What Should the State do about Heresy? (Poll)

[Deleted member 6112]

God has commanded as as a Christian to obey Him directly, but do not see Him commanding non Theonomy governments to directly obey Him, as in making sure all laws enacted are in accord with the scriptures.

Do you believe that your congressman has a duty to legislate in accord with God's law, or is he free to legislate in whatever way he wants? Does he have a moral responsibility to fight against abortion legislation, or can he favor legislation allowing parents to kill their children?

 

[Dachaser]

Do you believe that your congressman has a duty to legislate in accord with God's law, or is he free to legislate in whatever way he wants? Does he have a moral responsibility to fight against abortion legislation, or can he favor legislation allowing parents to kill their children?

I believe that Christian representatives must uphold the views of the scriptures on each issue, but those who are not saved would be free to do as they wanted, , as long as not illegal.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I believe that Christian representatives must uphold the views of the scriptures on each issue, but those who are not saved would be free to do as they wanted, , as long as not illegal.

So, when the unbeliever stands before God on judgment day, he will not be held accountable for passing abortion legislation?

 

[Tom Hart]

The Christians in Nazi Germany should have of course tried to do anything legal to influence what was being done while under the reign of Hitler.

Anything legal? You are aware, though, that the gospel itself was illegal in Nazi Germany?

 

[Tom Hart]

David,

We can keep running around in circles. You keep making the same claims ("republic, not a theonomy") but you haven't yet given a whit of biblical support.

You say that you don't think sin should be let run rampant. Well, I hate to say it, but run rampant it does. The tragedy of abortion has claimed many times as many lives as the Holocaust. Does that not tell you that something is wrong? Should such heinous sin go unpunished because church and state should be kept separate?

(And anyway, church and state are never separate. In Canada, for example, the government has begun dictating secular righteousness to religious bodies. It is now a punishable offence to call homosexuality sin.)

Honestly, I understand where you're coming from. I had the same view once, but it fell apart after I became a Reformed Christian and I pressed for logical consistency. It took me a long time to turn from my assumptions of the sacredness of democracy, free speech and religious toleration.

 

[bookslover]

Historically, the Reformed viewed that as magistrates can't take upon themselves ministerial function, but they may concern themselves on things circa sacra. This is the historic Reformed position.

That may be the historically Reformed view, but we're a long way from Reformation and post-Reformation times, when a majority of the population was at least familiar with the Bible's basic contents. As I said on some other thread, it would be laughable for the US Government to start conducting heresy trials. I suspect that most of those Congresscritters wouldn't know a Bible if they tripped over one. Besides, the last thing those people need is more power.

 

[RamistThomist]

That may be the historically Reformed view, but we're a long way from Reformation and post-Reformation times, when a majority of the population was at least familiar with the Bible's basic contents. As I said on some other thread, it would be laughable for the US Government to start conducting heresy trials. I suspect that most of those Congresscritters wouldn't know a Bible if they tripped over one. Besides, the last thing those people need is more power.

You are confusing "is" and "ought." We are asking what is morally normative, not what the situation looks like on the ground.

 

[Tom Hart]

You are confusing "is" and "ought." We are asking what is morally normative, not what the situation looks like on the ground.

Precisely.

Boiled down, it's a simple question of right and wrong.

Is it wrong to tolerate, protect and support murder? How about soul-murder?

 

[RamistThomist]

Furthermore, I am basically a doom-and-gloom amillennialist or a pre-wrath tribulationist. The Deep State has more or less taken over. But that only means we must witness and public to the unchanging standards of God's justice.

Of course, I understand that how we do that in a neo-pagan culture is a different matter. I don't focus on theocracy anymore simply because that isn't the immediate battle.

 

[Dachaser]

So, when the unbeliever stands before God on judgment day, he will not be held accountable for passing abortion legislation?

Yes, as that is against God, but the trick again here, we are not discussing what they have to do, but that God has permitted under our kind of government to happen.

 

[Dachaser]

That may be the historically Reformed view, but we're a long way from Reformation and post-Reformation times, when a majority of the population was at least familiar with the Bible's basic contents. As I said on some other thread, it would be laughable for the US Government to start conducting heresy trials. I suspect that most of those Congresscritters wouldn't know a Bible if they tripped over one. Besides, the last thing those people need is more power.

God does not demand in our republic the death penalty for someone who is a Muslim or practicing Judaism, does He?

 

[Dachaser]

Precisely.

Boiled down, it's a simple question of right and wrong.

Is it wrong to tolerate, protect and support murder? How about soul-murder?

Do you think we should have the government be allowed to kill of practicing gays and lesbians, as that sexual deviant behavior is against the moral law of God?

 

[RamistThomist]

Do you think we should have the government be allowed to kill of practicing gays and lesbians, as that sexual deviant behavior is against the moral law of God?

What should be the punishment? If you believe the behavior should not be allowed in America--and given the current post-Obergfell climate I hope that is your position--then one must be ready to bring sanctions.

 

[RamistThomist]

God does not demand in our republic the death penalty for someone who is a Muslim or practicing Judaism, does He?

Nor did he back then. Israel had many "strangers in the land," most of whom were probably idolaters, yet God didn't say kill them. The problem was when they went public with their idolatry.

With Muslims they will force things to a head: what are rules concerning halal? Any kind of ruling is necessarily a religious ruling.

As to modern practicing Judaism, there is no such thing, since there is no temple and no sacrifice.

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes, as that is against God, but the trick again here, we are not discussing what they have to do, but that God has permitted under our kind of government to happen.

That is the exact opposite of what this thread is about. We are precisely discussing what they have to do, not what is permitted. You brought in that red herring.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Yes, as that is against God, but the trick again here, we are not discussing what they have to do, but that God has permitted under our kind of government to happen.

In post #30 you said the following:

God has commanded as as a Christian to obey Him directly, but do not see Him commanding non Theonomy governments to directly obey Him, as in making sure all laws enacted are in accord with the scriptures.

You claimed in post #30 that God does not command "non Theonomy governments" to "make sure all laws enacted are in accord with the Scriptures."

In post #40, you said that they will be held accountable for passing laws that countenance sin.

Do you see your inconsistency? If God doesn't require them to do it, they won't be held accountable for it on Judgment Day. Conversely, if they are held accountable for it on Judgment Day, then God has required them to do it.

 

[Gforce9]

Yes, as that is against God, but the trick again here, we are not discussing what they have to do, but that God has permitted under our kind of government to happen.

David,
If you look at the title of this thread, you should quickly realize it is you who has redefined the argument.

 

[Pilgrim]

So, when the unbeliever stands before God on judgment day, he will not be held accountable for passing abortion legislation?

Do you believe that your congressman has a duty to legislate in accord with God's law, or is he free to legislate in whatever way he wants? Does he have a moral responsibility to fight against abortion legislation, or can he favor legislation allowing parents to kill their children?

I thought this was about the first table.

Will rulers, Christian or not, be held accountable on judgment day for any of the following? If not, why not?

Allowing Mosques to operate? (By "operate" I include public contradiction of true religion by them and any and all of the following groups, among others unnamed.)

Allowing Jewish synagogues to operate?

Allowing American Indian worship?

Allowing Mormons to practice their religion?

Allowing JWs to practice their religion?

Allowing Unitarian churches to operate?

Allowing Roman Catholic churches and ministries to operate?

Allowing Arminian churches to operate. (The Belgic Conf. calls Arminianism heresy.)

Allowing charismatic and pentecostal churches to operate? (Heresies abound.)

Allowing Lutheran and Anglican churches to operate, with their 2nd Commandment violations, etc. ? (Include anything with "images of Christ" here.)

Allowing Congregationalist or Independent churches to operate?

Allowing otherwise sound anti-establishmentarian churches to operate? (I'm thinking not only of private opinions but of advocating something like the American revisions to the WCF, Escondido 2k, or fill in the blank.)

Allowing congregations with women officers (whether deacons or elders) to operate, assuming they appear to be orthodox otherwise?

Allowing antipaedobaptist churches of any kind to operate? (The WCF calls neglect and condemnation of baptism to be a "great sin." This necessarily includes neglect and condemnation of infant baptism. What penalty was there in the OT for failing to circumcise? What penalty for parents who neglect to present their infants for baptism? How much sinning in the religious sphere may the godly ruler tolerate?)

Also--at what point should a government that tolerates wickedness be overthrown so that true religion may be established?

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I thought this was about the first table.

Will rulers be held accountable for any of the following? If not, why not?

Allowing Mosques to operate? (By "operate" I include public contradiction of true religion by them and any and all of the following, among others unnamed.)

Allowing synagogues to operate?

Allowing American Indian worship?

Allowing Mormons to practice their religion?

Allowing JWs to practice their religion?

Allowing Roman Catholic churches and ministries to operate?

Allowing Arminian churches to operate. (The Belgic Conf. calls Arminianism heresy.)

Allowing charismatic and pentecostal churches to operate? (Heresies abound.)

Allowing antipaedobaptist churches to operate? (The WCF calls neglect and condemnation of baptism to be a "great sin." How much sinning in the religious sphere should the godly ruler tolerate?)

Also--at what point should a government that tolerates wickedness be overthrown so that true religion may be established?

Right. I understand the law of God to be a consistent whole. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." If they have a duty respecting the law of God, they have a duty respecting the whole of the law of God.

As to your yes-or-no questions, I'd say yes to all but the the one about the antipaedobaptist churches. The reason is that these are true believers, holding to the true religion, with a few errors in nonessential matters. The matter would require a great deal of discretion on the part of the magistrate. I don't think it's inconsistent to say, "Yes, they may worship, but they are separate from the established church, and don't enjoy its privileges." Speaking hypothetically, in a Christian land where there are no immersionists, it would probably best to legislate against it, to prevent corruptions.

As to your last question, I'm not a revolutionary. Magistrates should be appealed to, not overthrown (unless by another lawful magistrate, when his duty before God and toward his people requires it).

 

[Pilgrim]

Right. I understand the law of God to be a consistent whole. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." If they have a duty respecting the law of God, they have a duty respecting the whole of the law of God.

As to your yes-or-no questions, I'd say yes to all but the the one about the antipaedobaptist churches. The reason is that these are true believers, holding to the true religion, with a few errors in nonessential matters. The matter would require a great deal of discretion on the part of the magistrate. I don't think it's inconsistent to say, "Yes, they may worship, but they are separate from the established church, and don't enjoy its privileges." Speaking hypothetically, in a Christian land where there are no immersionists, it would probably best to legislate against it, to prevent corruptions.

Is it your position that the Reformers were wrong about this? If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't just the blatant heresies that caused the anabaptists to be persecuted. And all of them were not of the character of Muntzer. As for heresies among Baptists, I don't have much hesitation in saying that there are more semi-Pelagian Baptists in this country than there are Calvinistic Baptists of any type. And most of the Calvinistic Baptists are anti-Sabbatarian, as are most "conservative" Presbyterians, whether functionally or officially.

Here's another question: How much of a Calvinist do you have to be to be allowed to operate? How about J.C. Ryle, so long as he is Presbyterianized? He rejected definite atonement.

I also forgot to ask if Congregationalist or Independent churches should be allowed to operate. I'll add that to the post. I'm guessing you'd say yes with the caveat of not having the privileges of the established church. But how many people can they draw away from the established church before it becomes a problem in the establishmentarian scheme? I also added questions on women officers and anti-establishmentarian churches.

For what it's worth, Unless we're going to believe the Landmarkers, the anabaptists weren't immersionists, at least in the beginning. It seems to me that mode didn't really become an issue until the capital "B" Baptists made it an issue in the 17th Century.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Is it your position that the Reformers were wrong about this? If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't just the blatant heresies that caused the anabaptists to be persecuted. And all of them were not of the character of Muntzer. As for heresies among Baptists, I don't have much hesitation in saying that there are more semi-Pelagian Baptists in this country than there are Calvinistic Baptists of any type. And most of the Calvinistic Baptists are anti-Sabbatarian, as are most "conservative" Presbyterians, whether functionally or officially.

Here's another question: How much of a Calvinist do you have to be to be allowed to operate? How about J.C. Ryle, so long as he is Presbyterianized? He rejected definite atonement.

I also forgot to ask if Congregationalist or Independent churches should be allowed to operate. I'll add that to the post. I'm guessing you'd say yes with the caveat of not having the privileges of the established church. But how many people can they draw away from the established church before it becomes a problem in the establishmentarian scheme? I also added questions on women officers and anti-establishmentarian churches.

For what it's worth, Unless we're going to believe the Landmarkers, the anabaptists weren't immersionists, at least in the beginning. It seems to me that mode didn't really become an issue until the capital "B" Baptists made it an issue in the 17th Century.

Chris, I hold to the establishment principle. As far as the details of how the establishment principle is applied, I don't have all the answers. In certain respects, it will depend on the circumstances of any given nation.

And no, I don't think the anabaptists should be allowed to operate, on account of their damnable heresies.

 

[Dachaser]

What should be the punishment? If you believe the behavior should not be allowed in America--and given the current post-Obergfell climate I hope that is your position--then one must be ready to bring sanctions.

I still would have to say that those who do those shameful acts are free to do those things, just as we are free to expose and witness to them.

 

[Dachaser]

Nor did he back then. Israel had many "strangers in the land," most of whom were probably idolaters, yet God didn't say kill them. The problem was when they went public with their idolatry.

With Muslims they will force things to a head: what are rules concerning halal? Any kind of ruling is necessarily a religious ruling.

As to modern practicing Judaism, there is no such thing, since there is no temple and no sacrifice.

Again, how God ran Israel was.is not the same as our republic, Apples to oranges!

 

[Dachaser]

That is the exact opposite of what this thread is about. We are precisely discussing what they have to do, not what is permitted. You brought in that red herring.

What they have to do while in a republic, or while being run like a New Geneva?

 

[Dachaser]

Right. I understand the law of God to be a consistent whole. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." If they have a duty respecting the law of God, they have a duty respecting the whole of the law of God.

As to your yes-or-no questions, I'd say yes to all but the the one about the antipaedobaptist churches. The reason is that these are true believers, holding to the true religion, with a few errors in nonessential matters. The matter would require a great deal of discretion on the part of the magistrate. I don't think it's inconsistent to say, "Yes, they may worship, but they are separate from the established church, and don't enjoy its privileges." Speaking hypothetically, in a Christian land where there are no immersionists, it would probably best to legislate against it, to prevent corruptions.

As to your last question, I'm not a revolutionary. Magistrates should be appealed to, not overthrown (unless by another lawful magistrate, when his duty before God and toward his people requires it).

So then God does not grant to humans the "right" to hold to false religious views and practices?

 

[Ed Walsh]

So God does not grant to humans the "right" to hold to false religious views and practices than?

No!
Acts 17:30 (KJV)
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

BTW - I just read all the posts in this thread. Previously I did not have the time, but now I might participate.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So then God does not grant to humans the "right" to hold to false religious views and practices?

How does this statement comport with the first commandment?

 

[Deleted member 6112]

So then God does not grant to humans the "right" to hold to false religious views and practices?

Correct. No one has the right to sin.

 

[Dachaser]

Is it your position that the Reformers were wrong about this? If I'm not mistaken, it wasn't just the blatant heresies that caused the anabaptists to be persecuted. And all of them were not of the character of Muntzer. As for heresies among Baptists, I don't have much hesitation in saying that there are more semi-Pelagian Baptists in this country than there are Calvinistic Baptists of any type. And most of the Calvinistic Baptists are anti-Sabbatarian, as are most "conservative" Presbyterians, whether functionally or officially.

Here's another question: How much of a Calvinist do you have to be to be allowed to operate? How about J.C. Ryle, so long as he is Presbyterianized? He rejected definite atonement.

I also forgot to ask if Congregationalist or Independent churches should be allowed to operate. I'll add that to the post. I'm guessing you'd say yes with the caveat of not having the privileges of the established church. But how many people can they draw away from the established church before it becomes a problem in the establishmentarian scheme? I also added questions on women officers and anti-establishmentarian churches.

For what it's worth, Unless we're going to believe the Landmarkers, the anabaptists weren't immersionists, at least in the beginning. It seems to me that mode didn't really become an issue until the capital "B" Baptists made it an issue in the 17th Century.

If we just hold to Presbyterians and reformed baptists as allowed to only be the churches to operate, on what basis are we to exclude those churches whose theology we do not like, but though still members of Christ body?

 

[Dachaser]

How does this statement comport with the first commandment?

It doesn't, IF we are in the governing of God directly as King over the nation.