What Should the State do about Heresy? (Poll)

[Dachaser]

Correct. No one has the right to sin.

You are correct, but God permits them to sin all of the time though, correct?

 

[Dachaser]

No!
Acts 17:30 (KJV)
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

BTW - I just read all the posts in this thread. Previously I did not have the time, but now I might participate.

God will judge all those who have rejected Jesus as their Lord, but does he not permit them to still sin ?

 

[Ed Walsh]

God will judge all those who have rejected Jesus as their Lord, but does he not permit them to still sin ?

God's decretive will allows, yea, predestines men's sins, but we are responsible and will be judged based on his revealed will. And that will is stated in the verse you quoted.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It doesn't, IF we are in the governing of God directly as King over the nation.

Is there one King and one Kingdom or two Kings and two Kingdoms, the latter wherein we should cease efforts to transform the kingdom of the world into the kingdom of Our Lord?

 

[Gforce9]

It doesn't, IF we are in the governing of God directly as King over the nation.

I thought Christ IS (present tense) King over all things. I'm curious to know who is king in His absence?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You are correct, but God permits them to sin all of the time though, correct?

Does this active permission grant a "right" (a fundamental norm of entitlement)? Or may it perhaps be that God wills righteously what men do wickedly?

 

[RamistThomist]

What they have to do while in a republic, or while being run like a New Geneva?

What they have to do before God? As it stands, unless the Constitution is radically altered and the Deep State hanged, nothing will change. I don't think conservatives really understand that.

The original post was a theoretical question, not a question on how to get this done tomorrow. We just don't have that state of affairs right now.

 

[RamistThomist]

Again, how God ran Israel was.is not the same as our republic, Apples to oranges!

Even in meanie-theocratic OT Israel outside religions were left alone if they didn't perform their rites publically.

 

[RamistThomist]

If we just hold to Presbyterians and reformed baptists as allowed to only be the churches to operate, on what basis are we to exclude those churches whose theology we do not like, but though still members of Christ body?

I already answered that with my post on Athanasian Pluralism

 

[RamistThomist]

I still would have to say that those who do those shameful acts are free to do those things, just as we are free to expose and witness to them.

Hypothetical question--well, given America probably a real life question: My religion says I must perform pornographic acts in public. Therefore, I am free to do so?

Corollary: Does the magistrate sin in forbidding my religious expression?

 

[Deleted member 6112]

You are correct, but God permits them to sin all of the time though, correct?

You're equating two different meanings of the word permission. You can talk about permission in a moral sense, in which God allows something as indifferent, like eating cheese or not eating cheese. On the other hand, there is a kind of permission that applies to God not stopping someone from doing something that he has forbidden. Do you see the difference? In the second sense of the term, the person is morally culpable for disobeying God's law, even though God let him do it.

It is in the second sense of the term permission that God permits individuals and governments to disobey his law in the present age. They shouldn't do it, but God lets them sin against him, and he will hold them accountable for it.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

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.).

May I ask what you mean by the magistrate being “bound to officially recognize the authority of Christ”?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Follow up: is it for the well-being or being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ?

 

[Ed Walsh]

Follow up: is it for the well-being or being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ?

I think it is of the "being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ." "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. (Romans 13:4) There is only one definition of "good," (Romans 7:12) and that is the Law of God. Therefore that is his God-given role. According to Paul, the magistrate is as much a minister of God as is a minister of the gospel is from God. I know we are not accustomed to thinking in these terms, but I think that that is what the Scriptures teach. A gospel minister can be a faithful or unfaithful minister as we all know. So too the civil magistrate can be faithful or unfaithful to fulfill his calling. Since the civil minister is from God "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." (vs. 5)

From: Matthew Poole's Commentary on Romans 13:4 - "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. Etc.

For he is the minister of God to thee for good: q.d. That is the end of his office, and for this reason God hath invested him with his authority. The Scripture applieth the same title to him that preacheth the word, and to him that beareth the sword; both are God’s ministers, and there is one common end of their ministry, which is the good and welfare of mankind.

But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: this is the reason why he that trangresseth the moral law of God, or the wholesome laws of the country where he lives, should be afraid of the magistrate, because

he beareth not the sword in vain. The sword is figuratively put for power and authority: he alludes to the custom of princes, who had certain officers going before them, bearing the ensigns of their authority: q.d. The magistrate hath not his authority for nothing, or for no purpose; but that he may punish the evil, as well as defend the good.

For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil: here is another reason why evil-doers (as before) should be afraid of the magistrate; or rather, the same reason in other and plainer words; because he is God’s officer to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil; he is in God’s room upon earth, and doth the work which primarily belongeth unto him: see Romans 12:19. By wrath, here, understand punishment: so in Luke 21:23 Romans 2:8. The word execute is not in the text, but aptly enough supplied by our translators.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Follow up: is it for the well-being or being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ?

With love and due respect to my brother Ed, in my opinion, it is of the well-being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ, and not the being, insofar as a magistrate's power can still be valid and legitimate even if he doesn't acknowledge Christ. For proof, see the Scriptures' acknowledgement of the authority of pagan magistrates. A couple of examples that come to mind are Romans 13:1-5 and Daniel 2:37-38.

That is not to diminish the fact that it is the magistrate's natural duty to obey the Law of of God, which should lead him to "kiss the Son."

 

[Ed Walsh]

and not the being, insofar as a magistrate's power can still be valid and legitimate even if he doesn't acknowledge Christ. For proof, see the Scriptures' acknowledgement of the authority of pagan magistrates.

Would you believe it was early in the morning? Well, I don't believe it either. Of course, I was wrong about the being vs. well-being. And I agree with your critique. We must obey lawful authority except when so doing would cause us to sin.

I am more awake now.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Would you believe it was early in the morning? Well, I don't believe it either. Of course, I was wrong about the being vs. well-being. And I agree with your critique. We must obey lawful authority except when so doing would cause us to sin.

I am more awake now.

No worries, brother. I could tell from your post that you weren't really speaking to the being of the magistrate, but to his natural duty.

 

[Dachaser]

Is there one King and one Kingdom or two Kings and two Kingdoms, the latter wherein we should cease efforts to transform the kingdom of the world into the kingdom of Our Lord?

There is the Kingdom of God here in part, but not in full, as that happens when the Second Coming occurs.

 

[Dachaser]

I thought Christ IS (present tense) King over all things. I'm curious to know who is king in His absence?

Jesus is the lord, but He is permitting this worlds system/Kingdom operate until His Second Coming.

 

[Dachaser]

Does this active permission grant a "right" (a fundamental norm of entitlement)? Or may it perhaps be that God wills righteously what men do wickedly?

I think more in line with your second aspect of your statement.

 

[Dachaser]

You're equating two different meanings of the word permission. You can talk about permission in a moral sense, in which God allows something as indifferent, like eating cheese or not eating cheese. On the other hand, there is a kind of permission that applies to God not stopping someone from doing something that he has forbidden. Do you see the difference? In the second sense of the term, the person is morally culpable for disobeying God's law, even though God let him do it.

It is in the second sense of the term permission that God permits individuals and governments to disobey his law in the present age. They shouldn't do it, but God lets them sin against him, and he will hold them accountable for it.

I understand stand what is happening as God still has His demands of the law and Holiness here, but that He is permitting sinners to still act in a sinful way, until the time of the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[Dachaser]

I think it is of the "being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ." "For he is the minister of God to thee [you]for good[/you]. (Romans 13:4) There is only one definition of "good," (Romans 7:12) and that is the Law of God. Therefore that is his God-given role. According to Paul, the magistrate is as much a minister of God as is a minister of the gospel is from God. I know we are not accustomed to thinking in these terms, but I think that that is what the Scriptures teach. A gospel minister can be a faithful or unfaithful minister as we all know. So too the civil magistrate can be faithful or unfaithful to fulfill his calling. Since the civil minister is from God "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also [you]for conscience sake[/you]." (vs. 5)

From: Matthew Poole's Commentary on Romans 13:4 - "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. Etc.

For he is the minister of God to thee for good: q.d. That is the end of his office, and for this reason God hath invested him with his authority. The Scripture applieth the same title to him that preacheth the word, and to him that beareth the sword; both are God’s ministers, and there is one common end of their ministry, which is the good and welfare of mankind.

But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: this is the reason why he that trangresseth the moral law of God, or the wholesome laws of the country where he lives, should be afraid of the magistrate, because

he beareth not the sword in vain. The sword is figuratively put for power and authority: he alludes to the custom of princes, who had certain officers going before them, bearing the ensigns of their authority: q.d. The magistrate hath not his authority for nothing, or for no purpose; but that he may punish the evil, as well as defend the good.

For he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil: here is another reason why evil-doers (as before) should be afraid of the magistrate; or rather, the same reason in other and plainer words; because he is God’s officer to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil; he is in God’s room upon earth, and doth the work which primarily belongeth unto him: see Romans 12:19. By wrath, here, understand punishment: so in Luke 21:23 Romans 2:8. The word execute is not in the text, but aptly enough supplied by our translators.

I think that the government is acting for God in the strict sense in that passage though of enforcing rule of civil law, to make sure wicked and guilty are punished, not in the broader sense of also applying His rules throughout all society, as Jesus and Apostles pretty much left pagan Rome go on its way, but did start the movement to save sinners and translate them from this Kingdom on earth to the Kingdom of Christ.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think that the government is acting for God in the strict sense in that passage though of enforcing rule of civil law, to make sure wicked and guilty are punished, not in the broader sense of also applying His rules throughout all society

No one disagrees with this in the broad sense, but it comes down to whether a particular law is just or not. Is God pleased with unjust laws?

as Jesus and Apostles pretty much left pagan Rome go on its way

John the Baptist got killed because he didn't leave pagan Herod alone.

 

[RamistThomist]

I understand stand what is happening as God still has His demands of the law and Holiness here, but that He is permitting sinners to still act in a sinful way, until the time of the Second Coming of Christ.

Then the real question is this: should we pass laws that curb the opportunities for sin?

 

[Dachaser]

No one disagrees with this in the broad sense, but it comes down to whether a particular law is just or not. Is God pleased with unjust laws?


John the Baptist got killed because he didn't leave pagan Herod alone.

True, but that was due to him as a prophet addressing Herods Martial adultery.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I understand stand what is happening as God still has His demands of the law and Holiness here, but that He is permitting sinners to still act in a sinful way, until the time of the Second Coming of Christ.

Right--then it follows that God's allowance of sin in the present is no right to sin, and civil magistrates are not warranted in protecting sin on that basis.

 

[Dachaser]

Then the real question is this: should we pass laws that curb the opportunities for sin?

yes, but realize that in our type of government, there will still be those allowed to do things that we morally object with. We can and should outlaw murder, rape, abortion, robbery, but there will still be other religious viewpoints that might offend, but would still be available.

 

[Dachaser]

Right--then it follows that God's allowance of sin in the present is no right to sin, and civil magistrates are not warranted in protecting sin on that basis.

I agree that our laws that are set up here should be used to permit some sins, but in the area of religious freedom, we would still have to tolerate non christian viewpoints.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

it is of the well-being of the magistrate to bow the knee to Christ, and not the being, insofar as a magistrate's power can still be valid and legitimate even if he doesn't acknowledge Christ.

Agreed.

 

[RamistThomist]

yes, but realize that in our type of government, there will still be those allowed to do things that we morally object with. We can and should outlaw murder, rape, abortion, robbery, but there will still be other religious viewpoints that might offend, but would still be available.

You don't get it. My religion says I get to do those things.