Poll: WCF XXIII.3 / Belgic 36

Original Articles or Revisions?

  • Original (The magistrate ought to supress heresies, etc.)

    Votes: 31 58.5%
  • Revision (He is to show no preference to any denomination, etc)

    Votes: 17 32.1%
  • I don't know.

    Votes: 5 9.4%

  • Total voters
    53
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please...I don't tread on the Word of God when I tread on Big T Theonomy. Stop the silly accusations. We can both use rhetoric.

You stated:

Theocracy is extremely incivil.

Then I stated and asked:

Careful how you tread on the Sacred Word of God. Did God command some immoral, uncivil and worldly government in the Old Testament?

Please don't equivocate. You stated that "Theocracy is extremely incivil". God commanded Theocracy in the Old Covenant. Ergo, I asked my question about Theocracy. Which question you didn't answer, but instead accused me of making "silly accusations" and then commanded me to stop doing so.

So, did you want to change any part of what you said previously? Or, do you want to admit to equivocation? Or, do you want to answer my question? Or, maybe you think God didn't command Theocracy?

I'll review your sources, and get back to you.

I don't support Sharia in any form.

Whew! Neither do I! :handshake:

Cheers,

Adam
 
Hey brother, I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I have a busy week ahead of me. I appreciate you and wish God's blessings on you; but I have limited time this week for debating theocracy yet again.

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 05:23:22 EST-----

God does not demand a theocracy in the form of a civil state any longer. To impose one would be sinful and uncivil. The New England Puritans have this sin upon them as they acted the role of persecutor. Civil punishments should not be levied against ecclesiastical offenses.
 
Quakers were killed by Puritans

I would not call Quakers Christians (that is of course not to say that individual Quakers have not been Chritians), if anyone should be supressed they should.

This does not mean that I agree that they should be executed, but punishments were more severe in those days for a whole host of reasons. Just as Servetes was justly executed by the civil standards of his day I see no reason why it was inherently evil that Quakers and extreme Anabaptists should not have been treated in a similiar manner.
 
What was so evil about the quakers and extreme anabaptists?

Extreme anabaptists and Quakers sought to destroy the visible Church, they sought to overthrow society and shared a view that inner light should guide them wherever that may lead.

Religiously we would all have problems with this but of course this thread touches on why the magistrate should have a problem which is a different question.

Any group which seeks to overthrow the established order will historically be supressed and it is for these reasons that the anabaptists and quakers were supressed. As is often the case with justice some who were perhaps not guilty of the civil crime of insurrection where "tarred with the same brush" due to their religious affiliations and were incorrectly punished but that is the nature of justice.

The Quakers claim to pacifism only arose as they attempted to escape blame for the fifth monarchy men plot and was a bit of a shock to the many Quakers that were in the army at the time. Quakers are not cuddly, their theology is the very essence of mans rebellion against God. It is no coincidence that modern Quakerism has more in common with Budhism than Christianity.

Also I wonder if this thread has not recognised that the confession concerns the civil magistarte who is to enforce the law, not make law. This is an important distinction that may have been lost in this thread where it has been assumed that the confession concerns the making rather than the enforcement of law.
 
Hey brother, I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I have a busy week ahead of me. I appreciate you and wish God's blessings on you; but I have limited time this week for debating theocracy yet again.

Thanks! Sounds fine to me.

God does not demand a theocracy in the form of a civil state any longer. To impose one would be sinful and uncivil. The New England Puritans have this sin upon them as they acted the role of persecutor. Civil punishments should not be levied against ecclesiastical offenses.

We'll have to discuss more in the future; over a pint of beer, or something :cheers2:

When are you in Cali next?

Adam
 
I personally agree with the Savoy Declaration of Faith in place of article XXIII.3 (replaced by XXIV.3):

"Although the magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and protect the professors and profession of the gospel, and to manage and order civil administrations in a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, and to that end to take care that men of corrupt minds and conversations do not licentiously publish and divulge blasphemy and errors, in their own nature subverting the faith and inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them: yet in such differences about the doctrines of the gospel, or ways of the worship of God, as may befall men exercising a good conscience, manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, not disturbing others in their ways or worship that differ from them; there is no warrant for the magistrate under the gospel to abridge them of their liberty."
 
I personally agree with the Savoy Declaration of Faith in place of article XXIII.3 (replaced by XXIV.3):

"Although the magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and protect the professors and profession of the gospel, and to manage and order civil administrations in a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, and to that end to take care that men of corrupt minds and conversations do not licentiously publish and divulge blasphemy and errors, in their own nature subverting the faith and inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them: yet in such differences about the doctrines of the gospel, or ways of the worship of God, as may befall men exercising a good conscience, manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, not disturbing others in their ways or worship that differ from them; there is no warrant for the magistrate under the gospel to abridge them of their liberty."

Thanks for sharing this valuable historical expression!

Cheers,

Adam
 
I personally agree with the Savoy Declaration of Faith in place of article XXIII.3 (replaced by XXIV.3):

"Although the magistrate is bound to encourage, promote, and protect the professors and profession of the gospel, and to manage and order civil administrations in a due subserviency to the interest of Christ in the world, and to that end to take care that men of corrupt minds and conversations do not licentiously publish and divulge blasphemy and errors, in their own nature subverting the faith and inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them: yet in such differences about the doctrines of the gospel, or ways of the worship of God, as may befall men exercising a good conscience, manifesting it in their conversation, and holding the foundation, not disturbing others in their ways or worship that differ from them; there is no warrant for the magistrate under the gospel to abridge them of their liberty."

That is much more tolerable. Would it protect anabaptists and Roger Williams if he lived in their colony?
 
Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who voted; I would have previously thought that the original version would be the minority position, but apparently I was wrong.

Mr. Buchanan (Contra_mundum), I have two questions for you:

1.) Is your use of the revision based upon your relationship to the OPC and their/our use of the revision, or did you hold that to be more biblical before/apart from becoming an OPC pastor?

2.) If the second, can you tell me some of the most influential or persuasive writings/teachers/anything that argued that such a position is more in keeping with scripture? I want to read good extended presbyterian arguments for the position.

I greatly appreciate one of the points which you earlier made:
Here's the VITAL thing: CONFESSIONS don't have to speak to EVERYTHING; they don't have to be THAT comprehensive! Its as simple as that.
...
Better that the church concentrate on making Christians, who can then go on to make Christian contributions to statecraft. The church need not CONFESS its dependence for maintenance upon the state. In fact, it ought to CONFESS its natural independence from such reliance, and stick to telling the state to do its own diligence in attending to the counsel the Word will give it, if it desires a healthy estate.

This is an area in which I need to still learn much more, so you're help with question #2 would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
 
Couple of thoughts...

Regarding Zwingli and the Zurich reformers (Bullinger)...They were [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Erastus"]Erastian (who came later in Zurich)[/ame] and during the Assembly were represented and reacted against in the WCF as it is not an Erastian document. An appeal to Zurich merely strengthens the appeal that overwhelmingly the Reformed tradition is theocratic or two-tablers but in no way negates the original discussion of the poll regarding the WCF. For a fair and balanced read on Zwingli's views of the magistrate, check out: Zwingli's Theocracy by Robert Walton published in 1967.

Also in order to best understand and unpack what the Divines meant in their chapter on the magistrate, one of the most helpful documents I've ran across is the Chapter 9 in Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici (or The Divine Right of Church Government by Sundry Ministers of London, c. 1646): Of the Proper Receptacle and distinct Subject of all this power and authority of Church-Government, which Christ has peculiarly entrusted with the execution thereof, according to the Scriptures. And 1. Negatively, that the Political Magistrate is not the Proper Subject of this Power.

I have that chapter scanned in a .pdf document and will upload it for everyone's edification if Chris Coldwell will grant permission as I scanned it from his wonderful HB edition of the work (which I might add, should be sitting on everyone's lap or bookshelf!)
 
Contra_mundum

1.) Is your use of the revision based upon your relationship to the OPC and their/our use of the revision, or did you hold that to be more biblical before/apart from becoming an OPC pastor?

2.) If the second, can you tell me some of the most influential or persuasive writings/teachers/anything that argued that such a position is more in keeping with scripture? I want to read good extended presbyterian arguments for the position.
1) I didn't give it a great deal of thought, these differences. I just concentrated on what I ought to be familiar with for ordination (that was the PCA). I knew or became aware there were differences from the original, but I didn't really have much reason to want to determine whether I thought, personally, I had been bequeathed an defective document.

I consider that chapter in the Confession--the church's relation to the state--one of the least impacting on any "free" church's general doctrine and practice. To use my "car analogy" it has nothing essential to do with the drivetrain; it's "environmental", it has to do with the "well-being" of the church, not its "being".

I grew up in the OPC. I joke sometimes and say that at 30+ years, even though I've been ordained less than 4 years, I've been "in" the OPC longer than many men who have come into it to minister from the outside. Honestly, I've never been in the position of making a determination of "where" I wanted to be a minister. I went to seminary wanting to be a minister in "my" church. The Confession that I now take an oath to uphold has been the confession I've "grown" into.

Since then, through discussions before, in, and after Seminary, on the P-B, and elsewhere, I have had to evaluate the issue in its larger context. And I've come to believe that what we have at present in the "bigger" (tiny) denominations (OPC/PCA) suits us and our situation admirably. I think that in saying less specifically, in "confessing" less, our church is able to hold a greater catholicity in areas where disagreement on what's "best" does not undermine the gospel.


So, as to 2)
I'd say its been a process. Like a lot of young men my age, getting into seminary in their late 20s, in the late '90s, I was at least partly influenced toward the "theonomic thesis". I like the idea that the Bible could tells us exactly "how to" do a lot of things, including statecraft. And that subject has certain obvious connections to the "theocratic" situation of post-Medieval Europe.

Many years later now, I think RSC's "QIRC" acronym does a nice job summarizing my unfocused, growing unease with the Theonomy project. Not that I agree with him in every respect. For instance, I think QIRC is totally inapt for application to the Creation question. But strong emphasis on the gospel turns our attention (as churchmen) away from mining the Bible for a bunch of pragmatic solutions to non-central things. I say, let the GaryNorths of the world do their "economics" or "political" work, and let the world judge it. We don't need to confess it.

But the more "details" mined from Scripture to support theonomy, the more all the nations start looking homogeneous in the ideal, something which now seems bizarre to me. Then there was the wonderfully pragmatic approach that Paul seems to have in accommodating the church to life in the Roman Empire. And the conviction that we need to be able to confess what Paul's churches confessed.

Eschatology is mixed in there. Being "in the world, not of it" is in there. Getting a better handle on historical theology, and how the "theocratic-state church" of the Reformation period had plenty of its own difficulties. What it was that a guy like Calvin actually thought about the "theonomic thesis" in his own day.

(Calvin thought it was a pernicious idea: that no nation's laws were properly framed that had no reference to Mosaic institution--and he certainly rejected the idea that the Mosaic penal code was trans-temporal and trans-cultural. Rushdoony called Calvin's view "heretical nonsense." Oooops.)

Anyway. If I can think of anything written that was particularly helpful, I'll say something else. Late. Gotta go.
 
Thank you; I appreciated the post.

I think that in saying less specifically, in "confessing" less, our church is able to hold a greater catholicity in areas where disagreement on what's "best" does not undermine the gospel.

I like this. I'm obviously not a minister and have no authority, but nevertheless I'm not sure this article is something churches should be splitting over. Thus, with reference to this particular article, so far as a revision allows those who believe what the original said to not be excluded from the church or ministerial roles, I think I like that. I want to learn more, however.

Then there was the wonderfully pragmatic approach that Paul seems to have in accommodating the church to life in the Roman Empire. And the conviction that we need to be able to confess what Paul's churches confessed.

If you have time later, could you elaborate on what you meant here?



It's particularly presbyterians who reject this original article whose arguments I want to hear: I don't want to exclude the arguments for the article, it's just that there's a plethora of such things from the time of the reformation to read. I'm just interested in learning the theology behind its revision. Thanks all for bearing with my slowness!
 
Thank you, Rev Buchanan, for taking taking the time to edify us. I always love to hear your insight.
 
Ken,
I'm glad you like it; I'm just a schmuck living and ministering at the edge of the world. And regardless of how smoothly the verbiage unrolls, I'll be the first to admit it can't possibly be the first, best, or last word on the subject.

It's my take, my informed (slightly), Reformed (hopefully) take. Let it be judged.
____________

Paul,
I have to start out by saying that I believe in the inviolable nature of the Moral Law, conveniently summarized in the 10 Commandments (10C). It is unconditional, trans-temporal, and trans-cultural. And no man (or group of men) may set it aside and act individually or govern with no regard for its general equity.

So, Rome had an obligation, as does every ministry of law, to rule by the same standard by which they expected to be judged themselves. And if they ignored that expectation, so much the worse for them--they knew better, Rom.2:14-16.

Second, its too hard NOT to merge the principles of establishment, enforcement of the first Table, church-state relations, etc., and talk about all of it rolled together. So I won't try.

My purpose here is simply to point out that the NT isn't written to a situation where these questions have relevance, it never assumes they do or will have relevance, and they never direct magistrates back to explicit Mosaic judicials for guidance.

The HOST and VARIETY of future earthly circumstances, from the standpoint of the NT, do not need this sort of meticulous guidance. If examples are sought from the Bible (OT/NT) to aid governments in their labors (what TO do, what NOT TO do), good. They certainly could look in worse places, and perhaps none better.

But the best they can do is a conditional analogy, assuming the moral continuity (identical general equity) is established. The integrity of their pronouncement is still contingent on the moral quality of their government. Its the 5th commandment, under the 1st, that ultimately enjoins obedience, and not some perceived connection to a Mosaic judicial.

But there are no instances or allusions in the NT to the powers of this world being referred to Israel's judicials for guidance in their judicial conduct, as if it were morally incumbent upon them to do so. And, needless to say, if it were the case then I would expect that somewhere in the NT it would be spelled out in no uncertain terms, given that Christ obliterates the Old Covenant nation, completely removing them as a living example.

It is the church that is set up in Israel's place, not a general theocracy under the same rubric. Instead, Christians are commanded to live patiently under the systems of government in the world, in which they find themselves and are enmeshed. God will free them eventually, either at their death, or at the passing into oblivion of that system or the death of this transient world entirely. They are commanded to fix their eyes on the eternity that is already present, that is "more real" than this world of shadows.

The confession of those Christians regarding church-state relations had to be enunciated in the context of indifference, hostility, and outright persecution. I don't think our confession should be such that it cannot be confessed in a rational way absent a particular set of circumstances.

The more particular we get as a church, in confessing how we think other men (kings) should treat us, it seems to me the less we are concerned to confess how we believe our Christ (our King) does treat us. And that is the vital thing.

I mean that Apostle Paul said things like "make it your AMBITION (!) to live quietly, mind your own business, work with your hands" 1 Thes.4:11. Check out the other two times that particular word is used in the NT. In Rom.15:20, its the preacher's proper ambition Paul describes: preach the gospel. And in 2 Cor. 5:9, its for all of us: to be pleasing to our Lord.

He never bothers to tell anyone else, from the least to the greatest, how to do their job. The Bible's concern for commonwealth is utterly absorbed in its concern for the church--the eternal commonwealth. If a magistrate like Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:7) comes to faith, great; let him govern his Island as a man that fears the Lord, and knows he will be judged by him. Reflect on the natural results of Paul's devastation of his Jewish high-councilor, Barjesus. He was like a "Daniel" to this governor!

But we have no record that Paul next told SP to attend to the Law for himself now, or find himself another Jewish mage. Paul has not a word to him about how he should treat with the church in his domain. Where else might we have found such a treatment in the whole NT? Where else was a king or governor converted? We simply do not find the NT even intimating there is meticulous counsel to be found in the Scriptures for magistrates.

Judgments we make for here and now or for some earlier or future time, regarding the pragmatic utility of principles gleaned from God's occasional (using that word technically) prescription for ancient Israel, are conditional even when they are properly used.

Our changing "house rules" are a reflection of the constantly changing environment of our house. The things essential to stability in the house are the rate of change, and the unchanging MORAL law (summarized nicely in the 10C). Obviously, for example, parents of autistic children (or other disab.) have to manage that rate of change much closer--again, just another reflection of the conditional nature of applying the 10C.

There is no essential difference that I can see between applying the principle at the family (micro) level and applying it at the level of larger social units (macro). But just as I don't believe that my kids can be "inserted" (plugged in) into another family's life without having to adjust to DIFFERENT RULES, merely because we are both Christian families, and we both revere the 10C;

so also I don't expect that citizens of Country A should be able to go to Country Z, and expect the exact same tolerations, the same penalties for the same crimes and misdemeanors, just because they are all under Christ--assuming they both were culturally "Christian", assuming they both cared to have "Christian justice", etc.

But that is precisely the kind of "world-order" that Theonomy envisions.

There is something strangely "millennial" (pre or post) about this "seamless" earthly vision of the future. And, there is something oddly RomanCatholic about it as well, betaking of their vision of Christendom, something that separates their ideal of earthly centralization from both Protestants in general and the Eastern Orthodox conglomerate.

I better quit. I think I've run down too many rabbit trails. I can't articulate the "theology" behind the American revision, not least for which I agree with Adam (Christusregnant) that the circumstances in which those men lived framed their theological expression; as much as the original statement also was expressed in situ. In other words,, given different circumstances, I believe many of the same men could have written or affirmed either statement.

But in the latter case, I do not think there is anything like the "body of work" that Protestant Christendom, post-Reformation, produced to defend its establishment against the pretensions of Rome, etc. There is a sense, I think, that a non-establishment situation doesn't need that sort of robust defense. The NT documents themselves are written in that context, and assume the church alive and able to thrive (in spite of persecution) without such an articulation.
 
Contra_Mundum

I can't articulate the "theology" behind the American revision,

I think it was your point
It is the church that is set up in Israel's place, not a general theocracy under the same rubric. Instead, Christians are commanded to live patiently under the systems of government in the world, in which they find themselves and are enmeshed. God will free them eventually, either at their death, or at the passing into oblivion of that system or the death of this transient world entirely. They are commanded to fix their eyes on the eternity that is already present, that is "more real" than this world of shadows.

combined with

a notion that all of Scripture should impact every aspect of one's life, including those who go into civil governance. Also, that there is a transforming effect of the Gospel and discipleship in the lives of people that affects culture and institutions. We should expect this because God's Word is so powerful. We may not see the transforming effect in our time, far less understand it, but we should, on authority of God's Word expect it, by faith- for His Honor and Glory.

And that understanding, I think has given rise to the greatest, most free, most extraordinarily blessed nation on the face of the earth.
 
Thanks Scott,
Theologically, of course I think those are the real issues.

But I think Paul's query had to do with whether there was a deliberate articulation of those or similar views, or a theology of "pluralism", or some such, by the restaters of WCF23. For now, I simply think there was a decision to say less by way of binding common confession.

I'm not aware of the Colonial era American Presbyterian minister's treatise that gives theological rationale for or defense of the their restatement of WCF #23. But neither do I think that it should be expected that one had to be produced. Perhaps there never was one, I don't know. Certainly we don't read about a severe split or dissension arising among the American Presbyterians over the rewording.

Europeans of different languages, churches, etc. had been living together and jumbled up on this continent for over 150 years by the time 1789 rolled around. Double the time, and you're back near Martin Luther's birthdate.

Unimaginable change had taken place in Western civilization in those 300 years--unimaginable from the standpoint of the Middle Ages, unimaginable from the standpoint of the early, or perhaps even the late, Reformation.

My point: the most "old world" chapter of the confession (23) had to be rewritten, not to disavow particular truth, but to avoid an anachronistic confession.

"Americans" had already been living a profoundly different experience from the context (of tumultuous change) produced in, by, and around the Reformation; and they'd been living it just as long a time as the framers of the WCF had been living the Reformation era. And there's a quarter-century overlap in there (settling the New World, writing the WCF).

Treatises written a single generation or two prior defending Protestant establishment vs. Roman, or marshaling religious objections to political absolutism, attempting to define church-state relations in an era of transition from what had been a an ecclesiastical monoscape--THAT is the reality of the first half of that period.

And out of that historic moment comes the church in the New World. It is a complete mishmash ecclesiastically. The world had never seen anything like it. And we are still after 400 years waiting to see what will finally emerge on this continent, and elsewhere in the world as a result of it.

So, were the WCF writers writing a confession for the whole world? Not in their own minds; they were writing themselves a national confession (or a united kingdom confession). Even the Scots, the only national body to actually adopt the WCF, expressly declared in adoption (there's animus imponentis again!) clarifying language how they understood certain terms in 31.2 (touching again on the state's power relative to the church).

And we need to recall that a theological defense of something isn't the same thing as stating that the something MUST be exactly that way, and no other, unless the defense also eliminates all other options. E.g., if I make a defense of inter-ethnic marriage, I am not therefore saying that ALL marriages should be inter-ethnic.

I have to say that even without thousands of words, and pages of exegesis, the rewording of WCF23 itself constitutes theological reflection on the situation. Our forefathers decided that it was wiser to "confess less".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top