# Poll: WCF XXIII.3 / Belgic 36



## Prufrock

A recent thread made me curious:

How many PBers hold to the original versions of the articles in the Title of this thread, and how many hold to modern revisions?

As far as the WCF, here is the original:


> The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.



And here is a revision:


> Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;5 6 7 or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ has appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.


----------



## Hippo

I agree the original , hoever it only holds authority for orthodox believers and gives no warrant for any action by unbelievers, heretics and schismatics.

The revision is a humanistic not a religious document in this respect.


----------



## Guido's Brother

I find myself in the original article 36 of the Belgic Confession, but I don't agree with the interpretation offered above, i.e. that the magistrate has a responsibility to suppress heresy. My understanding is that the magistrate is called to protect the church and its ministry with the result that idolatry and false worship will be removed and prevented. I don't think the original BC envisions the magistrate directly suppressing heresy. The magistrate only subverts it by making room for the church and its ministry of Word and sacrament.


----------



## Christusregnat

The revision is a novelty, and is symptomatic of larger problems in American Presbyterianism. The Confession is a system of doctrine, and to remove the duty of the magistrate to enforce all ten commandments is civil anti-nomianism. It is not a reformed position, but was originally propagated by some of the anabaptists; actually, more correctly, it was an ancient error of the Manichees, Donatists and others about the nature of the created order, and was revived by some of the anabaptists.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Prufrock

Guido's Brother said:


> I find myself in the original article 36 of the Belgic Confession, but I don't agree with the interpretation offered above, i.e. that the magistrate has a responsibility to suppress heresy. My understanding is that the magistrate is called to protect the church and its ministry with the result that idolatry and false worship will be removed and prevented. I don't think the original BC envisions the magistrate directly suppressing heresy. The magistrate only subverts it by making room for the church and its ministry of Word and sacrament.



Yeah, the poll questions I guess were based on the WCF and not the Belgic; perhaps I should have chosen wording which would have fit both.

Sorry.

-----Added 12/19/2008 at 09:26:39 EST-----

(I am fairly surprised by the vote distribution so far. I don't really know what I was expecting, but I at least thought it would be split more evenly.)


----------



## Theognome

I've always felt that if the revised version is better, then the civil government would have no business being concerned with the whole of God's Law. And while some would argue that their task is purely with moral and/or case Law, without the first table, such law is meaningless.

Theognome


----------



## Davidius

I don't know.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I am committed to the American version, having subscribed as a minister in the OPC.


----------



## KMK

I hold to a revision...but then I'm a Baptist. I am assuming you want to limit responses to Presbyterians?


----------



## Hippo

If we defend the historic presbyterian confessions because they were drawn up by the church as a whole rather than by schismatic factions (and I do know that this is arguable) I find it difficult to understand why a single denomination ammend that confession (especially when such a revision is grounded in culteral rather than theological concerns) and for such an ammended document to carry the same weight as the original.

Why not start ammending the Canons of the Council of Orange or the Nicene Creed?


----------



## Prufrock

KMK said:


> I hold to a revision...but then I'm a Baptist. I am assuming you want to limit responses to Presbyterians?



I tried thinking of a way to work Baptists in here, but in the end, I guess the answer pool would be pretty uniform...


----------



## TsonMariytho

Prufrock said:


> I tried thinking of a way to work Baptists in here, but in the end, I guess the answer pool would be pretty uniform...



Any exception to that would be pretty interesting and unusual. Historically, Baptists go even further than a face value reading of the American WCF revision, by advocating freedom of even non-Christian religious practice.




Contra_Mundum said:


> I am committed to the American version, having subscribed as a minister in the OPC.



Question about Bruce's answer above -- are there some OPC presbyteries where an exception taken to this revised WCF clause might be grounds for withholding ordination? (Reason I'm curious, in a previous theological forum I rubbed shoulders with brothers from the OPC who were solidly supportive of the original WCF.)


----------



## Christusregnat

Contra_Mundum said:


> I am committed to the American version, having subscribed as a minister in the OPC.



Rev. Buchanan,

Do you think that the revision on the Confession was completely carried out by the revisers? For instance, isn't the holy commonwealth idea, and the demand for the magistrate to countenance and maintain the true religion still taught in the OPC's Larger Catechism?



> 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*; 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 forever: 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.



Larger Catechism


I think this illustrates that fact that the revision of the Confession was not entire, and that the OPC seems to hold to a dare-I-say partially theonomic form of the Standards. 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## jaybird0827

I hold to the original WCF, DPW, etc.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Christusregnat said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am committed to the American version, having subscribed as a minister in the OPC.
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Buchanan,
> Do you think that the revision on the Confession was completely carried out by the revisers? For instance, isn't the holy commonwealth idea, and the demand for the magistrate to countenance and maintain the true religion still taught in the OPC's Larger Catechism?
> 
> 
> 
> 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*; 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 forever: 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think this illustrates that fact that the revision of the Confession was not entire, and that the OPC seems to hold to a dare-I-say partially theonomic form of the Standards.
Click to expand...

I think that depends on what ideas are taken from the words "countenanced" and "maintained." The first term, certainly implies the permission of the church to be acknowledged unmolested "before the face" of the civil authority. I don't think it necessarily implies anything further.

The second term, "maintained," may have implied "state church" in the original era of the Confession, however, I do not think that was the common thought, the _animus imponentis,_ of the American Adoption. "Competent maintenance" is an elastic concept that may take many forms, depending on the situation. I think we would be well off if the state simply provided peace at home and abroad, roads so that we could get to church easily, electricity to light and condition our buildings, or even just the environment where other private entities could provide many such things at market prices.

To say that "maintenance" of the church necessitates special public sanction or monies for one form of Christianity or all of them, or explicit civic acknowledgment of Christian order, is demanding too much of the language, absent that sort of pre-established cultural context. Why can't it mean the general social maintenance that the church says: "we're entitled to that too, and you should not persecute us, or deny us those rights or privileges enjoyed by other persons and entities"?

Does the church need exceptional "maintenance," special privilege, mandates through state organs? If it didn't need them in the first century to thrive, then its hasn't needed them any time since, however it may have benefited her. And whose to say that, in the main, it has? In other words, maybe those days weren't a net benefit to the church.


Here's what the revision says: "Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to *protect the Church* of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger."

That portion propounds the duty of the state to protect the right of the church to function. You can complain that it doesn't go far enough, that it backs off from a fuller statement of the truth (such as it may have had before), or that it allows too much freedom of expression. But it doesn't say anything substantially different from that one line in the WLC, in my opinion.

The revision goes on to state a negative doctrine that the state should not harass Christians. The document simply refuses to tell the _*Magistrate*_ how to do his job. It sticks to saying THAT it should do it's job in its sphere. And I think it assumes that God-fearing men of state will govern their public conduct according to the moral standards of the Christian faith.

It think it does good, that our Confession sticks to defining and detailing Church doctrine and practice, and individual Christian practice, within that sphere.

The original WCF was written in a different context, where it was just normal for the church to tell the state what to do, and the state to tell the church what to do; and the result was that more often than not the state controlled the church militant.

It's just my opinion, but I think that the original formulation of the WCF is overly positive in its declarations regarding the state, although I do not think that for its own day, it was that way in the least. The way things *were* was assumed to be the way things _ought to be_ under all circumstances, and the original WCF chapter on the Civil Magistrate reflects that thinking.


----------



## Prufrock

Interesting thoughts, Bruce. Thank you. This is still an open area for me in the confession, and I'll be glad to hear from both sides.


----------



## Scott1

animus imponentis,

like that term, will look for an opportunity to use it.

The animus imponentis of the American colonists, derived from their English counterparts was, absolute power corrupts absolutely.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/larger-catechism-civil-magistrate-25491/


----------



## Scott1

Excellent research as always, Andrew.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

TsonMariytho said:


> Question about Bruce's answer above -- are there some OPC presbyteries where an exception taken to this revised WCF clause might be grounds for withholding ordination?



When I was received into my current OP Presbytery of the Northwest, I took exception to the American/OP form of XXIII:3 and affirmed the original instead. I can’t imagine anyone being rejected for this reason as the OPC has fraternal relations with the RPCNA, RPCI, FCoS, and FCoS-C, all of which affirm the original. I believe a major shift in theology of the civil magistrate took place from 1647 to 1787, which would be worth detailed study.

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 09:30:42 EST-----

John Calvin, in the preface to his Institutes of the Christian Religion, instructed King Francis I of France regarding the legitimate authority and obligation of a ruler:

“The characteristic of a true sovereign is, to acknowledge that, in the administration of his kingdom, he is a minister of God. He who does not make his reign subservient to the divine glory, acts the part not of a king, but a robber. He, moreover, deceives himself who anticipates long prosperity to any kingdom which is not ruled by the scepter of God, that is, by his divine word. For the heavenly oracle is infallible which has declared, that ‘where there is no vision the people perish’” (Prov. 29:18).

Calvin, commenting on Exodus 32:29 said, "Let us also learn that nothing is less consistent than to punish heavily the crimes whereby mortals are injured, whilst we connive at the impious errors or sacrilegious modes of worship whereby the majesty of God is violated." 

Where is the civil magistrate exempted from his duty to punish public violations of the First Table of God’s Law?


----------



## nicnap




----------



## Christusregnat

Contra_Mundum said:


> The second term, "maintained," may have implied "state church" in the original era of the Confession, however, I do not think that was the common thought, the _animus imponentis,_ of the American Adoption.



First, all 13 original States in 1788 had official established religions. New Jersey was Presbyterian, Virginia was Episcopal, Mass. was Congregationalist, etc. Therefore, your assertion about the American Adoption being contrary to a state church is very weak. In fact, the point of the revision is the same as the Constitution's prohibition that Congress establish any particular form of ecclesiastical government, as this was the duty of the states; a duty they had all previously fulfilled. Thus, the animus imponentis, if we care to look at a revision in this light, requires a state church model to be considered as the most likely referent. Further, a nursing father to the church (which is what the revision calls the magistrate) does not signify bare recognition. What sort of father merely recognizes his children? Does he not nurish, defend at the hazard of his own life, provide for, correct and direct his children? Why should the 1788's amendment imply anything less?

Second, there is the question of the legitimacy of later amendments to the Confession. Our Confession is a system of doctrine derived from Scripture. Therefore, if we take one part away, it is no longer a system. This "Westminster Confession to Me" attitude is, I believe, directly responsible for later departures from the Confession's teaching. If we remove one plank from the Confessional Ship, we will soon sink the vessel. Later generations wanted the "Westminster Confession to Me" to teach universal atonement, or to soften depravity, or to exclude inerrancy, or whatever. I don't think you would agree with any of these latter points, but I think the revisions opened the door to this sort of non-systemic approach to the Confession.




Contra_Mundum said:


> To say that "maintenance" of the church necessitates special public sanction or monies for one form of Christianity or all of them, or explicit civic acknowledgment of Christian order, is demanding too much of the language, absent that sort of pre-established cultural context. Why can't it mean the general social maintenance that the church says: "we're entitled to that too, and you should not persecute us, or deny us those rights or privileges enjoyed by other persons and entities"?



Again, a nursing father does more than just provide an environment that's a level playing field. He takes an active interest in the provision, defense, maintenance, correction, direction, etc. of his children. By the bye, on the fact that the Westminster Standards are a system, it is critical to note the treatment of 1 Timothy 2:1 - 2 in the Larger Catechism and in the original Confession. According to the _*System of Doctrine*_ taught in the original Standards this passage can be used to prove the following two assertions:

1. that the magistrate:



> has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.



2. that "Thy Kingdom come" includes praying that the Church of Christ may be:



> countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate



Therefore, we may conclude that the System of Doctrine, before its desystematization, included Paul's injunction to pray for magistrate's conversion to explicitly Christian political philosphy. "Countenance and Maintain" in our System, mean "to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed". This has nothing to do with circumstances: it has to do with Scripture.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Does the church need exceptional "maintenance," special privilege, mandates through state organs? If it didn't need them in the first century to thrive, then its hasn't needed them any time since, however it may have benefited her. And whose to say that, in the main, it has? In other words, maybe those days weren't a net benefit to the church.



Again, our System of Doctrine doesn't really answer a pragmatic question such as this. The question is: "What is the Magistrate's Duty?" and "What do we pray for in the Second Petition?" If you think the biblical duties of magistrates or the contents of the Second Petition are an unworkable standard, or don't benefit the church, I believe you may be misled.




Contra_Mundum said:


> Here's what the revision says: "Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to *protect the Church* of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger."
> 
> That portion propounds the duty of the state to protect the right of the church to function. You can complain that it doesn't go far enough, that it backs off from a fuller statement of the truth (such as it may have had before), or that it allows too much freedom of expression. But it doesn't say anything substantially different from that one line in the WLC, in my opinion.



Again, as stated above, its usage of 1 Timothy 2:1-2 is very different from the WLC. It is out of accord with the meaning of "countenance and maintain", or even of the words "nursing father".





Contra_Mundum said:


> The original WCF was written in a different context, where it was just normal for the church to tell the state what to do, and the state to tell the church what to do; and the result was that more often than not the state controlled the church militant.
> 
> It's just my opinion, but I think that the original formulation of the WCF is overly positive in its declarations regarding the state, although I do not think that for its own day, it was that way in the least. The way things *were* was assumed to be the way things _ought to be_ under all circumstances, and the original WCF chapter on the Civil Magistrate reflects that thinking.




The Westminster Standards are not a product of man's historical context. They are the best summary of the Bible's teaching known to man. The revision's opinion was that of the Independents at the Assembly. Their party lost the debates, _*not because of the historical context*_, but because they were not biblical and Reformed ideas: they were anabaptist ideas. Let me repeat: The Westminster Standards are not the product of historical context, but of the Spirit of God's moving upon the minds of men to bring every thought captive to Jesus Christ. If this is not your opinion, why hold to the Standards?

Again, this line of argumentation would later be used to toss out the old relic of total depravity, which the historical context of the Westminster Assembly made it think was true, etc. The removing of one part of the System, makes it no longer a System.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I don't believe it is a weak position at all. My rejoinder would be: There were *different* 'state' churches, and Presbyterians establishing a national church from all over. The preponderance were from PA and NJ, which were states (and previously colonies) with the greatest degree of religious freedom, and no establishment. THAT was their experience, and the new church needed to reflect the diversity of state situations.

Not all the facts you marshal are accurate, for example, New Jersey never had a 'state church' of any kind, due to the fact there was no dominant church in the state. This is quite clear from their 1776 Constitution, although NJ and PA did restrict voting and officeholding to "Protestants" (as did many other states).


> The authors of the New Jersey Constitution moved to protect that to which they were accustomed. They provided for both liberty of conscience and the prohibition of an established church. Section 18 of the constitution stated that everyone would have "the estimible Priviliege of worshipping Almighty God" according to the "Dictates" of their "own Conscience." No one would be forced to attend a church "contrary" to their "own Faith or Judgment." Significantly, Catholics were no longer excluded; the provision overrode the Royal Instructions of 1702 and extended toleration to Catholics as well.
> 
> In addition to insisting on the freedom to worship as they wished, New Jersey residents refused to support the establishment of a state church. Indeed the constitution clearly stated that no one would "ever be obliged to pay Tithes, Taxes, or any other Rates" to build or maintain a church or support a minister, except voluntarily. This was immediately followed by section 19, stating: "That there shall be no Establishment of any one religious Sect in the Province in Preference to another."


{from _New Jersey in the American Revolution_, pp41-42.}

So, clearly, 1) the definition of 'state church' is itself susceptible to a range of interpretation--from the clear establishments of Anglicans and Congrgationalists to varying levels of toleration for Romanists, Quakers, and other bodies; 

and 2) the states where Presbyterianism was strongest (PA and NJ) had noteworthy non-establishment histories, and places like NY and VA had landmark legal cases in BOTH (!) Colonies that sought legal protections for dissident Presbyterians. Talk about a heritage of toleration--the Presbyterians were fighting for it or finding a "free space" for themselves from the beginning.

So, no, I don't think I am even close to being shown I am in error about the _animus imponentis_ of the Adoption, and this attitude is reflected in the changes that the adopters DID make.


----------



## Scott1

> Thus, the animus imponentis,





> the animus imponentis of the Adoption



I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the fact we have finally gotten this phrase, "animus imponentis" off the shelf and back into good usage again.

Not only are both your arguments cogent and interesting, but using terms in this kind of back-and-forth greatly helps expand one's vocabulary.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

On to other points:
The attitude that the WCF in its original configuration is SO perfect, and SO free of any cultural assumptions, that it can never bear improvement, is borderline idolatrous. There is a BIG difference in trying to make Confessional adjustments to situational developments within biblical-authority constraints, and the wholesale capitulation of the Confession to the "spirit of the age." If we cannot justify the former under any circumstances, then we should probably ditch the Reformation as well.

Saying that: _dismantling Soteriological doctrines is on par with making new statements about the relationship of the church to the state,_ is a denial that there are different levels of doctrinal importance. How important is it that a Kingdom "not of this world" be precise in how it *counsels* kingdoms that ARE of this world, in their various forms? It should stick to Confessing on general principles, and sometimes may find that it Confessed too much.

Contrary to the claim that the WCF is so "precisely engineered" that shaving off paint from one fender will make the thing "unfit for the road," I have a better analogy.Adjustments to the WCF are like proposals to re-engineer a car model. There are good and bad ways of doing this. There are ways to change what is in the cabin, or under the hood that do NOT fundamentally change the vehicle. Even the body-style can be changed on cars in subtle ways that do NOT change the vehicle.

Of course, there will always be that "classic-car-guy" that HATES the company for changing the bolts on the carburetor cowling from flat-hex to slot-hex; or for adopting fuel injection--differences minor and major. As far as he is concerned, the car is "ruined", that _system_ has been irreparably harmed. Well, he's right and he's wrong. It is a "different" vehicle, and it is the "same" vehicle. If a major piece that made that car a beautifully balanced machine was the 8 cylinder engine, and they just turned it into a 6-cylinder car, with little or no adjustments, and now it drives horribly? Then they did ruin it.

But if they went to a 6-, with increased compression, and it made the car more agile, quicker, increased torque, etc, then let the purist buff and wax his classic car. Fine, just don't insult the owners of the upgrade by telling them their 99.5% same car is "not the real thing."

They can both agree that the big dealership down the street, that has been turning out "specially modified" editions of their car--that significantly degrade performance and appeal to know-nothings--has damaged the car, and hurt its reputation.​So, no, I'm not in agreement that making of any, single "under-the-hood" adjustment to the WCF, by definition fundamentally alters an ideally-engineered Confession for the worse; i.e., throws the "system" out of whack.

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 10:04:46 EST-----

Continuing:
When you associate that prooftext (in the original WCF, and also in the LC), you are most assuredly correlating the teachings _in their original settings._ I wouldn't for a moment dispute that. However, it is just as clear that the teaching of the LC doesn't stand or fall, only in tandem with the original WCF23.3 at that point.

Imagine! saying that the truth propounded by the simpler statement (of the catechism) was dependent on the rather fulsome expansion on the Scripture text that was found in 23.3. That is completely backwards. How could the church even function in a persecuted situation, if she couldn't simply preach the state's simple moral obligation to treat her with equity? If she was morally obligated to command her preferential treatment?

This gets back to the idea that there are sub-systems that are central, and there are integrated systems that are dispensable, or adjustable to the main function of the system. How can we promote a WCF church in lands where the state is indifferent (to the point of negligence) or antagonistic to the church, when the church CONFESSES her _detailed_ expectations for the STATE?

Here's the VITAL thing: CONFESSIONS don't have to speak to EVERYTHING; they don't have to be THAT comprehensive! Its as simple as that. The history of church thought and teaching on matters related to statecraft does not have a happy trajectory. It begins to decline no later than Gelasius in the 5th century, with his "two-swords" doctrine. It is developed in the middle ages until the "Unam Sanctam" bull of Boniface VIII, in 1302, where he places the State in total service to the church.

Not that things ever take that shape, because small gains aside, the trend is totally in the opposite direction. In other words,, as the church increases it demands, the World-System pushes back more and more vigorously, and makes the church its vassal.

Better that the church concentrate on making Christians, who can then go on to make Christian contributions to statecraft. The church need not CONFESS its dependence for maintenance upon the state. In fact, it ought to CONFESS its natural *independence* from such reliance, and stick to telling the state to do its own diligence in attending to the counsel the Word will give it, if it desires a healthy estate.

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 10:36:36 EST-----

Your argument that the LC statement *demands* a reading consistent with the original 23.3 is purely contingent... on 23.3 original still being in place. In other words,, you are saying that the language is _incomprehensible_ apart from 23.3 original. This is completely erroneous. LC 191 *can* be understood in association with the rewritten 23, and I've demonstrated how that is so. Saying "it can't" begs the question in your favor.

Saying that the original WCF was basically the "perfect" system, incapable of improvement is like saying they should have quit making Corvettes in 1954, or still be making the 1953 model. It isn't an ideal analogy, but it makes my point. We aren't even talking about making that level of change to our document. Or maybe you think it does.

Even if I accepted the wholesale argument that the American WCF is basically a total revision on Independency principles, all by itself that says nothing about preference for what we now have--whether it is biblical or not. I think your arguments that the changes allowed led to later adjustments on deeper matters of doctrine is a post hoc fallacy.

While I disagree vehemently with those who use the "compromise document" thesis to defend all manner of revision and reinterpretation of the WCF, one cannot simply dismiss the reality that it WAS a product of a cultural and political and historic setting. The amazing thing is just how good a document it is! even given those human realities

Saying (as it seems you are) that basically the WCF is quasi-inspired (Spirit-overseen construction) is not a position I am willing to take. I did not take an oath to the "biblicalness" of the original. If I had, I suppose I would have to defend it as long as I believed it, or offer scruples if I had them, or depart that church to find one that confessed my mind biblically.

Fortunately, I don't have to. And equally, I think a person who prefers the original ought to be able (in most cases) to confess the basic American version. Just because it no longer CONFESSES the Pope is the Anti-Christ, doesn't mean the minister can't BELIEVE he is.

Likewise, just because the church doesn't CONFESS that the state should "maintain" the church in 17th century fashion, doesn't mean a minister cannot BELIEVE that it should, or hold opinions in favor of the theocratic (or theonomic) settlement.


----------



## Pergamum

Hooray for 1788...

....I am sure the Quakers appreciated it, too.


I'm sure Obadiah Holmes, dragged before the civil magistrate and whipped by Puritans of the Mass. Bay Colony for doing his baptistic ministerial duties would be appreciative of revisions to the WCF. The baptists and non-Puritans in some parts of New England had it rough when the persecuted Puritans became the persecutors. 

Also, considering that some early colonies only permitted suffrage to the members of "their" church, I am glad that the incomplete reformation that happened in Europe, (whereby “cuius regio eius religio,” stating that whoever’s region it was, that also was the religion, the political powers fixing religion) was not carried over to our shores. 

Missions is stunted when the church and state sleep together, and the Moravians were the first Protestants to go forth, not under a colonializing banner, but as servants, and we admire their courage even today. The modern missions movement happened due to the doctrines of the reformation freed from overly "reformed" ecclesiology, volunteerism being key in its rise and success overseas. 

When church and state march together it is hard for servants of the Gospel not to look like agents of the State. The evangelization of the world among increasingly hostile powers like Islam will not be done by theocrats, but by those willing to be persecuted and vulnerable and out of power because they are seeking a better country.


----------



## JohnGill

*As a Baptist*

I support the original wording. Of course some of the baptists persecuted under such provisions had other issues as well. And some of those persecuted wrongly do not reflect upon the confession, but upon the persecutors.


----------



## Pergamum

They were not persecuted "wrongly" from the WCF perspective. They were persecuted in perfect consistancy with the original wording...the baptists "errors" met with civil punishment, just like they should have according to the original sentiments of many.

-----Added 12/27/2008 at 06:50:42 EST-----



Glenn Ferrell said:


> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question about Bruce's answer above -- are there some OPC presbyteries where an exception taken to this revised WCF clause might be grounds for withholding ordination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was received into my current OP Presbytery of the Northwest, I took exception to the American/OP form of XXIII:3 and affirmed the original instead. I can’t imagine anyone being rejected for this reason as the OPC has fraternal relations with the RPCNA, RPCI, FCoS, and FCoS-C, all of which affirm the original. I believe a major shift in theology of the civil magistrate took place from 1647 to 1787, which would be worth detailed study.
> 
> -----Added 12/20/2008 at 09:30:42 EST-----
> 
> John Calvin, in the preface to his Institutes of the Christian Religion, instructed King Francis I of France regarding the legitimate authority and obligation of a ruler:
> 
> “The characteristic of a true sovereign is, to acknowledge that, in the administration of his kingdom, he is a minister of God. He who does not make his reign subservient to the divine glory, acts the part not of a king, but a robber. He, moreover, deceives himself who anticipates long prosperity to any kingdom which is not ruled by the scepter of God, that is, by his divine word. For the heavenly oracle is infallible which has declared, that ‘where there is no vision the people perish’” (Prov. 29:18).
> 
> Calvin, commenting on Exodus 32:29 said, "Let us also learn that nothing is less consistent than to punish heavily the crimes whereby mortals are injured, whilst we connive at the impious errors or sacrilegious modes of worship whereby the majesty of God is violated."
> 
> Where is the civil magistrate exempted from his duty to punish public violations of the First Table of God’s Law?
Click to expand...




A NOTE:

The RPCNA (Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America) actually REJECTS the original wording. 

Here's the reference:

http://reformedpresbyterian.org/assets/pdf/Constitution04.pdf

Go to page A-73 (78).


----------



## TsonMariytho

Glenn attributes "original subscription" to the RPCNA, Pergamum corrects that the RPCNA explicitly "rejects the wording". Perhaps the RPC*US* denomination was meant?

http://www.rpcus.com/content/RPCUS_WhyOrigConfession.pdf


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

TsonMariytho said:


> Glenn attributes "original subscription" to the RPCNA, Pergamum corrects that the RPCNA explicitly "rejects the wording". Perhaps the RPC*US* denomination was meant?
> 
> http://www.rpcus.com/content/RPCUS_WhyOrigConfession.pdf



The RPCNA affirms the original 1646 WCF as well as a Testimony which rejects the portion of WCF 23.3 under consideration here. The Testimony has greater constitutional authority in the RPCNA than the WCF.

For what it's worth, my denomination, the Presbyterian Reformed Church, is one of those few today which adheres to the original 1646 WCF without revision or exception.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Ah, thanks for clarifying that. This question then becomes a little dizzying to me, because one must apparently dig into the publications of each respective denomination claiming to "affirm" the WCF, to see whether they were merely publishing the entire original document as a gesture of respect to the framers (while taking exception), or whether they truly affirmed all of the original text.


----------



## Neogillist

Virtually all theonomists would embrace the first original version, although agreeing with it does not make one a theonomist. The problem I personally see with the original is that there are various degrees of "heresies" and varying opinions as to what constitutes a heresy, and what happens to be merely a theological error. If you now have to leave it to the judgment of the monarch or the magistrate as to whether there is a heresy that he must oppose or an error that he may allow to pass, you are bound to be walking on thin ice. 

I assume that the Westminster Divines were expecting the monarch to subscribe to the WCF and in so doing would not be labelling as "heresy" what is obviously taught in the confession, but unfortunately, it is impossible to fully differentiate heresy from error, even with the use of the WCF. Will any disagreement with the WCF constitute a heresy?

Moreover, the danger in having a state-church where only one denomination is allowed (namely Old-School Presbyterianism) is bound to back-fire on Christians. There needs to be some religious freedom granted by the state, at least in the sphere of Christendom or Christians will be found persecuting one another.

Finally, the fact that religious freedom in England was again suppressed later after the WCF was written, and that many who contributed to it found their own right to serve as pastors removed proves that it simply did not stand. Besides, what purpose is it to subscribe to such idealism that will never stand beyond a few decades of history? It is also the business of the church to fight and supress heresy, both at the pulpit and at synods, etc. If the church may not have the power of the sword to physically punish heretics, than why should she encourage the state to do it as if she would rather have hypocrites sitting on pews rather than heretics in prison? Although the confession does not state or mean that, this is unfortunately what did happen in practice.


----------



## Christusregnat

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't believe it is a weak position at all. My rejoinder would be: There were *different* 'state' churches, and Presbyterians establishing a national church from all over. The preponderance were from PA and NJ, which were states (and previously colonies) with the greatest degree of religious freedom, and no establishment. THAT was their experience, and the new church needed to reflect the diversity of state situations.
> 
> Not all the facts you marshal are accurate, for example, New Jersey never had a 'state church' of any kind, due to the fact there was no dominant church in the state. This is quite clear from their 1776 Constitution, although NJ and PA did restrict voting and officeholding to "Protestants" (as did many other states).
> 
> 
> 
> The authors of the New Jersey Constitution moved to protect that to which they were accustomed. They provided for both liberty of conscience and the prohibition of an established church. Section 18 of the constitution stated that everyone would have "the estimible Priviliege of worshipping Almighty God" according to the "Dictates" of their "own Conscience." No one would be forced to attend a church "contrary" to their "own Faith or Judgment." Significantly, Catholics were no longer excluded; the provision overrode the Royal Instructions of 1702 and extended toleration to Catholics as well.
> 
> In addition to insisting on the freedom to worship as they wished, New Jersey residents refused to support the establishment of a state church. Indeed the constitution clearly stated that no one would "ever be obliged to pay Tithes, Taxes, or any other Rates" to build or maintain a church or support a minister, except voluntarily. This was immediately followed by section 19, stating: "That there shall be no Establishment of any one religious Sect in the Province in Preference to another."
> 
> 
> 
> {from _New Jersey in the American Revolution_, pp41-42.}
> 
> So, clearly, 1) the definition of 'state church' is itself susceptible to a range of interpretation--from the clear establishments of Anglicans and Congrgationalists to varying levels of toleration for Romanists, Quakers, and other bodies;
> 
> and 2) the states where Presbyterianism was strongest (PA and NJ) had noteworthy non-establishment histories, and places like NY and VA had landmark legal cases in BOTH (!) Colonies that sought legal protections for dissident Presbyterians. Talk about a heritage of toleration--the Presbyterians were fighting for it or finding a "free space" for themselves from the beginning.
> 
> So, no, I don't think I am even close to being shown I am in error about the _animus imponentis_ of the Adoption, and this attitude is reflected in the changes that the adopters DID make.
Click to expand...


Rev. Buchanan,

I was in error about New Jersey; thank you for correcting me. I was going based off of my (faulty) memory, and rechecked my source to find that you were correct. The interpretation you have given to the facts is interesting, and I think I will have to grant your understanding of the situation, since I can't offer a suitable rebuttal. Perhaps some day when I'm all growed up 

The conclusion of the Presbyterians may have likewise been out of reaction to their circumstances rather than as a matter of biblical and reformed conviction. In other words, just because they couldn't get their act together and establish a state church may have influenced their convictions, rather than their convictions influencing their practice. 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## KMK

Sam Waldron has an interesting section in "1689" concerning the revision of WCF 20:4 which says:



> And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account,[16] and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and *by the power of the civil magistrate.*[17]



Waldron says, "This deleted paragraph underscores the danger of 'perverse reactionsim' by dealing with the limits of Christian liberty," due to the Anabaptists of Munster and the Fifth Monarchy Men of England.



> Thus the position by the original wording of the Westminster Confession has been rejected not only by the whole body of English Baptist and Congregationalist Churches, but also by the American Presbyterian Churches. This rejection of the wording of the original Westminster Confession should serve as a caution against 'throwing out the baby with the bath water' in dealing with the secular, liberal interpretation of the separation of church and state we confront today. The early English Baptists and Congregationalists taught, believed and suffered for a doctrine of the seperation of church and state. They rejected the idea that the state had the right to punish men for publicly teaching heresy. Those who advocate working for the removal of the tax-exempt status of liberal denominations, or who openly teach that the government ought to suppress the public teaching of heresy should find no welcome among the doctrinal descendants of such forefathers. _Those attracted by such positions should know that they were deliberately and firmly rejected by Congregational and Baptist Puritans._ pg. 255,256


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum said:


> When church and state march together it is hard for servants of the Gospel not to look like agents of the State. The evangelization of the world among increasingly hostile powers like Islam will not be done by theocrats, but by those willing to be persecuted and vulnerable and out of power because they are seeking a better country.



False dichotomy after false dichotomy; when will you dislodge that pretzel 

By the bye, contrary to false opinion, those that "seek a better country" includes those that do the following:



> 30 By faith the *walls of Jericho fell down* after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.
> 32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of *Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David* and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith _*subdued kingdoms*_, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 _*quenched the violence of fire*_, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, *became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens*.



It's not just suffering by faith, it's also conquest by faith.

Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc. I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves. Judgment begins at the household of God, and if we are pluralists, what can we expect from everyone else?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Pergamum

What is Christendom?

-----Added 12/27/2008 at 05:00:31 EST-----



Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> When church and state march together it is hard for servants of the Gospel not to look like agents of the State. The evangelization of the world among increasingly hostile powers like Islam will not be done by theocrats, but by those willing to be persecuted and vulnerable and out of power because they are seeking a better country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False dichotomy after false dichotomy; when will you dislodge that pretzel
> 
> By the bye, contrary to false opinion, those that "seek a better country" includes those that do the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30 By faith the *walls of Jericho fell down* after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.
> 32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of *Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David* and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith _*subdued kingdoms*_, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 _*quenched the violence of fire*_, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, *became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just suffering by faith, it's also conquest by faith.
> 
> Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc. I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves. Judgment begins at the household of God, and if we are pluralists, what can we expect from everyone else?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...




Ah, trying to romanticize those who would do violence in the name of Christ, heh? Looking back to the "good ol' days" of civil authorities using their power to enforce particulars sects?

I gues you agree with the whipping of Baptist Obadiah Holmes and the hanging of Quakers and other evils done by the Puritan Mass. Bay colony?

With the death of Christendom began the spread of the Gospel with unprecedented speed to the ends of the earth in voluntarism rather than in bed with the colonizing powers.


----------



## KMK

Christusregnat said:


> I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves.



Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, "*some* of the Puritans are turning over in their graves."


----------



## Pergamum

How about those Baptists killed by the magisterial Reformers...are they turning in their graves too?

I find it troubling that the theology of some, if successful, would cause me to buy arms to defend myself as a Baptist.


----------



## Hippo

Pergamum said:


> How about those Baptists killed by the magisterial Reformers...are they turning in their graves too?
> 
> I find it troubling that the theology of some, if successful, would cause me to buy arms to defend myself as a Baptist.



It is strange though that you are acting with horror that the civil magistrate should oppose false religion, If you have power should you not oppose false religion? Do you think that God preceptively encourages false religion?

You do of course have a very good point that Christians do abuse power and the consequenses are awful but surely the answer is for Christians to live in the light of the true gospel and repent of sins and abuses of power and not to argue that Christians should cease opposing false religion. 

Baptists do not have a monopoly on being oppressed, this is a theological question not a self defence issue.


----------



## Pergamum

What is your definition of "false religion?" 

A different Christian sect or the Muslims? The Puritans did not often make that difference between "broad Christianity" and "false religion." 



The State Church system in Europe is dead and lifeless. Wherever Church and State have had more distance, both have prospered.


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> What is your definition of "false religion?"
> 
> A different Christian sect or the Muslims? The Puritans did not often make that difference between "broad Christianity" and "false religion."



Or to be more specific, do those who subscribe to the original believe that Puritanesque congregationalists and baptists are 'false religions' or 'heresies' that should be supressed by the civil magistrate? Who decides what is heresy and what is 'intramural debate'? Does the church decide or does the civil magistrate decide?


----------



## Hippo

KMK said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your definition of "false religion?"
> 
> A different Christian sect or the Muslims? The Puritans did not often make that difference between "broad Christianity" and "false religion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or to be more specific, do those who subscribe to the original believe that Puritanesque congregationalists and baptists are 'false religions' or 'heresies' that should be supressed by the civil magistrate? Who decides what is heresy and what is 'intramural debate'? Does the church decide or does the civil magistrate decide?
Click to expand...


Personally I do not think so (anabaptists however were by and large heretics and worthy of supression for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with baptism upon profession) and neither do I think that a non Christian has any business in judging Religion. The revised wording is open to much the same abuse as the original wording. 

My own view is that a civil magistrate who is a Christian should supress false Religion and in this respect the original confession is correct. There is no need to use the confession to insist that the state and the religion have to be hand in hand, that is a different agument.


----------



## KMK

Hippo said:


> Personally I do not think so (anabaptists however were by and large heretics and worthy of supression for a whole host of reasons that have nothing to do with baptism upon profession)



I am not sure that the anabaptists were 'by and large' heretics. Without a doubt some were.



Hippo said:


> The revised wording is open to much the same abuse as the original wording.



This is very interesting. Can you elaborate? What are some of the same abuses?



Hippo said:


> My own view is that a civil magistrate who is a Christian should supress false Religion and in this respect the original confession is correct. There is no need to use the confession to insist that the state and the religion have to be hand in hand, that is a different agument.



Was it Daniel's duty to 'supress' the Babylonian religion? He worked for the sovereign nation of Babylon. How could he perform his duty to the Babylonian king while at the same time supressing the national religion?


----------



## Hippo

> I am not sure that the anabaptists were 'by and large' heretics. Without a doubt some were.




It is always difficult to be sure when victors write the history




> This is very interesting. Can you elaborate? What are some of the same abuses?



The revised wording limits tolerance to other "denominations", all you have to do is to argue that a group is outwith the Christian Church and they are no longer protected by the confession. 





> Was it Daniel's duty to 'supress' the Babylonian religion? He worked for the sovereign nation of Babylon. How could he perform his duty to the Babylonian king while at the same time supressing the national religion?




The confession is not Holy Writ and it does have a historical context, that is the application of the Gospel to England. Of course Daniel would have the same problem here whichever version of the confession he adhered to, under the revision he would still have to "protect the Church".


----------



## moral necessity

Hippo said:


> Was it Daniel's duty to 'supress' the Babylonian religion? He worked for the sovereign nation of Babylon. How could he perform his duty to the Babylonian king while at the same time supressing the national religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The confession is not Holy Writ and it does have a historical context, that is the application of the Gospel to England. Of course Daniel would have the same problem here whichever version of the confession he adhered to, under the revision he would still have to "protect the Church".
Click to expand...


Just a thought..........didn't David fight for the Philistines after he had fled there, and wasn't he also going to go up to battle against Israel itself? (I Sam. 27-29). How would this be protecting the church? I'm not saying this to debate your statement. Just wondering about this section of scripture in light of it.


----------



## BertMulder

I have subscribed to the Belgic Confession article 36, with the footnote: 



> We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship (see note below); that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, of what state, quality, or condition so ever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men.
> 
> NOTE: This phrase, touching the office of the magistracy in its relation to the Church, proceeds on the principle of the Established Church, which was first applied by Constantine and afterwards also in many Protestant countries. History, however, does not support the principle of State domination over the Church, but rather the separation of Church and State. Moreover, it is contrary to the New Dispensation that authority be vested in the State to arbitrarily reform the Church, and to deny the Church the right of independently conducting its own affairs as a distinct territory alongside the State. The New Testament does not subject the Christian Church to the authority of the State that it should be governed and extended by political measures, but to our Lord and King only as an independent territory alongside and altogether independent of the State, that it may be governed and edified by its office-bearers and with spiritual weapons only. Practically all Reformed churches have repudiated the idea of the Established Church, and are advocating the autonomy of the churches and personal liberty of conscience in matters pertaining to the service of God.
> 
> "The Christian Reformed Church in America, being in full accord with this view, feels constrained to declare that it does not conceive of the office of the magistracy in this sense, that it be in duty bound to also exercise political authority in the sphere of religion, by establishing and maintaining a State Church, advancing and supporting the same as the only true Church, and to oppose, to persecute and to destroy by means of the sword all the other churches as being false religions; and to also declare that it does positively hold that, within its own secular sphere, the magistracy has a divine duty towards the first table of the Law as well as towards the second; and furthermore that both State and Church as institutions of God and Christ have mutual rights and duties appointed them from on high, and therefore have a very sacred reciprocal obligation to meet through the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and Son. They may not, however, encroach upon each other's territory. The Church has rights of sovereignty in its own sphere as well as the State." Acta. Synod, 1910.



That being said, I hold to the position that the state has a responsibility to both tables of God's law, although they may never encroach on the sovereignty of the church, as the church must stay out of matters of state.


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum said:


> What is Christendom?
> 
> -----Added 12/27/2008 at 05:00:31 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> When church and state march together it is hard for servants of the Gospel not to look like agents of the State. The evangelization of the world among increasingly hostile powers like Islam will not be done by theocrats, but by those willing to be persecuted and vulnerable and out of power because they are seeking a better country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False dichotomy after false dichotomy; when will you dislodge that pretzel
> 
> By the bye, contrary to false opinion, those that "seek a better country" includes those that do the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30 By faith the *walls of Jericho fell down* after they were encircled for seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.
> 32 And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of *Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David* and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith _*subdued kingdoms*_, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 _*quenched the violence of fire*_, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, *became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not just suffering by faith, it's also conquest by faith.
> 
> Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc. I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves. Judgment begins at the household of God, and if we are pluralists, what can we expect from everyone else?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, trying to romanticize those who would do violence in the name of Christ, heh? Looking back to the "good ol' days" of civil authorities using their power to enforce particulars sects?
> 
> I gues you agree with the whipping of Baptist Obadiah Holmes and the hanging of Quakers and other evils done by the Puritan Mass. Bay colony?
> 
> With the death of Christendom began the spread of the Gospel with unprecedented speed to the ends of the earth in voluntarism rather than in bed with the colonizing powers.
Click to expand...


Pergs,

No, the Apostle that wrote Hebrews was glorifying violence in the name of Christ. 

If a civil power cares about man's "rights" more than God's "rights", he is a tyrant. In other words, if you want to put the situation as:

1. Magistrates enforce both tables of the law and suppress blasphemy, heresy, schism, lies, etc. causing some innocent Christians to be oppressed 

vs.

2. Magistrates refuse to suppress blasphemy, heresy, schism, lies, etc. saving some innocent Christians from being oppressed, while leading down a road to total atheism (ala America)

I will take # 1. Further, I'm not familiar with the case of this gentleman Obadiah Holmes. If he was a heretic or a schismatic, perhaps he needed to be turned over to satan for the destruction of the body so that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. As for the Quakers, their blasphemy is well known, as is their heresy. Do you happen to have particulars of the cases you're alluding to? Or have you just romanticized the "good ol' days" of lawless, disorderly christians who suffer as evil doers because they were? It's like people who come to a country illegally, and then complain because they're punished. If you knew the law to begin with, don't whine when you're punished for violating it.

Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He reigns over all the nations of the earth, and all kings are to be converted to Him that we may lead a quiet life in peace and godliness. We are to make disciples of all nations; not just people out of the nations.

Also, contrary to your romanticizing of "volunteerism", savages were converted from eating one another and committing atrocities under state-sponsored evangelism (or non-state sponsored with a culture-wide thrust) all throughout the middle ages. With this kind of nation-wide evangelism, people do not convert to live and think as Christians in all areas. Western civilization is a product of this kind of evangelism, as was the Reformation. The decline in Europe came with the rejection of these ideas; not with the acceptance of Constantinianism.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## KMK

Christusregnat said:


> Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc.



Is it your assertion that there was a time when 'we' had a 'Holy Commonwealth'? Are you referring to the USA? And if so, what is that assertion based on? Were not our founding fathers Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists, atheists and just plain 'confused'? No doubt the USA was more Christian, percentage wise, than today, but can it truly be called a 'Holy Commonwealth'? 

Or are you referring to the original colonies?


----------



## Pergamum

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is Christendom?
> 
> -----Added 12/27/2008 at 05:00:31 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> False dichotomy after false dichotomy; when will you dislodge that pretzel
> 
> By the bye, contrary to false opinion, those that "seek a better country" includes those that do the following:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just suffering by faith, it's also conquest by faith.
> 
> Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc. I would hooray a little quieter; puritans are turning over in their graves. Judgment begins at the household of God, and if we are pluralists, what can we expect from everyone else?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, trying to romanticize those who would do violence in the name of Christ, heh? Looking back to the "good ol' days" of civil authorities using their power to enforce particulars sects?
> 
> I gues you agree with the whipping of Baptist Obadiah Holmes and the hanging of Quakers and other evils done by the Puritan Mass. Bay colony?
> 
> With the death of Christendom began the spread of the Gospel with unprecedented speed to the ends of the earth in voluntarism rather than in bed with the colonizing powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pergs,
> 
> No, the Apostle that wrote Hebrews was glorifying violence in the name of Christ.
> 
> If a civil power cares about man's "rights" more than God's "rights", he is a tyrant. In other words, if you want to put the situation as:
> 
> 1. Magistrates enforce both tables of the law and suppress blasphemy, heresy, schism, lies, etc. causing some innocent Christians to be oppressed
> 
> vs.
> 
> 2. Magistrates refuse to suppress blasphemy, heresy, schism, lies, etc. saving some innocent Christians from being oppressed, while leading down a road to total atheism (ala America)
> 
> I will take # 1. Further, I'm not familiar with the case of this gentleman Obadiah Holmes. If he was a heretic or a schismatic, perhaps he needed to be turned over to satan for the destruction of the body so that his spirit would be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. As for the Quakers, their blasphemy is well known, as is their heresy. Do you happen to have particulars of the cases you're alluding to? Or have you just romanticized the "good ol' days" of lawless, disorderly christians who suffer as evil doers because they were? It's like people who come to a country illegally, and then complain because they're punished. If you knew the law to begin with, don't whine when you're punished for violating it.
> 
> Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He reigns over all the nations of the earth, and all kings are to be converted to Him that we may lead a quiet life in peace and godliness. We are to make disciples of all nations; not just people out of the nations.
> 
> Also, contrary to your romanticizing of "volunteerism", savages were converted from eating one another and committing atrocities under state-sponsored evangelism (or non-state sponsored with a culture-wide thrust) all throughout the middle ages. With this kind of nation-wide evangelism, people do not convert to live and think as Christians in all areas. Western civilization is a product of this kind of evangelism, as was the Reformation. The decline in Europe came with the rejection of these ideas; not with the acceptance of Constantinianism.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...



So, let's get this on public record: You are in favor of killing Quakers?


Poor old Uncle Ben on the oatmeal box!



Obadiah Holmes was a Baptist and he was whipped for preaching as a baptist. I cannot but think that if you were in charge in Puritan New England I would be forced to buy arms and defend my family against folks of your like. These are civil discussions here, but if you had your "Christendom" we would be at war (or maybe I would be "re-baptized" in a nice river...glub, glub..until dead...).



Finally, the Reformation was not a time of great missionary advance outside the borders of Catholicism. It took the Modern Missions movement and the rise of baptistic ecclesiology and voluntarism in the manner of William Carey for Christianity to explode across the world. The Moravians were the first to go forth without state sponsorship and they are still an inspiration to us today. Your "Christendom" concept has always been a killer of true Christianity and expanding Christ's kingdom as the civil magistrates kingdom was expanded is not what I see in the NT. Let's get rid of your theocratic revisionist history that those were the "good ol' days." Those days were harsh, bloody and intolerant...and this often because of the Puritans.


----------



## Christusregnat

KMK said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, now that we don't have Holy Commonwealths, we also have abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, heresy on every hand, blasphemy, unjust wars, state-sponsored idolatry, pluralism, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your assertion that there was a time when 'we' had a 'Holy Commonwealth'? Are you referring to the USA? And if so, what is that assertion based on? Were not our founding fathers Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists, atheists and just plain 'confused'? No doubt the USA was more Christian, percentage wise, than today, but can it truly be called a 'Holy Commonwealth'?
> 
> Or are you referring to the original colonies?
Click to expand...


Rev. Klein,

I was indeed referring to the USA, whether in the original colonial days, or in the declining times of the Revolutionary period. This faith was rapidly lost after the Revolutionary War, and was replaced by "manifest destiny". Rushdoony has an interesting book on the topic called "The Nature of the American System". It's not the only topic, but is one of the leading features. He argues that the "Holy Commonwealth" idea superseded the State Church model in many cases, so that it could include Baptists, Methodists, etc.

Cheers,

Adam

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 02:43:17 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> So, let's get this on public record: You are in favor of killing Quakers?
> 
> 
> Poor old Uncle Ben on the oatmeal box!





NO, NO, NO, you're missing the point. You boil them in a pan, and serve them up with butter and brown sugar!!






Pergamum said:


> Obadiah Holmes was a Baptist and he was whipped for preaching as a baptist. I cannot but think that if you were in charge in Puritan New England I would be forced to buy arms and defend my family against folks of your like. These are *civil discussions* here, but if you had your "Christendom" we would be at war (or maybe I would be "re-baptized" in a nice river...glub, glub..until dead...).



I try to keep them civil; maybe you could try a little harder?

So, again, you have not provided any documentation on what the actual charges were. The charges read: "You keep preaching as a baptist, glug, glug, so we're gonna whip you"? Perhaps some more civility and some scholarship wouldn't go amiss.

Judging by the tone of our conversation, I think I would need to take up arms and defend the lawful order against a rabble rouser  Two can play at this game.



Pergamum said:


> Finally, the Reformation was not a time of great missionary advance outside the borders of Catholicism.



Perhaps you should go back and read what I said with a little more civility:



> Western civilization is a product of this kind of evangelism, as was the Reformation.



As you will see, my point was that the state-sponsored evangelism that operated throughout the middle ages was what laid the groundwork for Western Civ and the Reformation.




Pergamum said:


> It took the Modern Missions movement and the rise of baptistic ecclesiology and voluntarism in the manner of William Carey for Christianity to explode across the world. The Moravians were the first to go forth without state sponsorship and they are still an inspiration to us today.



You mean, William Carey who was sent out by a presbytery-like board? Whose basic method of evangelism was the transform an entire nation's educational and legal system? Not much of an example for very many modern missionaries. I know that Peter Hammond attempts to follow this example; but, hey, he's theocratic too.





Pergamum said:


> Your "Christendom" concept has always been a killer of true Christianity and expanding Christ's kingdom as the civil magistrates kingdom was expanded is not what I see in the NT. Let's get rid of your theocratic revisionist history that those were the "good ol' days." Those days were harsh, bloody and intolerant...and this often because of the Puritans.



Again, a touch of civility would be in order. Here is "my concept of Christendom":



> Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He reigns over all the nations of the earth, and all kings are to be converted to Him that we may lead a quiet life in peace and godliness. We are to make disciples of all nations; not just people out of the nations.



Perhaps we can get rid of your anti-Christian-theocracy revisionism history and read what "my concept of Christendom" actually is. If you think that this is a killer of true Christianity, then I'm afraid you may be unfamiliar with its goals: to eradicate lies, superstition, heresy, blasphemy etc. It is a common fallacy to toss out something because of its abuse; I'm afraid that you have not escaped this fallacy.

If you care to interact in a less harsh, bloody and persecuting tone, I'd be happy to continue the dialogue. If not, please cease these publick beatings of this poor defenseless presbyterian.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Pergamum

There are historical examples of Puritans persecuting not only crazy rabble-rousing anabaptists but holy baptists in Puritan New England. And add the Quakers as well, who were even killed.

There is nothing uncivil about this discussion. 

The truth of it is that if we returned to Puritan New England before church and state were separated by the awesome 1788 Revision, I might be persecuted by either you or your buddies. 

Theocracy is extremely incivil.



As far as medieval missions goes, lets start a new thread. I am not sure you would want the "missions as state-expansion" model of missions that was done at that period of time. 

There are plenty of nation changing missionaries in the modern period.


It looks like I agree with your concept of 'Christendom" if you do not add civil powers and civil inforcement upon "erring sects" to your definition, which I suspect that you do.


Ha, I see we can both play the martyr. There is no anger in my posts - but this IS an important discussion and valid points must be made (and a very valid point is that Puritans WERE persecutory).

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 07:40:05 EST-----

p.s. Here is an interesting post from our own Dr. Clark at the Heidelblog: Or Maybe He Should Have Stayed Home? « Heidelblog

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 07:45:15 EST-----


----------



## Kevin

Pergamum said:


> How about those Baptists killed by the magisterial Reformers...are they turning in their graves too?
> 
> I find it troubling that the theology of some, if successful, would cause me to buy arms to defend myself as a Baptist.




You could always repent...


----------



## KMK

Christusregnat said:


> Rev. Klein,
> 
> I was indeed referring to the USA, whether in the original colonial days, or in the declining times of the Revolutionary period. This faith was rapidly lost after the Revolutionary War, and was replaced by "manifest destiny". Rushdoony has an interesting book on the topic called "The Nature of the American System". It's not the only topic, but is one of the leading features. He argues that the "Holy Commonwealth" idea superseded the State Church model in many cases, so that it could include Baptists, Methodists, etc.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam



I have not read Rushdoony's book, but how can the USA be considered a 'Holy Commonwealth' when Franklin was a Deist, Jefferson a Unitarian (or whatever he was), and Paine was an open unbeliever, to name a few.



Christusregnat said:


> Here is "my concept of Christendom":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christendom is Christ's Kingdom. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. He reigns over all the nations of the earth, and all kings are to be converted to Him that we may lead a quiet life in peace and godliness. *We are to make disciples of all nations*; not just people out of the nations.
Click to expand...


But who gets to decide what a 'disciple' looks like? Jesus says it is the church, but it sounds like you are saying it is the state.





Pergamum said:


> p.s. Here is an interesting post from our own Dr. Clark at the Heidelblog: Or Maybe He Should Have Stayed Home? « Heidelblog
> 
> -----Added 12/29/2008 at 07:45:15 EST-----



Thanks for that interesting link!


----------



## Pergamum

Kevin said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about those Baptists killed by the magisterial Reformers...are they turning in their graves too?
> 
> I find it troubling that the theology of some, if successful, would cause me to buy arms to defend myself as a Baptist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could always repent...
Click to expand...


You could always try to rebaptize me like Zwingli did to some...I'd get promoted sooner.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Pergamum said:


> You could always try to rebaptize me like Zwingli did to some...I'd get promoted sooner.



Or to be fair, like Zurich did to some. We don't have unambiguous record of Zwingli advocating capital punishment for the baptistic believers in Zurich. Unfortunately we also don't seem to have record of his registering any complaint to the proceedings, so you could be right.

Sorry to overanalyze your joke.


----------



## Pergamum

Zwngli was religious and political leader of Zurich. Zwingli was the guilty one:

Here is an excerpt:
_
In Zurich Zwingli was now the commanding personality in all ecclesiastical and political questions. He was "burgomaster, secretary, and council" in one, and showed himself daily more overbearing. His insolence indeed prevented an agreement with Luther regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, when a disputation was arranged between the two heresiarchs at Marfurt in October, 1529. As a statesman, Zwingli embarked in secular politics with ambitious plans. "Within three years", he writes, "Italy, Spain and Germany will take our view". Even the King of France, whose greatest enemy he had previously been, he sought to win to his side in 1531 with the work "Christianae fidei expositio", and was even prepared to pay him a yearly pension. By prohibiting intercourse with the Catholic cantons he compelled them to resort to arms. On 9 Oct., 1531, they declared war on Zurich, and advanced to Kappel on the frontiers. The people of Zurich hastened to oppose them, but met a decisive defeat near Kappel on 11 Oct., Zwingli falling in the battle. After a second defeat of the Reformed forces at Gubel, peace was concluded on 23 Oct., 1531. The peace was of long duration, since the Catholic victors displayed great moderation. Zwingli's death was an event of great importance for all Switzerland. His plan to introduce his innovations into the Catholic cantons by force had proved abortive. But even Catholics, who claimed the same rights in religious matters as the people of Zurich, regarded him as the "governor of all confederates". Zwingli is regarded as the most "liberal" of all the Reformers, and was less a dogmatist than Calvin. His statue, with a sword in one hand and the Bible in the other, stands near the municipal library at Zurich, which has also a Zwingli museum. _

Ulrich Zwingli, Huldrych Zwingli, Swiss Reformation


----------



## TsonMariytho

I've been reading d'Aubigne (thanks, Lance!) recently on the reformation in Zurich. While he has high praise for the evangelical revolutions Zwingli was at the center of, he also criticizes him for an over-mingling of church and state, and suggests that both the religious suppression of the baptistic believers and the war against the Catholics were causes ill becoming for a minister of the gospel to focus his efforts on so directly.

It can be a hard question, though. Where did Zwingli's duty as an evangelist and pastor end, and his duty as a citizen begin (here referring to the war, since I can't justify the persecutions)? To reference another recent thread, is it really so wrong for a chaplain to carry a sidearm? :^)

For what it's worth (neither endorsing nor disputing the following opinion), I recall the argument made by Balthasar Hubmaier (a person of very much relevance to the discussion of Zurich). He disagreed with the common argument of the baptistic Christians of his day on the issue of pacifism -- that we should emulate Christ Jesus himself, who didn't carry a sword here below. Doctor Hubmaier suggested instead that ministers of the gospel should emulate Christ in that literal way; whereas non-pastoral Christians have a different calling, and are to fulfill that calling faithfully, whether they are serving as soldiers, officers of the peace, magistrates, etc. It is an interesting take on the subject.


----------



## Pergamum

I think if your land is attacked and you are threatened with persecution than you have the right to self-defense, even as a pastor. And, if you are a high profile pastor, then you have greater influence to fight off any attack. So I don't blame Zwingli for defending his city if he was attacked by Catholics and he was defending life, or family. Starting a campaign to invade Catholic lands, however, wouldbe different.


However, strange is that he defended himself against Catholic persecutors even while hounding the mostly pacificistic baptists to death, whom, as far as I can tell, did not take up their own right of self-defense, but suffered as martyrs under this Reformer. 

It would appear the Zwingli is a murderer, or at least sharing in the guilt.


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum said:


> Zwngli was religious and political leader of Zurich. Zwingli was the guilty one:
> 
> Here is an excerpt:
> _
> In Zurich Zwingli was now the commanding personality in all ecclesiastical and political questions. He was "burgomaster, secretary, and council" in one, and showed himself daily more overbearing. His insolence indeed prevented an agreement with Luther regarding the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, when a disputation was arranged between the two heresiarchs at Marfurt in October, 1529. As a statesman, Zwingli embarked in secular politics with ambitious plans. "Within three years", he writes, "Italy, Spain and Germany will take our view". Even the King of France, whose greatest enemy he had previously been, he sought to win to his side in 1531 with the work "Christianae fidei expositio", and was even prepared to pay him a yearly pension. By prohibiting intercourse with the Catholic cantons he compelled them to resort to arms. On 9 Oct., 1531, they declared war on Zurich, and advanced to Kappel on the frontiers. The people of Zurich hastened to oppose them, but met a decisive defeat near Kappel on 11 Oct., Zwingli falling in the battle. After a second defeat of the Reformed forces at Gubel, peace was concluded on 23 Oct., 1531. The peace was of long duration, since the Catholic victors displayed great moderation. Zwingli's death was an event of great importance for all Switzerland. His plan to introduce his innovations into the Catholic cantons by force had proved abortive. But even Catholics, who claimed the same rights in religious matters as the people of Zurich, regarded him as the "governor of all confederates". Zwingli is regarded as the most "liberal" of all the Reformers, and was less a dogmatist than Calvin. His statue, with a sword in one hand and the Bible in the other, stands near the municipal library at Zurich, which has also a Zwingli museum. _
> 
> Ulrich Zwingli, Huldrych Zwingli, Swiss Reformation




Catholics always have such nice things to say about Reformers; thanks for sharing!

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 04:03:10 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> There are historical examples of Puritans persecuting not only crazy rabble-rousing anabaptists but holy baptists in Puritan New England. And add the Quakers as well, who were even killed.



Instead of continuing this discussion, I'm going to wait for actual cases, with reliable sources giving detailed information on events, charges, punishments etc.



Pergamum said:


> There is nothing uncivil about this discussion.



Indeed, there is. You have yet to answer my request for actual information; not some nut-job papist's view of a Reformer, but Puritan New England: facts, dates, charges, punishments. 





Pergamum said:


> Theocracy is extremely incivil.



Careful how you tread on the Sacred Word of God. Did God command some immoral, uncivil and worldly government in the Old Testament?

Still waiting for some reliable quotations.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Pergamum

Please...I don't tread on the Word of God when I tread on Big T Theonomy. Stop the silly accusations. We can both use rhetoric.


There is PLENTY of reliable history to show that the Puritans were the persecutors in many cases:

Quakers were killed by Puritans:

Quaker Proscecutions


Those Persistent Quakers: Puritans Deny Religious Freedom to Quakers

Mary Dyer, a woman, was hanged: Mary Dyer Quaker, hanged, Boston 1660 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony

Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were expelled (no need to cite, this is common knowledge.)

The Challenges of Roger Williams


Isaac Backus was another Baptist who suffered injustices by the Purtians: Isaac Backus

Encyclopedia of Religious Freedom - Google Book Search
Better citations could be found, but you can do that yourself.

Obadiah Holmes was a persecuted Baptist by the Mass. Bay Colony: Obadiah Holmes - Unmercifully Whipped « The Pastor’s Pen

The Persecution of Obadiah Holmes in America

Roger Williams - Google Book Search

Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony ... - Google Book Search pages 400-550 or so cover the Puritanitcal persecutions of differing sects.

History of religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Though better citations could be found, it is not so easy to excuse the massive body of writing on the subject of the Puritans' persecution of the Quakers and Baptists as all nutjobs. 

It happened, it was real, and *these persecuting Puritans were driven by the same beliefs as you* and they fell into the sin of persecuting Baptist due to their mistaken notions on church and state. The 1788 revision of the WCF helped to curb these evils.




I don't support Sharia in any form.


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum said:


> Please...I don't tread on the Word of God when I tread on Big T Theonomy. Stop the silly accusations. We can both use rhetoric.



You stated:



Pergamum said:


> Theocracy is extremely incivil.



Then I stated and asked:



> Careful how you tread on the Sacred Word of God. Did God command some immoral, uncivil and worldly government in the Old Testament?



Please don't equivocate. You stated that "Theocracy is extremely incivil". God commanded Theocracy in the Old Covenant. Ergo, I asked my question about Theocracy. Which question you didn't answer, but instead accused me of making "silly accusations" and then commanded me to stop doing so.

So, did you want to change any part of what you said previously? Or, do you want to admit to equivocation? Or, do you want to answer my question? Or, maybe you think God didn't command Theocracy?

I'll review your sources, and get back to you.



Pergamum said:


> I don't support Sharia in any form.



Whew! Neither do I! 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Pergamum

Hey brother, I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I have a busy week ahead of me. I appreciate you and wish God's blessings on you; but I have limited time this week for debating theocracy yet again.

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 05:23:22 EST-----

God does not demand a theocracy in the form of a civil state any longer. To impose one would be sinful and uncivil. The New England Puritans have this sin upon them as they acted the role of persecutor. Civil punishments should not be levied against ecclesiastical offenses.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Applied with grace and truth, I think the original would actually _support _the unity of the church.


----------



## Hippo

> Quakers were killed by Puritans



I would not call Quakers Christians (that is of course not to say that individual Quakers have not been Chritians), if anyone should be supressed they should. 

This does not mean that I agree that they should be executed, but punishments were more severe in those days for a whole host of reasons. Just as Servetes was justly executed by the civil standards of his day I see no reason why it was inherently evil that Quakers and extreme Anabaptists should not have been treated in a similiar manner.


----------



## satz

What was so evil about the quakers and extreme anabaptists?


----------



## Hippo

satz said:


> What was so evil about the quakers and extreme anabaptists?



Extreme anabaptists and Quakers sought to destroy the visible Church, they sought to overthrow society and shared a view that inner light should guide them wherever that may lead. 

Religiously we would all have problems with this but of course this thread touches on why the magistrate should have a problem which is a different question.

Any group which seeks to overthrow the established order will historically be supressed and it is for these reasons that the anabaptists and quakers were supressed. As is often the case with justice some who were perhaps not guilty of the civil crime of insurrection where "tarred with the same brush" due to their religious affiliations and were incorrectly punished but that is the nature of justice.

The Quakers claim to pacifism only arose as they attempted to escape blame for the fifth monarchy men plot and was a bit of a shock to the many Quakers that were in the army at the time. Quakers are not cuddly, their theology is the very essence of mans rebellion against God. It is no coincidence that modern Quakerism has more in common with Budhism than Christianity. 

Also I wonder if this thread has not recognised that the confession concerns the civil magistarte who is to enforce the law, not make law. This is an important distinction that may have been lost in this thread where it has been assumed that the confession concerns the making rather than the enforcement of law.


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum said:


> Hey brother, I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I have a busy week ahead of me. I appreciate you and wish God's blessings on you; but I have limited time this week for debating theocracy yet again.



Thanks! Sounds fine to me. 



Pergamum said:


> God does not demand a theocracy in the form of a civil state any longer. To impose one would be sinful and uncivil. The New England Puritans have this sin upon them as they acted the role of persecutor. Civil punishments should not be levied against ecclesiastical offenses.



We'll have to discuss more in the future; over a pint of beer, or something 

When are you in Cali next?

Adam


----------



## Neogillist

I personally agree with the Savoy Declaration of Faith in place of article XXIII.3 (replaced by XXIV.3):

"Although the magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and protect the professors and profession of the gospel, and to manage and order civil administrations in a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, and to that end to take care that men of corrupt minds and conversations do not licentiously publish and divulge blasphemy and errors, in their own nature subverting the faith and inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them: yet in such differences about the doctrines of the gospel, or ways of the worship of God, as may befall men exercising a good conscience, manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, not disturbing others in their ways or worship that differ from them; there is no warrant for the magistrate under the gospel to abridge them of their liberty."


----------



## Christusregnat

Neogillist said:


> I personally agree with the Savoy Declaration of Faith in place of article XXIII.3 (replaced by XXIV.3):
> 
> "Although the magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and protect the professors and profession of the gospel, and to manage and order civil administrations in a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, and to that end to take care that men of corrupt minds and conversations do not licentiously publish and divulge blasphemy and errors, in their own nature subverting the faith and inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them: yet in such differences about the doctrines of the gospel, or ways of the worship of God, as may befall men exercising a good conscience, manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, not disturbing others in their ways or worship that differ from them; there is no warrant for the magistrate under the gospel to abridge them of their liberty."



Thanks for sharing this valuable historical expression!

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Pergamum

Neogillist said:


> I personally agree with the Savoy Declaration of Faith in place of article XXIII.3 (replaced by XXIV.3):
> 
> "Although the magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and protect the professors and profession of the gospel, and to manage and order civil administrations in a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, and to that end to take care that men of corrupt minds and conversations do not licentiously publish and divulge blasphemy and errors, in their own nature subverting the faith and inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them: yet in such differences about the doctrines of the gospel, or ways of the worship of God, as may befall men exercising a good conscience, manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, not disturbing others in their ways or worship that differ from them; there is no warrant for the magistrate under the gospel to abridge them of their liberty."



That is much more tolerable. Would it protect anabaptists and Roger Williams if he lived in their colony?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I'm not entering this debate, just providing a link to a new book which is pertinent to the issues at hand.

Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie by Steven Dilday (Book) in Christianity


----------



## Prufrock

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who voted; I would have previously thought that the original version would be the minority position, but apparently I was wrong.

Mr. Buchanan (*Contra_mundum*), I have two questions for you:

1.) Is your use of the revision based upon your relationship to the OPC and their/our use of the revision, or did you hold that to be more biblical before/apart from becoming an OPC pastor?

2.) If the second, can you tell me some of the most influential or persuasive writings/teachers/anything that argued that such a position is more in keeping with scripture? I want to read _good_ extended presbyterian arguments for the position.

I greatly appreciate one of the points which you earlier made:


> Here's the VITAL thing: CONFESSIONS don't have to speak to EVERYTHING; they don't have to be THAT comprehensive! Its as simple as that.
> ...
> Better that the church concentrate on making Christians, who can then go on to make Christian contributions to statecraft. The church need not CONFESS its dependence for maintenance upon the state. In fact, it ought to CONFESS its natural independence from such reliance, and stick to telling the state to do its own diligence in attending to the counsel the Word will give it, if it desires a healthy estate.



This is an area in which I need to still learn much more, so you're help with question #2 would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## crhoades

Couple of thoughts...

Regarding Zwingli and the Zurich reformers (Bullinger)...They were [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Erastus"]Erastian (who came later in Zurich)[/ame] and during the Assembly were represented and reacted against in the WCF as it is not an Erastian document. An appeal to Zurich merely strengthens the appeal that overwhelmingly the Reformed tradition is theocratic or two-tablers but in no way negates the original discussion of the poll regarding the WCF. For a fair and balanced read on Zwingli's views of the magistrate, check out: _Zwingli's Theocracy_ by Robert Walton published in 1967.

Also in order to best understand and unpack what the Divines meant in their chapter on the magistrate, one of the most helpful documents I've ran across is the Chapter 9 in _Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici (or The Divine Right of Church Government by Sundry Ministers of London, c. 1646):_ Of the Proper Receptacle and distinct Subject of all this power and authority of Church-Government, which Christ has peculiarly entrusted with the execution thereof, according to the Scriptures. And 1. Negatively, that the Political Magistrate is not the Proper Subject of this Power.

I have that chapter scanned in a .pdf document and will upload it for everyone's edification if Chris Coldwell will grant permission as I scanned it from his wonderful HB edition of the work (which I might add, should be sitting on everyone's lap or bookshelf!)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Prufrock said:


> *Contra_mundum*
> 
> 1.) Is your use of the revision based upon your relationship to the OPC and their/our use of the revision, or did you hold that to be more biblical before/apart from becoming an OPC pastor?
> 
> 2.) If the second, can you tell me some of the most influential or persuasive writings/teachers/anything that argued that such a position is more in keeping with scripture? I want to read _good_ extended presbyterian arguments for the position.


1) I didn't give it a great deal of thought, these differences. I just concentrated on what I ought to be familiar with for ordination (that was the PCA). I knew or became aware there were differences from the original, but I didn't really have much reason to want to determine whether I thought, personally, I had been bequeathed an defective document.

I consider that chapter in the Confession--the church's relation to the state--one of the least impacting on any "free" church's general doctrine and practice. To use my "car analogy" it has nothing essential to do with the drivetrain; it's "environmental", it has to do with the "well-being" of the church, not its "being".

I grew up in the OPC. I joke sometimes and say that at 30+ years, even though I've been ordained less than 4 years, I've been "in" the OPC longer than many men who have come into it to minister from the outside. Honestly, I've never been in the position of making a determination of "where" I wanted to be a minister. I went to seminary wanting to be a minister in "my" church. The Confession that I now take an oath to uphold has been the confession I've "grown" into.

Since then, through discussions before, in, and after Seminary, on the P-B, and elsewhere, I have had to evaluate the issue in its larger context. And I've come to believe that what we have at present in the "bigger" (tiny) denominations (OPC/PCA) suits us and our situation admirably. I think that in saying less specifically, in "confessing" less, our church is able to hold a greater catholicity in areas where disagreement on what's "best" does not undermine the gospel.


So, as to 2) 
I'd say its been a process. Like a lot of young men my age, getting into seminary in their late 20s, in the late '90s, I was at least partly influenced toward the "theonomic thesis". I like the idea that the Bible could tells us exactly "how to" do a lot of things, including statecraft. And that subject has certain obvious connections to the "theocratic" situation of post-Medieval Europe.

Many years later now, I think RSC's "QIRC" acronym does a nice job summarizing my unfocused, growing unease with the Theonomy project. Not that I agree with him in every respect. For instance, I think QIRC is totally inapt for application to the Creation question. But strong emphasis on the gospel turns our attention (as churchmen) away from mining the Bible for a bunch of pragmatic solutions to non-central things. I say, let the GaryNorths of the world do their "economics" or "political" work, and let the world judge it. We don't need to confess it.

But the more "details" mined from Scripture to support theonomy, the more all the nations start looking homogeneous in the ideal, something which now seems bizarre to me. Then there was the wonderfully pragmatic approach that Paul seems to have in accommodating the church to life in the Roman Empire. And the conviction that we need to be able to confess what Paul's churches confessed.

Eschatology is mixed in there. Being "in the world, not of it" is in there. Getting a better handle on historical theology, and how the "theocratic-state church" of the Reformation period had plenty of its own difficulties. What it was that a guy like Calvin actually thought about the "theonomic thesis" in his own day.

(Calvin thought it was a pernicious idea: that no nation's laws were properly framed that had no reference to Mosaic institution--and he certainly rejected the idea that the Mosaic penal code was trans-temporal and trans-cultural. Rushdoony called Calvin's view "heretical nonsense." Oooops.)

Anyway. If I can think of anything written that was particularly helpful, I'll say something else. Late. Gotta go.


----------



## Prufrock

Thank you; I appreciated the post.



Contra_Mundum said:


> I think that in saying less specifically, in "confessing" less, our church is able to hold a greater catholicity in areas where disagreement on what's "best" does not undermine the gospel.



I like this. I'm obviously not a minister and have no authority, but nevertheless I'm not sure this article is something churches should be splitting over. Thus, with reference to this particular article, so far as a revision allows those who believe what the original said to not be excluded from the church or ministerial roles, I think I like that. I want to learn more, however.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Then there was the wonderfully pragmatic approach that Paul seems to have in accommodating the church to life in the Roman Empire. And the conviction that we need to be able to confess what Paul's churches confessed.



If you have time later, could you elaborate on what you meant here?



It's particularly presbyterians who reject this original article whose arguments I want to hear: I don't want to exclude the arguments _for_ the article, it's just that there's a plethora of such things from the time of the reformation to read. I'm just interested in learning the theology behind its revision. Thanks all for bearing with my slowness!


----------



## Pergamum

Contra_Mundum said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Contra_mundum*
> 
> I think that in saying less specifically, in "confessing" less, our church is able to hold a greater catholicity in areas where disagreement on what's "best" does not undermine the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really like how you summed this up here.
Click to expand...


----------



## KMK

Thank you, Rev Buchanan, for taking taking the time to edify us. I always love to hear your insight.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ken,
I'm glad you like it; I'm just a schmuck living and ministering at the edge of the world. And regardless of how smoothly the verbiage unrolls, I'll be the first to admit it can't possibly be the first, best, or last word on the subject.

It's _my take,_ my informed (slightly), Reformed (hopefully) take. Let it be judged.
____________

Paul,
I have to start out by saying that I believe in the inviolable nature of the Moral Law, conveniently summarized in the 10 Commandments (10C). It is unconditional, trans-temporal, and trans-cultural. And no man (or group of men) may set it aside and act individually or govern with no regard for its _general equity._

So, Rome had an obligation, as does every ministry of law, to rule by the same standard by which they expected to be *judged* themselves. And if they ignored that expectation, so much the worse for them--they knew better, Rom.2:14-16.

Second, its too hard NOT to merge the principles of establishment, enforcement of the first Table, church-state relations, etc., and talk about all of it rolled together. So I won't try.

My purpose here is simply to point out that the NT isn't written to a situation where these questions have relevance, it never assumes they *do* or *will have* relevance, and they never direct magistrates back to explicit Mosaic judicials for guidance.

The HOST and VARIETY of future earthly circumstances, from the standpoint of the NT, do not need this sort of meticulous guidance. If examples are sought from the Bible (OT/NT) to aid governments in their labors (what TO do, what NOT TO do), good. They certainly could look in worse places, and perhaps none better.

But the best they can do is a conditional analogy, assuming the moral continuity (identical general equity) is established. The integrity of their pronouncement is still contingent on the moral quality of their government. Its the 5th commandment, under the 1st, that ultimately enjoins obedience, and not some perceived connection to a Mosaic judicial.

But there are no instances or allusions in the NT to the powers of this world being referred to Israel's judicials for guidance in their judicial conduct, as if it were morally incumbent upon them to do so. And, needless to say, if it were the case then I would expect that somewhere in the NT it would be spelled out in no uncertain terms, given that Christ obliterates the Old Covenant nation, completely removing them as a living example.

It is the church that is set up in Israel's place, not a general theocracy under the same rubric. Instead, Christians are commanded to live patiently under the systems of government in the world, in which they find themselves and are enmeshed. God will free them eventually, either at their death, or at the passing into oblivion of that system or the death of this transient world entirely. They are commanded to fix their eyes on the eternity that is already present, that is "more real" than this world of shadows.

The confession of those Christians regarding church-state relations had to be enunciated in the context of indifference, hostility, and outright persecution. *I don't think our confession should be such that it cannot be confessed in a rational way absent a particular set of circumstances.*

The more particular we get as a church, in confessing how we think other men (kings) should treat us, it seems to me the less we are concerned to confess how we believe our Christ (our King) does treat us. And that is the vital thing.

I mean that Apostle Paul said things like "make it your AMBITION (!) to live quietly, mind your own business, work with your hands" 1 Thes.4:11. Check out the other two times that particular word is used in the NT. In Rom.15:20, its the preacher's proper ambition Paul describes: preach the gospel. And in 2 Cor. 5:9, its for all of us: to be pleasing to our Lord.

He never bothers to tell anyone else, from the least to the greatest, how to do their job. The Bible's concern for commonwealth is utterly absorbed in its concern for the church--the eternal commonwealth. If a magistrate like Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7) comes to faith, great; let him govern his Island as a man that fears the Lord, and knows he will be judged by him. Reflect on the natural results of Paul's devastation of his Jewish high-councilor, Barjesus. He was like a "Daniel" to this governor!

But we have no record that Paul next told SP to attend to the Law for himself now, or find himself another Jewish mage. Paul has not a word to him about how he should treat with the church in his domain. Where else might we have found such a treatment in the whole NT? Where else was a king or governor converted? We simply do not find the NT even _intimating_ there is meticulous counsel to be found in the Scriptures for magistrates.

Judgments we make for here and now or for some earlier or future time, regarding the pragmatic utility of principles gleaned from God's _occasional_ (using that word technically) prescription for ancient Israel, are conditional even when they are properly used.

Our changing "house rules" are a reflection of the constantly changing environment of our house. The things essential to stability in the house are the rate of change, and the unchanging MORAL law (summarized nicely in the 10C). Obviously, for example, parents of autistic children (or other disab.) have to manage that rate of change much closer--again, just another reflection of the conditional nature of applying the 10C.

There is no essential difference that I can see between applying the principle at the family (micro) level and applying it at the level of larger social units (macro). But just as I don't believe that my kids can be "inserted" (plugged in) into another family's life without having to adjust to DIFFERENT RULES, merely because we are both Christian families, and we both revere the 10C; 

so also I don't expect that citizens of Country A should be able to go to Country Z, and expect the exact same tolerations, the same penalties for the same crimes and misdemeanors, just because they are all under Christ--assuming they both were culturally "Christian", assuming they both cared to have "Christian justice", etc.

But that is precisely the kind of "world-order" that Theonomy envisions. 

There is something strangely "millennial" (pre or post) about this "seamless" earthly vision of the future. And, there is something oddly RomanCatholic about it as well, betaking of their vision of Christendom, something that separates their ideal of earthly centralization from both Protestants in general and the Eastern Orthodox conglomerate.

I better quit. I think I've run down too many rabbit trails. I can't articulate the "theology" behind the American revision, not least for which I agree with Adam (Christusregnant) that the circumstances in which those men lived framed their theological expression; as much as the original statement also was expressed _in situ_. In other words,, given different circumstances, I believe many of the same men could have written or affirmed either statement.

But in the latter case, I do not think there is anything like the "body of work" that Protestant Christendom, post-Reformation, produced to defend its establishment against the pretensions of Rome, etc. There is a sense, I think, that a non-establishment situation doesn't need that sort of robust defense. The NT documents themselves are written in that context, and assume the church alive and able to thrive (in spite of persecution) without such an articulation.


----------



## Scott1

> *Contra_Mundum*
> 
> I can't articulate the "theology" behind the American revision,



I think it was your point


> It is the church that is set up in Israel's place, not a general theocracy under the same rubric. Instead, Christians are commanded to live patiently under the systems of government in the world, in which they find themselves and are enmeshed. God will free them eventually, either at their death, or at the passing into oblivion of that system or the death of this transient world entirely. They are commanded to fix their eyes on the eternity that is already present, that is "more real" than this world of shadows.



combined with

a notion that all of Scripture should impact every aspect of one's life, including those who go into civil governance. Also, that there is a transforming effect of the Gospel and discipleship in the lives of people that affects culture and institutions. We should expect this because God's Word is so powerful. We may not see the transforming effect in our time, far less understand it, but we should, on authority of God's Word expect it, by faith- for His Honor and Glory.

And that understanding, I think has given rise to the greatest, most free, most extraordinarily blessed nation on the face of the earth.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Thanks Scott,
Theologically, of course I think those are the real issues.

But I think Paul's query had to do with whether there was a deliberate articulation of those or similar views, or a theology of "pluralism", or some such, by the restaters of WCF23. For now, I simply think there was a decision to say less by way of binding common confession.

I'm not aware of the Colonial era American Presbyterian minister's treatise that gives theological rationale for or defense of the their restatement of WCF #23. But neither do I think that it should be expected that one had to be produced. Perhaps there never was one, I don't know. Certainly we don't read about a severe split or dissension arising among the American Presbyterians over the rewording.

Europeans of different languages, churches, etc. had been living together and jumbled up on this continent for over 150 years by the time 1789 rolled around. Double the time, and you're back near Martin Luther's birthdate.

Unimaginable change had taken place in Western civilization in those 300 years--unimaginable from the standpoint of the Middle Ages, unimaginable from the standpoint of the early, or perhaps even the late, Reformation.

My point: the most "old world" chapter of the confession (23) had to be rewritten, not to disavow particular truth, but to avoid an anachronistic confession.

"Americans" had already been living a profoundly different experience from the context (of tumultuous change) produced in, by, and around the Reformation; and they'd been living it just as long a time as the framers of the WCF had been living the Reformation era. And there's a quarter-century overlap in there (settling the New World, writing the WCF).

Treatises written a single generation or two prior defending Protestant establishment vs. Roman, or marshaling religious objections to political absolutism, attempting to define church-state relations in an era of transition from what had been a an ecclesiastical monoscape--THAT is the reality of the first half of that period.

And out of that historic moment comes the church in the New World. It is a complete mishmash ecclesiastically. The world had never seen anything like it. And we are still after 400 years waiting to see what will finally emerge on this continent, and elsewhere in the world as a result of it. 

So, were the WCF writers writing a confession for the whole world? Not in their own minds; they were writing themselves a national confession (or a united kingdom confession). Even the Scots, the only national body to actually adopt the WCF, expressly declared in adoption (there's _animus imponentis_ again!) clarifying language how they understood certain terms in 31.2 (touching again on the state's power relative to the church).

And we need to recall that a theological defense of something isn't the same thing as stating that the something MUST be exactly that way, and no other, unless the defense also eliminates all other options. E.g., if I make a defense of inter-ethnic marriage, I am not therefore saying that ALL marriages should be inter-ethnic.

I have to say that even without thousands of words, and pages of exegesis, the rewording of WCF23 _itself_ constitutes *theological reflection* on the situation. Our forefathers decided that it was wiser to "confess less".


----------

