”. We do and we are trying.

Further, I am hearing no alternative goal proposed by anti-establishmentarians only critiques. Are you proposing the magistrate remains broadly Protestant and only outlaw things like Mormonism and Islam? Or are you proposing we keep & maintain what we have today in the USA (any god any worship)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 12, 2020)

A Baptist Church can’t “be in charge”. It’s against their theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 12, 2020)

Phil D. said:


> WCF 20.2 states that if I can't conform to particular religious beliefs and practices in good conscience, then to do so is a betrayal of my God-given faculties.


Does it really? You might just be reading something into it there.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 12, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's pretty much the issue. I doubt anyone here would reject a general Christian government in charge. That's why appeals to Isaiah 49 are completely beside the point. What denomination is in charge? It's a simple question.


Or in case of Second Reformation Scotland circa 1640s-50s, what faction of the established church, because of course being made up of sinful men, things are never nice and tidy? Is the only acceptable establishment the goal of the remonstrant/protester faction of the Church of Scotland circa 1649? If so, since that is often put forward as the height of Presbyterian reform, is it right to only have church members communing in good standing as soldiers in the army? Is the church the final arbiter if a war is to be engaged in by the civil government and if the war proceeds, are those for war targeted for suspension from church ordinances, offices of civil and ecclesiastical government, etc.? On military failure, do you keep purging the army so it is absolutely only the worthy fighting, a la Gideon? Do you suppress your rivals in the church through the government or at least try to do so? Again, we have at least this historical case study that can be made and there must be others in other countries' histories that could be made and evaluated to learn what not to do if establishment is the goal. We may not know the future, but we sure can know the past and what mistakes to avoid. I'm asking all this not as an opponent but as someone who thinks there should be establishment. Will various factions in Presbyterianism settle for small beginnings or will they simply remain divided as they do ecclesiastically? In fact, perhaps Presbyterians for establishment should really focus on healing their schisms and separation and that may very well be the lesson needed to see the way forward for what an establishment in the future should look like?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 12, 2020)

G said:


> Jacob, no one can answer that because we cannot predict the future. It is likely if you want individual answers that many would pick their own. However, and AGAIN, the difficulties that would arise do not neglect the biblical requirement (if granted mind you). Regardless of the denomination supported by the magistrate, we the people would be required to submit where conscience allows, pray and work for reform, and rebel against any required sin. I think a few hear have tried to answer your “simple” questions, you just do not accept it as answer and that is OKAY, just reconsider posting the “no body wants to answer comments”. We do and we are trying.
> 
> Further, I am hearing no alternative goal proposed by anti-establishmentarians only critiques. Are you proposing the magistrate remains broadly Protestant and only outlaw things like Mormonism and Islam? Or are you proposing we keep & maintain what we have today in the USA (any god any worship)?



Okay, let's pretend for a moment that something like the Covenanters in America are actually united instead of factioned. Would this mean criminalizing non-Covenanter denominations? It's not an academic question. This stuff has happened.

And no, people haven't answered my question beyond the tentative affirmation that Baptists might be prosecuted. Since Covenanter political history has been one long incompetent disaster, these questions must be answered and worked out beforehand.

And some of us have proposed alternatives. I mentioned North's Athanasian pluralism. Others have mentioned Althusius (who believed in natural law). And I have blogged and worked through some of these issues (which is ironic, since I am largely indifferent to the question; I'd much rather study classical theology)








Politics as Athanasian Pluralism


Gary North might have just solved my dilemma on Cromwell and the Covenanters. As a Presbyterian I want to like the Covenanters, but given how they universally failed every political and military t…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com












End of a year, shoring up conclusions


My theology doesn’t “change” much anymore, although I do explore different emphases and distinctives. I consider myself in the Reformation tradition, even if I don’t &#8220…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com












My Infamous Covenanter Post


Somebody at Real Life Prebyterians posted this from my old blog, which got some guys mad at Covenanter Theonomists group. So if I am going to get all that traffic, might as well get it here. Thurs…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Dec 12, 2020)

Phil D. said:


> Both are cases of an over-realized eschatology, in my opinion.


Jumping into a discussion that is above my pay grade, but this is the question currently wrestle with.

It seems to me plausible that the Covenanters were way ahead of their time, possibly by multiple hundreds to thousands of years. I do think that establishmentarian doctrines lead to a more blessed society in tune with God and His law, because the alternative has only given us chaos and lawlessness like same sex marriage, abortion and Cuties.

I’m short, if (non-dispensationsational) postmillennialism is true, it’s Gods law or chaos.... but is it Biblical?


----------



## B.L. (Dec 12, 2020)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> I do think that establishmentarian doctrines lead to a more blessed society in tune with God and His law, because the alternative has only given us chaos and lawlessness like same sex marriage, abortion and Cuties.



Something tells me the faithful remnant in the UK might disagree with you on this point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Poimen (Dec 12, 2020)

There is a difference between obligation and expectation. I am personally obligated to keep the law but my expectation is that I will not on this side of heaven due to my sinful nature. Indeed, outside of Christ, there is no hope but the obligation remains. And note that in Christ there is hope but not an absolute assurance (i.e. every day and every hour without fail), yet the obligation remains.

The same with respect to the magistrate's duty to the church in the land. According to the establishment theory, the magistrate has an obligation to the church, but moreover to God himself, regardless of the difficulties that they are faced with implementing that. Who would dispute that, after all, since they are appointed as "a minister of God" (Romans 13:4) that they owe something to God? And that being true, noting that the church is particularly under God's care, that they owe something to the church as a distinct institution, particularly one that is established by God himself and is the outpost of Christ's kingdom in this world?

However my expectation is that, in the West under the current circumstances, that will not happen due to: 1) the legislative barriers i.e. those laws that require the upholding of the free exercise of religion ii) the lack of will of Christians everywhere i.e. desiring that voluntarism continues for their own comfort and peace of mind & iii) the general rot of culture which upholds both.

For if neither the people in general, the government that represents them, and especially those who call on the name of the LORD desire such a thing, how will it happen? If no one prays for it (prayer being the subject of the post), how will it occur? Yet, according to the theory and my personal conviction of it, the obligation remains.

My only hope (humanly speaking) is to convince others that such a thing is not only desirable but fully warranted from scripture. Now to turn to the stumbling block for some, if not many: how will denominations or various, Christian convictions function under such a scheme? These are important questions but somewhat of a distraction from the main. Many, regardless of how it may affect them, want nothing to do with such established religion. That being the case, how are denominations the difficulty here? Presuming establishment is that good thing that the Lord requires and we should want, the only thing barring it from happening is our will.

As a matter of fact, denominations are a problem but in a different way. Not simply because they exist and might not exist under another government. Do we, for example, lament the divisions in the body of Christ as the Bible does? Do we pray for unity in Christ and that what divides us might actually be resolved in a peaceful and harmonious way? Honestly, I think we support the division because it feeds our own prejudices. And that is a problem and, in fact, a sin.

Pursuing this in order we should see a desire for: 1) ecclesiastical and theological barriers to be resolved 2) a national renewal and lament of public and private sins 3) a government energised to support both & 4) legislative change to enshrine the rule & enforcement of God's moral law and support for the church's activity without interference in its administration of the sacraments, holy orders and church discipline. Since we have barely started with the first (if at all), I do not expect to to see any of the others in my lifetime.

For the church in the West, the future seems to be encroaching governmental interference and, ultimately, direct interference and harassment upon the church, subsequently driving it under ground. If it can survive perhaps it will be able to emerge chastened and convicted. Time will tell. It may happen or it may not. If it does the groundwork will necessarily require many personal and private sacrifices. But one thing I am certain of: the theory is not at fault. It is as sound as heaven itself.

Thus, I remain hopeful. Indeed, the possibility of such is nothing to God. It seemed a thing impossible to remove Baal worship from the land, but it was done. The Jews could never return, it would seem, to their homeland after captivity but it was done. The Gentiles, it would seem, would never come to faith en mass but it has been done. And some day, I trust, though it would seem a thing impossible now, the Jewish people will return to the olive tree. Indeed the burden falls mainly on the LORD to implement it since, he is the primary agent in such passages as Isaiah 49:22-23.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 12, 2020)

Poimen said:


> There is a difference between obligation and expectation. I am personally obligated to keep the law but my expectation is that I will not on this side of heaven due to my sinful nature. Indeed, outside of Christ, there is no hope but the obligation remains. And note that in Christ there is hope but not an absolute assurance (i.e. every day and every hour without fail), yet the obligation remains.
> 
> The same with respect to the magistrate's duty to the church in the land. According to the establishment theory, the magistrate has an obligation to the church, but moreover to God himself, regardless of the difficulties that they are faced with implementing that. Who would dispute that, after all, since they are appointed as "a minister of God" (Romans 13:4) that they owe something to God? And that being true, noting that the church is particularly under God's care, that they owe something to the church as a distinct institution, particularly one that is established by God himself and is the outpost of Christ's kingdom in this world?
> 
> ...



Going back to the main purpose of the thread, for such reasons do views favoring the supporting and countenancing the church greatly expand the upper boundaries of your prayers.

Haven’t been on lately for personal business, may respond to some things later.

But seeing the Lords Day is nigh, how about everyone go to the Christology thread in the devotional forum and read or post something? @BayouHuguenot has some good thoughts on Christ’s temptations to consider. And perhaps when we come back we’ll all be a little more malleable.

Baptists welcome, by the way

Reactions: Like 1


----------

