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.
The Westminster Divines arrived at WCF 23.iii by "good and necessary consequence." It seems that the Reformed (not necessarily you but guys like Clark) are abandoning this principle.
It's true that WCF XXIII.iii was later revised by the American Presbyterian church in 1789 and other churches revised the Continental standards around the same time, but - if anything - this was done for experiential and political purposes in the Westphalian nation-state era after 1648. The 1646 revision is closer to how all peoples and governments have seen the role of the magistrate to religion through time.
Again, I'm still skeptical that WCF 23.iii INSISTS that a state Christian church MUST be established. Calvin said that the type of government depended on its people. Whether to do it or not is a matter of context, circumstances, and the people - you work with the grain of the wood you're using.
I commend you on your acceptance of reality - where we are now. However, there is one huge difference - the original Christians , including Augustine, entered a world which was totally pagan.
We - on the other hand - are now living in Western Civilization whose Christian CULTURE has been converted to Satanism. How did that happen?
Don't ask? It might be beyond the grasp of most seminarians whose only training is theology. Which leaves out real life!
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.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your engagement with the topic of the Establishment Principle (EP) and the comparison to infant baptism. Allow me to clarify my perspective:
In the case of infant baptism, I would argue that there is a robust biblical and theological foundation for it, primarily stemming from the concept of covenant continuity from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. Covenantal theology provides a sturdy exegetical framework for understanding the inclusion of infants in the visible church. Various passages in both the Old and New Testaments support this continuity. My first question to you: Where has that same "leg work" been done for the EP?
Conversely, the EP is a theological concept related to the relationship between the church and the state. While there are principles of government and civil authority in the Bible, the EP as a specific doctrine governing the relationship between the church and state, especially in a modern context, is not explicitly laid out in the New Testament. It's not explicitly laid out in any fathers's writings either. The absence of clear and direct New Testament teaching on this issue makes it more challenging to establish the same level of biblical support as infant baptism.
Regarding your reference to Deuteronomy 13 and Romans 13, I understand your point about the civil government being a servant of God and the need for servants to obey the law of their Lord. Cesar was a servant of God. Just a bad one. This expression of Paul's could easily fall under Natural Law ala Romans 1. The passages you cite emphasize the role of civil authorities in maintaining order and justice. Fine and good. And I agree that they provide valuable insights into the biblical view of government. However, it's worth noting that while these passages address the responsibilities of civil authorities, they in no way prescribe a specific model for the relationship between the church and state. And that's my point—the model under the Christian diaspora. Where is it? What is it? Who decided it beyond Constantine declaring it? There is too much prima facie and insufficient "good and necessary consequences" to make it a positional test. The ink just isn't there to seal it. The EP seeks to establish a particular framework but has huge gaps in it. Will you address those gaps I have written about? My second question: Do you have works on the EP that does not presume the EP, but establish it in exigetical/theological terms that leave it as evidently clear as Covenant Baptism? Because I would love to read those works.
Even if I were to concede your point, it establishes nothing beyond the fact that Christ is the LORD of heaven and earth. Even Augustine's City of God only lays out "how then shall we live", not an EP.
My intention is not to dismiss the EP but to encourage a careful examination of its biblical foundations, especially in light of the obvious differences in the sheer volume and clarity of support between infant baptism and the EP. I appreciate your perspective and am open to further discussion on this topic.
You write: “In the case of infant baptism, I would argue that there is a robust biblical and theological foundation for it, primarily stemming from the concept of covenant continuity from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.”
Amen. But if you recognize this continuity, you should also be sensitive to the prominent accompanying theme of dominion in redemptive history.
Dominion over the world was committed to Adam and his posterity under the covenant of works and is renewed for the elect in Christ under the covenant of grace (Genesis 1:27-28, Genesis 9:1-6). The covenant with Abraham included the promise that kings would come from him (Genesis 17:6). The name “Israel” expresses one given power with men (Genesis 32:28). At Sinai the covenant people are called to dominion under Jehovah as a priestly kingdom (Exodus 19:6). That dominion is central to the Davidic covenant is evident (2 Samuel 7).
That the promise of dominion is included in the New Covenant in Christ may be proven by consulting Psalms 2, 8, 72, 110 with the many citations or allusions to these passages in the New Testament Scriptures, particularly in the book of Hebrews.
The Prophets testify similarly, as they foretell in many places that the New Covenant will bring the triumph of Messiah's kingdom in the global abolition of false religion and subordination of all authority to Him and His people. Daniel 7 is worthy of note, as it makes clear that this promise of dominion is realized especially at the destruction of Antichrist. “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” (Daniel 7:27) Revelation 11 and Revelation 20 teach the same.
Johnathon Edwards helpfully develops most of this in his History of Redemption.
You write: “Where has that same ‘leg work’ been done for the EP? Conversely, the EP is a theological concept related to the relationship between the church and the state… My second question: Do you have works on the EP that does not presume the EP, but establish it in exigetical/theological terms that leave it as evidently clear as Covenant Baptism? Because I would love to read those works.”
I would recommend older works like Calvin’s Institutes book 4 or Turretin’s Institutes volume 3 which make a strong apologetic for the establishment principle from the Scripture and sanctified reason.
My friend Dr. Joe Boot’s books the Mission of God and Ruler of Kings are also of some help, though I dissent from some of his Kuyperian distinctives.
However, I grant that more work needs to be done by contemporary Reformed theologians on this subject.
You write: “The absence of clear and direct New Testament teaching on this issue makes it more challenging to establish the same level of biblical support as infant baptism.”
The Reformed have never derived our doctrine of baptism, the civil magistrate, or anything else through reliance “on clear and direct New Testament teaching.” To do so is contrary to the Reformed hermeneutic, which receives Old and New Testaments as a unity which is mutually interpretative. Even where we grant New Testament revelation a place of priority and primacy in our theological system, we must allow the second lip of God to speak with full authority or we cease to be Reformed in anything but name.
Exodus, Deuteronomy, 1+2 Samuel, 1+2 Kings lend more than sufficient light to the question of whether the magistrate must establish the true religion in principle. Our fathers spoke much to the relevant questions of application, but most of these technical works are not much read or studied today with a view to present day retrieval or application. To our shame, it is mostly lack of will that prevents us from picking up where they left off. The complete works of Rutherford and Voetius are now being republished, so perhaps that will change.
You write: “This expression of Paul's could easily fall under Natural Law ala Romans 1.”
In orthodox Reformed theology the law of nature is summarized in both tables of the Ten Commandments. Paul expressly mentions the first commandment’s prohibition of idolatry in Roman 1, which the civil magistrate cannot obey without enforcing the first table of the law’s prohibition of false religion.
You write: “The EP seeks to establish a particular framework but has huge gaps in it. Will you address those gaps I have written about?”
I’m happy to discuss particular applications of biblical principles. But the EP as I understand it will look different in biblically faithful nations in different contexts. Similarly, godly fathers may come to different conclusions as to how their particular Christian families should uphold the Christian religion. But if a father contests the lawfulness of doing so in principle he is unlikely to get anywhere.
To my thinking, it is sufficient to note that Geneva, Heidelberg, Holland, Cromwell’s England, Scotland and New England established the Reformed religion and we continue to benefit from their having done so (for example, we possess the Reformed confessions commissioned by godly magistrates). If it can be done once it can be done again. It is hard to imagine how any sincere attempt to do so would be worse than what we have now.
You write: “I appreciate your perspective and am open to further discussion on this topic.”
"Amen. But if you recognize this continuity, you should also be sensitive to the prominent accompanying theme of dominion in redemptive history."
The concept of covenantal continuity in baptism across both Old and New Testaments does not inherently involve an understanding of dominion within redemptive history. This association is not a necessary logical step, and one's awareness of covenantal structures does not compel a sensitivity to themes of dominion, particularly in civic matters.
Additionally, the comparison intended was not in regard to covenantal continuity but rather to the clarity of transition between the Testaments concerning vital doctrines. If the Establishment Principle (tEP) holds the significance and clarity it purports, its continuity should be self-evident, which it is not. We adopted a "Looks good to me" mentality of Constantine's decree and implementation of the church/state. The silence of the New Testament, perhaps indicative of a diffusive/spiritual shift in paradigm to a global perspective, and the absence of foundational commentary on tEP by the church fathers, contribute to this lack of clarity.
It is my contention that the integration of dominion theology with tRP is erroneous. One must not presuppose the very argument that requires demonstration. Dominion theology, particularly in its Theonomic or Reconstructionist variants, represents an American/Kuyperian theological deviation, a perspective I once shared during Greg Bahnsen's lifetime. Addressing dominion theology in full would exceed the scope of this platform, but it is crucial to note for anyone reading these comments that the defense of the Establishment Principle does not necessitate recourse to dominion theology.
Perhaps some time when we meet face-to-face we can sharpen some iron together.
I'll not attempt to argue for the EP rather against faulty reasoning against it.
<blockquote>But the New Testament is curiously silent on political/nationalistic ideas of any sort in reference to the kingdom of Christ. Other than, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36), “render unto Cesar,” “pray for the king,” etc. We ought to SERIOUSLY ponder those words, by the way. And then reponder them some more because Jesus’ words appear much clearer on this subject than polemical arguments from holdover thoughts.</blockquote>
Jesus kingdom being not of this world means it's spiritual. That doesn't say anything about whether there should be a state church or a national church, terms which this essay has not defined. The fact that the NT says nothing about it is an argument from silence - the NT says little to nothing about most things. It was written to first century Christians and for those who would come after, but doesn't say what the church or Christians should do in all cases. It's descriptive rather than prescriptive. Most of what we do is governed by reason, circumstance, context, common sense, and the light of nature. "Render unto Caesar" means God has established government and Romans 13 and 2 Peter insist this is better than anarchy. However, that says nothing about whether a Christian magistrate would be better and rule more justly.
<blockquote>We know that Constantine legalized Christianity because as a failing political leader, it's always expedient to be on the winning side of a movement. Constantine’s was John Kerry’s famous line in reverse: “I was against it before I was for it.”</blockquote>
I don't know about that. His childhood tutor was a Christian named Lactantius who taught him that worship of God was only acceptable if offered freely[1].
[quote]The reality is, that Christianity was doing just fine before his eminence declared anything. The resurrection gospel was seeping into synagogues, trade routes, markets, and kitchens all over Asia Minor like hot lava. Even permeating the most significant pagan households of the region! So what if Constantine legalized it 300 years later? Did Jesus need his permission, his stamp, his endorsement? Tell me, was it after Constantine’s approval that Christianity flourished, or were the winds of compromise beginning to blow?[/quote]
Mark Tooley wrote about this in an essay debunking this a long time ago. First of all, if we're going to use the NT as proof that the church was doing fine before Constantine, what about all the problems with it we see in the Pauline epistles and the letters to the churches in Revelation? Can you cite some hard numbers on the growth of Christianity in the first through 3rd centuries before Constantine legalized it? Why did Christians have to build underground cities to hide if it was doing so well? Tooley argued that Christianity didn't flourish until after Constantine legalized it. I think this is closer to the truth.
<blockquote>did he go to the Scriptures to enquire after these things, or did he merely swap out parts of old Rome with parts of new Christianity? It's the same engine under a different hood, and its fumes smell a lot like antichrist to me.</blockquote>
That happened well after Augustine when the Roman empire collapsed. Why have other non-Western kingdoms like Aksum, Ethiopia, and Armenia adopted Christianity as a state religion? Why are most kingdoms set up around a religion? Consider this syllogism: men are religious, the magistrate is a man, therefore the magistrate is religious. We see this in our government today, except that it has adopted post-Christian ideologies in place of Christianity.
<blockquote>Why is it so essential to have an EP? What is so vital about it that we can't challenge or refine it? Even though we can't quite prove it with clarity, like we can, say, with exclusive psalmody, infant baptism, or the doctrines of grace. You know, arguing from both testaments, with loads of cross-references and systematic layouts, scriptural underpinnings, fortifications, and clarifications? In an age where the world is crumbling around us, Christian Nationalism needs a check. I say it is quite likely it has a faulty foundation. There, I said it.</blockquote>
I doubt you read Wolfe's book which is the only formalized take on CN. There seem to be a million definitions floating around so I can't tell which you're arguing with. The larger question is whether the magistrate should honor the sensibilities of a Christian polity. If not, what about other polities? Should the government of India respect Hindu sensibilities? What about Israel - should it respect Jewish sensibilities? What alternatives are you proposing to CN? You say the world is crumbling, what's your plan of action?
I'm talking specifially about tEP of which Christian Nationalism is a derivation. Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear. My first post (https://between2gardens.substack.com/p/the-establishment-principle) asks for the exegetical formulae. I'm not interested in verified ping pong or leading, open-ended questions that isolate according to a cherrypicking framework reconstruction conclusion. Prove it. A clear and exegetical examination of Scripture is paramount. That's the target of my musings: clear exegetical formulae demonstrating the continuity between tEP in the Old Economy, demonstrably proven in the New Testament. If you can't do it, then welcome to the club. Why don't you start by explaining Jesus' words in John 18:36: "Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.'" Once we have sufficiently exhausted this text, I have many more we can go through.
What's my plan of action? Preach Christ and Him crucified. The only help to any soul.
If you actually exposit the passage, I'll answer as I am able. I'm back from a respite and have much work to do for my flock.
In fact, I'll go first, then you can critique and counter. Here is what my private reascharch has produced on this text. Perhaps you can find the flaw in it. I'd appreciate it.
"ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου" (My kingdom is not of this world): The term "βασιλεία" (basileia) refers to 'kingdom' or 'reign'. The phrase "οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου" (ouk estin ek tou kosmou toutou) - 'is not of this world' - signifies that Christ's kingdom does not originate from, nor is it sustained by, the worldly structures and principles. This distinction is crucial. It implies that the nature, values, and operations of Christ's kingdom are fundamentally different from earthly kingdoms, being spiritual and heavenly in essence.
εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἦν" (if my kingdom were of this world): Obviously, Here, Jesus contrasts His Kingdom's nature with worldly kingdoms. Earthly kingdoms rely on physical force and political power, but Christ's Kingdom operates on a spiritual plane, manifesting God's sovereign rule in the hearts and lives of believers.
οἱ ὑπηρέται μου ἠγωνίζοντο ἄν" (then would my servants fight): The term "ἠγωνίζοντο" (ēgonizonto) from "ἀγωνίζομαι" (agōnizomai) means 'to fight' or 'struggle'. This highlights that in an earthly kingdom, physical force or polotic is used to protect and advance the kingdom. Christ, however, indicates that His kingdom does not advance through such means. His servants do not engage in political/physical/tactile battles to establish His rule; instead, His reign is advanced through the proclamation of the Gospel and the transformative work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of His elect.
νῦν δὲ ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐντεῦθεν" (but now is my kingdom not from hence): This reaffirms the heavenly origin and spiritual nature of Christ's Kingdom. Literally, it is 'not from here' (or of this earthly persuasion), that is, not from this world. It transcends earthly politics, cultures, and national boundaries.
Seems like you're not going to interact with the Reformers' and Divines' thoughts on this, so why would you find ours better?
I'm skeptical of establishment, but more skeptical of the selective biblicism of the R2K sect, their selective application of "good and necessary consequence," their lack of historical evidence for a government that stays out of religion, their failure to explain how we can reason solely from nature to people who reject it, their novel definitions and interpretations of their key passages, etc. We might be better off if we schism.
Prove it? I'll start with Matthew 28:18-20, with emphasis on the 'make disciples OF all nations' part after 'all authority' etc.
However, this proof will not be in 25 words or less - it has taken me literally 20+ years to arrive and affirm my position, which began publicly - www.crushlimbraw.com - in 2015 and has been expanded into a library linked from the website. It covers Government Religion Politics Culture and includes such topics as Gary DeMar's question: How is it Possible to “Only Preach the Gospel”? BY GARY DEMAR - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2024/01/how-is-it-possible-to-only-preach.html?m=0 - and that is just another starter - we've only just begun.
Then, in order to group essays already archived in DaLimbraw Library, I had to choose a word topic to search the library - I chose Christian Nationalism - a term which is increasingly becoming more controversial among both secular and churchian circles. Here is the result - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Christian+Nationalism+&m=1 - a list of headnotes to articles which have to be read full text. This is NOT for casual readers or short attention spans. Like I said earlier, this did not come to me from a road to Damascus experience.
"Faith comes by hearing and understanding comes from knowledge, which comes by sight." - Augustine. He wasn’t the only one - "My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge!" - Hosea.
In summary, I do NOT claim total understanding or knowledge - we all see through DaGlass DARKLY - but that does not mean we shouldn't look.
Discovering truth is a process - not an end state for us mortals - just as discerning good from evil takes practice - Hebrews 5:11-6:2.
I read it. Uninlightening. I've hear it all before. Wrote about it, strictly subscribed to it, preached it. There is nothing in it that has not been dust-beaten 20 years ago. I can argue your position as well as you can. How about you begin by interacting with my posts. The floor is yours. I will answer when I can.
I appreciate your thoughts here, Jerrold. As a Non-Establishmentarian Baptist, I have been thinking through all of these things a lot lately, aided by the 9Marks and Christ Over All content that's been coming out. I don't know how familiar you are with the landscape of the Christian Nationalism conversation, on both Presbyterian and Baptist sides, but who do you find interesting and persuasive these days? The Joe Boot/Andrew Sandlin camp, the Mere Christendom of Doug Wilson, or the more classical Magisterial Protestant, natural-law flavored version from Wolfe--if any??
Actually, I'm interested in R.Scott Clark's take on the roll of the magistrate as he engages with Moscow's theology. I'm a work in progress on tEP. You?
Sorry, idk why I never saw this comment until now. Interesting, I’ll have to look at what Clark is saying. For me, I’ve appreciated a lot of what Jonathan Leeman has done on this topic. He thinks like a philosopher and I think is quite clear and cogent on it as a Baptist.
His notion that God has one Kingdom, but multiple spheres of human sovereignty within that, in which he has delegated his authority--eg family, civitas, and church--is compelling
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.
The Westminster Divines arrived at WCF 23.iii by "good and necessary consequence." It seems that the Reformed (not necessarily you but guys like Clark) are abandoning this principle.
https://journal.rpts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/4-Good-and-Necessary-Williams.pdf
It's true that WCF XXIII.iii was later revised by the American Presbyterian church in 1789 and other churches revised the Continental standards around the same time, but - if anything - this was done for experiential and political purposes in the Westphalian nation-state era after 1648. The 1646 revision is closer to how all peoples and governments have seen the role of the magistrate to religion through time.
Again, I'm still skeptical that WCF 23.iii INSISTS that a state Christian church MUST be established. Calvin said that the type of government depended on its people. Whether to do it or not is a matter of context, circumstances, and the people - you work with the grain of the wood you're using.
I commend you on your acceptance of reality - where we are now. However, there is one huge difference - the original Christians , including Augustine, entered a world which was totally pagan.
We - on the other hand - are now living in Western Civilization whose Christian CULTURE has been converted to Satanism. How did that happen?
Don't ask? It might be beyond the grasp of most seminarians whose only training is theology. Which leaves out real life!
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.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your engagement with the topic of the Establishment Principle (EP) and the comparison to infant baptism. Allow me to clarify my perspective:
In the case of infant baptism, I would argue that there is a robust biblical and theological foundation for it, primarily stemming from the concept of covenant continuity from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. Covenantal theology provides a sturdy exegetical framework for understanding the inclusion of infants in the visible church. Various passages in both the Old and New Testaments support this continuity. My first question to you: Where has that same "leg work" been done for the EP?
Conversely, the EP is a theological concept related to the relationship between the church and the state. While there are principles of government and civil authority in the Bible, the EP as a specific doctrine governing the relationship between the church and state, especially in a modern context, is not explicitly laid out in the New Testament. It's not explicitly laid out in any fathers's writings either. The absence of clear and direct New Testament teaching on this issue makes it more challenging to establish the same level of biblical support as infant baptism.
Regarding your reference to Deuteronomy 13 and Romans 13, I understand your point about the civil government being a servant of God and the need for servants to obey the law of their Lord. Cesar was a servant of God. Just a bad one. This expression of Paul's could easily fall under Natural Law ala Romans 1. The passages you cite emphasize the role of civil authorities in maintaining order and justice. Fine and good. And I agree that they provide valuable insights into the biblical view of government. However, it's worth noting that while these passages address the responsibilities of civil authorities, they in no way prescribe a specific model for the relationship between the church and state. And that's my point—the model under the Christian diaspora. Where is it? What is it? Who decided it beyond Constantine declaring it? There is too much prima facie and insufficient "good and necessary consequences" to make it a positional test. The ink just isn't there to seal it. The EP seeks to establish a particular framework but has huge gaps in it. Will you address those gaps I have written about? My second question: Do you have works on the EP that does not presume the EP, but establish it in exigetical/theological terms that leave it as evidently clear as Covenant Baptism? Because I would love to read those works.
Even if I were to concede your point, it establishes nothing beyond the fact that Christ is the LORD of heaven and earth. Even Augustine's City of God only lays out "how then shall we live", not an EP.
My intention is not to dismiss the EP but to encourage a careful examination of its biblical foundations, especially in light of the obvious differences in the sheer volume and clarity of support between infant baptism and the EP. I appreciate your perspective and am open to further discussion on this topic.
Thanks for taking the time to respond brother.
You write: “In the case of infant baptism, I would argue that there is a robust biblical and theological foundation for it, primarily stemming from the concept of covenant continuity from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.”
Amen. But if you recognize this continuity, you should also be sensitive to the prominent accompanying theme of dominion in redemptive history.
Dominion over the world was committed to Adam and his posterity under the covenant of works and is renewed for the elect in Christ under the covenant of grace (Genesis 1:27-28, Genesis 9:1-6). The covenant with Abraham included the promise that kings would come from him (Genesis 17:6). The name “Israel” expresses one given power with men (Genesis 32:28). At Sinai the covenant people are called to dominion under Jehovah as a priestly kingdom (Exodus 19:6). That dominion is central to the Davidic covenant is evident (2 Samuel 7).
That the promise of dominion is included in the New Covenant in Christ may be proven by consulting Psalms 2, 8, 72, 110 with the many citations or allusions to these passages in the New Testament Scriptures, particularly in the book of Hebrews.
The Prophets testify similarly, as they foretell in many places that the New Covenant will bring the triumph of Messiah's kingdom in the global abolition of false religion and subordination of all authority to Him and His people. Daniel 7 is worthy of note, as it makes clear that this promise of dominion is realized especially at the destruction of Antichrist. “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” (Daniel 7:27) Revelation 11 and Revelation 20 teach the same.
Johnathon Edwards helpfully develops most of this in his History of Redemption.
You write: “Where has that same ‘leg work’ been done for the EP? Conversely, the EP is a theological concept related to the relationship between the church and the state… My second question: Do you have works on the EP that does not presume the EP, but establish it in exigetical/theological terms that leave it as evidently clear as Covenant Baptism? Because I would love to read those works.”
I would recommend older works like Calvin’s Institutes book 4 or Turretin’s Institutes volume 3 which make a strong apologetic for the establishment principle from the Scripture and sanctified reason.
My friend Dr. Joe Boot’s books the Mission of God and Ruler of Kings are also of some help, though I dissent from some of his Kuyperian distinctives.
https://americanreformer.org/2023/09/the-return-of-the-kingdom/
However, I grant that more work needs to be done by contemporary Reformed theologians on this subject.
You write: “The absence of clear and direct New Testament teaching on this issue makes it more challenging to establish the same level of biblical support as infant baptism.”
The Reformed have never derived our doctrine of baptism, the civil magistrate, or anything else through reliance “on clear and direct New Testament teaching.” To do so is contrary to the Reformed hermeneutic, which receives Old and New Testaments as a unity which is mutually interpretative. Even where we grant New Testament revelation a place of priority and primacy in our theological system, we must allow the second lip of God to speak with full authority or we cease to be Reformed in anything but name.
Exodus, Deuteronomy, 1+2 Samuel, 1+2 Kings lend more than sufficient light to the question of whether the magistrate must establish the true religion in principle. Our fathers spoke much to the relevant questions of application, but most of these technical works are not much read or studied today with a view to present day retrieval or application. To our shame, it is mostly lack of will that prevents us from picking up where they left off. The complete works of Rutherford and Voetius are now being republished, so perhaps that will change.
You write: “This expression of Paul's could easily fall under Natural Law ala Romans 1.”
In orthodox Reformed theology the law of nature is summarized in both tables of the Ten Commandments. Paul expressly mentions the first commandment’s prohibition of idolatry in Roman 1, which the civil magistrate cannot obey without enforcing the first table of the law’s prohibition of false religion.
You write: “The EP seeks to establish a particular framework but has huge gaps in it. Will you address those gaps I have written about?”
I’m happy to discuss particular applications of biblical principles. But the EP as I understand it will look different in biblically faithful nations in different contexts. Similarly, godly fathers may come to different conclusions as to how their particular Christian families should uphold the Christian religion. But if a father contests the lawfulness of doing so in principle he is unlikely to get anywhere.
To my thinking, it is sufficient to note that Geneva, Heidelberg, Holland, Cromwell’s England, Scotland and New England established the Reformed religion and we continue to benefit from their having done so (for example, we possess the Reformed confessions commissioned by godly magistrates). If it can be done once it can be done again. It is hard to imagine how any sincere attempt to do so would be worse than what we have now.
You write: “I appreciate your perspective and am open to further discussion on this topic.”
Likewise brother.
Wow, that's a lot!
I'll cut to the chase.
"Amen. But if you recognize this continuity, you should also be sensitive to the prominent accompanying theme of dominion in redemptive history."
The concept of covenantal continuity in baptism across both Old and New Testaments does not inherently involve an understanding of dominion within redemptive history. This association is not a necessary logical step, and one's awareness of covenantal structures does not compel a sensitivity to themes of dominion, particularly in civic matters.
Additionally, the comparison intended was not in regard to covenantal continuity but rather to the clarity of transition between the Testaments concerning vital doctrines. If the Establishment Principle (tEP) holds the significance and clarity it purports, its continuity should be self-evident, which it is not. We adopted a "Looks good to me" mentality of Constantine's decree and implementation of the church/state. The silence of the New Testament, perhaps indicative of a diffusive/spiritual shift in paradigm to a global perspective, and the absence of foundational commentary on tEP by the church fathers, contribute to this lack of clarity.
It is my contention that the integration of dominion theology with tRP is erroneous. One must not presuppose the very argument that requires demonstration. Dominion theology, particularly in its Theonomic or Reconstructionist variants, represents an American/Kuyperian theological deviation, a perspective I once shared during Greg Bahnsen's lifetime. Addressing dominion theology in full would exceed the scope of this platform, but it is crucial to note for anyone reading these comments that the defense of the Establishment Principle does not necessitate recourse to dominion theology.
Perhaps some time when we meet face-to-face we can sharpen some iron together.
pax
Thanks for the stimulating discussion brother. Blessings in your Ministry.
I'll not attempt to argue for the EP rather against faulty reasoning against it.
<blockquote>But the New Testament is curiously silent on political/nationalistic ideas of any sort in reference to the kingdom of Christ. Other than, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36), “render unto Cesar,” “pray for the king,” etc. We ought to SERIOUSLY ponder those words, by the way. And then reponder them some more because Jesus’ words appear much clearer on this subject than polemical arguments from holdover thoughts.</blockquote>
Jesus kingdom being not of this world means it's spiritual. That doesn't say anything about whether there should be a state church or a national church, terms which this essay has not defined. The fact that the NT says nothing about it is an argument from silence - the NT says little to nothing about most things. It was written to first century Christians and for those who would come after, but doesn't say what the church or Christians should do in all cases. It's descriptive rather than prescriptive. Most of what we do is governed by reason, circumstance, context, common sense, and the light of nature. "Render unto Caesar" means God has established government and Romans 13 and 2 Peter insist this is better than anarchy. However, that says nothing about whether a Christian magistrate would be better and rule more justly.
<blockquote>We know that Constantine legalized Christianity because as a failing political leader, it's always expedient to be on the winning side of a movement. Constantine’s was John Kerry’s famous line in reverse: “I was against it before I was for it.”</blockquote>
I don't know about that. His childhood tutor was a Christian named Lactantius who taught him that worship of God was only acceptable if offered freely[1].
[quote]The reality is, that Christianity was doing just fine before his eminence declared anything. The resurrection gospel was seeping into synagogues, trade routes, markets, and kitchens all over Asia Minor like hot lava. Even permeating the most significant pagan households of the region! So what if Constantine legalized it 300 years later? Did Jesus need his permission, his stamp, his endorsement? Tell me, was it after Constantine’s approval that Christianity flourished, or were the winds of compromise beginning to blow?[/quote]
Mark Tooley wrote about this in an essay debunking this a long time ago. First of all, if we're going to use the NT as proof that the church was doing fine before Constantine, what about all the problems with it we see in the Pauline epistles and the letters to the churches in Revelation? Can you cite some hard numbers on the growth of Christianity in the first through 3rd centuries before Constantine legalized it? Why did Christians have to build underground cities to hide if it was doing so well? Tooley argued that Christianity didn't flourish until after Constantine legalized it. I think this is closer to the truth.
<blockquote>did he go to the Scriptures to enquire after these things, or did he merely swap out parts of old Rome with parts of new Christianity? It's the same engine under a different hood, and its fumes smell a lot like antichrist to me.</blockquote>
That happened well after Augustine when the Roman empire collapsed. Why have other non-Western kingdoms like Aksum, Ethiopia, and Armenia adopted Christianity as a state religion? Why are most kingdoms set up around a religion? Consider this syllogism: men are religious, the magistrate is a man, therefore the magistrate is religious. We see this in our government today, except that it has adopted post-Christian ideologies in place of Christianity.
<blockquote>Why is it so essential to have an EP? What is so vital about it that we can't challenge or refine it? Even though we can't quite prove it with clarity, like we can, say, with exclusive psalmody, infant baptism, or the doctrines of grace. You know, arguing from both testaments, with loads of cross-references and systematic layouts, scriptural underpinnings, fortifications, and clarifications? In an age where the world is crumbling around us, Christian Nationalism needs a check. I say it is quite likely it has a faulty foundation. There, I said it.</blockquote>
I doubt you read Wolfe's book which is the only formalized take on CN. There seem to be a million definitions floating around so I can't tell which you're arguing with. The larger question is whether the magistrate should honor the sensibilities of a Christian polity. If not, what about other polities? Should the government of India respect Hindu sensibilities? What about Israel - should it respect Jewish sensibilities? What alternatives are you proposing to CN? You say the world is crumbling, what's your plan of action?
I'm talking specifially about tEP of which Christian Nationalism is a derivation. Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear. My first post (https://between2gardens.substack.com/p/the-establishment-principle) asks for the exegetical formulae. I'm not interested in verified ping pong or leading, open-ended questions that isolate according to a cherrypicking framework reconstruction conclusion. Prove it. A clear and exegetical examination of Scripture is paramount. That's the target of my musings: clear exegetical formulae demonstrating the continuity between tEP in the Old Economy, demonstrably proven in the New Testament. If you can't do it, then welcome to the club. Why don't you start by explaining Jesus' words in John 18:36: "Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.'" Once we have sufficiently exhausted this text, I have many more we can go through.
What's my plan of action? Preach Christ and Him crucified. The only help to any soul.
If you actually exposit the passage, I'll answer as I am able. I'm back from a respite and have much work to do for my flock.
Blessings,
In fact, I'll go first, then you can critique and counter. Here is what my private reascharch has produced on this text. Perhaps you can find the flaw in it. I'd appreciate it.
"ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου" (My kingdom is not of this world): The term "βασιλεία" (basileia) refers to 'kingdom' or 'reign'. The phrase "οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου" (ouk estin ek tou kosmou toutou) - 'is not of this world' - signifies that Christ's kingdom does not originate from, nor is it sustained by, the worldly structures and principles. This distinction is crucial. It implies that the nature, values, and operations of Christ's kingdom are fundamentally different from earthly kingdoms, being spiritual and heavenly in essence.
εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἦν" (if my kingdom were of this world): Obviously, Here, Jesus contrasts His Kingdom's nature with worldly kingdoms. Earthly kingdoms rely on physical force and political power, but Christ's Kingdom operates on a spiritual plane, manifesting God's sovereign rule in the hearts and lives of believers.
οἱ ὑπηρέται μου ἠγωνίζοντο ἄν" (then would my servants fight): The term "ἠγωνίζοντο" (ēgonizonto) from "ἀγωνίζομαι" (agōnizomai) means 'to fight' or 'struggle'. This highlights that in an earthly kingdom, physical force or polotic is used to protect and advance the kingdom. Christ, however, indicates that His kingdom does not advance through such means. His servants do not engage in political/physical/tactile battles to establish His rule; instead, His reign is advanced through the proclamation of the Gospel and the transformative work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of His elect.
νῦν δὲ ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐντεῦθεν" (but now is my kingdom not from hence): This reaffirms the heavenly origin and spiritual nature of Christ's Kingdom. Literally, it is 'not from here' (or of this earthly persuasion), that is, not from this world. It transcends earthly politics, cultures, and national boundaries.
A bit short, I know, but please do find the flaw.
Warmly,
Like I said at the outset, if you don't like Calvin's explanation, you're not going any of ours:
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xxi.html (section 9)
Seems like you just wanted to hear, "Great article!" Very well. Great article!
Seems like you're not going to interact with the Reformers' and Divines' thoughts on this, so why would you find ours better?
I'm skeptical of establishment, but more skeptical of the selective biblicism of the R2K sect, their selective application of "good and necessary consequence," their lack of historical evidence for a government that stays out of religion, their failure to explain how we can reason solely from nature to people who reject it, their novel definitions and interpretations of their key passages, etc. We might be better off if we schism.
Prove it? I'll start with Matthew 28:18-20, with emphasis on the 'make disciples OF all nations' part after 'all authority' etc.
However, this proof will not be in 25 words or less - it has taken me literally 20+ years to arrive and affirm my position, which began publicly - www.crushlimbraw.com - in 2015 and has been expanded into a library linked from the website. It covers Government Religion Politics Culture and includes such topics as Gary DeMar's question: How is it Possible to “Only Preach the Gospel”? BY GARY DEMAR - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2024/01/how-is-it-possible-to-only-preach.html?m=0 - and that is just another starter - we've only just begun.
Then, in order to group essays already archived in DaLimbraw Library, I had to choose a word topic to search the library - I chose Christian Nationalism - a term which is increasingly becoming more controversial among both secular and churchian circles. Here is the result - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Christian+Nationalism+&m=1 - a list of headnotes to articles which have to be read full text. This is NOT for casual readers or short attention spans. Like I said earlier, this did not come to me from a road to Damascus experience.
"Faith comes by hearing and understanding comes from knowledge, which comes by sight." - Augustine. He wasn’t the only one - "My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge!" - Hosea.
In summary, I do NOT claim total understanding or knowledge - we all see through DaGlass DARKLY - but that does not mean we shouldn't look.
Discovering truth is a process - not an end state for us mortals - just as discerning good from evil takes practice - Hebrews 5:11-6:2.
Shall we begin?
Perhaps you might start here. https://philosophical-theology.com/2022/09/08/westminster-civil-ethics-natural-law-and-kidnapping/
I'm not R2K. If you'd like to answer my questions in my two posts, I'm all ears. I look forward to reading them. Blessings.
My article leads you to a Westminster civil ethic. Do you agree with it? And what makes you not R2K?
I read it. Uninlightening. I've hear it all before. Wrote about it, strictly subscribed to it, preached it. There is nothing in it that has not been dust-beaten 20 years ago. I can argue your position as well as you can. How about you begin by interacting with my posts. The floor is yours. I will answer when I can.
Kind regards,
I appreciate your thoughts here, Jerrold. As a Non-Establishmentarian Baptist, I have been thinking through all of these things a lot lately, aided by the 9Marks and Christ Over All content that's been coming out. I don't know how familiar you are with the landscape of the Christian Nationalism conversation, on both Presbyterian and Baptist sides, but who do you find interesting and persuasive these days? The Joe Boot/Andrew Sandlin camp, the Mere Christendom of Doug Wilson, or the more classical Magisterial Protestant, natural-law flavored version from Wolfe--if any??
Actually, I'm interested in R.Scott Clark's take on the roll of the magistrate as he engages with Moscow's theology. I'm a work in progress on tEP. You?
Sorry, idk why I never saw this comment until now. Interesting, I’ll have to look at what Clark is saying. For me, I’ve appreciated a lot of what Jonathan Leeman has done on this topic. He thinks like a philosopher and I think is quite clear and cogent on it as a Baptist.
His notion that God has one Kingdom, but multiple spheres of human sovereignty within that, in which he has delegated his authority--eg family, civitas, and church--is compelling