# WCF CHAPTER 23 Of the Civil Magistrate



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 2, 2008)

The Westminster Confession of Faith
CHAPTER 23
Of the Civil Magistrate




> III. 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:e 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.f 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.g
> 
> e 2 Chron. 26:18 with Matt. 18:17 and Matt. 16:19; 1 Cor. 12:28,29; Eph. 4:11,12; 1 Cor. 4:1,2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4.
> f Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23,25-28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5,6,12; 1 Kings 18:4; 1 Chron. 13:1-9; 2 Kings 23:1-26; 2 Chron. 34:33; 2 Chron. 15:12,13.
> g 2 Chron. 19:8-11; 2 Chron. chap. 29, 30; Matt. 2:4,5.



Building of the SL&C thread. How do we follow this today? By cloistered Calvinism? Or active involvement?


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 2, 2008)

The basic problem with these Puritan types is that they didn't understand that the civil magistrate is supposed to be religiously neutral, and is to allow for pluralism to reign supremely!!

They should have cloistered themselves in the Jerusalem chamber, and never come out. Never preached before Parliament, never signed or worked under the SL&C. They didn't understand democracy!!!!

Sarcastically yours,

Adam






Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The Westminster Confession of Faith
> CHAPTER 23
> Of the Civil Magistrate
> 
> ...


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 2, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The Westminster Confession of Faith
> CHAPTER 23
> Of the Civil Magistrate
> 
> ...



Or by changing it:



> 3. 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; or, in the least, interfere in the matter so 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 hath 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 pretence 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.



Note, I'm not trying to argue whether the change is right or wrong. I'm not a Presbyterian. But the original question assumes that the old paragraph 3 is what most American Presbyterians have adopted. As has long been discussed, it isn't, for better or worth.

Leaving that aside, I think it's the great burning issue of our time. Many of us, (Calvinists, fundamentalists, whatever) careen from one extreme to another, mostly being reactionary instead of being proactive and focused. We either want to separate from the world or we want to take it over. God's providential hand in history prevents us from being successful at either option.


----------



## sastark (Jul 2, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> We either want to separate from the world or we want to take it over. God's providential hand in history prevents us from being successful at either option.





Unless of course, you're a *postmillennialist*:


_You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth._ - Dan. 2:34-35


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 2, 2008)

Vic,

I should have been more clear in the OP but the point of the post was to move an  argument noting the things you have noted in the SL&C thread. My apologies for my lack of clarity. 

It is certainly my position that the old Paragraph 3 should have not been changed.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 2, 2008)

sastark said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> > We either want to separate from the world or we want to take it over. God's providential hand in history prevents us from being successful at either option.
> ...




Well, I'm one of those pessimistic postmils.  (not that I want to explain)

I maintain that *we* will not be successful "taking over" because the taking over is not in our power. But that's not to say that Christ's army and servants won't share in his success. It's a balance I've tried hard to figure out and live. I'm convinced that it is not up to me or the people I join with to change the world, but I believe we must engage nevertheless. 

As David said, "the battle is the Lord's." I worry that some of my fellow "cultural crusaders" forget that.


----------



## sastark (Jul 2, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > victorbravo said:
> ...




Very well, but...

Psalm 110:1 - The LORD said to my Lord,“Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”

1 Cor. 12:17 - Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually

Eph. 1:22-23 - And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

"We" (meaning the church) very much have a duty to perform. We will never be successful without Christ and the Holy Spirit, but to say we will not be successful because the taking over is not in our power is akin to saying we ought not seek to convert sinners because the power of conversion is not ours. It's not, but we still have been commissioned to preach he Gospel and make disciples of all nations until Christ's enemies have been made his footstool and He returns in glory.


----------



## R Harris (Jul 2, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > victorbravo said:
> ...


----------



## sastark (Jul 2, 2008)

R Harris said:


> You are absolutely right.
> 
> Psalm 22:27-31 provides the answer. The last verse definitely states that the great reformation throughout the earth will be done by HIM ALONE.
> No slick techniques, no humanistic wishing - He will cause it to pass, and it will be on His timetable, not ours. And it will all be to His glory.
> ...



Yes, through Christ alone - by the preaching of the Gospel. Christ will accomplish His work through His body, the Church. The church is made up of Christians. Which means each of us has a duty to build Christ's kingdom here on earth.

Sitting back and doing nothing - waiting for Christ to personally accomplish this work is contrary to the Great Commission. We are to *go* not *wait*.


----------



## KMK (Jul 2, 2008)

sastark said:


> Sitting back and doing nothing - waiting for Christ to personally accomplish this work is contrary to the Great Commission. We are to *go* not *wait*.



I do not think this is a faithful summary of Vic's position, if that is what you are attempting.


----------



## sastark (Jul 2, 2008)

KMK said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > Sitting back and doing nothing - waiting for Christ to personally accomplish this work is contrary to the Great Commission. We are to *go* not *wait*.
> ...



What you quoted me saying wasn't in reply to Vic, but to Randy. And I am not trying to misrepresent anyone; however, a plain reading of the statement _"The last verse definitely states that the great reformation throughout the earth will be done by HIM ALONE." _leads one to believe that we Christians will not play a part in "the great reformation throughout the earth." Randy and I agree it will be Christ that does the work, but based on his statement, I take his stance to be that he believes it will be done *by Him alone*, whereas I would say reformation will only take place *in Christ alone*, but that the work will be done *by Christians*.


----------



## R Harris (Jul 3, 2008)

sastark said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > sastark said:
> ...



I do not interpret Psalm 22:27-31 as a hyper-calvinistic we-don't-have-to-do-anything teaching. Certainly we don't sit by idly. But again, no amount of evangelical marketing or slick techniques will cause it to pass. We faithfully declare the whole counsel of God, including Christ's reign over the nations. But then we faithfully wait for God to bring Psalm 22:27-31 to pass.

However, back to the original topic; I do believe that the original 23:3 will contribute more to the fulfillment of Psalm 22:27-31 than the American 1789 revision will . . . . . .


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 3, 2008)

Mr Harris,

This raises the question:

What about social involvement by the church? If we are only to preach about things, are we ever, for instance, to issue proclamations to the local magistrate about their actions? Should the session send a deligate to the local town council, or to the state assembly? Should we follow Machen's lead and invade the halls of the Senate, or just preach to the church?

Cheers,

Adam







R Harris said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...


----------



## R Harris (Jul 3, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Mr Harris,
> 
> This raises the question:
> 
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 3, 2008)

Is it kosher on the PB here to give a hearty AMEN to the 1788 Revision? I am glad it was revised.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 3, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Is it kosher on the PB here to give a hearty AMEN to the 1788 Revision? I am glad it was revised.



Yes it is! 

One of the main reasons for the change was that the Church of Scotland did not like the idea that the magistate had the authority to call a Synod. This was something that the Erastians (mostlikely at the erging of Parliment) had put into this section. The Church of Scotland allowed an exception on this point which the Americans codified in the Revision.


----------



## R Harris (Jul 3, 2008)

wsw201 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Is it kosher on the PB here to give a hearty AMEN to the 1788 Revision? I am glad it was revised.
> ...



Well, I for one am glad that Constantine called a Synod and put an end (at least for that time) to the Arian heresy, from which we got the Nicene Creed. Had he not done that, it is unthinkable to imagine where Christianity would have moved from that point.

Can you for one minute really believe that the "freedom" that the American framers and the American Presbyterians wanted for all religious belief has really in the long run benefitted the Church? You will have a very hard time convincing me and I am sure others of that.

While the original WCF 23:3 sounds foreign to our modern ears, I certainly can see its wisdom due to many unfortunate problems that have occurred over the last 150 - 200 years


----------

