What Should the State do about Heresy? (Poll)

[Parakaleo]

I hope people have had an opportunity to read through the thoughtful comments on this thread. Since there are a lot of people posting in favor of government strictures placed upon violations of the first four commandments, I thought it would be interesting to do a quick poll and get some actual data about where people on the Puritan Board stand on this issue.

Because there's a character limit in the poll option fields, I'm going to write the options out here.

1. Civil authorities who would penalize people for public promotion of heresy or practice of idolatry are guilty of gross overreach in the sight of God.

2. While it may be of some interest to the civil authorities to penalize people for public promotion of heresy or practice of idolatry, this can't be implemented rightly by civil authorities and therefore should not be attempted.

3. Civil authorities are not only bound to officially recognize the authority of Christ over their land, but also to bring the power of the sword against those who work evil (publicly promoting heresy, outward acts of idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, blasphemy, etc.).

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I don't know enough about this subject to give a valid opinion. It does seem though that the apostles saw clear distinctions between church and state and didn't seek a revolution.

 

[Herald]

What the state should do and what it actually does are two different things. As an Amillennialist, I do not see the state ever fulfilling its duties under the Establishment View, however, that does not mean we should practice willful compromise in our lives.

 

[Dachaser]

What the state should do and what it actually does are two different things. As an Amillennialist, I do not see that state ever fulfilling its duties under the Establishment View, however, that does not mean we should practice willful compromise in our lives.

The Lord Himself has allowed for sinners to keep on doing wrong things, as He allows sin to grow worse, and His own people to trust in and obey Him, until the Second Coming.

 

[Parakaleo]

The Lord Himself has allowed for sinners to keep on doing wrong things, as He allows sin to grow worse, and His own people to trust in and obey Him, until the Second Coming.

Yet the Lord holds man culpable for the wickedness they do and for the evil they allow to continue, under their watch. The Lord warned Ezekiel blood would be on his head merely for failing to warn the evildoer in the land.

A quick scan of the books of the Kings in Scripture will show several descriptions used for the various kings of Israel and Judah. Some did what was "evil in the sight of the Lord" while others did what was "right in the sight of the Lord".

How would you classify a government that decides not to be so judgey about murder, and has a policy of giving people a free pass for taking life as they saw fit? Even if the heads of that government never personally murder anyone, will they not have blood upon their hands in the sight of the Lord, for what they allowed to take place under their authority?

If you're with me up to this point, here's what I see you saying:
- God is right to judge rulers for allowing rampant murder to continue under their authority, but...
- God is not right to judge rulers for allowing rampant blasphemy or public spreading of heresy to continue under their authority.

I don't see how you can make that kind of distinction without dictating to God what he should see as good or evil, contrary to what he has already declared to be good or evil.

 

[Tom Hart]

No, of course the apostles didn't seek a revolution.

And church and state are not the same thing, so they are obviously divided to some degree. But how far are they divided? There is an unavoidable relationship between them. And what if the magistrates (the king, nobles, or the members of parliament, or the congressmen -- governors of whatever system) are Christians? Should they be reined in by ungodly laws of toleration? Should Josiah have pursued reform, as he did, or should he have followed in the course of his predecessors?

Expressed briefly, if all men are bound to obey the moral law, then the unavoidable conclusion is that magistrates, who are also thus bound, must uphold that law.

And because there seems to be some confusion on this bit, I am not advocating an overthrow of authorities. Indeed, since I am an amillenialist, I do not expect a Christian government to be established anywhere. However, it is right for rulers to pursue godliness, as it is right for all men.

(I do think there are situations when armed rebellion is morally right; however, that is getting into another topic.)

What I and others are saying is merely that God requires obedience of all men, including magistrates, and it is for this that the magistrate bears the sword.

 

[Tom Hart]

The Lord Himself has allowed for sinners to keep on doing wrong things, as He allows sin to grow worse, and His own people to trust in and obey Him, until the Second Coming.

It is honestly a bit shocking to read this. How can a Christian think it is OK to tolerate paganism, satanism, and all kinds of heresy? And not only tolerate, but protect them!

And this on the grounds that "God permits it"? If God hates a thing, we ought to hate it too.

You also seem to reduce human action so as to make it inconsequential. Are not men, and especially believers, the instruments by which God accomplishes his purposes? So the magistrate. And are not all men, and especially believers, to obey God? And again, so too the magistrate.

"God permits such-and-such an evil thing, so we ought not set out to change it." To speak thus is to ignore the fact that believers are instruments by which God's purposes are brought about. We Christians are Christ's people on earth, and we ought to show it, whatever our station. We must obey him.

So a Christian barber shop owner should be honest in all his dealings. And so a Christian king should punish evil.

I do not mean to sound as though I am accusing you, but I do hope you can see the inherent problems in your perspective.

Where there is evil, the Christian ought to oppose it.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

As far as the magistrate’s involvement in subduing heresy, it helped me to understand that after the time of the apostles, no one in the church possessed the means to successfully convene (i.e. enforce) councils for the purpose of identifying and codifying orthodoxy in doctrine and practice. Emperors and kings were the ones who gathered the churches to Nicea and following assemblies, all the way up to Westminster, to save the church from heresy and destruction. They served in this way as the nursing fathers of the church (Isaiah 49:23). Their motives for protecting the church in this way may have been for reasons beyond a pure love for the truth, but God turned their hearts in the direction He chose, not them (Proverbs 21:1) and his will was done.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I have a question: what makes the practical difference between denominations that hold to establishmentarianism and those that do not? For instance, the RPCNA holds to something close to it with their mediatorial Kingship of Christ, but rejects that section of the WCF that speaks to the authority of the magistrate to convene church councils. While the FC(C) and some others do not reject that language. So, practically speaking, in the everyday life, prayers, and practice of both the families in the churches and the churches themselves, what difference does it make in the prayers and the outlook whether they hold to establishmentarianism as defined by the WCF or not?

In other words, what will we do differently or how will we pray differently or think differently depending on what we believe about the authority from God to the magistrate to call the church together? What harm is caused or potentially caused by rejecting the WCF on this point?

I’ll add that I think we ought to hold to and not reject this portion of the WCF simply because we believe it to be biblical, not necessarily because we can define a practical reason for holding to it. But if it’s biblical, there ought to be consequences we can define for rejecting it. I hope my convoluted wording makes sense.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I don't know enough about this subject to give a valid opinion. It does seem though that the apostles saw clear distinctions between church and state and didn't seek a revolution.

Ryan,

Here is a Facebook post of mine from a while back that might be of use to you:

Skimming through Franciscus Junius's preface to his book, The Mosaic Polity, he notes that the early church did not spend much time discussing the judicial laws because they were not in a position to administer justice while living under a heathen ruler. Instead, "they were most wisely busying themselves so that their own piety would be useful in all circumstances ...". That observation raises a rather interesting question: was much of the theonomy debate a rather enormous waste of time? If Reformed Christians had been in power, then one could understand focusing so much attention on the subject. But that was not the case when this debate raged the loudest. It may (note I say may) have been much wiser to have focused on other issues.

 

[bookslover]

I voted for #1, as we don't live in a theocracy. There has been but one legitimate theocracy (ancient Israel) and, thanks to human sin, we all know how that worked out.

 

[RamistThomist]

I voted for #1, as we don't live in a theocracy. There has been but one legitimate theocracy (ancient Israel) and, thanks to human sin, we all know how that worked out.

No one is arguing we live in a theocracy or we should. That has nothing to do with it. The civil magistrate will always punish based on religious presuppositions.

 

[RamistThomist]

The Lord Himself has allowed for sinners to keep on doing wrong things, as He allows sin to grow worse, and His own people to trust in and obey Him, until the Second Coming.

I am going to change a few words in your quote and we will see how it works out.

The Lord Himself has allowed for Hitler to keep on Gassing Jews, as He allows the Holocaust to grow worse, and His own people to not try to change the government, until the Second Coming.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Jacob:

Your word change may or may not be fair to David.

If David believes, Lutheran-like, in two kingdoms and that no resistance theory may be employed in such cases (as Hitler and other atrocities), then what you change in his quote seems fair.

However, "to trust in and obey Him" need not be constructed in that way and in a classic Reformed understanding would include resistance theory.

I would not assume that David would adopt a classic Lutheran approach here but would be more in line with believing that there is a right of resistance/rebellion in the case of tyrants, whether in the fashion of Calvin, Knox, Buchanan, or other resistance theorists.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I am going to change a few words in your quote and we will see how it works out.

Wow. Interesting thought Jacob.

 

[RamistThomist]

Wow. Interesting thought Jacob.

Everyone seems upset when God has advice on how society should be run, but nobody does anything when the IRS claims the power over the grave and does inheritance taxes.

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob:

Your word change may or may not be fair to David.

If David believes, Lutheran-like, in two kingdoms and that no resistance theory may be employed in such cases (as Hitler and other atrocities), then what you change in his quote seems fair.

However, "to trust in and obey Him" need not be constructed in that way and in a classic Reformed understanding would include resistance theory.

I would not assume that David would adopt a classic Lutheran approach here but would be more in line with believing that there is a right of resistance/rebellion in the case of tyrants, whether in the fashion of Calvin, Knox, Buchanan, or other resistance theorists.

Peace,
Alan

Maybe it's not fair, but David regularly confused is and ought in the other thread. To help him out, I am using shock tactics to break that confusion. It is asked what the state should do, which is a moral question. David responds on what the Constitution currently allows, which is not the question.

 

[Tom Hart]

I voted for #1, as we don't live in a theocracy. There has been but one legitimate theocracy (ancient Israel) and, thanks to human sin, we all know how that worked out.

It's not a question of theocracy. It's simply this: What is right before God?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

3. Civil authorities are not only bound to officially recognize the authority of Christ over their land, but also to bring the power of the sword against those who work evil (publicly promoting heresy, outward acts of idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, blasphemy, etc.).

Which establishment view? For Presbyterianism there is pre Revolution settlement, and then there is the Free Church's rejection of persecuting principles (maybe someone knows where they define that but I don't recall they do).

 

[bookslover]

It's not a question of theocracy. It's simply this: What is right before God?

And I would say that the state should stay out of the interpretation-of-Christian-theology business. The separation of church and state appears to be God's will in that there has been no legitimate theocracy since ancient Israel. Historically, when the state has been given such power, you wind up with things like the Spanish Inquisition and the English Civil Wars. The state has its realm and the church has its realm.

 

[RamistThomist]

And I would say that the state should stay out of the interpretation-of-Christian-theology business.

Historically, the Reformed viewed that as magistrates can't take upon themselves ministerial function, but they may concern themselves on things circa sacra. This is the historic Reformed position.

 

[RamistThomist]

and the English Civil Wars.

Should the Reformed churches have simply let Charles impose Anglo-Catholic worship? He had that right has head of the English church. The Civil War was a good thing in that it broke the back of papism in key parts of Europe.

 

[RamistThomist]

No one, moreover, is arguing that the government should make conciliar decisions. Let's consider:

1) Neutrality is impossible.
2) The government is going to enforce religious decisions, anyway.

 

[Tallifer]

What about the Presbyterian-dominated government of Scotland between 1638 and about 1650 or so. Is that not an appropriately Reformed model for us? Or Calvin's Geneva?

 

[Dachaser]

It is honestly a bit shocking to read this. How can a Christian think it is OK to tolerate paganism, satanism, and all kinds of heresy? And not only tolerate, but protect them!

And this on the grounds that "God permits it"? If God hates a thing, we ought to hate it too.

You also seem to reduce human action so as to make it inconsequential. Are not men, and especially believers, the instruments by which God accomplishes his purposes? So the magistrate. And are not all men, and especially believers, to obey God? And again, so too the magistrate.

"God permits such-and-such an evil thing, so we ought not set out to change it." To speak thus is to ignore the fact that believers are instruments by which God's purposes are brought about. We Christians are Christ's people on earth, and we ought to show it, whatever our station. We must obey him.

So a Christian barber shop owner should be honest in all his dealings. And so a Christian king should punish evil.

I do not mean to sound as though I am accusing you, but I do hope you can see the inherent problems in your perspective.

Where there is evil, the Christian ought to oppose it.

Should we as Christians continue to advocate in society, and in politics, for evils things be set right? By all means yes, as we were fundamental to having slavery abolished here in American and England, and so should strive to have things such as abortion/gay marriages make illegal once again. The point is still though that we should always try to keep on having the ways of God being promoted in this land, being a Republic, not a Theonomy nor Monarchy. we are limited into how much we can actually have stopped. I am NOT advocating for sin to be allowed to run in a rampant fashion but I am going to keep on supporting the rights of citizens to be able to freely keep on doing what as been determined as being allowed by our law.

 

[Dachaser]

Jacob:

Your word change may or may not be fair to David.

If David believes, Lutheran-like, in two kingdoms and that no resistance theory may be employed in such cases (as Hitler and other atrocities), then what you change in his quote seems fair.

However, "to trust in and obey Him" need not be constructed in that way and in a classic Reformed understanding would include resistance theory.

I would not assume that David would adopt a classic Lutheran approach here but would be more in line with believing that there is a right of resistance/rebellion in the case of tyrants, whether in the fashion of Calvin, Knox, Buchanan, or other resistance theorists.

Peace,
Alan

We as believers do not just lay down, and state that it is the will of God for a Hitler, so do not even try to stop him. I hold that God allowed Hitler to come to power, but God also raised up the Allied nation to stop him in WW II, and that God caused Israel to come about as a result of the wickedness of the Nazi under Hitler. The Christians in Nazi Germany should have of course tried to do anything legal to influence what was being done while under the reign of Hitler.

 

[Dachaser]

It's not a question of theocracy. It's simply this: What is right before God?

Also, what and how much does God permit to be done against His Law in a republic/Democracy?

 

[Dachaser]

What about the Presbyterian-dominated government of Scotland between 1638 and about 1650 or so. Is that not an appropriately Reformed model for us? Or Calvin's Geneva?

Would under a Geneva type leadership, those such as JW be put to death for not holding to the Trinitarian viewpoint?

 

[TylerRay]

Also, what and how much does God permit to be done against His Law in a republic/Democracy?

Try applying this principle to your personal life. God allows you to sin in the sense that he doesn't immediately intervene to prevent every sin. Does that mean that it is okay for you to sin in any sense?

 

[Dachaser]

Try applying this principle to your personal life. God allows you to sin in the sense that he doesn't immediately intervene to prevent every sin. Does that mean that it is okay for you to sin in any sense?

God has commanded as as a Christian to obey Him directly, but do not see Him commanding non Theonomy governments to directly obey Him, as in making sure all laws enacted are in accord with the scriptures.