civil magestrates.

[lionovjudah]

Where did the belief of the reformers, puritans, start in regards to giving civil magistrates the power of the sword to imprison / kill heretics? I have recently done some reading about theocratic govt in england and the colonies and it is appaling.

I thought they left europe for religious freedom? Why did they come here and oppress dissenters?

Is this what theonomy is all about with Bahnsen and the modern gang?

It appears to have started with Calvin himself and developed into the divine right heresey.

[Brandan Kraft]

Theonomy and Reconstructionism are both affronts to the Gospel.

[lionovjudah]

Theonomy and Reconstructionism are both affronts to the Gospel.

I agree. I am looking into the history of this. I cant believe what was going on in America when they came over. As you know I have left wing tendancies about certain issues, but this is not a bleeding heart emotional response. I just see nothing in the NT about giving power to the civil magistrates to kill heretics.

Calvins geneva seems to be the beginning. Besides Servatus.

They tortured people BK. How could the framers of the WCF gone in this direction?


Westminster Confession of Faith 23

WCF 23:I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers.



WCF 23:IV. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates , to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted, much less hath the pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.

[Greg Winegar]

Theonomy and Reconstructionism are both affronts to the Gospel.And not only that, mean people suck!!!

Seriously though, give a religious reprobate man an ounce of power and what do you think you will get?

Why do so many aspire to leadership?

And why is the "Church" in such a hurry to ordain so many?

This truly is the great apostacy.

[lionovjudah]

And not only that, mean people suck!!!

Seriously though, give a religious reprobate man an ounce of power and what do you think you will get?

Why do so many aspire to leadership?

And why is the "Church" in such a hurry to ordain so many?

This truly is the great apostacy.

Greg, could you please limit sweeping generalizations and is there a possibility of discussing my question?

We all know your opinion in reagrds to the visible church.

[Greg Winegar]

Greg, could you please limit sweeping generalizations and is there a possibility of discussing my question?

We all know your opinion in reagrds to the visible church.Actually Joe, I hadn't seen your other post after BK's. Although I was making a funny, I didn't mean to make an over generalization.

I do think that trying to mix government with theology is only going to bring problems. Man sins, and if man forms government systems and attaches church or religious connotations to such, I can see no reason why it won't eventually go wrong. And if we do form this type of government, who should lead it? Also, I see no place in the NT writings as to why we should even attempt to establish such a thing.

[lionovjudah]

Actually Joe, I hadn't seen your other post after BK's. Although I was making a funny, I didn't mean to make an over generalization.

I do think that trying to mix government with theology is only going to bring problems. Man sins, and if man forms government systems and attaches church or religious connotations to such, I can see no reason why it won't eventually go wrong. And if we do form this type of government, who should lead it? Also, I see no place in the NT writings as to why we should even attempt to establish such a thing.


Ok Greg:

I am wondering why this happened. I agree with your conclusion, but people who expressed this in eurpoe and the colonies used scripture too.

Are you familiar with this thought in the WCF about civil magistrates enforcing the 2 tablets?

[Robert R. Higby]

Even though I abhor the notion that the decalogue represents the law that God requires just government to enforce (whether one tablet or two), I do reject pacifism and the notion that scripture teaches nothing about just government at all as distinguished from unjust government.

Genesis 14 is the foundation, in my view, of a sound position on this issue. The indicent of Abraham going to war with Chedorlaomer & the other kings definitely teaches us something about civic responsibility. This happened not only before the Law but even before the covenant of promise was ratified in Gen. 15. Everything in the passage suggests that Abraham did the right thing in organizing an army to rescue Lot & his relatives who were captured along with the citizens of the plain. Consider the facts:

1. Most citizens of the plain rescued by Abraham were as wicked as their captors (the citizens of Sodom were included).

2. Abraham formed his alliance with Melchizedek & rejected an alliance with the king of Sodom. This alliance would have included a peace pact and commitment to defend one another against barbaric enemies.

3. Abraham went to war to rescue a few people considered righteous by God. If it were not for these, he would not have done it.

I don't want to conclude too much from this passage but it definitely teaches us:

1. There is just government approved by God (Melchizedek--Salem) and unjust government disapproved by God in the world.

2. Man is not sinning in the exercise of defending just government.

Of course, the ekklesia of Christ is completely separate from all human government and must never be intermingled. It is the responsibility of just government, however, to defend the right of the ekklesia to worship and speak its beliefs. In addition to generally administering justice for all citizens.

[Brandan Kraft]

Of course, the ekklesia of Christ is completely separate from all human government and must never be intermingled. It is the responsibility of just government, however, to defend the right of the ekklesia to worship and speak its beliefs. In addition to generally administering justice for all citizens.Exactly Bob, you're right! Separation of church and state with FREEDOM. I believe the United States as DEFINED in the U.S. constitution is one of the most proper and just governments that has ever existed.

[lionovjudah]

Even though I abhor the notion that the decalogue represents the law that God requires just government to enforce (whether one tablet or two), I do reject pacifism and the notion that scripture teaches nothing about just government at all as distinguished from unjust government.



Bob I am specifically interested in the thought of puritans where the magistrate has the right to kill heretics. This is what bothers me

[Robert R. Higby]

We all agree, I hope, that the Puritans were wrong on this one. God never appointed the state as the judge of heresy or gospel truth! The state is to defend the freedoms of all who respect the life, persons, property, and freedom of other people. It is to punish those who murder, assault, steal, defraud, and trample upon the just rights of others.

In the proper role of the state, a Christian should have no issues of conscience in participating. When the state oversteps its bounds and seeks to fulfill a role that God has not commanded of it, a Christian should flee from participating in such a government.

[Dorcas]

Bob I am specifically interested in the thought of puritans where the magistrate has the right to kill heretics. This is what bothers me

Bother you it should!
Studying church history and this issue in particular is what finally sealed in my mind the fundamental problem with the "reformed churches".

The origin of this is Christian sacralism, which unfortunately continues in its many subtle forms today. Beginning with Constantine and all throughout the history of the Roman Church, one was a "Christian" because of where they lived and who had conquered them, not because of profession. Every child born in the Roman Empire was baptized in the RCC, and was under the church/state authority. Because the church and magistrates were the same, they had the authority to promulgate "holy wars" and to kill all dissenters.

Unfortunately, the Reformation did not change any of this. Because sacralism was the political climate in Europe for over a millenia, Luther was forced to sign on with the princes of Germany almost day one. He seems to have understood the dilemma of this in his writings, as did Zwingli. Calvin certainly seems to condone sacralism as evidenced by that ugly incident where he burned Servetus at the stake.

So at the end of the reformation we ended up with some good theology, but not much progress politically. Now if you were born in Germany, you were Lutheran, in Holland you were Reformed, in Scotland Presbyterian (sometimes). In each place, the membership of the "church" was still defined by political borders rather than confession. If you were born in that country, you were baptized and your name written onto the membership roll. To refuse meant death. For hundreds of years, all of Europe fought wars between monarchies/state-churches, and whenever one took a new territory everyone was forced to convert or die.

Being very much used to this climate, it is not suprising that many (not all) of the Puritans took for granted the authority of the "church" (whichever one) to punish or kill those who were perceived as heretics. It was the way that it was always done. While it took a while to establish true religious freedom even in the New World, a study of church history shows why the United States goverment was so profoundly different.

This is the fundamental flaw in all reformed churches that came from a state church. This includes Lutheran, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, etc. While there may be many of these that still teach relatively correct soteriological doctrine, their ecclesiastical foundation lies in politics. The reason that the first anabaptists opposed infant baptism and war was because they knew that the assembly of saints was an element within a political nation, not to be equated with the nation. (this is not to say that they didn't go awry on theological issues) All "theological" arguments that proponents of the former state churches give today to connect the "church" to the Old Covenant stem from defending an antiquated Roman Catholic political system.

[Lynn]

Where did the belief of the reformers, puritans, start in regards to giving civil magistrates the power of the sword to imprison / kill heretics? I have recently done some reading about theocratic govt in england and the colonies and it is appaling.

I thought they left europe for religious freedom? Why did they come here and oppress dissenters?

Is this what theonomy is all about with Bahnsen and the modern gang?

It appears to have started with Calvin himself and developed into the divine right heresey.

Joe, perhaps you shouldn't be overly upset over this matter.

Was it not providence?

Was it not ordained of God?

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Did it not have a purpose?

Did it not all glorify God?

Is it not written that for God's sake we are killed all the day long, that we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter?

Lynn

[Robert R. Higby]

Dorcas:
He (Luther) seems to have understood the dilemma of this in his writings, as did Zwingli.

Most certainly! Zwingly often opposed in theory such things. Luther's "Babylonian Captivity" and "Freedom of a Christian" teach principles so opposed to such tyranny that we can only conclude that he resigned himself to the limits of the history in which he lived with hope of a better day in the future.

Calvin certainly seems to condone sacralism as evidenced by that ugly incident where he burned Servetus at the stake.

But he also married a formerly Anabaptist wife whose father had been killed by the papists! Calvin often went into the region of Austria (Salzburg) where the nonconformists were granted asylum with hope of converting them to his views. This is documented in Schaff's "History of the Christian Church."

I personally believe that the principles taught by Calvin in his Institutes condemn sacralism. There is a whole debate that continues to this day on how much involvement and sympathy Calvin had in Farel's burning of Servetus. Plus you have an example of one execution in Switzerland in Calvin's time, five executions under Zwingli, versus uncounted executions in Germany under the Lutheran princes! Neither of which compares to the massacre of St. Bartholemew and other incomprehensible crimes of the Papacy over the centuries.

History records that a group of Calvinists fleeing persecution from Bloody Mary were turned away in winter from refuge in Germany because they refused to sign the Lutheran confession of faith!

In America, look what the legislators in Massachusetts Bay did to Roger Williams! He and his family escaped freezing to death because the Indians took him in!

Anyway, we all know the awful sacralism of past history. We abhor any attempt to bring it back in the slightest measure. However, the real issues of today surround the apostate dogma that is advancing in Christendumb like wildfire every hour!

[Greg Winegar]

Anyway, we all know the awful sacralism of past history. We abhor any attempt to bring it back in the slightest measure. However, the real issues of today surround the apostate dogma that is advancing in Christendumb like wildfire every hour!This is the bad dream that the elect within churchianity need to be woken from and unpluged from.