An Advocation of Government
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
- Status
Good Post !!
drbrumley
Well-known member
"Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:7-18)
No thanks....
"This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:7-18)
No thanks....
At our best, in the begining, we said a black man was only 3/5 human.
The wicked never rest. Even in the lake of fire, where they will be tormented (thank God) begging for forgiveness.
It isn't a presumption.
You mean like the democratically elected legislature has done in America? Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, gun control, illegal aliens voting, are all forbidden by the constitution, but you don't care because you agree with those evil things.
Like Justice Ginsburg, whom is on the wrong side of right and wrong every time she makes a judgment.
Quote Originally Posted by glassjester
The USA was always wicked?
Yet those supposedly "wicked" men were wise enough to write in the founding documents that all men are created equal with unalienable rights (rights that come from God and can't be taken away).
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm
Do your homework before you start dissing great men Nick.
The USA was always wicked?
Yet those supposedly "wicked" men were wise enough to write in the founding documents that all men are created equal with unalienable rights (rights that come from God and can't be taken away).
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm
Do your homework before you start dissing great men Nick.
Last edited:
Did God have any plans for a monarchy for Israel prior to 1 Samuel 8? Or was God only relenting, allowing them to have a king as an afterthought?
Did the FFs think that Africans were men (ie, mankind), or did they consider them less than men?
My point is this: Just because a document says something doesn't mean that the way we read and interpret it is what they were thinking when they wrote it. So if we can know if they were including African people in that "all men", then you have a point to stand on. But if they do not, then that seriously compromises the foundation of your statement, and the worthiness of your praise of a document made by fallible men.
drbrumley
Well-known member
The latter.
A human king? No. God as King, absolutely....
This passage is a fulfillment of the Deut. passage. The Deut. passage doesn't say this is God's wish.....
So God wasn't planning on establishing the Davidic throne in Jerusalem through which (Matthew 1:1) the Messiah brought Salvation, as God said to David, “I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body"[v12] [i.e. Christ, vv17-18] (Psalm 132)?
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...athers-Thread-of-All-Founding-Fathers-Threads
You have a point there. The Republican Party Platform has been pro life but for 44 years the people in the Party have sat back and allowed the killing of 60 million unborn babies. I guess republicans don't consider unborn babies human beings ey JR?
Many of the Founding Father's were anti slavery. If you have some writings of the FF's showing that they didn't consider people of color to be human beings, please share it, otherwise "all men" means...
all men.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
It grieves God that any will be lost. Those celebrating the torment of the lost will not be with Him.
drbrumley
Well-known member
I seem to have read that God also picked Saul first.....David would have never been in the picture if it wasn't for Saul's rebellion. But that's another issue.
God can and does work thru the sinfulness of man to accomplish His goals...
drbrumley
Well-known member
Deuteronomy 17:14*When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; 15*thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. 16*But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17*Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 18*And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19*and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 20*that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.
corresponds to this
1st Samuel 8:
1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba.3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.10
And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.13 And he will take your daughters to be
confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your *****, and put them to his work.17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king.
It lines up perfectly!!!!
corresponds to this
1st Samuel 8:
1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba.3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.10
And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.13 And he will take your daughters to be
confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your *****, and put them to his work.17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king.
It lines up perfectly!!!!
drbrumley
Well-known member
I apologize, I've been busy with work and haven't felt like responding when I did have enough time to reply. I will get to your points as soon, I do want to continue along your line of thought.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Ok, look forward to it....
Here is my response, finally...
By the way... what Deuteronomy passage are you referring to? Deuteronomy 17:14-20?
Of course He does. That usually means that He has goals He wants to accomplish before he implements his plans.
And why was Saul picked? Because Israel wanted a king one generation before God had planned to give them one. About how many years were there between David's reign and Christ's ministry? Well, David captures Jerusalem in 1003 BC, almost exactly 1000 years before Christ was born in 4 BC.
Saul, on the other hand, began his reign in 1052 BC.
Is God's timing perfect, or at the very least, extremely accurate?
Which seems more like God's timing: 1049 years or 1000 years (+/- less than 1year)?
Considering that, does it seem more likely that Israel wanted a king one generation before God had planned?
And if so, it brings up the question, when did God plan for Israel to have an earthly king? Well, most likely before He created the universe, but didn't reveal that plan until Deuteronomy 17:14-20, when He gave the laws that a king ruling over Israel should abide by.
In fact, Moses tells them quite explicitly that they will want a king, and will have one appointed after they reach the promised land. He even says that God will choose one for them.
“When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.“Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites.And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes,that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel. - Deuteronomy 17:14-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:14-20&version=NKJV
Now, when you read that passage, what is the overall idea?
It's quite clear that God was setting up the laws for a king to follow when he rules over Israel. Now, if God regulates something, does that inherently say that it is allowed? Yes, it does.
It certainly has similarities. But you're not getting the gist of what each passage is saying, and because of that, you don't see that the meaning of each is completely different. Is Saul the one God wanted to be king over Israel? No, the passage in 1 Samuel 8 just shows that Israel, as usual, and once again, is rejecting God's timing, whereas the passage in Deuteronomy 17 shows that God is setting up the foundation for a king to rule.
He tells Samuel that "they have not rejected [Samuel], but they have rejected [God]."
What happens when people don't wait on God's timing? Usually they get into trouble. What happened with Saul? He started out righteous, and became extremely wicked, and brought the nation with him, yet had they waited just one more generation, God would have given them a righteous king, one whom God loved, who was righteous in God's eyes. How much better off would they have been had they waited for God to make His move instead of demanding something from Him before he's ready to give them it?
----
God established the Davidic throne in Jerusalem, through which the Messiah brought salvation. For "... unto us a Child is born... and the government will be upon [Him] ... upon the throne of David." [Isaiah 9] Notice how it says "throne of David" and not "throne of Saul"? As God said to David, "I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body [Christ, verses 17-18]" [Psalm 132].
"For God is my King from of old, working salvation" [Psalm 74:12]. 'From of old' means from the past, or since a long time ago.
From of old, by an ancient plan, "the Lord God will give [Jesus] the throne of His father David" [Luke 1:32].
David himself knew that of the fruit of his body God "would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne" [Acts 2:30]
By the way... what Deuteronomy passage are you referring to? Deuteronomy 17:14-20?
Of course He does. That usually means that He has goals He wants to accomplish before he implements his plans.
And why was Saul picked? Because Israel wanted a king one generation before God had planned to give them one. About how many years were there between David's reign and Christ's ministry? Well, David captures Jerusalem in 1003 BC, almost exactly 1000 years before Christ was born in 4 BC.
Saul, on the other hand, began his reign in 1052 BC.
Is God's timing perfect, or at the very least, extremely accurate?
Which seems more like God's timing: 1049 years or 1000 years (+/- less than 1year)?
Considering that, does it seem more likely that Israel wanted a king one generation before God had planned?
And if so, it brings up the question, when did God plan for Israel to have an earthly king? Well, most likely before He created the universe, but didn't reveal that plan until Deuteronomy 17:14-20, when He gave the laws that a king ruling over Israel should abide by.
In fact, Moses tells them quite explicitly that they will want a king, and will have one appointed after they reach the promised land. He even says that God will choose one for them.
“When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.“Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites.And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes,that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel. - Deuteronomy 17:14-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:14-20&version=NKJV
Now, when you read that passage, what is the overall idea?
It's quite clear that God was setting up the laws for a king to follow when he rules over Israel. Now, if God regulates something, does that inherently say that it is allowed? Yes, it does.
It certainly has similarities. But you're not getting the gist of what each passage is saying, and because of that, you don't see that the meaning of each is completely different. Is Saul the one God wanted to be king over Israel? No, the passage in 1 Samuel 8 just shows that Israel, as usual, and once again, is rejecting God's timing, whereas the passage in Deuteronomy 17 shows that God is setting up the foundation for a king to rule.
He tells Samuel that "they have not rejected [Samuel], but they have rejected [God]."
What happens when people don't wait on God's timing? Usually they get into trouble. What happened with Saul? He started out righteous, and became extremely wicked, and brought the nation with him, yet had they waited just one more generation, God would have given them a righteous king, one whom God loved, who was righteous in God's eyes. How much better off would they have been had they waited for God to make His move instead of demanding something from Him before he's ready to give them it?
----
God established the Davidic throne in Jerusalem, through which the Messiah brought salvation. For "... unto us a Child is born... and the government will be upon [Him] ... upon the throne of David." [Isaiah 9] Notice how it says "throne of David" and not "throne of Saul"? As God said to David, "I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body [Christ, verses 17-18]" [Psalm 132].
"For God is my King from of old, working salvation" [Psalm 74:12]. 'From of old' means from the past, or since a long time ago.
From of old, by an ancient plan, "the Lord God will give [Jesus] the throne of His father David" [Luke 1:32].
David himself knew that of the fruit of his body God "would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne" [Acts 2:30]
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Establishment of Religion
Establishment of Religion
While I rarely weigh in on political matters (the reason being in what follows given the contention that often arises), some thoughts that come to mind, in no particular order...
Some background:
In the WCF Chapter 23 it is taught that the civil magistrate has authority to take order that all the ordinances of God be duly settled, administrated, and observed. Confessional Presbyterians base their constitution on the attainments of the second reformation period, sometimes called the covenanted work of reformation. It was in this context that the work of the Westminster Assembly was accomplished. The Westminster Assembly was called into existence and acted under the direction of the Long Parliament. Its accomplishments are not merely a legacy of reformation, but a platform for biblical church unity.
The revision of WCF 23:3 shown in the Spoiler above reflects the principles of an early American nation established without an official state church, like the Church of England. Sadly, this revision charges the civil magistrates to not give any preference to any Christian denomination. Furthermore, the responsibility of the civil magistrate is to protect all their citizens regardless of their religious affiliation. This is quite different then the seventeenth-century version of the WCF that instructs civil magistrates 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, administered, and observed (Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23,25-28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5,6,12; 2 Kings 18:4; 1 Chron. 13:1-9; 2 Kings 23:1-26; 2 Chron. 34:33; 2 Chron. 15:12,13).
The discussion of WCF Chapter 23 sooner or later comes around to the topic of establishmentarianism.
What exactly is the establishment principle that establishmentarians (like myself) hold to?
The Establishment Principle maintains the scriptural view of the universal supremacy of Christ as King of Nations as well as King of saints, with the consequent duty of nations as such, and civil rulers in their official capacity, to honor and serve Him by recognizing His truth and promoting His cause. Quite simply, it is the duty of the magistrate to uphold both tables of the law.
More random thoughts...
God sets up governments, and removes them. God decides when a magistrate has lost his right to govern. Individual subjects don't compare his conduct to a code, and then decide if he be any more a governor. Rebels should be very sure of their success, because God will exercise an exacting standard when He judges their conduct.
It might be worth considering that we live and work under the lesser magistrate (sheriffs, police chiefs, mayors, even governors) doctrine every day. Democracy is a bloodless revolution. The principle of revolution is ingrained in the fabric of the system. It is backed by the exercise of the sword against domestic and foreign enemies on a day to day basis. So successful is the exercise of this sword that the general public rarely have to see it in action or consider its work of blood. Moreover, we live in a church establishment which allows us to meet in public and to profess Christianity under the protection of the law, and this establishment upholds the doctrine of the lesser magistrate.
People today do not seem to understand how our peaceful societies of law and order are indebted to the principles of the magisterial reformation. They take up a pacifist position because they assume upon their liberties as entitlements and do not perceive the sacrifices which have been made to secure them.
If one says that God establishes the right of fathers, this will require an adjustment of civil power in the direction of constitutional rights, which is Lex Rex. So then it becomes a question, What is the source of law which regulates constitutional rights? The answer to that question brings us into the realm of religion.
Establishment of religion is a fact. The only question is whether the establishment is based on true or false religion. The establishment principle is Reformed. Those who reject it are not. Who decides what is Reformed? Not those who reject the establishment principle. Those who reject the establishment principle seek to redefine Reformed faith and life, and thereby place themselves outside the Reformed tradition. Should clarification be asked, I qualify that it is specifically on the issue of Church and State. But whether a man hits his golf ball out of bounds by an inch or a hundred feet makes no alteration to the fact that his ball is out of bounds and he has no right to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in play.
May God give particular Christians, called to exercise some degree of secular rule, the wisdom to do their governing labor as unto the Lord, as a Christian magistrate should. But I believe we are a long ways off from seeing a groundswell of public interest in a Christian-magistracy.
Consider the absolute:
"Any deviation from God's Law relinquishes the magistrates right to govern."
It is a true statement. But, deviations from the law do not remove legitimacy of government. It is when the government moves itself outside the boundaries of law so that its abuses cannot be redressed that it opens itself up to lawful revolutionary action on the part of inferior magistrates.
AMR
Establishment of Religion
While I rarely weigh in on political matters (the reason being in what follows given the contention that often arises), some thoughts that come to mind, in no particular order...
Some background:
Spoiler
In the WCF Chapter 23 it is taught that the civil magistrate has authority to take order that all the ordinances of God be duly settled, administrated, and observed. Confessional Presbyterians base their constitution on the attainments of the second reformation period, sometimes called the covenanted work of reformation. It was in this context that the work of the Westminster Assembly was accomplished. The Westminster Assembly was called into existence and acted under the direction of the Long Parliament. Its accomplishments are not merely a legacy of reformation, but a platform for biblical church unity.
The revision of WCF 23:3 shown in the Spoiler above reflects the principles of an early American nation established without an official state church, like the Church of England. Sadly, this revision charges the civil magistrates to not give any preference to any Christian denomination. Furthermore, the responsibility of the civil magistrate is to protect all their citizens regardless of their religious affiliation. This is quite different then the seventeenth-century version of the WCF that instructs civil magistrates 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, administered, and observed (Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23,25-28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5,6,12; 2 Kings 18:4; 1 Chron. 13:1-9; 2 Kings 23:1-26; 2 Chron. 34:33; 2 Chron. 15:12,13).
The discussion of WCF Chapter 23 sooner or later comes around to the topic of establishmentarianism.
What exactly is the establishment principle that establishmentarians (like myself) hold to?
The Establishment Principle maintains the scriptural view of the universal supremacy of Christ as King of Nations as well as King of saints, with the consequent duty of nations as such, and civil rulers in their official capacity, to honor and serve Him by recognizing His truth and promoting His cause. Quite simply, it is the duty of the magistrate to uphold both tables of the law.
More random thoughts...
God sets up governments, and removes them. God decides when a magistrate has lost his right to govern. Individual subjects don't compare his conduct to a code, and then decide if he be any more a governor. Rebels should be very sure of their success, because God will exercise an exacting standard when He judges their conduct.
It might be worth considering that we live and work under the lesser magistrate (sheriffs, police chiefs, mayors, even governors) doctrine every day. Democracy is a bloodless revolution. The principle of revolution is ingrained in the fabric of the system. It is backed by the exercise of the sword against domestic and foreign enemies on a day to day basis. So successful is the exercise of this sword that the general public rarely have to see it in action or consider its work of blood. Moreover, we live in a church establishment which allows us to meet in public and to profess Christianity under the protection of the law, and this establishment upholds the doctrine of the lesser magistrate.
People today do not seem to understand how our peaceful societies of law and order are indebted to the principles of the magisterial reformation. They take up a pacifist position because they assume upon their liberties as entitlements and do not perceive the sacrifices which have been made to secure them.
If one says that God establishes the right of fathers, this will require an adjustment of civil power in the direction of constitutional rights, which is Lex Rex. So then it becomes a question, What is the source of law which regulates constitutional rights? The answer to that question brings us into the realm of religion.
Establishment of religion is a fact. The only question is whether the establishment is based on true or false religion. The establishment principle is Reformed. Those who reject it are not. Who decides what is Reformed? Not those who reject the establishment principle. Those who reject the establishment principle seek to redefine Reformed faith and life, and thereby place themselves outside the Reformed tradition. Should clarification be asked, I qualify that it is specifically on the issue of Church and State. But whether a man hits his golf ball out of bounds by an inch or a hundred feet makes no alteration to the fact that his ball is out of bounds and he has no right to redefine the golf course in order to call his ball in play.
May God give particular Christians, called to exercise some degree of secular rule, the wisdom to do their governing labor as unto the Lord, as a Christian magistrate should. But I believe we are a long ways off from seeing a groundswell of public interest in a Christian-magistracy.
Consider the absolute:
"Any deviation from God's Law relinquishes the magistrates right to govern."
It is a true statement. But, deviations from the law do not remove legitimacy of government. It is when the government moves itself outside the boundaries of law so that its abuses cannot be redressed that it opens itself up to lawful revolutionary action on the part of inferior magistrates.
AMR
drbrumley
Well-known member
Thank you for the reply....let me dwell on it and I will get back to it...:up:
- Status