The Messianic Kingdom and Civil Government, by David J. Engelsma

[MW]

If you read my extended quote, he talks about how the States had established religions (even Erastian in some States) but the National government was not.

Yes, I was thinking in terms of details. Everything I have read touches on the facts without exploring how it worked. It seems to me that disestablishment was owing to something other than the doctrine of disestablishment. That's what I'd like to examine.

His book ends at the Civil War. It's pretty much the rise of Darwinian, Higher Criticism, and the Social Gospel that lead to the breakup. There was also a strain of cults and other independent movements throughout the States. In the cited portion, you can see that Baptist were always against Establishment and I think that's in no small measure to how they were treated by Anglicans.

That is where Singer gets to as well. He also includes earlier movements of Deism, Unitarianism, and Transcendentalism. Noll's book on the Civil War is also interesting.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

es, I was thinking in terms of details. Everything I have read touches on the facts without exploring how it worked. It seems to me that disestablishment was owing to something other than the doctrine of disestablishment. That's what I'd like to examine.

His project is more to demonstrate that there was a strong Protestant Institutionalism throughout the States.

There are a lot of examples of how many Judges ruled or Congressman or States passed Laws with specific reference to Christian and Scriptural truths.

One of the things that preserved the early Republic against Jefferson was that Washington and Adams appointed Federalists in the Judiciary. Even though the Federalists lost political power, the Judges thwarted a lot of Jeffersonian ideas.

 

[MW]

His project is more to demonstrate that there was a strong Protestant Institutionalism throughout the States.

I will definitely have to give it a read. I had Noll's America's God next on the list, but "institutionalism" interests me, especially from a conservative POV. I might even try reading them in tandem since I've already started Noll.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I will definitely have to give it a read. I had Noll's America's God next on the list, but "institutionalism" interests me, especially from a conservative POV. I might even try reading them in tandem since I've already started Noll.

Noll's books are good. A History of Christianity in the United States is good for understanding the various sects. Nathon O. Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity is helpful for understanding some of the forces that Religion and Republic articulates.

The work's goal is to demonstrate that Jefferson's notion about the separation of Church and State was an outlier and that America practiced either outright Establishment in certain States (even Erastian in certain instances) or institutionalized Protestantism in laws and judgments. There's a reason why Roman Catholics created their own schools in America.

Even in that quote provided, you can see how American locales would crack down on religious sects' excesses.

 

[Ed Walsh]

The work's goal is to demonstrate that Jefferson's notion about the separation of Church and State was an outlier and that America practiced either outright Establishment in certain States (even Erastian in certain instances) or institutionalized Protestantism in laws and judgments. There's a reason why Roman Catholics created their own schools in America.

As I recall there were seven or eight of the 13 colonies that had an established State Church suported by the government.
I have always condidered the Constitutional Convention, 1787–1789 coup.

 

[CGS]

His project is more to demonstrate that there was a strong Protestant Institutionalism throughout the States.

There are a lot of examples of how many Judges ruled or Congressman or States passed Laws with specific reference to Christian and Scriptural truths.

One of the things that preserved the early Republic against Jefferson was that Washington and Adams appointed Federalists in the Judiciary. Even though the Federalists lost political power, the Judges thwarted a lot of Jeffersonian ideas.

But even if the early Republic was able to thwart Jefferson's ideas for a time, the Jeffersonian vision eventually won the day. And we no longer have Protestant Institutionalism throughout the States. It would seem that some sort of establishment - whether at the state or federal level - is necessary to maintain the biblical view of church and state, Protestant Institutionalism, and the virtuous citizenry necessary for the survival of the Republic.

 

[jwright82]

You are not interacting with what I wrote. Good and evil is the criterion Paul lays down. The law of God determines good and evil. What other source of morality is there? God alone is good. Paul doesn't restrict good and evil to a sphere where religion does not operate. The idea was unheard of in his time and you will not find it anywhere in the New Testament. The Roman Caesar determined religious controversies. Both Jesus and Paul submitted to the power of Rome in this area as a God-given authority.

I love this too. You're right the 10 commandments are non-negotiable for every man, woman, or child. Also non-negotiable for any group of said people, whatever group that is; state, church, or knitting club. To say that any 1 of the 10 commandments can not only be permissable to disobey is antinomianism, however you want to define it. I really do love that.
Any viewpoint that promotes antinomianism is wrong. There's only one morality in existence, God's morality defined by the 10 commandments. This is not only confessional but most importantly biblical. Therefore we as individuals should promote obeying not just both tables of the law but every one of the 10 commandments in all spheres of life. This is also is non-negotiable. We're by nature religious creatures designed to worship the Creator not in an autonomous fashion but by His commandments and precepts that He has given us. This is true not only of the state but also the church, but most importantly in our individual lives. I really do love this reminder. Is that your point? That's your point right (in the section I quoted), I don't want to misunderstand you Mathew?

 

[jwright82]

As I recall there were seven or eight of the 13 colonies that had an established State Church suported by the government.
I have always condidered the Constitutional Convention, 1787–1789 coup.

Yeah I think you're right.

 

[jwright82]

But even if the early Republic was able to thwart Jefferson's ideas for a time, the Jeffersonian vision eventually won the day. And we no longer have Protestant Institutionalism throughout the States. It would seem that some sort of establishment - whether at the state or federal level - is necessary to maintain the biblical view of church and state, Protestant Institutionalism, and the virtuous citizenry necessary for the survival of the Republic.

Yeah you're right. We define virtue by the 10 commandments. Yes the 10 commandments are within our very being to obey, but without reminders in our specifically outward behaviors in a church institution that will reinforce obedience, than good luck. Try being a parent who never verbally corrects their child, save up for bale while they're young.
A Protestant establishment could do this. The biblical view of church and state, as you use it are a state and a church that promotes obedience to God's will in all aspects of life, is that correct? So your first part is true in the sense that a vision of public life where being obedient to God's will is negotiable is wrong and "some sort of establishment" is necessary to promote a morally virtuous citizenry. We all must admit that's true.
Since all spheres of life are designed to work the best when used in obedience to God's law, of course you need institutions designed towards the promotion of that end. Also if it's not established than that only leads to anarchy and autonomy in moral matters. Do I understand you correctly, I don't want to misunstand your point?
Since whatever else the state and church is they're accountable to God's law, biblically. So our hope's, dreams, and prayers should be to that end. A state and a church that is organized towards the goal of obedience to God's law is biblical, it can't be any other way. Am I understanding your point correctly?
I think I see y'all's point now. To all my EP brothers and sisters my last two posts on the subject are at least the first step in understanding this POV, am I correct here? I don't want to misunstand it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

But even if the early Republic was able to thwart Jefferson's ideas for a time, the Jeffersonian vision eventually won the day. And we no longer have Protestant Institutionalism throughout the States. It would seem that some sort of establishment - whether at the state or federal level - is necessary to maintain the biblical view of church and state, Protestant Institutionalism, and the virtuous citizenry necessary for the survival of the Republic.

You need to pick one way of arguing or another. Either history proves something or the principle itself is immune from historical inquiry.

I could turn the table and argue that National Establishment in other countries failed and apostasy spread much more quickly in Europe. America was an ouler for its large Church attendance and Christian practice for many decades after Europe apostatized.

So, have I "proven" to you that a Christian Republic governed by a constitution that prohibits National Establishment is correct?

You will answer "No", because your position was never based on what has historically been proven to "work", which brings me back to my point.

BUT, that's all beside the point since I was telling someone what the book was about.

 

[jwright82]

You need to pick one way of arguing or another. Either history proves something or the principle itself is immune from historical inquiry.

I could turn the table and argue that National Establishment in other countries failed and apostasy spread much more quickly in Europe. America was an ouler for its large Church attendance and Christian practice for many decades after Europe apostatized.

So, have I "proven" to you that a Christian Republic governed by a constitution that prohibits National Establishment is correct?

You will answer "No", because your position was never based on what has historically been proven to "work", which brings me back to my point.

BUT, that's all beside the point since I was telling someone what the book was about.

Couldn't agree more, Rich. I'm really intrigued by that book.

 

[jwright82]

Oh and if it seems like my last two posts before this one are sorta underhanded than I'll be completely honest as to what I'm doing. I'm just trying to start somewhere basic that both sides agree on and move out from there. I'm getting tired of being accused of misunderstanding what their saying and now I want to start slowly and go so you agree with that, ok what about this and try to map out where this is going.
If they agree with me then I can't be misunderstanding them.

 

[CGS]

You need to pick one way of arguing or another. Either history proves something or the principle itself is immune from historical inquiry.

I could turn the table and argue that National Establishment in other countries failed and apostasy spread much more quickly in Europe. America was an ouler for its large Church attendance and Christian practice for many decades after Europe apostatized.

So, have I "proven" to you that a Christian Republic governed by a constitution that prohibits National Establishment is correct?

You will answer "No", because your position was never based on what has historically been proven to "work", which brings me back to my point.

BUT, that's all beside the point since I was telling someone what the book was about.

But the failure of the voluntary principle in regard to maintaining Protestant Institutionalism is not because of some abuse or misapplication of the principle. It's because the principle itself is inherently flawed and set up to fail (that is, if one desires to maintain Protestant Institutionalism anyway). It's not designed - and its goal is not - to favor one religion over another, or to favor religion at all. The evolution from Protestant Institutionalism to secular humanistic/Marxist/atheistic institutionalism is not a failure of the voluntary principle. It's actually the voluntary principle working exactly as advertised. As the nation's religion (or its rejection of religion altogether) changes over time, its institutions change to reflect that. Authority/sovereignty is in "we the people", not the Word of God. You may not like it that Marxists/atheists have taken over our institutions, but why would you expect anything different? Without any mechanism in place - such as the official recognition of Christianity as the official religion of the State - to restrain it, what leg do you have to stand on in trying to maintain the dominance of Christianity in our institutions? One could even argue that the voluntary principle - "neutrality" and the toleration of all religions as enshrined in the 1st amendment - has been a great success based on the fact that it has removed the dominant influence of one religion (Christianity) from our institutions, culture, ethics, politics, etc.

It's different with the EP. Listen to Rev. Beer's explanation of what happened in Scotland and other areas (it's a mere 6 minutes of your time). It was because they rejected the EP, not because of a failure of the EP. But we have abortion on demand, same sex marriage and drag queen story hour in the US precisely because the majority of the nation has embraced the voluntary principle, not because it has been rejected or misapplied.

Start at about the 1:00:15 mark and go to about 1:06:45:

 

[jwright82]

But the failure of the voluntary principle in regard to maintaining Protestant Institutionalism is not because of some abuse or misapplication of the principle. It's because the principle itself is inherently flawed and set up to fail (that is, if one desires to maintain Protestant Institutionalism anyway). It's not designed - and its goal is not - to favor one religion over another, or to favor religion at all. The evolution from Protestant Institutionalism to secular humanistic/Marxist/atheistic institutionalism is not a failure of the voluntary principle. It's actually the voluntary principle working exactly as advertised. As the nation's religion (or its rejection of religion altogether) changes over time, its institutions change to reflect that. Authority/sovereignty is in "we the people", not the Word of God. You may not like it that Marxists/atheists have taken over our institutions, but why would you expect anything different? Without any mechanism in place - such as the official recognition of Christianity as the official religion of the State - to restrain it, what leg do you have to stand on in trying to maintain the dominance of Christianity in our institutions? One could even argue that the voluntary principle - "neutrality" and the toleration of all religions as enshrined in the 1st amendment - has been a great success based on the fact that it has removed the dominant influence of one religion (Christianity) from our institutions, culture, ethics, politics, etc.

It's different with the EP. Listen to Rev. Beer's explanation of what happened in Scotland and other areas (it's a mere 6 minutes of your time). It was because they rejected the EP, not because of a failure of the EP. But we have abortion on demand, same sex marriage and drag queen story hour in the US precisely because the majority of the nation has embraced the voluntary principle, not because it has been rejected or misapplied.

Start at about the 1:00:15 mark and go to about 1:06:45:

I think you missed his point, if I understand him correctly. Do you remember when I said something about "moving the goalpost, wanting your cake and eating it too, etc"? If we turn to history to illuminate the discussion than it's warts and all. You can't criticize the voluntary principle on historical grounds but then turn around and defend the EP principle from historical criticisms as "abuse of the principle (whatever that's supposed to mean)".
It essentially says your viewpoint can be judged by historical evidence but mine can't, or I can equivocate on what historical warts mean for my viewpoint and say they mean something different for your viewpoint. Have your cake and eat it too or moving the goalpost. The rules are the same for everyone or no one. I think that's his point. Don't know where that first thing came from.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

But the failure of the voluntary principle in regard to maintaining Protestant Institutionalism is not because of some abuse or misapplication of the principle. It's because the principle itself is inherently flawed and set up to fail (that is, if one desires to maintain Protestant Institutionalism anyway). It's not designed - and its goal is not - to favor one religion over another, or to favor religion at all. The evolution from Protestant Institutionalism to secular humanistic/Marxist/atheistic institutionalism is not a failure of the voluntary principle. It's actually the voluntary principle working exactly as advertised. As the nation's religion (or its rejection of religion altogether) changes over time, its institutions change to reflect that. Authority/sovereignty is in "we the people", not the Word of God. You may not like it that Marxists/atheists have taken over our institutions, but why would you expect anything different? Without any mechanism in place - such as the official recognition of Christianity as the official religion of the State - to restrain it, what leg do you have to stand on in trying to maintain the dominance of Christianity in our institutions? One could even argue that the voluntary principle - "neutrality" and the toleration of all religions as enshrined in the 1st amendment - has been a great success based on the fact that it has removed the dominant influence of one religion (Christianity) from our institutions, culture, ethics, politics, etc.

Either you have not read how America was not established under voluntaristic principles, or you are so committed to your one-string banjo that noamount of actual historical reality will keep you from plucking the same string.

Either way, I'm not going to keep repeating myself and will leave it to others to pay attention.

 

[CGS]

Either you have not read how America was not established under voluntaristic principles, or you are so committed to your one-string banjo that noamount of actual historical reality will keep you from plucking the same string.

Either way, I'm not going to keep repeating myself and will leave it to others to pay attention.

I read the excerpt from the book you posted. And of course, I realize there was some establishment in the colonies/states/Republic early on. No one denies that. But I was referring to later developments after disestablishment became the dominant view. Maybe I misunderstood - and if so, please correct my understanding - but I thought the gist of it was that even after the Republic unhitched itself from the EP and embraced disestablishment, the influence of Protestantism still dominated our institutions/culture (even without the advantages of establishment). I was just saying that it doesn't seem unusual that we failed to maintain that because once you've unhitched yourself from the EP there is no longer any mechanism in place to maintain it over the long haul. You can coast for a while on the fumes of the previously established Protestant dominance/culture, but without the EP you can't maintain it. Without the EP to maintain that Protestant influence you're left to the godless ideologies of "we the people" to take over and dominate the culture/institutions.

As I said, if I've totally misunderstood the gist of it, then I apologize, and please do correct my understanding. Thanks!

 

[jwright82]

I read the excerpt from the book you posted. And of course, I realize there was some establishment in the colonies/states/Republic early on. No one denies that. But I was referring to later developments after disestablishment became the dominant view. Maybe I misunderstood - and if so, please correct my understanding - but I thought the gist of it was that even after the Republic unhitched itself from the EP and embraced disestablishment, the influence of Protestantism still dominated our institutions/culture (even without the advantages of establishment). I was just saying that it doesn't seem unusual that we failed to maintain that because once you've unhitched yourself from the EP there is no longer any mechanism in place to maintain it over the long haul. You can coast for a while on the fumes of the previously established Protestant dominance/culture, but without the EP you can't maintain it. Without the EP to maintain that Protestant influence you're left to the godless ideologies of "we the people" to take over and dominate the culture/institutions.

As I said, if I've totally misunderstood the gist of it, then I apologize, and please do correct my understanding. Thanks!

I think you're referring to the general tide of modernity or secularism rather than anything else.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I read the excerpt from the book you posted. And of course, I realize there was some establishment in the colonies/states/Republic early on. No one denies that. But I was referring to later developments after disestablishment became the dominant view. Maybe I misunderstood - and if so, please correct my understanding - but I thought the gist of it was that even after the Republic unhitched itself from the EP and embraced disestablishment, the influence of Protestantism still dominated our institutions/culture (even without the advantages of establishment). I was just saying that it doesn't seem unusual that we failed to maintain that because once you've unhitched yourself from the EP there is no longer any mechanism in place to maintain it over the long haul. You can coast for a while on the fumes of the previously established Protestant dominance/culture, but without the EP you can't maintain it. Without the EP to maintain that Protestant influence you're left to the godless ideologies of "we the people" to take over and dominate the culture/institutions.

As I said, if I've totally misunderstood the gist of it, then I apologize, and please do correct my understanding. Thanks!

You've totally misunderstood. You didn't even articulate how the States that were Establishmentarian ended up moving away,y and you crafted a historical fiction to account for how it happened.

The obvious point that seems to be eluding you is that the states were committed to the EP. The Constitution was ratified to permit them to do this as it was something they were committed to.

It did not "immunize" them from Voluntarism any more than European governments committed to the EP were immune.

Now, you are either interested in real history or only interested in a narrative that says that decline only occurs when a State begins with voluntarism. If you're only committed to a theoretical principle that cannot be proved wrong by actual and repeated human history, then I can't help you. I'm simply not interested in repeated assertions that are not borne out by historical reality.

 

[CGS]

You didn't even articulate how the States that were Establishmentarian ended up moving away,y and you crafted a historical fiction to account for how it happened.

It was not my intent to articulate any fully fleshed out narrative - fictional or otherwise - of exactly how it happened. I was simply noting that it did happen. At some point, states that were previously EP transitioned to VP. The whole history/backstory of how it happened isn't really relevant to the point I was trying to make. So, I guess you misunderstood my point as well as me misunderstanding yours.

The obvious point that seems to be eluding you is that the states were committed to the EP. The Constitution was ratified to permit them to do this as it was something they were committed to.

It did not "immunize" them from Voluntarism any more than European governments committed to the EP were immune.

OK...but again, the entire back story isn't relevant to my point. The states were committed to the EP at one time...yep, I got that. The Constitution permitted this and did not "immunize" them from the VP...got it. My point is only relevant to what happened after they abandoned the EP. If that obvious point eluded you, then I will take full responsibility for not making that clear. Apologies for the confusion.

Now, you are either interested in real history or only interested in a narrative that says that decline only occurs when a State begins with voluntarism. If you're only committed to a theoretical principle that cannot be proved wrong by actual and repeated human history, then I can't help you.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "decline only occurs when a State begins with voluntarism". My point is only that the decline of the Christian influence in a nation's institutions/culture/politics is inevitable when there is no mechanism in place (such as the EP) to maintain/enforce that influence. This seems obvious to me.

I'm simply not interested in repeated assertions that are not borne out by historical reality.

Fair enough. We can stop here. But it seems to me that my assertion is borne out by historical reality. We can see the results of it all around us unless you deny that there has been a decline in Christian influence in our nation.

 

[iainduguid]

It was not my intent to articulate any fully fleshed out narrative - fictional or otherwise - of exactly how it happened. I was simply noting that it did happen. At some point, states that were previously EP transitioned to VP. The whole history/backstory of how it happened isn't really relevant to the point I was trying to make. So, I guess you misunderstood my point as well as me misunderstanding yours.


OK...but again, the entire back story isn't relevant to my point. The states were committed to the EP at one time...yep, I got that. The Constitution permitted this and did not "immunize" them from the VP...got it. My point is only relevant to what happened after they abandoned the EP. If that obvious point eluded you, then I will take full responsibility for not making that clear. Apologies for the confusion.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "decline only occurs when a State begins with voluntarism". My point is only that the decline of the Christian influence in a nation's institutions/culture/politics is inevitable when there is no mechanism in place (such as the EP) to maintain/enforce that influence. This seems obvious to me.


Fair enough. We can stop here. But it seems to me that my assertion is borne out by historical reality. We can see the results of it all around us unless you deny that there has been a decline in Christian influence in our nation.

The problem for your argument is that exactly the same ting happened with countries that retained the EP, like Scotland. The EP provided zero protection from secularization, in large measure because after the excesses of established churches abusing their power (think Archbishop Laud), people rapidly swung to the opposite position. The other problem with EP, which we haven't touched on, is the fact that if it avoids being overly regulative, you then end up with everyone assuming they are a Christian because they are a citizen. The feel entitled to baptism for their children. In the UK, they have compulsory mainly Christian religious education, but in large part it is taught by unbelievers. So people grow up thinking they know what Christianity is, when they have learned a lie. Hence the suggestion that the EP by itself is no more helpful for a society than the voluntary position. In a society with many Christians, either system will flourish. In a society that is widely secularized, an EP system will go at least as badly astray as a voluntary system, or arguably much worse.

True story: when our kids were in a church of England state school in England, we pulled them out of the required religious assemblies. While the other children were taught how to pray to saints, etc, ours went with the muslim and Jewish kids to read in the school library.

 

[Sam Jer]

although we will all add the qualification of a democratically elected government to this element of "providence"

I am not sure what you mean by this... Could you clarify? Are you suggesting undemocratic states are Illegitimate, that we falsely say they are, that in democracies, only elected governments are legitimate (which to me sounds like saying that water is wet), or something else completely?

 

[CGS]

The problem for your argument is that exactly the same thing happened with countries that retained the EP, like Scotland. The EP provided zero protection from secularization, in large measure because after the excesses of established churches abusing their power (think Archbishop Laud), people rapidly swung to the opposite position. The other problem with EP, which we haven't touched on, is the fact that if it avoids being overly regulative, you then end up with everyone assuming they are a Christian because they are a citizen. The feel entitled to baptism for their children. In the UK, they have compulsory mainly Christian religious education, but in large part it is taught by unbelievers. So people grow up thinking they know what Christianity is, when they have learned a lie. Hence the suggestion that the EP by itself is no more helpful for a society than the voluntary position. In a society with many Christians, either system will flourish. In a society that is widely secularized, an EP system will go at least as badly astray as a voluntary system, or arguably much worse.

True story: when our kids were in a church of England state school in England, we pulled them out of the required religious assemblies. While the other children were taught how to pray to saints, etc, ours went with the muslim and Jewish kids to read in the school library.

Just curious, did you see my comments above (post #43) in regard to what happened in Scotland? I think Rev. Beers made some good points about why Scotland is in the mess it's in. It's because they rejected the EP...they did not retain it. I don't think anyone defending the EP has claimed that the EP has been perfectly implemented and maintained by any nation in history.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My point is only that the decline of the Christian influence in a nation's institutions/culture/politics is inevitable when there is no mechanism in place (such as the EP) to maintain/enforce that influence. This seems obvious to me.

What seems obvious? What point are you making?

Is it this: No Nation or State has ever had the "EP mechanism" in place?

After all, it is inevitable that a Nation or State that possessed this "mechanism" would not lose Christian influence.

Therefore, no Nation or State has ever been committed to the EP.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just curious, did you see my comments above (post #43) in regard to what happened in Scotland? I think Rev. Beers made some good points about why Scotland is in the mess it's in. It's because they rejected the EP...they did not retain it. I don't think anyone defending the EP has claimed that the EP has been perfectly implemented and maintained by any nation in history.

Ah, it's not really Voluntarism that is the true culprit, but the failure of Magistrates to implement and maintain the EP perfectly.

Any failure of Nations or States once committed to the EP who saw theological decline cannot be traced to their commitment to the EP but their perfect apprehension and maintenance thereof. Therefore, EP *will* be proven to be unassailable as a protective mechanism against decline. We only have to await its perfection.

My error was that I assumed that the world before Christ's return was the subject of whether the EP necessarily protects against theological decline.

 

[MW]

I love this too. You're right the 10 commandments are non-negotiable for every man, woman, or child. Also non-negotiable for any group of said people, whatever group that is; state, church, or knitting club. To say that any 1 of the 10 commandments can not only be permissable to disobey is antinomianism, however you want to define it. I really do love that.
Any viewpoint that promotes antinomianism is wrong. There's only one morality in existence, God's morality defined by the 10 commandments. This is not only confessional but most importantly biblical. Therefore we as individuals should promote obeying not just both tables of the law but every one of the 10 commandments in all spheres of life. This is also is non-negotiable. We're by nature religious creatures designed to worship the Creator not in an autonomous fashion but by His commandments and precepts that He has given us. This is true not only of the state but also the church, but most importantly in our individual lives. I really do love this reminder. Is that your point? That's your point right (in the section I quoted), I don't want to misunderstand you Mathew?

Yes; exactly. If we don't have the commandments we have no way of being able to judge whether an action is good or evil. So, if the magistrate is not bound to obey them there is no way to judge if his actions are good or evil, which is paramount to saying he is a law unto himself.

 

[CGS]

Ah, it's not really Voluntarism that is the true culprit, but the failure of Magistrates to implement and maintain the EP perfectly.

Any failure of Nations or States once committed to the EP who saw theological decline cannot be traced to their commitment to the EP but their perfect apprehension and maintenance thereof. Therefore, EP *will* be proven to be unassailable as a protective mechanism against decline. We only have to await its perfection.

My error was that I assumed that the world before Christ's return was the subject of whether the EP necessarily protects against theological decline.

And you just answered your own argument from post #53. So, thanks for saving me the trouble.

My error was that I assumed that the world before Christ's return was the subject of whether the EP necessarily protects against theological decline.

Has anyone argued that it would ever be perfectly applied prior to Christ's return? As Rev. Beers noted, not even Israel got it perfectly right. Will we ever achieve perfect sanctification in this life? No, but does that mean we shouldn't strive to attain the ideal even if we fall short of it? A good, but imperfect, application of the EP is the best we can hope and pray for in this life. We will never achieve a perfect application of the regulative principle of worship in this life either. Does that mean we should just reject the RPW and have anarchy in worship?

 

[MW]

I am not sure what you mean by this... Could you clarify? Are you suggesting undemocratic states are Illegitimate, that we falsely say they are, that in democracies, only elected governments are legitimate (which to me sounds like saying that water is wet), or something else completely?

In the modern day under the elective franchise we require a democratically elected government as a part of recognising the powers that be. It is not just any Joe (!) who is regarded as the minister of God simply because he assumes power to himself.

(!) Pun intended.

 

[MW]

I don't think anyone defending the EP has claimed that the EP has been perfectly implemented and maintained by any nation in history.

You can have a magisterial reformation under Hezekiah which saves the nation from the Assyrians but opens the door to the Babylonians. You can have an establishment that worships other gods and sacrifices children to Moloch, as Manasseh. You can have another magisterial reformation under Josiah which only gives a stay of execution where the king dies in battle.

As far as history is concerned there are forces of evil which must be faced with or without the establishment principle. The principle itself is no guarantee of national or spiritual success. God alone gives that blessing. But we already know this. Constitutionalism has taught us the very same lesson. Nevertheless, we wouldn't discard a constitution either in church or state simply because it doesn't guarantee success. We know it has other uses which are subsidiary. So for the establishment principle. It maintains order, and that order ensures accountability to God either in a way of judgment or a way of mercy to the nation.

 

[CGS]

Oh and if it seems like my last two posts before this one are sorta underhanded than I'll be completely honest as to what I'm doing. I'm just trying to start somewhere basic that both sides agree on and move out from there. I'm getting tired of being accused of misunderstanding what their saying and now I want to start slowly and go so you agree with that, ok what about this and try to map out where this is going.
If they agree with me then I can't be misunderstanding them.

Hey, brother...I have seen your posts directed at me, the "moving the goal posts" comments, etc. No offense intended, but we have been round and round multiple times on the other thread and gotten nowhere. I don't see the point of starting over by attempting to get back to basics. All the basics have been fully laid out, many resources have been provided, you have your own "cliff notes", etc. I mean, we're on our 3rd thread on this topic. If you don't have the basics of the EP by now, then there is nothing I can do or say to help you. Hopefully some of the more able defenders of the EP will take you up on your offer, but with all due respect I'm going to pass.

 

[jwright82]

Yes; exactly. If we don't have the commandments we have no way of being able to judge whether an action is good or evil. So, if the magistrate is not bound to obey them there is no way to judge if his actions are good or evil, which is paramount to saying he is a law unto himself.

Thanks. Well I'm glad we agree on something my fine Aussie friend. I do like that much to ponder .

Hey, brother...I have seen your posts directed at me, the "moving the goal posts" comments, etc. No offense intended, but we have been round and round multiple times on the other thread and gotten nowhere. I don't see the point of starting over by attempting to get back to basics. All the basics have been fully laid out, many resources have been provided, you have your own "cliff notes", etc. I mean, we're on our 3rd thread on this topic. If you don't have the basics of the EP by now, then there is nothing I can do or say to help you. Hopefully some of the more able defenders of the EP will take you up on your offer, with all due respect I'm going to pass.

Ok. No problems.