Who said it?

[jetbrane]

"I don't interfere in matters of belief. Therefore I can't allow churchmen to interfere with temporal affairs. The organised lie must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master."

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Adolf Hitler

 

[LadyFlynt]

:drumroll:

 

[jetbrane]

Hey, that was supposed to be time consuming

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Adolf Hitler

Apparently Der Furher didn't believe in the two kingdom theory.

Naturally unbelievers wouldn't but here is a question.

If the unbeliever is turning the State into god, how can it be the case that, epistemologically speaking, believers would have a common, neutral, realm to share with the unbeliever?

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by jetbrane
If the unbeliever is turning the State into god, how can it be the case that, epistemologically speaking, believers would have a common, neutral, realm to share with the unbeliever?

I'll see your "who said it" and answer your question with another "who said it".

The argument to which we propose now to address ourselves is, that the ordinance of God for the temporal wellbeing of the community, and the ordinance of God for the spiritual wellbeing of the community, are, from their essential character, so related to each other, that there must unavoidably be a connection, either friendly, or otherwise, between them ; that the civil element and the religious element are so interwoven in the very constitution of human society, that they must necessarily tend either to establish or destroy each other; and that unless the Church and state are to be regarded as enemies, hostile to each other's existence, they must be united as friends, aiding and promoting each other's welfare. There can be no such thing as neutrality between the two. The Church in its relation to the state can be accounted in no other light than as an ally leagued with the state for its good, or as an aggressor encroaching upon its rights, and dangerous to its supreme authority. The state in its relation to the Church must be regarded either as the Church's friend and protector, or else as an adversary, secret or avowed. There can, from the very nature of the case, be no alternative. The two societies stand so intimately and vitally related to each other, that the civil magistrate, if he does not ally himself to religion as a friend, will unavoidably be brought into conflict and collision with it as an enemy. He must account it the first and best of all the aids he has in securing the objects of his government; or, if he views it otherwise and treats it otherwise, he will be forced into the position of being its oppressor or its victim.

[Edited on 8-24-2006 by crhoades]

 

[jetbrane]

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by jetbrane
If the unbeliever is turning the State into god, how can it be the case that, epistemologically speaking, believers would have a common, neutral, realm to share with the unbeliever?

I'll see your "who said it" and answer your question with another "who said it".

The argument to which we propose now to address ourselves is, that the ordinance of God for the temporal wellbeing of the community, and the ordinance of God for the spiritual wellbeing of the community, are, from their essential character, so related to each other, that there must unavoidably be a connection, either friendly, or otherwise, between them ; that the civil element and the religious element are so interwoven in the very constitution of human society, that they must necessarily tend either to establish or destroy each other; and that unless the Church and state are to be regarded as enemies, hostile to each other's existence, they must be united as friends, aiding and promoting each other's welfare. There can be no such thing as neutrality between the two. The Church in its relation to the state can be accounted in no other light than as an ally leagued with the state for its good, or as an aggressor encroaching upon its rights, and dangerous to its supreme authority. The state in its relation to the Church must be regarded either as the Church's friend and protector, or else as an adversary, secret or avowed. There can, from the very nature of the case, be no alternative. The two societies stand so intimately and vitally related to each other, that the civil magistrate, if he does not ally himself to religion as a friend, will unavoidably be brought into conflict and collision with it as an enemy. He must account it the first and best of all the aids he has in securing the objects of his government; or, if he views it otherwise and treats it otherwise, he will be forced into the position of being its oppressor or its victim.

[Edited on 8-24-2006 by crhoades]

Three guesses

1.) Groen Van Prinester
2.) A. A. Hodge
3.) William Symington

For my latest attempt at something similar see the most recent entry at www.acidink.org

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by jetbraneThree guesses

1.) Groen Van Prinester
2.) A. A. Hodge
3.) William Symington

For my latest attempt at something similar see the most recent entry at www.acidink.org

I'm sure your 4th guess would be correct:
James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, Vol. 1 pg. 136

Bannerman's work has a great section on the relationship between Church and State even defending the original WCF chapter on the C.M.


TOC
Ch. 8 The Church in its relation to the state
8.1 Essential distinction and mutual independence of church and state
8.2 The Lawfulness of their connection
8.2.1 The Non-identity of church and state among the Jews
8.3 The Duty of their connection
8.4 The Necessity of their connection
8.5 The Spiritual indepence of the church and the principles of toleration
8.6 Liberty of conscience: Its extent and limits
8.7 The doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith on church and state.

Bannerman wrote 91 pages on this topic. On the separation of church and state among the Jews, I couldn't tell if I was reading Bahnsen's TiCE or Bannerman. He wouldn't go as far as Gillespie and Rutherford regarding the Mosaic Judicials.

Accordingly we find that Rutherford, Dickson, and Fergusson, in writing against such views, in some instances went too far, and laid down positions which were indefensible, and really involved persecution. Their errors on this subject mainly arose from their holding that the Jewish political laws were of permanent obligation, and consequently that capital punishment might still be lawfully inflicted for such offences as idolatry. Rutherford, Pretended Liberty of Conscience. Fergusson of of Kilwinning, Brief Refutation of the Erros of Tolleration, Erastianism, Independency, and Separation, Edinr. 1692, sec. ii. pp.47-85. David Dickson, Truth's Victory over Error, chap. xx. Qu.4. M'Crie, Miscellaneous Writings, Edinr. 1841, pp. 468-486, 502-512. Hetherington, History of the Westminster Assembly, Edinr. 1843, pp. 150-157, 351-362.; [Compare also Mr. Palmers arguments in favour of persecution. Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. pp. 335, 363-370.]

Again, counting noses doesn't make it right but last time I checked, Bahnsen and Rushdoony have been accused of inventing this concept and being out of the pale of Reformational thought. Maybe Bannerman was just misreading those guys...Worth further reflection.

[Edited on 8-24-2006 by crhoades]

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by jetbrane
For my latest attempt at something similar see the most recent entry at www.acidink.org

Very well said.

 

[jetbrane]

Bannerman's book just went on my to get list.

Thanks,

Bret

p.s. -- Now, I find myself wondering if there is anything out there that explains how we got from that kind of understanding in Reformed thought to where the majority is today.

There must be a reason why or a historical explanation.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by jetbrane
Bannerman's book just went on my to get list.

Thanks,

Bret

p.s. -- Now, I find myself wondering if there is anything out there that explains how we got from that kind of understanding in Reformed thought to where the majority is today.

There must be a reason why or a historical explanation.

Meredith Kline?
Too much emphasis on common grace and not enough on special grace?
Not enough emphasis on the kingship/lordship of Christ?
Disdain for the law of God?
Reversion back to natural theology?
Neglect of Van Til?

Getting warm?

 

[jetbrane]

I am sure that all those reasons you cite are part of the mosaic (though the Klineans will tell you they are Van Tilian -- and do a degree I think they are). What I am looking for is the historical side of it. For example, why did the Americans changed the WCF on the Magistrate section? There must have been a historical climate that drove such a change.

That is the thing I am wondering about.

Now, what I suspect (though can not prove) is that it had something to do with the ana-baptist movement in the air. I am wondering if all that Roger Williamism had anything to do with it?

Have you ever read 'The Reformers And Their Stepchildren' by Verduin?

The ana-baptist tried to create a non-sacralist society, but they didn't realize that their non-sacralism would become the sacralist position. Personally, I think Roger Williams won and our culture has been a ana-baptist culture ever since.

Bret

 

[MW]

Originally posted by jetbrane
p.s. -- Now, I find myself wondering if there is anything out there that explains how we got from that kind of understanding in Reformed thought to where the majority is today.
There must be a reason why or a historical explanation.

The doctrine of toleration, based upon the acceptance of Cartesian scepticism.

In Presbyterian circles, the introduction of voluntaryism led to the acceptance of various Christian bodies, thus calling for a reformulating of the Westminster Confession. Earlier in America, later in Scotland and the British colonies.

In Dutch Reformed circles, neo-Calvinism, espousing Kuyperian sphere-sovereignty and common grace -- formulated for the purpose of allowing mutual labour with Roman Catholics -- led to the revision of the Belgic Confession in the early 20th cent.

 

[jetbrane]

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by jetbrane
p.s. -- Now, I find myself wondering if there is anything out there that explains how we got from that kind of understanding in Reformed thought to where the majority is today.
There must be a reason why or a historical explanation.

The doctrine of toleration, based upon the acceptance of Cartesian scepticism.

In Presbyterian circles, the introduction of voluntaryism led to the acceptance of various Christian bodies, thus calling for a reformulating of the Westminster Confession. Earlier in America, later in Scotland and the British colonies.

In Dutch Reformed circles, neo-Calvinism, espousing Kuyperian sphere-sovereignty and common grace -- formulated for the purpose of allowing mutual labour with Roman Catholics -- led to the revision of the Belgic Confession in the early 20th cent.

Thanks!