Help on the term "Establishmentarian"

[Joshua]

Another problem is that people back then didn't have the denominational fractures we do today. You had Lutherans, Reformed (which could include Anglicans), and Catholics (and the East). A state church sort of made sense.

The problem is how to do that today with the different churches

We have some foundational fish to fry first, don't we?

 

[RamistThomist]

That seems an insurmountable problem. To us, that is—not to God. Remember the revival under Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 29-30. I especially like that last verse of chapter 29, "And Hezekiah and all the people rejoiced because God had provided for the people, for the thing came about suddenly." O we of little faith.

I understand that hypothetically God could make everyone want to be Presbyterian (though which: PCA, OPC, etc?). But if that happens, then postmillennialism is true and all of this becomes a moot point.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Establishmentarianism is not promoting the idea of the magistrate being involved in church matters, but around them. That is, the church informs the magistrate of his duties with regard to the church, which is why he is given authority to call church councils, synods, etc. in determining the mind of God. He is not free to meddle in the church, but it is his duty to protect the church, suppress false religion (according to the rulings of aforementioned synods, councils, etc.), and enforce correction against public practice of false religion (again, as defined by the aforementioned councils, synods, etc.).

For those unfamiliar with these discussions, Josh is referring to the circa sacra (about matters of religion) - in sacris (in matters of religion) distinction.

 

[RamistThomist]

For those unfamiliar with these discussions, Josh is referring to the circa sacra (about matters of religion) - in sacris (in matters of religion) distinction.

Turretin and Gillespie mention that as well. And regardless of your beliefs, the magistrate *is* going to get involved circa sacra. You don't have a choice. He doesn't have a choice.

I reject the illusion of liberal democracy. My concern with Establishmentarianism is the state's general incompetence about everything, the danger of the church being on the dole, and the problem of denominations.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The following lecture (especially starting at 29:40) may be helpful with regard to the threefold division of the law, and its pertinence to the magistracy:

To begin at the 29:40 mark, click here.

That was very informative, thanks for posting.

 

[chuckd]

PB Friends,

Any clear and concise summary definitions of the term "Establishmentarian" ?

Any resources recommended to better understand the position (book, online articles, etc.)?

Gavin Beers gives great talks here. Starting at minute 34:00 of the first video gives a brief overview of the Establishment Principle.

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/gavin-beers-on-the-establishment-principle.75580/

The voluntary principle, which is most popular today, is at 28:50.

 

[Tom Hart]

Every time this is brought up people say, "But how would that work? Sounds like a bad idea. No, church and state should keep their distance from each other."

But leave aside, for a moment, the practicality of the thing and answer a few basic questions.

1. To whom does the Moral Law apply?
All men.

2. Does it apply equally to the magistrate?
Of course, since the magistrate is as much a man as any other man. He is not exempted from adherence to God's Law on some basis of his rank.

3. Is then the magistrate bound to uphold God's Law?
Yes. The magistrate bears the sword for this very purpose; it is his duty before God. A righteous ruler will enact laws in the interest of true religion.


Before we begin to discuss practical application of a principle we must first establish whether the principle has merit, whether it is biblical, whether it is true.

The Establishment Principle is not as flimsy as some would make it out to be. It is certainly consistent with Reformed Theology as a whole.

Now how do we apply the principle? What denomination(s) can participate? What about unregenerate people in government? And so on and so on.
Well, that is another can of worms.

 

[Ed Walsh]

3. Is then the magistrate bound to uphold God's Law?
Yes. The magistrate bears the sword for this very purpose; it is his duty before God. A righteous ruler will enact laws in the interest of true religion.

The civil magistrate is also called a minister of God. Now there can be faithful ministers and unfaithful ministers, just as there is in the church. But this whole concept of the magistrate as a minister of God for good is so foreign to us in America that we can't even imagine what it would look like if the ministers were faithful. I have heard Christians argue that the State should be pluralistic and neutral concerning religion. All of you must know that this is wrongheaded thinking that will not last forever. As Gary North pointed out in his introduction to his book, Political Polytheism, that there is a kind of cease-fire agreement between the forces of evil and good. But more and more we see the troops on both sides getting out of hand. He goes on to say that this truce is but an illusion-a temporary cease-fire that will eventually end by one side saying one word. Fire!
-------
Edit: I was hesitant and nearly embarrassed to mention Dr. North by name, but I thought he deserved the credit for the "cease-fire, Fire!" idea. I don't always know precisely where I agree or differ with what he writes. But sometimes he can be pure genius. I think the introductory sections of this book are fantastic. So I uploaded it in case anyone wants to read it. It is 22 pages long and an easy read.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

1. To whom does the Moral Law apply?
All men.

2. Does it apply equally to the magistrate?
Of course, since the magistrate is as much a man as any other man. He is not exempted from adherence to God's Law on some basis of his rank.

3. Is then the magistrate bound to uphold God's Law?
Yes. The magistrate bears the sword for this very purpose; it is his duty before God. A righteous ruler will enact laws in the interest of true religion.

When this subject comes up I like to ask people the following question: Is it really a sin for the civil magistrate to obey the first commandment as a civil ruler? To answer that question in the affirmative would obviously be irrational, as how could someone sin by keeping God's moral law?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Here in the South when I was a child, all businesses were closed every Lord’s day. Zero restaurants, gas stations, supermarkets were open. It was the law! And among my small town relatives at least it would have been unthinkable for it to be otherwise. The U.S. had a heritage of the magistrate enforcing some at least of the first table of the Law.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The modern Left has used the freedoms that we have foolishly given them against us. They used free speech as a weapon to spread Marxism and degeneracy, then, when in power, they take that free speech away from others. [1] Like it or not, the only way to defeat them (in the long term) is not going to be with "muh free speech" but by suppressing their corrupt ideas.

There is thus much wisdom in Westminster Confession 20.4, which, if it had been followed, would have spared us a lot of problems:

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 hath established in the Church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the Civil Magistrate.

[1] Unpopular opinion: Joe McCarthy was right.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Scotland briefly got a national church established in godliness, and the hatred of hell was unleashed against it. The erastianism that people fear came from the enemies of the church, without and within; “divide and conquer” was the erastians’ MO, and if the church had stood firm in both unity and truth the outcome would have been very different.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I added an Edit to my post no. 38 I would like you will read.
Thanks.

 

[RamistThomist]

Scotland briefly got a national church established in godliness, and the hatred of hell was unleashed against it. The erastianism that people fear came from the enemies of the church, without and within; “divide and conquer” was the erastians’ MO, and if the church had stood firm in both unity and truth the outcome would have been very different.

And that raises a whole new can of worms. They decided to force the Solemn League and Covenant on the rest of England, which wasn't even Presbyterian, and by making them (or wanting to make them) swear to the Covenants actually went against what the Confession said on solemn oaths and vows.

And there is also the problem of the Resolutioners vs Protestors. Neither side had the political competence to handle the growing crisis.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

And that raises a whole new can of worms. They decided to force the Solemn League and Covenant on the rest of England, which wasn't even Presbyterian, and by making them (or wanting to make them) swear to the Covenants actually went against what the Confession said on solemn oaths and vows.

And there is also the problem of the Resolutioners vs Protestors. Neither side had the political competence to handle the growing crisis.

Prayerfully, the church will learn from its history should God bring about such times again. At the time of Westminster, there was a spiritual movement afoot in England and Presbyterianism was at an unprecedented level of popularity, with every seeming potential to take hold of the hearts of the people. I would also say that issues like those with the Resolutioners vs the Protestors were of a spiritual nature rather than political- the issue was ministers who caved in to government encroachments (the Resolutioners) and those who wouldn’t (Protestors). And the schisms that resulted due to lack of forgiveness and charity. Reformation is a work of God, and one has to depend on him to bring it about and sustain it.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Hugh Martin has some useful things to say on the national recognition of true religion (part 1 and part 2).