# Poll: The civil magistrate in the Second Helvetic Confession. Do you agree with it?



## christianhope (Jul 15, 2010)

(This is a public poll) (Note, not the whole section on the magistracy, being that would be too lengthy for a poll, but just the excerpted section below is intended)

Excerpted from the Second Helvetic Confession:

THE DUTY OF THE MAGISTRATE. The chief duty of the magistrate is to secure and preserve peace and public tranquillity. Doubtless he will never do this more successfully than when he is truly God-fearing and religious; that is to say, when, according to the example of the most holy kings and princes of the people of the Lord, he promotes the preaching of the truth and sincere faith, roots out lies and all superstition, together with all impiety and idolatry, and defends the Church of God. We certainly teach that the care of religion belongs especially to the holy magistrate.

Let him, therefore, hold the Word of God in his hands, and take care lest anything contrary to it is taught. Likewise let him govern the people entrusted to him by God with good laws made according to the Word of God, and let him keep them in discipline, duty and obedience. Let him exercise judgment by judging uprightly. Let him not respect any man's person or accept bribes. Let him protect widows, orphans and the afflicted. Let him punish and even banish criminals, impostors and barbarians. For he does not bear the sword in vain (Rom. 13:4).

Therefore, let him draw this sword of God against all malefactors, seditious persons, thieves, murderers, oppressors, blasphemers, perjured persons, and all those whom God has commanded him to punish and even to execute. Let him suppress stubborn heretics (who are truly heretics), who do not cease to blaspheme the majesty of God and to trouble, and even to destroy the Church of God.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 15, 2010)

Standard Reformed doctrine. No brainer.


----------



## Grimmson (Jul 15, 2010)

I am not in agreement with all of the confession concerning the Magistrate. Number one, I do not think he, assuming the magistrate is male, has the right to judge and punish Christian heretics on the basis of their heresy. I would say that falls in line under the sphere of the church alone. Number two, I do not agree that one has the right to protect religion (Christianity within the context of the 1566 confession) in the context of favoring one religion over another, as the other religion seen as heretics. If the issue was political insurrection or murder, within that religious system, that another story because it challenges the rule of the magistrate and the general safety of the public. Third, I do not think the church as a confessing body can condemn “ the despisers of the magistrate, rebels and enemies of the commonwealth, and all who openly or artfully refuse to perform their duties as citizens” (taken from Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library ). I have two reasons for this, the first is because we should be praying for them and we do not know the reason for such of a rebellion or keep in account if it is minor or major in relation to a refusal to perform certain duties. Secondly its sounds more like political speech to be under the favor of the magistrate and assumes the magistrate is righteous and in agreement with the church of the confession. The job of condemning such men under a political sphere is not that of the church, but lies in the sphere of the magistrate. We are then to only condemn those who are heretics within the body of Christ under 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. Fourthly and lastly, I am not in agreement with forced oath making to serve the magistrate in all things desirable in accordance to his will that may be in conflict with my King. I have a king higher then the magistrate and I will only serve the magistrate as is pleasurable and in accordance in wisdom to my Kings of Kings. I think the “righteous commands” speech in the confession is double talk to please the magistrate. Those are my reasons I voted no. 

I used the 2nd Helvetic Confession found at Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library. The Latin version of it may be found at Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 15, 2010)

I really like how in Jonah, when the king of Ninevah made a decree requiring all the people to fast and wear sackcloth, God sent brimstone on the city to express his displeasure with a gentile magistrate interfering with religion.

Um, oops, that must have been the veggietales version.


----------



## Fly Caster (Jul 15, 2010)

_Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 
_

Yes. "Malefactors, seditious persons, thieves, murderers, oppressors, blasphemers, perjured persons, and all ... stubborn heretics" doeth evil.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jul 15, 2010)

This is an issue which necessitates a great deal more study on my part. However, at the present time I cannot conceive of a Biblical way in which to divide God's Law so that the magistrate could enforce it only in part. Therefore it would seem to me that the doctrine of the civil magistrate in the Reformed confessions appears to be faithful to the Scriptures.


----------



## SRoper (Jul 16, 2010)

I'm not sure I agree with all of the first paragraph, but two and three seem solid.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 16, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Number two, I do not agree that one has the right to protect religion (Christianity within the context of the 1566 confession) in the context of favoring one religion over another, as the other religion seen as heretics.


 
David,

Where in Scripture do you derive this particular doctrine of the magistrate only being bound to certain parts of the Decalogue? I am curious how you derive this.

Cheers,


----------



## Wayne (Jul 16, 2010)

> Number one, I do not think he, assuming the magistrate is male, has the right to judge and punish Christian heretics



But if the magistrate is female, then with a sigh and deep resignation, we throw our hands up and say "Well, what are you going to do?"


----------



## christianhope (Jul 16, 2010)

> Secondly its sounds more like political speech to be under the favor of the magistrate and assumes the magistrate is righteous and in agreement with the church of the confession. The job of condemning such men under a political sphere is not that of the church, but lies in the sphere of the magistrate. We are then to only condemn those who are heretics within the body of Christ under 1 Corinthians 5:12-13.



David, I think you are right on here, it is not the Church that has been given the power of the sword according to Romans 13, but the magistrate. The Church never excutes anyone, but under a reformed christian government the civil magistrate should perform his duty to God's Law, which is made up of 10 commandments and not simply the last 6, as is currently the case in our day. The confession of the 2nd Helvetic does not say the 'church' puts people to death, but the magistrate, so, in that sense you are in agreement with the confession.

Something I think that may help us to better understand why a reformed christian government should not be feared, but greatly desired, and prayed for, would be that peace would reign in a wonderful way. Somehow, due to our culture, I think people really stumble over the idea because they think that the state would be executing everybody, but such would never be the case. There would be a few punished for certain, but as a whole a reformed christian government would imply general agreement by the populace and therefore, to blaspheme, or speak against Christ would be something very rare to be seen. Just as in Lev 24:11 God notes the blasphemy of an Israelite womans son, because it was a very big event, something that wasn't common as it is in our day. 

Lev 24:11 And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the LORD, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan)

It's a misnomer common today to charactarize reformed christian government as being oppressive or unfair, it's no more oppressive and unfair than the law of God is. Just think, should not murderers be punished? Would not that land be cursed if they did not? Then how can sin which is committed against man, be somehow less offensive than sins committed against our great God? Are they not 'evil' as well? As used in Romans 13? Which governments are instituted to oppose?

Why should 'freedom of speech' be granted as 'freedom to blaspheme God?' Is it not a good thing that such wickedness would be forbidden by the civil powers? (Not freedom of speech, but certainly 'freedom to do evil' should not be allowed.

Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. 

Also, consider how God praised the faithful kings of Judah, such as Josiah, and Hezekiah, for destroying the idolatry of the land. Why should 'democracy' somehow make the biblical example of no importance? 

God expects nations to serve Him and enforce His laws and pronounces this blessing upon those that do:

Psa 33:12 Blessed is *the nation *whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. 

It was implied in another thread that such a government would give support for the destruction of baptists- but this is a gross misrepresentation. Baptists would love that reformed christian land, true baptists that is, true christians! What a land of true peace, justice, spiritual beauty and prosperity, a land where the true gospel reigned! The only reason a 'baptist' would ever be executed was if he committed some terrible crime (murder), or was an insurrectionist seeking to overthrow that peaceful land, which, in my view, a true (baptist) christian would never even desire that. And if they did not agree with the government, they certainly would be free to go to a neighboring state that was not under such a reformed christian government. But such a neighboring land would not be as peaceful, or just, or blessed, as the reformed christian land. 

Perhaps there have been bad examples in the past in implementing this ideal, but that does not mean we should just capitulate and have a polytheistic pluralistic government.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 16, 2010)

> We certainly teach that the care of religion belongs especially to the holy magistrate.



This is the phrase that bothers me..... the word "especially" really is going to far. 

The Lord will build His Church. The gates of Hell will not prevail. He is the Husband. He has ordained means. I believe the main burden laid out for the care of the Church is upon the Elders of the Church and not the civil magistrate.


----------



## Grimmson (Jul 16, 2010)

Christusregnat said:


> Where in Scripture do you derive this particular doctrine of the magistrate only being bound to certain parts of the Decalogue? I am curious how you derive this.
> Cheers,


 
Thanks Adam that is a fantastic question. Sorry I had not responded right away, today been a busy day. It really boils down I think if one has a two kingdom or a one kingdom approach to the relationship to the church and the state, particularly under natural law as it relates to the Decalogue. When the Decalogue was given in Exodus 20, it was given as God’s Law to the set apart people of God, the Israelites; not to every single nation as a country on earth. Does that mean Decalogue should have no influence or part on the magistrate? Let me explain my position. 

First of all I should make clear that we, all of humanity, will be judged under as the standard the Law of God. It is from the Law that we know we are sinners. And in the truest sense it is hard to dissect the 10 Words of God from each other and likewise the first and second table from each other for the believer. 

I am in agreement looking at Augustine (_City of God_) and Luther(_Temporal Authority_), that there are two cities or classes of people in the world. The first being from the seed of the woman, the saved believers, and the second being from the seed of the serpent, which is to everyone else that does not fit the first class. This of course is taken from Genesis chapter 3 and we begin to see the two classes of people with Cain and Abel/Seth under genealogical and unrighteous/ righteous lines in chapters 4 through 6. By the time we get to chapter nine we see a common grace covenant given to Noah and to the rest of his family that extends to us today. One can I think make a case for seeing the formation of a government for the purpose of justice with Cain at the end of chapter 4, but I think it cannot be denied that we can start to see a development of it in chapter 9, with the prohibition and consequence of murder. The classes or cities(City of Man and City of God) then start to emerge again at the end of chapters 9-11, hopefully seeing the formation of two developing spheres, a common grace sphere that everyone shares a part of and special sphere that belongs to believers (in our time being the church). 
The question of course then emerges on how these two spheres interact with each other in relation to the providence of God and what their given responsibilities are. I think Romans 13 and 1 Timothy 2 are perfect examples of this, along with interactions in a Jewish exile and post-exile environment in scripture. The magistrate is expected to be the punisher of evil (Romans 13:3-4, 1 Peter 2:14). Now the next question that one must ask is under what standard is a magistrate to judge evil? Is it under the Church, under Moses, or under another principle altogether? I would make the argument that it is based on the moral law, the second table of the Law, which would fall under the category of natural law. Why? For one we know that there is imprinted on the hearts of Gentiles a sense of natural law from Romans 2:12-16. In Romans 13:7-10 we see how and what we owe to one another, which would include people we do not know, the state, and magistrate. It is the second table of the Law, not the entire Decalogue. It is visibly by the second table that we do exactly what we are commanded to do and that is seek peace wherever we are at (Jeremiah 29:7, Ps. 34:14, and 1 Peter 3:11). 

Ephesians is clear that there is a spiritual (not of flesh and blood) war that goes on in this world that we can all see. The issue is we don’t see the command anywhere in the New Testament to execute heretics of the Christian religion. They are to be excommunicated, not physically killed. Likewise, if a magistrate is a Christian he has no right to kill a heretic on the basis that he a heretic, but instead for some other crime that relates to the second table. There is no scriptural mandate in the New Testament to kill the one not keeping to the Sabbath or for blaspheming our Lord God. Instead we should be showing them the love of God and call them to repentance with the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is nothing in scripture that the Church should set up a Christian government to enforce such as well. Any Christian government we try to make will fail in comparison to the true Christian government ruled by our Lord Jesus Christ. 

It is not our business to judge the practices of the world, but to judge within like I said before from 1 Corinthians. And when we judge each other it is not to the physical death. To set up a system whereby a magistrate is executing people on the basis of Moses, then your going back to Moses instead of looking to Christ and one is invalidating scripture because we commanded to excommunicate the unbeliever and not kill them. You are setting up the magistrate in this case to sin because he punishing people on the basis of Moses as representing the Church and the church has no right to do so. Peter was rebuked by Jesus for cutting of the ear of Malchus. When Jesus’ disciples asked in Acts 1:6 if he was to now restore the kingdom to Israel, how did he respond? It wasn’t to set up a physical conquering or casting of Rome out of the land. The church sphere is a religious sphere only, and deals with things of a religious nature. The magistrate’s job to keep peace and order in the society that he or she governs. Not to make religious judgments, because then he acting on the church’s sphere, and I consider the executing of heretics on the basis of heretics as a religious judgment. God as the ultimate judge is the only one that has the right to judge on accordance to both spheres. We as the church are called to make disciples, to teach everything that our Lord has given us in the scripture. To preach the gospel in and out of season. Not to establish a literal Christian kingdom, that Jesus’ job and we are as the church meant to represent that Kingdom and not some formal nation on a map, with a capital that we can travel to by boat, plane, car, or foot. 
I know this response is a bit on the long side, but hopefully this answers your question. 

Brother Martin and Josh said some good things too. 

I don’t want to highjack the thread with my views of the magistrate, so lets us keep it at that. I want to keep the moderators happy. I would be happy to answer any questions privately you may have if the moderators think this is going off topic. So let try to keep it to our reason for whether or not we are in agreement with the second helvetic concerning the magistrate.


----------



## au5t1n (Jul 16, 2010)

You can't appeal to natural law to explain why only the second table should be enforced because it is clear in Rom. 1 that natural law reveals the first table too.


----------

