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 4th, 5th, and 9th?
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.
