# The confessional consequences of denying the civil application of the first table of the law



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 8, 2020)

I originally posted the text below, which I have edited slightly, in the Lesser Magistrate Revisited thread. Given that it may have been missed as it was buried deep in that thread, and owing to subsequent discussions on related themes, I consider it worth posting in a separate thread. 

People often argue that rejecting what the Westminster Confession teaches on the establishment principle and the civil application of the first table of the law is rejecting something that is merely accidental to the Reformed system of doctrine. They are, however, seriously mistaken. While Voluntaryism and rejecting the first table of the law for civil affairs are not exactly the same thing, once these views are combined together its impact on the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards is quite far-reaching. 

First, if you reject the establishment principle and the duty of the civil magistrate to uphold the first table of the law, you have to significantly modify your definition of the moral law and the general equity of the judicial laws (WCF 19.4-5 and significant sections of the Larger Catechism).

Second, to your definition of Christian liberty in relation to civil government (WCF 20.1, 3-4).

Third, to your view of the Sabbath (WCF 21.7-8, which makes no exception for the magistrate to disregard it).

Fourth, to your approach to oaths and vows (WCF 22; denying the civil ruler is bound by the first table of the law raises questions about oaths of office and swearing in a courtroom). 

Fifth, to your notion of the purpose and ends of civil government (WCF 23).

Sixth, to your view of synods in relation to the Christian magistrate (WCF 31.2, 5).

And, seventh, I also think it is fair to say that you will also have to dissent from WCF 7.5-6 (cf. 20.1), which does not define establishment as an area of difference between the legal administration of the covenant of grace and its administration in the time of the gospel. Given these considerations, those who subscribe to the original Westminster Confession do see later modifications to the confession as seriously altering the meaning of the document as a whole.

I do not wish to overstate the case by implying that those who reject the establishment principle err in fundamentals. They do not, as church-state relations are a lesser doctrine, not a fundamental doctrine. Nor am I saying that everyone who embraces a form of Voluntaryism necessarily denies that the magistrate is bound by the first table of the law, as many do not (we may debate their consistency on this point at another time). Instead, I merely point out that rejecting both the establishment principle and the ruler's duty to uphold the first table of the law does affect more than we might think at first glance.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 8, 2020)

Apologies, there is a mistake in the title. Could one of the moderators please change the title of the thread to "_of_ the first table of the law".


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 8, 2020)

Daniel,
Clearly the framers of the American version of the WCF thought they could reject the principle of an established church without rejecting the essentials of the fundamental document. There is no necessary connection between voluntaryism and rejecting the civil magistrate's duty to uphold the first table of the law (though I can see how sometimes they might fit together). You could in principle reject an established church while still expecting magistrates to apply at least some of the first table of the law (they could in theory still act against idols and establish sabbath laws, without necessarily having to sanction a particular state church). And you can have an established church which expects the state to uphold none of the Ten Commandments, as England demonstrates. In fact, countries with an established church that have sought to uphold the Ten Commandments have tended to oppress God's people, more often than not.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 8, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Clearly the framers of the American version of the WCF thought they could reject the principle of an established church without rejecting the essentials of the fundamental document.



They did, but they were mistaken. Establishmentarianism is part and parcel of the Reformed system of doctrine.



iainduguid said:


> There is no necessary connection between voluntaryism and rejecting the civil magistrate's duty to uphold the first table of the law (though I can see how sometimes they might fit together).



I agree and have said so in the final paragraph but, like it or not, some on this board are arguing for both errors. Thus, I have addressed both together in one thread.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Susan777 (Jan 8, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> And you can have an established church which expects the state to uphold none of the Ten Commandments, as England demonstrates. In fact, countries with an established church that have sought to uphold the Ten Commandments have tended to oppress God's people, more often than not.


Yes, this is what history demonstrates to me. I can only conclude that an Established church is the path to loss of true religion. Look at the State sanctioned churches of Europe: Dead. Apostate. Enemies of Christ. There were probably not many righteous men among our Founding Fathers, most being Deists, but they did recognize the corruption of the churches in Europe, with its attendant wars and miseries and in God’s providence sought to avoid it here. I’m grateful that the Confession was altered to reflect this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 8, 2020)

Susan777 said:


> Yes, this is what history demonstrates to me. I can only conclude that an Established church is the path to loss of true religion. Look at the State sanctioned churches of Europe: Dead. Apostate. Enemies of Christ. There were probably not many righteous men among our Founding Fathers, most being Deists, but they did recognize the corruption of the churches in Europe, with its attendant wars and miseries and in God’s providence sought to avoid it here. I’m grateful that the Confession was altered to reflect this.


But those countries had a history. It’s the history that was the problem not necessarily the religions. It’s the establishments not the denominations in particular. It’s the men not the institutions necessarily. I think the establishment principle should have remained regardless. But when it comes to the corrupting influence of men, it can all go wrong pretty swiftly. I would like to see this debate cleaned up a bit. As a Reformed Christian being dropped in an early America you’d have to convince me why I would be against the establishment principle and the implications of its removal.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 8, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> But those countries had a history. It’s the history that was the problem not necessarily the religions. It’s the establishments not the denominations in particular. It’s the men not the institutions necessarily. I think the establishment principle should have remained regardless. But when it comes to the corrupting influence of men, it can all go wrong pretty swiftly. I would like to see this debate cleaned up a bit. As a Reformed Christian being dropped in an early America you’d have to convince me why I would be against the establishment principle....


To quote you, "when it comes to the corrupting influence of men, it can all go wrong pretty swiftly". Just notice that in the case of the UK, it was the history _after_ a very brief period when the established religion produced the WCF, just as it was before. Just as the 18th century Americans were against monarchies, not because they are necessarily unbiblical but because they concentrate way too much power in the hands of too few sinners, so also they were against established denominations for much the same reasons. A multiplicity of denominations free from state control (and establishment = financial and other support, which inevitably entails some level of control) provides more checks and balances for when a denomination goes bad.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 8, 2020)

Susan777 said:


> Yes, this is what history demonstrates to me. I can only conclude that an Established church is the path to loss of true religion. Look at the State sanctioned churches of Europe: Dead. Apostate. Enemies of Christ.


Susan, the same is true for the churches written to by name in Revelation. Satan is still waging war on the saints and good men sometimes have grown weary.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 8, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> But that’s a proper foundation nonetheless. That’s the standard to apply to all domains. We are seeing what happens in its removal. What’s the neutral default position look like for the church and the state?


Historically, the neutral default position is probably erastianism, in which the state runs the church (or a politicized clerocracy in which the church runs the state). The original British WCF proposed a relationship within which the church and State would be distinct but not separate, with an established church over which the state would not have control. That proposal was passed by the Scottish parliament in 1646, passed (with significant amendments) by the English parliament in 1648. Both of those parliamentary acts were revoked in 1662, resulting in the persecution of godly men by the established church. The status of the WCF by the Scottish parliament was restored in 1689...resulting in the persecution of godly men by the established church. The Puritan fathers tried a form of establishment in New England that excluded Baptists and didn't result in healthy, orthodox churches. With the benefit of 150 years more experience, the American Presbyterians unitedly concluded that establishment of the church was an experiment that had been tried and found wanting, perhaps because it was based on a faulty application of the relevant texts, and chose to go a different route. Almost 250 more years of experience, has given no reason to question their judgment. I'm with the Americans on this one, much as it pains me to admit as a proud Brit.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 8, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Historically, the neutral default position is probably erastianism, in which the state runs the church (or a politicized clerocracy in which the church runs the state). The original British WCF proposed a relationship within which the church and State would be distinct but not separate, with an established church over which the state would not have control. That proposal was passed by the Scottish parliament in 1646, passed (with significant amendments) by the English parliament in 1648. Both of those parliamentary acts were revoked in 1662, resulting in the persecution of godly men by the established church. The status of the WCF by the Scottish parliament was restored in 1689...resulting in the persecution of godly men by the established church. The Puritan fathers tried a form of establishment in New England that excluded Baptists and didn't result in healthy, orthodox churches. With the benefit of 150 years more experience, the American Presbyterians unitedly concluded that establishment of the church was an experiment that had been tried and found wanting, perhaps because it was based on a faulty application of the relevant texts, and chose to go a different route. Almost 250 more years of experience, has given no reason to question their judgment. I'm with the Americans on this one, much as it pains me to admit as a proud Brit.


I may be wrong, but I fear you (and consequently) we, society in general, may ultimately be indirectly closer to that position, the failings of men not withstanding. Are you certain the WCF is actually arguing for a state run reformed church? Maybe I’m missing it? 

Who is establishing it and where is it being established? I think we should get back to this, even on a lesser or smaller scale. I wouldn't mind a town establishment reformed church.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 8, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> But those countries had a history. It’s the history that was the problem not necessarily the religions. It’s the establishments not the denominations in particular. It’s the men not the institutions necessarily. I think the establishment principle should have remained regardless. But when it comes to the corrupting influence of men, it can all go wrong pretty swiftly. I would like to see this debate cleaned up a bit. As a Reformed Christian being dropped in an early America you’d have to convince me why I would be against the establishment principle and the implications of its removal.


At least you admit it has mostly failed wherever it was tried, if you have a practical solution to their failings please post it in the thread I started, it would be out of place in this thread. As I subscribe to the American revised WCF I don't think my views as out of line with that. I do agree with Reformed Covenanter that my views are out of line with the original WCF.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 8, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> At least you admit it has mostly failed wherever it was tried, if you have a practical solution to their failings please post it in the thread I started, it would be out of place in this thread. As I subscribe to the American revised WCF I don't think my views as out of line with that. I do agree with Reformed Covenanter that my views are out of line with the original WCF.


We have to reject that and related portions of the WCF because of the sins of men? That seems a dangerous precedent, no? If you want to be completely fatalistic maybe the revised portion is failing as well while making other portions less coherent...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 8, 2020)

Susan777 said:


> Look at the State sanctioned churches of Europe: Dead. Apostate. Enemies of Christ.



So, are you willing to say that nothing good at all came out of the established Reformed churches of Scotland, England, Ireland, Geneva, and the Netherlands?

Be careful here with the absolutist line that some of you are taking in these discussions. You could be insulting the servants of God of old who laboured within these establishments. If I were to apply the same logic that some of you are applying to established churches I would have to judge the American Voluntaryist churches and the theological seminaries in the United States to be nothing but a curse. I am sure you would agree, however, that such an assessment is neither right nor charitable.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 8, 2020)

I know Thomas Jefferson wanted a wall of separation so that the Unitarian faith could flourish and citizens could be protected from the doctrines of John Calvin. But I ultimately question the soundness of the judgment and motivations behind the revisions of the WCF. https://mereorthodoxy.com/john-calvin-thomas-jefferson/


----------



## Susan777 (Jan 8, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> So, are you willing to say that nothing good at all came out of the established Reformed churches of Scotland, England, Ireland, Geneva, and the Netherlands?
> 
> Be careful here with the absolutist line that some of you are taking in these discussions. You could be insulting the servants of God of old who laboured within these establishments. If I were to apply the same logic that some of you are applying to established churches I would have to judge the American Voluntaryist churches and the theological seminaries in the United States to be nothing but a curse. I am sure you would agree, however, that such an assessment is neither right nor charitable.


No, I would not ever say that. They were each and all used of God for a season. Much good was accomplished. But as the saying goes, “God has no grandchildren” and sooner or later (sometimes very soon) they became corrupt and a hindrance to the growth of the Kingdom. We see it differently I know but in no way do I want to trample on anyone’s sensibilities in this discussion. I like what Jeri said “Satan is still waging war on the saints and good men sometimes grow weary”. We all agree to pray for the Magistrate as commanded. Our church takes this very seriously and we pray for all branches of our government, both lesser and greater servants, that they would rule justly and with wisdom. This is done every single week.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 8, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> I know Thomas Jefferson wanted a wall of separation so that the Unitarian faith could flourish and citizens could be protected from the doctrines of John Calvin. But I ultimately question the soundness of the judgment and motivations behind the revisions of the WCF. https://mereorthodoxy.com/john-calvin-thomas-jefferson/


What about their intentions?


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> At least you admit it has mostly failed wherever it was tried


Who would deny it?

These conversations all end up going the same way.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 9, 2020)

Susan777 said:


> I can only conclude that an Established church is the path to loss of true religion. Look at the State sanctioned churches of Europe: Dead. Apostate. Enemies of Christ.


You go too far here.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 9, 2020)

As much as we have seen it repeated in recent threads, I am still astonished that Christians -- and even Reformed Christians -- will oppose the Establishment Principle on the grounds that they do.

"We see how things turned out," they will say. "Where are those countries now?"

But they are mistaken in this reasoning. They are missing the most crucial step. First determine the biblical principle, then apply it.

Imagine applying such thinking elsewhere. Imagine if we said that, because history showed something to be ultimately a failure, it ought never to have been tried. What about the Reformation? Surely everyone here would agree that the work of Reformation was and is a worthy goal. But look at the church today! Division on every front, a multiplication of sects, and the Roman Catholics still in the majority. Was the Reformation a failure? Surely not! The good that was done centuries ago during the Reformation continues to benefit the world today.

Are there no benefits of established religion that can be felt? One that comes to my mind is education. Scotland went from being a small country at the edge of Europe to having the highest literacy rate in Europe, becoming a model to other nations around the world. (That is one example only.)

And then there is the small problem of alternatives. If not the Establishment Principle, then what? If we argue that history has shown established religion to be a failure, then what can we say for American-style religious pluralism and secularism? Surely America has had her successes, but what are the costs? Proliferation of heresies, for one thing, and, today, a quiet holocaust.

I say it again: First determine the biblical principle, then apply it. Don't make practicality of application your first consideration.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> As much as we have seen it repeated in recent threads, I am still astonished that Christians -- and even Reformed Christians -- will oppose the Establishment Principle on the grounds that they do.
> 
> "We see how things turned out," they will say. "Where are those countries now?"
> 
> ...


Than by all means lay out the correct practical way to make it work in the appropriate thread. If you can't than let it go.


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Than by all means lay out the correct practical way to make it work in the appropriate thread. If you can't than let it go.


You are missing the point _again_.

I don't know how I can make this clearer.

First, does the Bible teach the Establishment Principle?

That is where the discussion has to take place.

Proceed with the application once you have an answer.

[EDIT: I am reminded of a conversation I once had with an anti-Sabbatarian relative. There I was, trying to explain the foundations of the doctrine, that it was indeed scriptural and binding upon Christians; meabwhile, my interlocutor would not stop bombarding me with "what ifs" and potential difficulties of application. We got nowhere, because he would not even admit the grounds of the doctrine to begin with.

Foundations first, then the walls, roof, and furnishings.]

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> You are missing the point _again_.
> 
> I don't know how I can make this clearer.
> 
> ...


No the bible does not teach that. If you want to argue that start a separate thread for that. This thread is about the original WCF requiring that idea, which it does.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> No the bible does not teach that. If you want to argue that start a separate thread for that. This thread is about the original WCF requiring that idea, which it does.


I am really not interested in starting a separate thread. I was merely responding to the unfortunate rejection of the Establishment Principle exhibited above.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 9, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> I am reminded of a conversation I once had with an anti-Sabbatarian relative. There I was, trying to explain the foundations of the doctrine, that it was indeed scriptural and binding upon Christians; meabwhile, my interlocutor would not stop bombarding me with "what ifs" and potential difficulties of application. We got nowhere, because he would not even admit the grounds of the doctrine to begin with.
> 
> Foundations first, then the walls, roof, and furnishings.



I have been there, too, brother. I have found that this is a favorite method amongst broader evangelicals for rejecting historic Protestant doctrines—just "what if" or "what about" it to death. And we wonder why evangelicalism is so given to pragmatism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 9, 2020)

A related confessional issue that I've brought up in this context before, but that's never really been addressed is, how would a universal mandate of doctrines and practices issued by an established church comport with the role of individual conscience as laid out in WCF 20.2 ?

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith on worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.​There clearly are many issues that true and godly believers disagree over, based on credible understandings of what best accords with the Word. As such, the level of detail the mandates of an established church would go to - and I've seen some advocate for pretty detailed minimums - the more such would evidently come into conflict with this aspect of the question. History certainly shows this is a central issue that gives rise to state/church persecution.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 9, 2020)

Greetings,

Below is some ancient history from when I owned reformed.org. I have included the whole Contents, but I am only posting the content of Chapter VII _– Of crimes, of such as deserve capital punishment, _as a sample of an older mindset. It is good to see that not everything stays the same and how outrageous is our tolerance for sin. The first paragraph, "_A Word to the Wise..._" is by me from maybe 25 years ago. I consider this on the topic. If any moderator or you Daniel - @Reformed Covenanter disagrees, I will be happy to delete it.

Thanks,
=======
*An Abstract of the Laws of New England,*
*as They Are Now Established.*
printed in London in 1641.

*JOHN COTTON*​A Word to the Wise...

As you read through Cotton's, _An Abstract of the Laws of New England,_ some things may seem strange to your ears. But be careful, or you might find yourself judging God instead of being judged _by_ Him. Consider -- if these laws are harsh _now,_ then they must have been harsh _then. _(in the Old Covenant) We do not want to fall into the prideful position of thinking that _we_ are more loving than God. _"The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works."_ (Ps 145:9) _ Ed Walsh

Eze 18:25 _Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?_

[This model] far surpasseth all the municipal laws and statutes of any of the Gentile nations and corporations under the cope of Heaven. Wherefore I thought it not unmeet to publish it to the view of all, for the common good. . . . Judge equally and impartially, whether there be any laws in any state in the world, so just and equal as these be. Which, were they duly attended unto, would undoubtedly preserve inviolable the liberty of the subject against all tyrannical and usurping powers. . . .

This Abstract may serve for this use principally (which I conceive was the main scope of that good man, who was the author of it) to show the complete sufficiency of the word of God alone, to direct his people in judgment of all causes, both civil and criminal.... But the truth is, both they and we, and other the Gentile nations, are loth to be persuaded to . . . lay aside our old earthly forms of governments, to submit to the government of Christ. Nor shall we Gentiles be willing I fear, to take up his yoke which is easy, and burthen light, until he bath broken us under the hard and heavy yokes of men, and thereby weaned us from all our old forms and customs. . . .

So that there will be a necessity, that the little stone, cut out of the mountain without hands should crush and break these obstacles ere the way can be prepared for erecting his kingdom, wherein dwells righteousness. -- And verily great will be the benefit of this kingdom of Christ, when it shall be submitted unto by the nations . . . [Ps. 95: 10; Isa. 66:12]. All burdens and tyrannical exactions will be removed; _God will make their officers peace, and their exactors righteousness, _Isa. 60:17.

*The Contents*​
Chap. I Of magistrates
Chap. II Of the free burgesses and free inhabitants
Chap. III. Of the protection and provision of the country
Chap. IV. Of the right of inheritance
Chap. V. Of commerce
Chap. VI. Of trespasses
*Chap. VII. Of crimes, of such as deserve capital punishment, or cutting off from a man's people, whether by death or banishment.*
Chap. VIII. Of other crimes less heinous, such as are to be punished with some corporal punishment or fine
Chap. IX. Of the trial of causes, whether civil or criminal, and the execution of sentence
Chap. X. Of the causes criminal, between our people and foreign nations

CHAPTER VII.​
*Of Crimes. And first, of such as deserve capital punishment, or cutting off from a man's people, whether by death or banishment*_._

1. FIRST, blasphemy, which is a cursing of God by atheism, or the like, to be punished with death.

2. Idolatry to be punished with death.

3. Witchcraft, which is fellowship by covenant with a familiar spirit, to be punished with death.

4. Consulters with witches not to be tolerated, but either to be cut off by death or banishment.

5. Heresy, which is the maintenance of some wicked errors, overthrowing the foundation of the christian religion; which obstinacy, if it be joined with endeavour to seduce others thereunto, to be punished with death; because such an heretick, no less than an idolater, seeketh to thrust the souls of men from the Lord their God.

6. To worship God in a molten or graven image, to be punished with death.

7. Such members of the church, as do wilfully reject to walk, after due admonition and conviction, in the churches' establishment, and their christian admonition and censures, shall be cut off by banishment.

8. Whosoever shall revile the religion and worship of God, and the government of the church, as it is now established, to be cut off by banishment. _ Cor. 5:5.

9. Wilful perjury, whether before the judgment seat or in private conference, to be punished with death.

10. Rash perjury, whether in public or in private, to be punished with banishment. Just is it, that such a man's name should be cut off from his people who profanes so grosly the name of God before his people.

11. Profaning of the Lord's day, in a careless and scornful neglect or contempt thereof, to be punished with death.

12. To put in practice the betraying of the country, or any principal fort therein, to the hand of any foreign state, Spanish, French, Dutch, or the like, contrary to the allegiance we owe and profess to our dread sovereign, lord king Charles, his heirs and successors, whilst he is pleased to protect us as his loyal subjects, to be punished with death. Num. 12:14, 15.

13. Unreverend and dishonorable carriage to magistrates, to be punished with banishment for a time, till they acknowledge their fault and profess reformation.

14. Reviling of the magistrates in highest rank amongst us, to wit, of the governors and council, to be punished with death. I Kings 2:8, 9, & 46.

15. Rebellion, sedition, or insurrection, by taking up arms against the present government established in the country, to be punished with death.

16. Rebellious children, whether they continue in riot or drunkenness, after due correction from their parents, or whether they curse or smite their parents, to be put to death. Ex. 21:15, 17. Lev. 20:9.

17. Murder, which is a wilful man-slaughter, not in a man's just defence, nor casually committed, but out of hatred or cruelty, to be punished with death. Ex. 21:12, 13. Num. 35:16, 17, 18, to 33. Gen. 9:6.

18. Adultery, which is the defiling of the marriage-bed, to be punished with death. Defiling of a woman espoused, is a kind of adultery, and punishable, by death, of both parties; but if a woman be forced, then by the death of the man only. Lev. 20:10. Deut. 22:22 to 27.

19. Incest, which is the defiling of any near of kin, within the degrees prohibited in Leviticus, to be punished with death.

20. Unnatural filthiness to be punished with death, whether sodomy, which is a carnal fellowship of man with man, or woman with woman, or buggery4, which is a carnal fellowship of man or woman with beasts or fowls.

21. Pollution of a woman known to be in her flowers5, to be put to death. Lev. 20:18,19.

22. Whoredom of a maiden in her father's house, kept secret till after her marriage with another, to be punished with death. Deut. 22:20, 21.

23. Man-stealing to be punished with death. Ex. 21:16.

24. False-witness bearing to be punished with death.

4 April 2, 1674 Benjamin Gourd of Roxbury (being about 17 years of age) was executed for committing Bestiality with a Mare, which was first knocked in the head under the Gallows in his sight. N.B. He committed that filthines at noon day in an open yard. He after confessed that he had lived in that sin a year. The causes he alledged were, idlenes, not obeying parents, &c. [from The Diary of Samuel Sewall]
5 Menstrual discharges._


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> What about their intentions?


Sounds a little like compromise and accommodation.... https://opc.org/documents/WCF_orig.html


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 9, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> Sounds like compromise and accommodation.... https://opc.org/documents/WCF_orig.html


That's a pretty heavy charge to lay on the original founders of the OPC (who could easily have chosen to revert all the way back to the British version), as well as all of the office bearers of your present church, who have vowed to uphold the revised version. Do you have evidence to support that charge?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I have been there, too, brother. I have found that this is a favorite method amongst broader evangelicals for rejecting historic Protestant doctrines—just "what if" or "what about" it to death. And we wonder why evangelicalism is so given to pragmatism.


If you can produce a better result than lay it out in the thread I started.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 9, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> Greetings,
> 
> Below is some ancient history from when I owned reformed.org. I have included the whole Contents, but I am only posting the content of Chapter VII _– Of crimes, of such as deserve capital punishment, _as a sample of an older mindset. It is good to see that not everything stays the same and how outrageous is our tolerance for sin. The first paragraph, "_A Word to the Wise..._" is by me from maybe 25 years ago. I consider this on the topic. If any moderator or you Daniel - @Reformed Covenanter disagrees, I will be happy to delete it.
> 
> ...



Compare this to American law. Endless laws, oftentimes unclear, ambiguous, intrusive, expensive, partial, sometimes excessive, and penalties attached to most of them. There's no end to the felonies you can commit. Haven't even touched state laws.

Back in 1982,Criminal law itself was 23,000 pages, expanded 51 sections, and included 3,000 crimes. That's not including civil law.

Fast forward 38 years later, and ask if it is better.

In Israel, you knew what you would get for what, and why. No difficulty in knowing your duty.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 9, 2020)

I’m just saying who benefits from these changes? It seems like it was written for the non Presbyterian. Why would we be concerned with those outside the church and outside a fuller exposition of truth, first and foremost?
It’s written from a place of neutrality. Can that ever truly be? It seems to stray from the definitive nature of the rest of the confession. I’d have no problem going back to the English version. Is that pope as antiChrist? 



iainduguid said:


> That's a pretty heavy charge to lay on the original founders of the OPC (who could easily have chosen to revert all the way back to the British version), as well as all of the office bearers of your present church, who have vowed to uphold the revised version. Do you have evidence to support that charge?


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> Sounds like compromise and accommodation.... https://opc.org/documents/WCF_orig.html


Or a group of people who witnessed first hand what happened. If your accusing them of taking a great well working system and changing it for some reason, why?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> If you can produce a better result than lay it out in the thread I started.



The problem is James that you set up an impossible standard. You will argue that the establishment principle requires killing anyone who does not fully subscribe to a particular confession. Whenever someone contradicts you and says that it need not necessarily lead to this conclusion - and I cited pretty hard establishmentarians such as George Gillespie and Francis Turretin, not the kind and gentle types that I was mistakenly accused of agreeing with - then you will argue, "But that is just your opinion, someone else might differ." 

This method of argumentation is not very productive. We could just as well argue that the type of secular liberal democracy that you want is only your opinion and that others might use secular liberal democracy to kill seventy million babies.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The problem is James that you set up an impossible standard. You will argue that the establishment principle requires killing anyone who does not fully subscribe to a particular confession. Whenever someone contradicts you and says that it need not necessarily lead to this conclusion - and I cited pretty hard establishmentarians such as George Gillespie and Francis Turretin, not the kind and gentle types that I was mistakenly accused of agreeing with - then you will argue, "But that is just your opinion, someone else might differ."
> 
> This method of argumentation is not very productive. We could just as well argue that the type of secular liberal democracy that you want is only your opinion and that others might use secular liberal democracy to kill seventy million babies.


No it's rhetorical. What would the people who want establishment do if they were in charge do with these People? That becomes their opinion or the opinion of some group they endorsed to be in charge, and not the opinion of other reformed folk.
And when did I say I wanted secular liberal democracy? Again I agreed to be careful in explaining what I meant if others would read what I said and what I didn't say.


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 9, 2020)

I will bow out of this discussion. My premise is that the civil application of the second table must follow or flow from first table. I am accepting the premise of the op. I’m not seeking to cast stones or critique. I’m just reviewing what appears the most consistent position. I believe the American church was already going south when the changes were made. Maybe I’m seeing a loose association of how things have come to be. A state in which the Reformed church is both far removed and feels pressured to change and deny essential biblical tenets.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> I am really not interested in starting a separate thread. I was merely responding to the unfortunate rejection of the Establishment Principle exhibited above.


Than why bring it up?


----------



## A.Joseph (Jan 9, 2020)

The only thing I miss about living in Bergen County, NJ...

https://www.northjersey.com/story/life/columnists/2018/01/25/seeing-red-over-blue-laws/1040987001/


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> No it's rhetorical. What would the people who want establishment do if they were in charge do with these People? That becomes their opinion or the opinion of some group they endorsed to be in charge, and not the opinion of other reformed folk.



So, basically, we can never give you a satisfactory answer to the question. It does not seem like a very productive way to engage in dialogue. 



jwright82 said:


> And when did I say I wanted secular liberal democracy? Again I agreed to be careful in explaining what I meant if others would read what I said and what I didn't say.



I thought that you were arguing that things were better with secular liberal democracy owing to increased literacy rates among women and minorities.


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 9, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> I will bow out of this discussion. My premise is that the civil application of the second table must follow or flow from first table. I am accepting the premise of the op. I’m not seeking to cast stones or critique. I’m just reviewing what appears the most consistent position. I believe the American church was already going south when the changes were made. Maybe I’m seeing a loose association of how things have come to be. A state in which the Reformed church is both far removed and feels pressured to change and deny essential biblical tenets.


I understand your feelings. But if you really want to understand this matter better, rather than relying on a few internet combox comments, why don't you ask your pastor this Sunday to explain the OPC's adoption of the US rather than the British version of the WCF? I'm confident that Lane would be delighted to give you his perspective, which I doubt will be "The American church was already going south when the changes were made". When they were founded, the OPC rolled back the changes in the WCF made by the PCUSA, so they made a conscious decision to adopt the American version not the British version, and as I'm sure you are aware, the OPC doesn't make such decisions lightly or without theological reasons. That way, you will have a fuller understanding of the issues.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Or a group of people who witnessed first hand what happened. If you're accusing them of taking a great well working system and changing it for some reason, why?



I would hope that even the American revisors of the Confession did not come to their conclusions, even if wrong, for pragmatic reasons. We don't decide religious matters by our human wisdom and choose what works. At this time in the US, there are very few thriving churches with one exception—the megachurches—with their thousands of members, and pastors with private jets and totally gutted theological views. That's what works.

I am 68 years old, and the more I study the Bible, the more convinced I become that hard times are just around the corner for faithful believers. I am persuaded that the truce between the two sides of our present pluralistic society is coming to an end. Maybe an abrupt end at that.

Think about the short excerpts I quote below.
========​
From
*POLITICAL POLYTHEISM
The Myth of Pluralism*
by
Gary North​
Selection from Preface page XIX

*A Parting of the Ways*
What we find in the final decades of the second millennium after the birth of Jesus Christ is a growing realization on both sides of the political cease-fire line that the traditional ideological synthesis of political pluralism is collapsing. What we are witnessing is a slow but sure breakdown of the political cease-fire between humanism and Christianity. On each side, the defenders of the compromise sy~tern can no longer hold their own troops in line. Guerilla skirmishes are breaking out continually. The humanists are beginning to act like humanists, and a tiny handful of Christians are beginning to act like Christians.

The confrontation over the life-and-death issue of abortion is one obvious example of this irrepressible conflict. On the abortionist's table, there is no neutral position between life and death. This is why the inescapably political debate over abortion is so frustrating for those who want to steer a middle course. There is no middle course. There is no neutrality. The politician's left foot is being held to the fire by the pro-d~athforces, and his right foot is being shoved in the coals by the pro-life forces. He has only one choice: accept the political fact of either one burned foot or two. He, like the political pluralist, deeply resents being forced to make this choice. He wants no burned feet. He longs for the simpler, cooler world of yesterday, when the common morality was implicitly Christian and officially neutral. He is not going to get that world; it is gone forever. So are .at least 25 million dead babies, all executed legally in the United States.

Selection from Preface page XX

*A Warning Shot*
This book is a warning shot across the bow of the aging battleship, Ideological Synthesis. It argues that Christian defenders of political pluralism are now trapped by the necessary and inescapable impli~ cations of their own compromise. They have bet their futures (and yours) on the preservation of the political cease-fire between Christianity and anti-Christianity. But as Christians steadily retreated from this covenantal conflict, 1673 to 1973, turning in their weapons (e.g., Christian education) to a supposedly "neutral" police force, their covenant-breaking enemies have systematically taken over that police force. This cease-fire is beginning to resemble the cease-fire of the firing squad. It can end with one word: "Fire!"

PS - Please don't get on me by quoting scary Gary. When he is right he can be pure genius.​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> So, basically, we can never give you a satisfactory answer to the question. It does not seem like a very productive way to engage in dialogue.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that you were arguing that things were better with secular liberal democracy owing to increased literacy rates among women and minorities.


As I said in the other thread almost verbatim "there are bad things about the Reformation and good things about liberal democracy" which implies the opposite "there are good things about the Reformation and bad things about liberal democracy" . I didn't say "everything's better, or most things, are better under liberal democracy". I made no value judgements about either period. To this point you've haven't answered, to my knowledge what you would do with such a person, you're the judge what do you do?


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> I would hope that even the American revisors of the Confession did not come to their conclusions, even if wrong, for pragmatic reasons. We don't decide religious matters by our human wisdom and choose what works. At this time in the US, there are very few thriving churches with one exception—the megachurches—with their thousands of members, and pastors with private jets and totally gutted theological views. That's what works.
> 
> I am 68 years old, and the more I study the Bible, the more convinced I become that hard times are just around the corner for faithful believers. I am persuaded that the truce between the two sides of our present pluralistic society is coming to an end. Maybe an abrupt end at that.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the post. The excerpt is a little heavy handed though. The irony is it's pluralistic religious freedom he's taking advantage of to write that stuff free of persecution.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> As I said in the other thread almost verbatim "there are bad things about the Reformation and good things about liberal democracy" which implies the opposite "there are good things about the Reformation and bad things about liberal democracy" . I didn't say "everything's better, or most things, are better under liberal democracy". I made no value judgements about either period. To this point you've haven't answered, to my knowledge what you would do with such a person, you're the judge what do you do?



I did answer that question, but my answer did not satisfy you. My answer was that expecting precise answers to these questions is naive owing to their complicated nature. There is little point anyone else even attempting to give you an answer because no answer ever will satisfy you owing to your prejudice against establishmentarianism _per se_.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Thanks for the post. The excerpt is a little heavy handed though. The irony is it's pluralistic religious freedom he's taking advantage of to write that stuff free of persecution.



Like I said, I am 68 and I don't have the best gene pool from my family. Therefore I may escape the possible persecution. How are your genes?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> If you can produce a better result than lay it out in the thread I started.



I was strictly speaking to Tom. I made no mention of the content of his post with regard to the OP.


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 9, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> I’m just saying who benefits from these changes? It seems like it was written for the non Presbyterian. Why would we be concerned with those outside the church and outside a fuller exposition of truth, first and foremost?
> It’s written from a place of neutrality. Can that ever truly be? It seems to stray from the definitive nature of the rest of the confession. I’d have no problem going back to the English version. Is that pope as antiChrist?


Just a brief comment on "neutrality" and confessions. There is a difference between what we believe and what we confess. The Westminster divines had various millennial views which they believed firmly, but they chose not to confess a particular millennial view. Removing the antichrist clause does not forbid you from believing that the pope is, in fact, the Antichrist; rather, it does not tie ministers in the OPC to that very specific exegesis of particular Bible passages that the pope is THE Great and Final Antichrist; some might be quite content to affirm that the pope is antichrist, in the sense that the papacy is generally opposed to the gospel, but the original WCF goes much further than that. You might too, but you could still subscribe to the American version in good conscience. It has only been "watered down" in the sense that the majority chose not to exclude people with a different exegesis of the relevant passages. 

Confessions are not Systematic Theology text books. If confessions are not "neutral" on anything, they would have to be hundreds of pages long and would exclude almost everyone from signing them. The trick is to confess the things that are primary and to "remain neutral" on the rest (however strong your personal beliefs). That's a tough balance to maintain, for any church

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 9, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Confessions are not Systematic Theology text books. If confessions are not "neutral" on anything, they would have to be hundreds of pages long and would exclude almost everyone from signing them. The trick is to confess the things that are primary and to "remain neutral" on the rest (however strong your personal beliefs). That's a tough balance to maintain, for any church



A good reminder. The Confession is (and was) a _consensus_ document, and not, as you reminded us, a systematic theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 9, 2020)

An aside.
How do you frequent poster people get all that time? I am off from work this week, but my wife keeps bothering me to do other things. Although the fruit may not be apparent, some of my posts take me an hour to write. You guys ware me out. Does the PB give frequent poster miles at some threshold I have not achieved? Now my wife wants me to go shopping with her.

Joking aside, I have a beautiful, godly, better-looking-than-me wife, and I love her to pieces. I think she's calling. Bye for now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> Like I said, I am 68 and I don't have the best gene pool from my family. Therefore I may escape the possible persecution. How are your genes?


Not much better I'm afraid.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I was strictly speaking to Tom. I made no mention of the content of his post with regard to the OP.


Oh my apologies.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Ed Walsh said:


> An aside.
> How do you frequent poster people get all that time? I am off from work this week, but my wife keeps bothering me to do other things. Although the fruit may not be apparent, some of my posts take me an hour to write. You guys ware me out. Does the PB give frequent poster miles at some threshold I have not achieved? Now my wife wants me to go shopping with her.
> 
> Joking aside, I have a beautiful, godly, better-looking-than-me wife, and I love her to pieces. I think she's calling. Bye for now.


Single that's my excuse.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I did answer that question, but my answer did not satisfy you. My answer was that expecting precise answers to these questions is naive owing to their complicated nature. There is little point anyone else even attempting to give you an answer because no answer ever will satisfy you owing to your prejudice against establishmentarianism _per se_.


Okay punting it to someone else is an answer. I assume though that you're saying you don't have an answer right now because it's complicated as you say? That's not saying there is no answer just you don't have one right now. I, myself, would have an answer to a situation where I had to decide someone's fate, but that's just me. There's nothing wrong with that though.


----------



## Poimen (Jan 9, 2020)

Susan777 said:


> Yes, this is what history demonstrates to me. I can only conclude that an Established church is the path to loss of true religion. Look at the State sanctioned churches of Europe: Dead. Apostate. Enemies of Christ. There were probably not many righteous men among our Founding Fathers, most being Deists, but they did recognize the corruption of the churches in Europe, with its attendant wars and miseries and in God’s providence sought to avoid it here. I’m grateful that the Confession was altered to reflect this.



An established church is the path to loss of true religion when religion is lost in the establishment. This is the record of church history as well as biblical history. But the efforts of men like Hezekiah, Josiah etc. were _also_ accepted and blessed of God. Even the state sponsored repentance of Nineveh turned away the wrath of God for a time.

Note too, that many of our Reformed confessions resulted from some form of state sponsorship and protection. Luther was shielded by princes and other powerful allies. The examples could be multiplied. We would not be here if were not for some kind of intervention. And the blessings, which are now ours, are incalculable.

Friends, let us look objectively at the ecclesiastical situation in the West. Are we truly better off? Supposing that the Reformed faith is the purest and most biblical form of religion, why is it not flourishing? Why is it that the cults and sects are far more pervasive and influential -not only in America but throughout the entire world- than the Reformed church? Why is the Roman cult still the largest denomination?

It is not just the cults and the false churches. It is not just total depravity. When we, the people, say yes to idolatry (even in the name of tolerance) what does God say to us?

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Okay punting it to someone else is an answer. I assume though that you're saying you don't have an answer right now because it's complicated as you say? That's not saying there is no answer just you don't have one right now. I, myself, would have an answer to a situation where I had to decide someone's fate, but that's just me. There's nothing wrong with that though.



What I am saying is that it is a matter of magisterial discretion. Do you recognise the existence of such a category? For example, I believe that p0rnography and smoking weed are evils that the state ought to discourage. That does not mean that I believe that people who distribute p0rnography or who smoke weed should be executed. Yet that does not mean that they should be completely free to pursue such evils without civil restraint. Precisely how the government should go about doing so is a matter for magisterial discretion, which will depend on various factors. Am I "punting it to someone else"? Yes, I am.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Than why bring it up?


I didn't bring it up. As I said in the post which you quoted, I was responding to the views expressed above. (I'm not sure how far we're going to get if you don't read others' posts...)


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> What I am saying is that it is a matter of magisterial discretion. Do you recognise the existence of such a category? For example, I believe that p0rnography and smoking weed are evils that the state ought to discourage. That does not mean that I believe that people who distribute p0rnography or who smoke weed should be executed. Yet that does not mean that they should be completely free to pursue such evils without civil restraint. Precisely how the government should go about doing so is a matter for magisterial discretion, which will depend on various factors. Am I "punting it to someone else"? Yes, I am.


Fair enough. Myself personally would at least have a general min/max penalty in mind, that's just me though. For instance if I believed that parents should be required to baptize their children but they were credobaptist than a minimum of 100 dollar fine for every year of noncompliance to maximum of imprisonment and/or removal of children until compliance. That's just throwing something out there. And my credobaptist friends would know what I would have done to them despite years of friendship. It would put a face to my beliefs. But since I dont believe that I don't have risk offending them. Just an example of what I would do.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> I didn't bring it up. As I said in the post which you quoted, I was responding to the views expressed above. (I'm not sure how far we're going to get if you don't read others' posts...)


I do. It would also go a lot better if people layed out min/max penalties for religious practices people regard as matters of conscience, my baptism example above. That people who disagree with me would know where they stand. Telling a credobaptist friend of years that I thought they should face a maximum penalty of them being imprisoned until they complied would be honest and put a face to my beliefs.


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Telling a credobaptist friend of years that I thought they should face a maximum penalty of them being imprisoned until they complied would be honest and put a face to my beliefs.


And here I thought I was starting to like you...


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 9, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> It would also go a lot better if people layed out min/max penalties for religious practices people regard as matters of conscience, my baptism example above. That people who disagree with me should let me know where they stand.


Well, gently, it strikes me as silly to try come up with what we would do. Just us accountants and grandmothers and whatnots on the PB. Those things were hammered out in context of the time ministers and magistrates were in, and it would be the same if such times come again. I certainly don’t have the wisdom or calling or station to speak to this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 9, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Well, gently, it strikes me as silly to try come up with what we would do. Just us accountants and grandmothers and whatnots on the PB. Those things were hammered out in context of the time ministers and magistrates were in, and it would be the same if such times come again. I certainly don’t have the wisdom or calling or station to speak to this.


Well with all due respect, and no what you mean (I think it's silly too) when someone's viewpoint if it becomes reality it will affect someone's lively hood it is silly to punt the problem to someone else. But that's just me. But it seems that that is the best I'll get so I'll drop it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 9, 2020)

RPEphesian said:


> Compare this to American law. Endless laws, oftentimes unclear, ambiguous, intrusive, expensive, partial, sometimes excessive, and penalties attached to most of them. There's no end to the felonies you can commit. Haven't even touched state laws.
> 
> Back in 1982,Criminal law itself was 23,000 pages, expanded 51 sections, and included 3,000 crimes. That's not including civil law.
> 
> ...


This is a naive read of Israelite society and law. As soon as the Law-Covenant was promulgated, we find the books of Moses showing that Law applied, elaborated, and the setting of precedent. The idea that the people of God were simply governed by a set of 613 rules and regulations for over a thousand years is just... wrong.

The Law-Covenant is analogous to the _Constitution. _Upon that foundation rested a whole body of law, some of which developed into the Pharisee's religious tradition; but along with their pedantry went the inevitable growth of a national legal corpus. It is incomprehensible---especially once the monarchy was instituted, but surely even before that--that the system of judges functioned for 400yrs as each one of them "winged it" on his/her own.

Once there was a central institution of justice under the king, the demand for consistency of law over his whole realm, and over many generations (in Judah under a succession of relatively peaceful transfer of administrations covering 500yrs) would have forced the scribes to codify countless laws. Hopefully, there was also some effort at reduction and streamlining, crafting of legal perfections, even as the number of laws inevitably mounted up.

I appreciate Bayou Huguenot pointing out several times here on the PB that water-rights legislation had to have been a well-known body of law for Israel, just as it had to be in practically any ANE society. And the Law-Covenant does not once address this indispensable matter. It is not possible to conceive of Israelite society functioning without such rules, unless we think they did nothing but feud over ownership and access for a thousand years.

So, the proliferation of laws is an issue for ANY state to deal with. There should be periodic reviews of the laws of any land, and the rectifying of the code for the sake of justice. And not having fixed that in the USA for too long, and the metastasizing of administrative laws and penalties along with the criminal-law bloat--these are great problems which really do face the citizens today.

But they aren't solved by some mythical reversion to a "biblical law" standard. If the USA were pared back to the Constitution all alone, possibly society would cease to function. Thankfully, the States also have bodies of law that already function over several parts of the citizenry, so a breakdown is not so likely on that supposition.

Law is a function of power and authority. Who makes the rules? A corrupt people produces corrupt legislators, judges, and executives. Those corrupt people seek greater extensions of their power (and exemptions for their own interests) by imposing increasing constraints upon the liberties of people who were once free to do or not do, as they had the lawful opportunity. And no opportunities were "owed" to anyone.

But that opening closes, once _opportunity _is something the state--or more accurately its managers in the name of the whole People--doles out, to friends and to bribes, etc. And that is a problem that ancient Israel had, and that every nation has. Because of sin, not specifically because of a particular Constitution or lack thereof.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 10, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Well with all due respect, and no what you mean (I think it's silly too) when someone's viewpoint if it becomes reality it will affect someone's lively hood it is silly to punt the problem to someone else. But that's just me. But it seems that that is the best I'll get so I'll drop it.


By silly James I don’t mean to imply silliness to you or your quest here, poor choice of a word. But what I was trying to get at is, consider that someone of the stature and station of Turretin engaged in the kind of practical thinking you’re after, but only so far as to put forth broad principles (which have been posted by both @PuritanCovenanter and @Reformed Covenanter). I don’t guess those two smart guys or anyone else speaking up on the PB for establishments feel much qualified to go beyond Turretin on that.

Answering your queries with specifics only seems to inflame and disturb, and ramp up the incredulous questions, and understandably so. We are just not there and don’t know what “being there” would look and feel like. I don’t think a true Reformation that included an establishment (incl upholding of the first table) would be just a repetition of the past? that’s not how God has seemed to work in history.

Again, thank the Lord that we have preserved in books and publications so much of prior Reformation history (thanks @NaphtaliPress for your part played!). If and when Reforming and establishment times come again, there will be (I pray) this wealth of godly material for godly men to pour over and pray over and learn from.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 10, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> This is a naive read of Israelite society and law. As soon as the Law-Covenant was promulgated, we find the books of Moses showing that Law applied, elaborated, and the setting of precedent. The idea that the people of God were simply governed by a set of 613 rules and regulations for over a thousand years is just... wrong.
> 
> The Law-Covenant is analogous to the _Constitution. _Upon that foundation rested a whole body of law, some of which developed into the Pharisee's religious tradition; but along with their pedantry went the inevitable growth of a national legal corpus. It is incomprehensible---especially once the monarchy was instituted, but surely even before that--that the system of judges functioned for 400yrs as each one of them "winged it" on his/her own.
> 
> ...



Thank you. I've got little time, but let me at least give me affirmation to your assessment of my words.

I'm also writing as a front row seat witness to the exasperating complications of our tax code. More later if possible. But thank you for your help with perspective.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 10, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> By silly James I don’t mean to imply silliness to you or your quest here, poor choice of a word. But what I was trying to get at is, consider that someone of the stature and station of Turretin engaged in the kind of practical thinking you’re after, but only so far as to put forth broad principles (which have been posted by both @PuritanCovenanter and @Reformed Covenanter). I don’t guess those two smart guys or anyone else speaking up on the PB for establishments feel much qualified to go beyond Turretin on that.
> 
> Answering your queries with specifics only seems to inflame and disturb, and ramp up the incredulous questions, and understandably so. We are just not there and don’t know what “being there” would look and feel like. I don’t think a true Reformation that included an establishment (incl upholding of the first table) would be just a repetition of the past? that’s not how God has seemed to work in history.
> 
> Again, thank the Lord that we have preserved in books and publications so much of prior Reformation history (thanks @NaphtaliPress for your part played!). If and when Reforming and establishment times come again, there will be (I pray) this wealth of godly material for godly men to pour over and pray over and learn from.


I'm not inflamed about anything. I personally would not hold a point of view that was full of problems and my only solution was "someone else will figure it out".


----------

