Yuku free message boards

ArnojJoran wrote:

---

Concerning Civil Law and the Bible, the New Testament teaches that the Magistrate is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil -Romans 13: 4. Is not heresy among the greatest of evils? If it is wrong to destroy a human life, how much worse is it be to destroy a human soul with damnable heresy? The authors of the Westminster Confession said of the Magistrate (Chapter 23) that he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. The Belgic Confession agrees concerning the Magistrate "…their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted…" (Chapter 36).

Godly Kings such as Hezekiah and Josiah did that which was right in the sight of God when they removed the high places and punished the priests of Baal and re-established biblical order in the nation. (II Kings 18, 22, 23) This was all in agreement with God's Law (Deuteronomy 17). With respect to civil law, what Biblical warrant do we have to ignore the first four of the Ten Commandments? Were Calvin, Knox, Beza, Turretin, and the Westminster Divines all so confused when they taught that modern Magistrates do right in the sight of the Lord when they too punish idolaters? Civil tolerance of the idolatry was immoral and anathematized in the Old Testament. Is such civil tolerance now moral and sanctioned in the New Testament?

Sorry I have not responded to you earlier, but we do not respond to posts on the Sabbath.

ArnojJoran wrote:

---

I have never studied Theonomy and don't profess to be a Theonomist, and so I may be misinformed, but I thought Theonomics was mostly concerned with crime and punishment as it concerns the last six commandments. I thought I had read that somewhere, but I confess my ignorance on this matter.

I was actually attempting to address something in Mr. Alderson's article, perhaps I read too much into Mr. Alderson's words. Usually when I encounter phrases that suggest theocracy ended with the Mosaic economy it tends to mean that the worship of false gods, idolatry, blasphemy and Sabath profaning are not matters for the Magistrate to deal with, though they are issues for the Church to preach against. If I misinterpreted his meaning I sincerely apologize, if not, perhaps my post may be appropriate in this particular forum?

Sincerely,

Jeff Rojan

While my studies of theonomy are definitely incomplete, what you stated in your previous post definitely sounded reminiscent of some of their thoughts. As Bashen stated:

An examination of the scriptural proofs offered for this second duty [enforcing the ordinances of God] makes quite clear that the Westminster divines expected the civil magistrate to rule according to the law of God (including its Old Testament stipulations), even to the point of its penal sanctions. [Theonomy, 540]

Theonomists use WCF 23:3 to support their view. Bahnsen's claim that 23:3 is theonomic is based on two grounds: 1) that the text of the Confession makes the civil magistrate responsible for enforcing the first four laws of the Ten Commandments, and 2) the scripture references cited approve capital punishment for blasphemers.

Thus, these are some of my grounds for stating you appear to be making theonomy statements.

In interpreting the WCF, we run into some difficulties IMO (23.3; 31.1 and 2). In one place we read, "the civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and in another we read that, "he hath authority … to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, and all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed" and in order to do this "he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God." In 30.1 we see that Christ, "as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate." Here we read that independent action is envisioned only if magistrates be open enemies of the church, in which event "the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies." We see something similar in the Belgic Confession (36, Of Magistrates). Do you see the contradiction?

While there have been several attempts to rectify this, the best is probably been by the OPC. In their revision they state, (a) the government of the Church is distinct and separate from the State, (2) that civil magistrates may not interfere in the affairs of any church so long as they are not subversive of the civil order, even in controversies of doctrine and discipline, and (3) that the church officers alone have the authority to appoint synods or councils, with which the civil government may not interfere.

As Williamson states, "…when the Confession of Faith is incorrect or imperfect we believe that it otght to be changed. For, as the Cofession itself is careful to teach us, The supreme judge by which all … decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, … are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture (1.10). …When this Confession was adopted originally by various Presbyterian bodies, it was sincerely believed. Where it was found to err from Scripture it was amended. And true Presbyterians have always believed that the Confession could and ought to be amended when it can be shown to err."

[G.I. Williamson, WCF for Study Classes, p. 244-246].

ArnojJoran wrote:

---

Thank you for considering my post. I had heard in the past that Theonomist actively sought to enlist Roman Catholics among their ranks. This, among other things led me to believe that they were not very concerned about the first Table of the law.

With regard to your reply, I'm not seeing the contradiction. On the one hand, if a minister begins spreading heresy throughout the land, the Magistrate has a duty to oppose and suppress him (23: 3). On then other hand, if a Magistrate forbids lawful assemblies to hear the faithful preaching of sound doctrine, then the Church has a duty to resist, (31: 2). In both cases, the only true law-giver is God. When anyone opposes his law, whether Magistrate or citizen, they are to be opposed, perhaps in different capacities and to different degrees depending on the offense. The Confession is not teaching an absolute authority of either Church or State, but of God. Both Church and State are, according to their station, to defend the true Christian faith, the Church with the Sacraments and the ministry, the State with the sword.

To return to my original question, God has given us his law defining good and evil. He has also given us the Magistrate a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. There is nothing ceremonial about idolatry, blasphemy or profaning the Sabbath. What biblical warrant do we have to exclude these matters of law from the jurisdiction of the Magistrate? It seems arbitrary does it not? Why not enforce only even numbered commands, or the 4^th, 5^th, and 9^th?

As previously stated your view is seems to embrace theonomy. Your view of the magistrate is closer to Bashen than Charles Hodge, who stated:

All those laws … in the Old Testament, which had their foundation in the peculiar circumstances of the Hebrews, ceased to be binding when the old dispensation passed away … Deplorable evils have flowed from mistakes as to this point. The theories of the union of Church and State, of the right of the magistrate to interfere authoritatively in matters of religion, and of the duty of persecution, so far as Scriptural authority is concerned, rest on the transfer of laws founded on the temporary relations of the Hebrews to the altered relations of Christians. Because the Hebrew kings were the guardians of both tables of the Law, and were required to suppress idolatry and all false religion, it was inferred that such is still the duty of the Christian magistrate. Because Samuel hewed Agag to pieces, it was inferred to be right to deal in like manner with heretics. No one can read the history of the Church without being impressed with the dreadful evils which have flowed from this mistake [Systematic, vol. 3.268].

Thus, since I view what you embrace - concerning the Magistrates power and duty - as error, we will not agree on this issue. As already stated in so many words, when the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America was formed in 1788, it adopted the Westminster standards, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. However, it revised chapters 20.4, 23.3, and 31.2 of the Confession, basically removing the civil magistrate (i.e., the state) from involvement in ecclesiastical matters.