retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Likely going to be the one guest starring Byrd
Sons of Patriarchy
- Thread starter Guido's Brother
- Start date
- Status
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
Well, Byrd is from the OPC.
Was, correct?
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Indeed. She is now a "lady preacher" in some progressive "church".
It wasn't about Aimee Byrd, but a young woman whose family was in the OPC. The episode was about abuse by her family and the OPC Church she was a member of.
Still listening? Glutton for punishment, eh? Lol.
I guess so.
I listen to things I disagree with all the time.
The podcast isn't 100% wrong about some truths, but neither were Job's friends.
Prior to this was an episode about the Classical Education movement where he attempted to present a sort of "orthodoxy" about what constitutes the right kind of educational approach. It was supposed to make people come to the conclusion that the way Moscow is doing it is "wrong" as further proof that Wilson is bad.
If there is "connective tissue" in this podcast series, it's hard to discern. Theonomy is bad. Egalitarianism is good (Jesus and John Wayne participants as well as Russell Moore)? Abuse occurs in CREC (and now OPC) Churches because of patriarchal views that women are supposed to be quiet and keep pure for their future husbands. There's a way to educate children correctly and Moscow (as well as lots of other Christian homeschoolers) have it all wrong. The only good Christian political philosophy Is Classiclam Liberalism that never seeks to legislate the first Table of the Law and leaves Drag Queens alone to read stories to children.
I don't think it's really intended for someone who has the capacity to put the ideas into a coherent theological or political system of thought. It's designed for people who are supposed to take each episode in turn and be horrified by its contents and come to the conclusion that Wilson is bad news. The problem is that it's so incoherently connected that it destroys its credibility when it is aiming at real errors and excesses.
Last edited:
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
I'm afraid our government uses its power for far worse things than suppressing blasphemy and promoting the honor of the Triune God.
In point of fact, they have all the power in the world to enforce whatever they please, and they choose to use that power to maintain and defend all manner of evil.
Pomopu
Puritan Board Freshman
Hmm, but they do not have the power to enforce 1, 2, 3, or 4. Do they?
The issue isn't, "Do they use power poorly?" The answer is, of course; that's why we shouldn't give them more leverage to use power in a way that can reach into the issue of 1, 2, 3, or 4. But your observation that our government does evil, is only adding fuel to my point. To enforce 1, 2, 3, or 4, would be to eliminate those rights in toto, and of necessity (religion, speech, press) which prevent overreach of government power, at present.
That is to say, they don't have complete power over issues of conscience. To give them that power, is to create hell, since the church will always be a minority; and even if the majority, even if majority in government, the vitriolic attack and debate even on this niche, highly unified-around-confessions group, demonstrates the impossibility of a functioning Christian state. When the hands of power change, and suddenly such a power is exerted by, say, Muslims. . . . we will be desperately crying for John Locke to return to our hearts and minds and instiutions.
That is one of the foolishest things I've read on the PB for some time.
First, as a general rule, it means that the OT Law for Israel was a hellish vision.
Secondly, it belies the history even of America, which had public blasphemy laws as well as restrictions to commerce on the Lord's Day as "hellish."
I want to remind you that you are on a Confessional board, and calling the Westminster Confession itself as a "hellish" vision for legislation is an invitation to leave all conversation here. I grant that there are debates in Presbyterianism about the role of the Magistrate in the affairs of the Church, but neither the Presbyterians nor the Continental Reformed shared your impious view that it is "hellish" for the Civil Government to legislate the First Table of the Law.
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
Of course they do. The Supreme Court has upheld blue laws, which respect the 4th commandment. In my home state it's illegal to sell a car on Sunday, and the state could prohibit all commerce if there were the political will to do so.
Regarding the third commandment, five states still have blasphemy laws on the books, although the last conviction dates to the 1920's, if I recall correctly.
If the 3rd and 4th commandments can be enforced, the 1st and 2nd probably could be as well. The 1st amendment only forbids the federal congress from making a law affecting an establishment of religion, an "establishment of religion" being a state church, which the US still had when the constitution was drafted. But in practice they have not been enforced since colonial days. The Massachusetts civil code forbid witchcraft and idolatry from the 1640s onward, but their 1780 constitution decreed toleration for Roman Catholicism.
Now back to your comment about a government enforcing the ten commandments being "a truly hellish vision," was 19th century American a "truly hellish vision" because businesses were required to close on Sunday? Don't you think you're being a little dramatic?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Prohibiting =/= compelled.
No, not bowing out. Leaving if you failed to express a conviction that your own 3FU represent, in principle, a "hellish vision" for the government of a nation. I'm not asking you to grant that it would be tough in today's political environment to see how a largely Godless Nation could do this correctly. I'm asking you whether, in principle, the Belgic Confession (that tracks with other Reformed Confessions) is in principle a "hellish vision" for the government of the people. We asked for your stated differences from the Confessions of your Church when you joined and I'd like to know if this is one of them.
Article 36: Of Magistrates.
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.
Every nation has the authority to determine what is or is not permitted within its bounds. I see no reason why religion would be an exception to that rule. Is a nation compelled to permit the practice of any religion whatsoever within its bounds? Prohibiting the public practice of particular religions is not the same as compelling belief.
Pomopu
Puritan Board Freshman
I am in the URC:
The United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) holds the Belgic Confession but, to date the churches, which were largely formed by congregations that had separated from the CRCNA, have not stipulated which form of the Belgic Confession they subscribe. The form of Article 36 on the URCNA website reads in part:
The United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA) holds the Belgic Confession but, to date the churches, which were largely formed by congregations that had separated from the CRCNA, have not stipulated which form of the Belgic Confession they subscribe. The form of Article 36 on the URCNA website reads in part:
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
I deleted my post, but thank you for the correction.
I'll delete mine so as to get yours off the thread in entirety.
Pomopu
Puritan Board Freshman
I'll admit that if confessionally the government must prohibit false religion, then I will change my view in a snap. Because I want to maintain total integrity in this regard.
Heidelblog has this:
A fourth question is suggested by Hyde’s analysis of this article. He writes “the Confession describes the church in articles 27–35 as a spiritual kingdom that exists in the midst of the kingdoms of this world. In article 36 the Reformers’ doctrine of the two kingdoms is clearly in the background.”21 He further notes, as this article has also observed, that the original texts of the Confession do not speak of God as “gracious” in appointing the civil magistrate.22 He points out that the earlier Latin translation used the expression “optimum maximum.23 This was the language used by Roman philosophers such as Cicero, in other words it suggests that the original understanding of this article and its doctrine viewed the civil sphere as more a sphere of natural law than a sphere of redemptive grace. Thus, Hyde concludes, “By using this language, the Belgic Confession grounds the civil government in God’s goodness, not his grace, in creation, not redemption”24
If Hyde is correct, then there was an inherent tension between the notion of two distinct kingdoms under God’s sovereign rule and the Constantinian assumptions on which some of the language of the original article rested. The modern history of the revision of the Confession seems to be an tacit recognition, if imperfect resolution, of that tension.
Heidelblog has this:
A fourth question is suggested by Hyde’s analysis of this article. He writes “the Confession describes the church in articles 27–35 as a spiritual kingdom that exists in the midst of the kingdoms of this world. In article 36 the Reformers’ doctrine of the two kingdoms is clearly in the background.”21 He further notes, as this article has also observed, that the original texts of the Confession do not speak of God as “gracious” in appointing the civil magistrate.22 He points out that the earlier Latin translation used the expression “optimum maximum.23 This was the language used by Roman philosophers such as Cicero, in other words it suggests that the original understanding of this article and its doctrine viewed the civil sphere as more a sphere of natural law than a sphere of redemptive grace. Thus, Hyde concludes, “By using this language, the Belgic Confession grounds the civil government in God’s goodness, not his grace, in creation, not redemption”24
If Hyde is correct, then there was an inherent tension between the notion of two distinct kingdoms under God’s sovereign rule and the Constantinian assumptions on which some of the language of the original article rested. The modern history of the revision of the Confession seems to be an tacit recognition, if imperfect resolution, of that tension.
Do the WCF and other forms of the Belgic Confession that uphold that the Magistrate has the authority to prohibit idolatry represent a "hellish vision" for government? Was every State governed by such principles deceived by the gates of Hell itself in upholding the first four commandments in various forms up until less than a century ago?
I want to be clear in who we are allowing to post who consider aspects of Reformed Confessions to be promoting ideas from the pit of hell.
I understand debates and concerns about the Sectarian States that do not allow for the free exercise of the Christian Religion, but you have made a sweeping claim that any legislation of the first Table is a hellish vision.
Pomopu
Puritan Board Freshman
So, I mean, I confessionally subscribe to every single word of this, the stated text of 36 per Belgic, as a member of the URCNA and as one seeking ordination in the URCNA, and every single word of what exists below is compatible with a conception of the state that is hands off in regards to the first table. In good conscience, I can tell the synod and consistory I uphold every word of the confessions. I was never aware of the history of "idolatry" clause until recently. This is new to me. If I must reject the URCNA's conception of Article of 36, and instead hold to the previous edition of it which spoke of idolatry, then I guess that means I am not confessional! But then neither is the URCNA.
https://www.urcna.org/threeforms; https://threeforms.org/the-belgic-confession/#36
"We believe that
because of the depravity of the human race
our good God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers.
He wants the world to be governed by laws and policies
so that human lawlessness may be restrained
and that everything may be conducted in good order
among human beings.
For that purpose he has placed the sword
in the hands of the government,
to punish evil people
and protect the good.
And being called in this manner
to contribute to the advancement of a society
that is pleasing to God,
the civil rulers have the task,
subject to God’s law,
of removing every obstacle
to the preaching of the gospel
and to every aspect of divine worship.
They should do this
while completely refraining from every tendency
toward exercising absolute authority,
and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them,
with the means belonging to them.
They should do it in order that
the Word of God may have free course;
the kingdom of Jesus Christ may make progress;
and every anti-Christian power may be resisted.*
Moreover everyone,
regardless of status, condition, or rank,
must be subject to the government,
and pay taxes,
and hold its representatives in honor and respect,
and obey them in all things that are not in conflict
with God’s Word,
praying for them
that the Lord may be willing to lead them
in all their ways
and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life
in all piety and decency.
And on this matter we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists,
and in general all those who want
to reject the authorities and civil officers
and to subvert justice
by introducing common ownership of goods
and corrupting the moral order
that God has established among human beings."
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
Clark is wrong.
His argument is, "If the civil sphere is natural, then it cannot uphold the first table. But it is natural. Therefore, it cannot uphold the first table."
But the premise is false. Both tables of the ten commandments are the law of nature. They are not the Covenant of Grace. So if the civil sphere is natural, upholding the ten commandments is exactly what it should be doing.
Compare q. 98 of the larger catechism:
Q. 98. Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?
A. The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon Mount Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone; and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus. The four first commandments containing our duty to God, and the other six our duty to man.
Pomopu
Puritan Board Freshman
As a further clarification, what I have been meaning to say is this: what is a hellish vision is any State that has absolute control over religion and conscience, so I am thinking communist. And my point is, to begin to give such power over the government for 1-4, in my mind, begins the road to a hellish vision because traditionally, States that possess such power over religion have ended up, well, as hellish visions. I don't mean to say it is a hellish vision for a polity to be united and faithful to the first table of the law. Ideally, any polity is full of people united on the first table. But again, I think what is the hellish vision is the road that begins once that sort of power is given to the State. But honestly I love rhetoric and hellish vision is too extreme, perhaps.
So I'll modify it; "not preferred!"
So I'll modify it; "not preferred!"
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
None of the confessions accepted by PB do this. Suppress blasphemy and heresy, yes. Preserve unity and peace in the Church, yes. Call upon ministers and elders to consult and advise with about matters of religion, yes. The Reformed confessions, borne out of a time period where they had experienced persecution, were careful to define the role of the magistrate in such a way that faithful Christianity should be promoted by civil government while allowing freedom of conscience for other religions, albeit without the latter having equal privileges and support of the State.
You've subtly switched from saying "religion should not be compelled" to no religion should be prohibited - and yet your own nation has a long history of prohibiting certain religions and practices.
Kinda sounds like Anabaptists are being declared a false religion and their free exercise of their beliefs is being prohibited....
Good on you for sticking in here, brother.
Pomopu
Puritan Board Freshman
Indeed, they dragged me back in by the ankles, accusing me of being non-confessional.
You did not answer my question. I'll write this again.
Do the WCF and other forms of the Belgic Confession that uphold that the Magistrate has the authority to prohibit idolatry represent a "hellish vision" for government? Was every State governed by such principles deceived by the gates of Hell itself in upholding the first four commandments in various forms up until less than a century ago?
I want to be clear in who we are allowing to post who consider aspects of Reformed Confessions to be promoting ideas from the pit of hell.
I understand debates and concerns about the Sectarian States that do not allow for the free exercise of the Christian Religion, but you have made a sweeping claim that any legislation of the first Table is a hellish vision.
Even the article by Clark deals primarily with whether or not the State should put idolaters to death or whether or not the Magistrate is in a position of authority over affairs of the Christian Church in an Establishmentarian context.
That is not the issue here. Even those who rejected Establishmentarianism did not reject, wholesale, the idea that the Magistrate may punish public blasphemy or prohibit commerce on the Lord's Day.
You have made a sweeping claim that all such States represent a "hellish vision". Do you stand by that assertion? I don't care much about convincing you to get away from your position. I just want to know the views of the person I'm interacting with and whether you stand by your assertion.
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
Every country in the history of the world from 4000 B.C. to 1900 A.D., give or take, had an established church, and none of them were communist.
In turn, from 1918 to the present, there have been any number of communist states, and none of them have an established church.
So I'm a little puzzled, to say the least.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
