First table of the law as US law?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, I wonder how unregenerate men can be compelled to keep the First Table. It is an impossibility, a contradiction.

The Fourth Commandment was to be externally observed by "the stranger within your gates." See also the example of Nehemiah. The same objection also holds true with respect to the second table of the law, but we do not use that as an excuse for legalising theft and murder.
 
Okay; but understand that the establishment was as coercive; there were civil penalties for not taking the covenant. I think persecuting principles has been the bone of contention perhaps here but I have just dipped in and must dip out again; back to indexing Jus Divinum Regeminis Ecclesiastic....
By "it has happened' I meant (and it's been a while since I read McCrie's history, so going on memory) that the Scottish church enjoyed the freedom through an establishment of the church to develop much of Presbyterian polity and to get Westminster done, and after that about 5 or 6 years of relative peace existed in their land between church and magistrate before their major troubles began, which ended in all the terrible schisms, including the Protester-Resolutioner schism. I haven't meant to say that all was or ever will be rosy if a similar time of establishment should ever come. Or that any future establishment could last. Similar reforms happened in the OT under the good kings, and they didn't last either.
 
I should get the book you recommend since I am mostly ignorant about the history of the Scottish church. But my concerns are broader than that particular chapter of history. There truly are seasons of peace and refreshment that God grants his people but I don’t see the Establishment principle being a prerequisite for that. My concerns are that, given our fallenness, we, or our progeny will eventually use the power of the magistrate in a way that God never intended except for the nation of Israel. I do think history demonstrates this scenario much more frequently. Also, I wonder how unregenerate men can be compelled to keep the First Table. It is an impossibility, a contradiction.
Establishment was simply the outcome of a period of such unity in the visible church at the time that only God could have brought it about. Don't think of establishment as the reason for the unity, but the establishment was the result of the unity and the magistrate was moved upon to protect it and nourish it. Look at the church in our country today- fractured, schismatic, average Christians are floundering in a sea of teachings that have drifted way off the moorings. In the times of reformation and revival referred to, before schism set in, which maybe that will always be the case until Christ comes, the church spoke with one mind and the people were greatly edified and helped by it.
 
But can we not learn from history what this might look like?

To some extent, I would agree that we can. But history is not an infallible guide and present/future circumstances are not exactly the same as they were in the past. George Gillespie cites Augustine as calling for the Arians (heretics) to be prosecuted with the utmost severity, but for the Donatists (errorists in lesser matters) to be dealt with in a more gentle manner. I think that the general principle is a sound one, though it does not give us precise answers to many questions that could arise in the future.
 
Scotland in the first but especially second Reformation gives a good picture of how this would look, even though their peace and enjoyment of it only lasted a relatively short time. Everyone who is interested in the topic should thoroughly know and understand that history.

Covenanter Scotland didn't have a successful ending. True, you can't measure truth by success. On the other hand, you can look at a movement and find out what went wrong. The Scots tried to force everyone in the kingdom to the swear to the SL&C. This came very close (if not outright contradicting) the WCF which warns against entering into oaths when you aren't ready.
 
If our rule of law was not influenced thus from its inception, probably a moot point, although I think its a legitimate one. The second table is an outgrowth of the first in Church, Life and Society. As discussed repeatedly, as the first goes, so goes the second.
 
Covenanter Scotland didn't have a successful ending. True, you can't measure truth by success. On the other hand, you can look at a movement and find out what went wrong. The Scots tried to force everyone in the kingdom to the swear to the SL&C. This came very close (if not outright contradicting) the WCF which warns against entering into oaths when you aren't ready.
True, men are fallible. But as you say, you can't judge whether something is of God by the failures of fallible men. And yes, you can look back and see where things went wrong. I have an optimistic hope that should such times come again, the church will do just that and do things better.
 
I went back through the thread and read Jacob’s comments as well as others’ replies to him, and do understand his view and therefore yours better while at the same time scratching my head and puzzled even more as to how this thread has gone. I can only think you’re talking to/asking for a response from a different audience than is here on the PB (or at least who has yet responded).

But let me ask you if this fits yours and Jacob’s point of view. Are y’all envisioning a scenario where there are so many true Christians in the US that Christian magistrates begin to be voted in, enough that laws begin to reflect God’s law, including the first table, and so more and more people like LGF$7BT’s and people of false religions and even Christians of different persuasion forced into the new national church begin to be (or at least feel) disenfranchised. Then the disenfranchised rise up and violence begins, and soon all will be in an uproar and groups of people including even Christians of other persuasions than the national church will be persecuted and violent force used to ‘keep the peace’. Or, even aside from any rising up or violence, some of the disenfranchised sink into poverty or ignorance through loss of privilege, and lose all the gains you perceive them as having attained through living in a pluralistic society.

And you’re asking for practical ideas on how this disenfranchisement and violence and force could be avoided? Let me know if this is close.
Yes mam (sorry I'm southern) that's the problem. Would that state be worth it?
 
Part of the problem here is that we are a Democratic Republic. A Monarchy could react differently. You are looking for solutions that may or may not be quick or necessary. Education has played a big part in the degeneration, debauchery, and reprobation of the mind in our society. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. A movement toward the appreciation of God's Law will take a movement of God upon the heart of men along with educating the public how good the commandments of God are. That is not going to be a quick process. It is possible if we start to see the ramifications of sin and the benefits of living in a Society that acknowledges the goodness of the Law of God. Maybe the hearts of men will desire goodness because it is hard to kick against the thorns.

Either way it will require a softening of the hearts of men from the Spirit of God. And we are to pray for our Leadership so that we may live peaceable and quiet lives. As the Nation has become hardened against God it can also be recovered or set anew with a right spirit toward him. But it will take time and a recovered respect for the Law of God. The first step is that we are going to have to start acknowledging the responsibility to the First Table of the Law of God from the King down to the homeless. That has been one of the causes for our downgrade this past century (well much longer) into debauchery, degeneration, and reprobation of the mind. The mind and heart of the people needs to have a change. You don't do that by removing the responsibility of the Law piece by piece to accommodate the desire of a people. All that does is cause a distorted view and imbalance of Justice, Mercy, and Grace.
You're right it did work under a monarchy, so practically we should go back to a monarchy?
 
So Baptists can remain Baptists in their hearts but they must baptize their children? Jews can remain, but not have synagogues - or at least not publicly? Papists can still celebrate private masses with their family but their churches will be taken from them? The latter is certainly not the establishment principle that the Westminster divines had in view.
Not to mention the fact that this "kinder, gentler" establishment that is content with outward conformity is hard to find Biblical examples of...

But then to flip it around: such an establishment principle is tailor made for the persecution of Reformed people, even if, for example, it were broadly evangelical in its scope. Suppose you start with a thoroughly Reformed population, but then over a generation or two, there is a decline. How does that decline not then impact the established church? And with that, it leads inevitably to persecution of the saints. The Covenanters were persecuted precisely because there was an established church that would let them retain their private beliefs if they compromised in public worship (accepting the prayer book, kneeling for the Lord's Supper etc). Even if the PCA were the established church, many on this board would not be able in good conscience to go along with the public worship of their local church. If your established church goes liberal, and you cannot leave it and form a new, more Biblical church, where does that leave you? Perhaps this is why American Presbyterians in the 18th century thought a non-establishment model - with all its failings - was safer for Christians whose consciences demand the right to worship publicly according to their faith? Like democracy, it's the worst option, until you consider the alternatives...
Thanks. You and Jacob get exactly what I'm getting at.
 
From what I can gather, one of the main bones of contention in this discussion is what does an establishmentarian society do with brethren who dissent from the establishment? I will give an honest but probably unpopular answer to the question: While schism from the established church is an evil that should not be countenanced, the precise way to deal with it is largely a matter of prudence and will depend on various circumstances.

If that answer is not precise enough for some of you, I am afraid that I can do no better. I do not believe that the Bible teaches a regulative principle of civil government, so expecting precise answers to every difficult question concerning magistracy is naive. Many things are left to Christian prudence and the general rules of the scripture.
Thank you for getting to the point of the problem but it's not that simple.
 
Thank you for getting to the point of the problem but it's not that simple.

My whole point is that it is not a simple thing. You seem to want cut and dried answers. Let us actually change the question to illustrate the point: What does Presbyterian church government practically entail? Would or should there be church censures from those who differ from their elders on doctrine or practice? What would these censures look like? I would argue that the Bible does not give us precise answers to these questions (or, rather, not to every question under the sun pertaining to these matters), thus how much less should we expect precise answers to every question concerning civil government.

In fact, I would suggest that one of the biggest problems with modern theonomy was that it expected something from the civil government that we do not expect from either family or church government, namely, ready-made answers to every practical question, which undermines the biblical category of prudence. (Many theonomists will no doubt claim that this depiction is a misrepresentation, but I do not believe that it is. Just read R. J. Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law for the sort of thing that I am talking about.)
 
Last edited:
True, men are fallible. But as you say, you can't judge whether something is of God by the failures of fallible men. And yes, you can look back and see where things went wrong. I have an optimistic hope that should such times come again, the church will do just that and do things better.

This precludes any possible chance of refutation. Your argument is basically, "It will be better next time and we won't make the same mistakes." Perhaps, but the testimony of human nature suggests otherwise.
 
You're right it did work under a monarchy, so practically we should go back to a monarchy?

Actually, I'm something of a "Conceptual Monarchist" myself. The larger point is that no government system works well with a diverse population of 330 million.
 
This precludes any possible chance of refutation.
Yay! (Just kidding :)
Your argument is basically, "It will be better next time and we won't make the same mistakes." Perhaps, but the testimony of human nature suggests otherwise.
No, that's not what I've said. I have said the hope is that the church will learn from mistakes of the past. I also said the truth that men are fallible and there will never be a perfect establishment of the church until Christ comes, not even under a post millenial view which I don't hold to that view.
 
Actually, I'm something of a "Conceptual Monarchist" myself. The larger point is that no government system works well with a diverse population of 330 million.
Ok bu
My whole point is that it is not a simple thing. You seem to want cut and dried answers. Let us actually change the question to illustrate the point: What does Presbyterian church government practically entail? Would or should there be church censures from those who differ from their elders on doctrine or practice? What would these censures look like? I would argue that the Bible does not give us precise answers to these questions, thus how much less should we expect precise answers to every question concerning civil government.

In fact, I would suggest that one of the biggest problems with modern theonomy was that it expected something from the civil government that we do not expect from either family or church government, namely, ready-made answers to every practical question, which undermines the biblical category of prudence. (Many theonomists will no doubt claim that this depiction is a misrepresentation, but I do not believe that it is. Just read R. J. Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law for the sort of thing that I am talking about.)
Ok 2 points. It's not simple, it's complicated in theory, which it can only be complicated by far in practice. Church censures are not the same, or even comparable, to criminal punishments. The basic question is the same, what do you do with all the people who won't go along with your new civil law?
 
Yes mam (sorry I'm southern) that's the problem. Would that state be worth it?
It's important to keep our y'alls and Ma'am's operational. No, and again with true establishment, it's not a question of doing anything (worth it or not worth it) in order to have an establishment. It's pretty clear by now on this thread, right? You have to know your audience! Now you could probably get on FB and find some people that want to force some upholding of biblical law onto society. But they probably wouldn't want the first table enforced or want an establishment. PB has come up high and dry for you on anyone wanting or thinking anything like an establishment should be perpetrated on the U.S., right?
 
It's important to keep our y'alls and Ma'am's operational. No, and again with true establishment, it's not a question of doing anything (worth it or not worth it) in order to have an establishment. It's pretty clear by now on this thread, right? You have to know your audience! Now you could probably get on FB and find some people that want to force some upholding of biblical law onto society. But they probably wouldn't want the first table enforced or want an establishment. PB has come up high and dry for you on anyone wanting or thinking anything like an establishment should be perpetrated on the U.S., right?
I'll keep that in mind. I just wanted people to think about the consequences.
 
Ok 2 points. It's not simple, it's complicated in theory, which it can only be complicated by far in practice

Granted.

Church censures are not the same, or even comparable, to criminal punishments.

Church censures, if unjustly afflicted, are arguably worse, since an unjust excommunication is a false declaration that someone is going to hell. Not to mention that excommunication can have serious consequences on a person's family, social, or even work life. And, frankly, if it were a choice between getting a £50 fine or being barred from communion, I know which I would choose as the lesser of two evils.

The basic question is the same, what do you do with all the people who won't go along with your new civil law?

If they are in breach of a wholesome law of the commonwealth, then they can expect to face the consequences for resisting the ordinance of God (WCF 20.4). That is my final answer on the subject. I do not expect you to agree with it or to like it if you are not convinced. But, in all honesty, there is nothing more that I can say on the subject.
 
Granted.



Church censures, if unjustly afflicted, are arguably worse, since an unjust excommunication is a false declaration that someone is going to hell. Not to mention that excommunication can have serious consequences on a person's family, social, or even work life. And, frankly, if it were a choice between getting a £50 fine or being barred from communion, I know which I would choose as the lesser of two evils.



If they are in breach of a wholesome law of the commonwealth, then they can expect to face the consequences for resisting the ordinance of God (WCF 20.4). That is my final answer on the subject. I do not expect you to agree with it or to like it if you are not convinced. But, in all honesty, there is nothing more that I can say on the subject.
Fair enough, a 50 pounds fine? That's your opinion, what if other people in control thought it should be a worse penalty?
 
True, men are fallible. But as you say, you can't judge whether something is of God by the failures of fallible men. And yes, you can look back and see where things went wrong. I have an optimistic hope that should such times come again, the church will do just that and do things better.
Jeri,
I love your optimism. It is one of the most attractive features of Americans. But I don't think the past (extensive) history of established churches bears out your hope, this side of the new Jerusalem. How long was Westminster Presbyterianism the established religion? Less than 20 years in England, to be followed by fiercely persecuting Anglicanism that ejected Puritans. Things weren't much better in Scotland. Within fifty years, from Westminster Presbyterianism being "in charge" (if that were ever actually the case - most country churches wouldn't have changed much) you were into the killing times. There was NO GOLDEN PERIOD of the establishment. There could be room for some compromise, certainly, on things like church government (except if you are a jus divinum Presbyterian), but not on significant matters of doctrine. Even if we were suddenly to see such a dramatic outpouring of the Spirit that the vast majority of Americans wanted to establish the RPCNA, for example, following through with that (in a 17th century direction) would be handing a loaded gun to the next generation and saying "Shoot our children." Can you point to any golden age of the church (or OT Israel) where one faithful generation is followed by another? Me either.

But maybe, like Daniel, you want a kinder gentler establishment, more like the 18th and 19th century Church of Scotland? But established churches are, well, established and tend to be terrible at church discipline. As a result, wouldn't you have then found yourself among the Seceders at some point or other? Let's not even get started on the 20th and 21st century Church of Scotland, which still officially acknowledges the WCF? Sure God could keep his church from such decay, by his Holy Spirit, but he hasn't chosen to do so at any time in the past, so what makes us think the future would be better?

My point is quite simple: anywhere and everywhere it has been tried, establishmentarianism has been a disaster for the faithful among God's people. I've yet to see any evidence to the contrary. In the 17th century, you could argue that it hasn't really been tried yet with the right church, but that's a hard case to make in the 21st century. Nor are things better outside England and Scotland: Wales, Ireland, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Germany, as well as almost every Catholic country has tried the established church route. I can't think of one where that has gone well. For myself and for my children, I would rather have a state that doesn't intrude into the realm of deciding which church to favor and which to disadvantage, and where there are no religious tests for office. Because even if I could pass the test today, I have no confidence I'd pass it tomorrow.

To me, it's analogous to church unity. I believe in and pray for church unity, but if I'm on the committee, I'm going to make it relatively easy to leave my denomination with the church building, not because I don't love and trust my brethren, but because history tells me that few denominations remain faithful forever. If there is only one established denomination, what is your process for leaving it? And once you have left it, you've handed all of those advantages (property, institutions, etc) to the liberals.

Or, to put it another way, most Americans think it would be a wonderful thing if the state were to mandate a daily act of Christian worship in the public schools (as they used to be in England). I grew up with such daily required acts of Christian worship being conducted largely by unbelievers and it was a toxic combination. Perhaps that's why I'm less than excited by the utopian vision.
 
Fair enough, a 50 pounds fine? That's your opinion, what if other people in control thought it should be a worse penalty?

I think that you are perhaps missing the point. All I am saying is that not all civil punishments are as bad as receiving an excommunication. I would prefer a £50 parking fine to being unjustly cast out of Christ's church. At the end of the day, however, as Peter tells us, there is no credit in suffering as a wrongdoer. Of course, that point does not justify penalties that are overly severe, but I digress.
 
Last edited:
You are missing the point. All I am saying is that not all civil punishments are as bad as receiving an excommunication. I would prefer a £50 parking fine to being unjustly cast out of Christ's church.
What if it were a fifty pound fine every time you did not show up at your local established church, where their practices offended your conscience, versus being excommunicated by a church that you regard as a "synagogue of Satan"?
 
Dr. Duguid, I think we simply see these things through different lenses. Where one reason for rejection of the establishment principle is "look at all the evil that occurred," another reason for embracing the establishment principle is "look at all the good that was done."

Just to set your mind at ease- I would not want to see an RPCNA establishment of the church! Most assuredly God will discipline his church and work much reformation and repentance before he brought about another establishment, wherever in the world that would be.
Or, to put it another way, most Americans think it would be a wonderful thing if the state were to mandate a daily act of Christian worship in the public schools (as they used to be in England). I grew up with such daily required acts of Christian worship being conducted largely by unbelievers and it was a toxic combination. Perhaps that's why I'm less than excited by the utopian vision.
But that thinking- a Utopian vision- is not represented here on the PB. That's why I told James he needs to know his audience. The argument against establishment on these threads has been directed at thinking foreign to those here who hold to establishmentarianism.
 
Dr. Duguid, I think we simply see these things through different lenses. Where one reason for rejection of the establishment principle is "look at all the evil that occurred," another reason for embracing the establishment principle is "look at all the good that was done."

Just to set your mind at ease- I would not want to see an RPCNA establishment of the church! Most assuredly God will discipline his church and work much reformation and repentance before he brought about another establishment, wherever in the world that would be.
But that thinking- a Utopian vision- is not represented here on the PB. That's why I told James he needs to know his audience. The argument against establishment on these threads has been directed at thinking foreign to those here who hold to establishmentarianism.
Well I don't know about that consensus. I believe that some feel that people that should die for transgressions they deem worthy of it. You think that way, but not everyone.
 
I think that you are perhaps missing the point. All I am saying is that not all civil punishments are as bad as receiving an excommunication. I would prefer a £50 parking fine to being unjustly cast out of Christ's church. At the end of the day, however, as Peter tells us, there is no credit in suffering as a wrongdoer. Of course, that point does not justify penalties that are overly severe, but I digress.
I'd rather be excommunicated than killed for not signing a confession I disagree with, or hiding my Baptist neighbors in my basement (hypothetically cause I live in Florida) because I they won't baptize their children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top