Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jerrold Lewis's avatar

Thank you for interacting with this article. I greatly appreciate it.

I find myself transitioning from a staunch adherence to the Establishment Principle, a stance I robustly defended for over two decades, towards a more nuanced view that resonates with Augustine's vision in 'City of God' and what can be understood as an embryonic form of Calvin's dual jurisdictions. Calvin, in his 'Institutes of the Christian Religion', particularly in Book IV, opens up the nature of civil government as distinct yet under the providential sovereignty of God. He articulates a dual governance system: the spiritual, under the church's stewardship, addressing matters of the soul, faith, and eternal destiny; and the temporal, under civil authorities, overseeing public conduct, justice, and societal welfare.

This perspective, echoing Augustine, who grappled with the Christian's role in a fading empire, posits a more pilgrim-like existence for believers, reminiscent of biblical figures such as Joseph in Egypt and Daniel in Babylon. It speaks to our role as sojourners, navigating an increasingly pluralistic society while remaining scripturally anchored.

My journey through Reformed thought, from my days as a Steelite in the 90s, engaging with the Reconstructionist movement and its evolution into what is now perceived as Christian Nationalism, especially within certain Presbyterian and Reformed circles, has been one of continuous reevaluation. I have read “Lex Rex”, “Aaron’s Rod Blossoming”, "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women”, “Right of Magistrates Over Their Subjects”, Baza, and a host of Scottish Covenanters on the subject. I know the position. Yet it has become increasingly apparent that the Second Reformation writers offer limited insights on the Establishment Principle, as to its two testament clarity, instead presupposing its validity rather than robustly proving it.

Notably, this principle seems less a doctrine that has organically grown from Old to New Testament continuity but rather appears as a theological construct superimposed onto the Christian ethos, postdating the New Testament era. Its roots can be traced not to the teachings of Christ or the Apostles but to the legislative actions of Constantine and Theodosius I. Unlike foundational doctrines such as the Law, the Covenants, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and the sacraments, which have clear scriptural lineage and development, the Establishment Principle lacks a similar New Testament trajectory. It seems more a product of historical circumstance than a doctrine emerging from the continuous revelation of Scripture.

In this light, I advocate a careful re-examination of the church's role in the state, considering the complexities of modern society. This re-examination, while informed by historical positions, must be deeply rooted in a biblically sound, Christ-centered theology that respects the distinct yet interwoven roles of the church and state under the sovereign rule of God, who rules over all, blessed forever.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Expand full comment
Benjamin Hicks's avatar

Brother, you say you can "prove" infant baptism, yet you claim an objective hermeneutic cannot "prove" the establishment principle in the New Covenant.

Yet you concede that the establishment principle is explicitly in the Old Covenant Scriptures.

Similarly, children are included in the visible church under the Old Covenant. A Reformed hermeneutic assumes continuity with the Old Covenant except where discontinuity is explicit. Hence, we require of our Baptist brothers explicit proof of discontinuity with respect to covenant children.

If you grant a hermeneutic where continuity must be proven with respect to the establishment principle but not infant inclusion in the visible church, I would have to conclude that you are inconsistent.

I would supply as biblical proof of the establishment principle Deuteronomy 13 and Romans 13. The civil government is a servant of God. Servants must obey the law of their Lord.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts