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." John 18:36
Are you assuming the necessity of the State, or is it possible that there may be stateless governing authorities? If you assume the necessity of States, then you may assume biblical prescriptions for the State that are not logical necessities.
Gideon's words in Judges 8:23 offer an example of a stateless nation ruled by God. The conflation of the concepts of a nation and the State seem to be a modern convention.
If I understand you correctly, you're affirming Matthew 28:18-20 both in authority and task - often called The Great Commission. "All authority in heaven and earth" is not ambiguous, and neither is "Make disciples of all nations".
My question is: What is 'make disciples of all nations' if not Christian Nationalism?
For all his Anabaptist proclivities, AnteNicene historian David Bercot has quite helpfully exposed some of the malignancies that accrued to Christ's precious bride in the wake of the emperor's alleged 312 "conversion". Where there's much risk to the body in an unabashed profession of Christ as Savior and King, the soul is purified of temporal dross. Alas, the converse is also manifestly reliable. And so it goes, as the sun also rises. The very things our carnal souls crave, e.g., temporal security, freedom from danger (risk) and the like, are at once the selfsame things that foster insipid spiritual rigour, hence churchmen on the wide, smooth, path to destruction unawares. Would to God the confusion over the church's role in secular government was all that we inherited from the Constantinian aftermath. Huddled together with a single-eyed agenda of honoring Christ whilst preferring the needs of their fellows as their own, those 7 or 8 generations of believers from the late first century to the early fourth were so altogether lovely. Providence? Our doctrine grants no quarter for doubt. But, that an obedient response is required is equally sure. We have our liturgy . . . is it enough?
First, I would respectfully disagree that the establishment principle in historic Reformed theology entails a “state church.” This term seems to denote that the church is or should be an extension of the state or under the authority of the state as such. It seems that our fathers rejected this idea when they carefully refuted the Erastian error. In the magisterial Reformation there was a proper distinction drawn between ecclesiastical and civil government while recognizing their harmony under the law of God and Lordship of Christ. More accurately, the Reformers rejected “state churches” while affirming national churches and the requirement for national governments to defend and promote the Reformed faith as the one true religion.
Second, if the Biblical foundation of the establishment principle is to be fairly considered, I would argue that we should do justice to the numerous texts in both Testaments that directly or by implication speak of the responsibility of civil rulers to submit their authority to the Lordship of Christ.
“Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” (Psalm 2:10-12)
“And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.” (Isaiah 49:23)
“All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18)
“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:4)
“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 1:5)
“And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.” (Revelation 19:16)
Third, I would contend that the harmony of the Reformed establishment principle with prior Christian and even pre-Christian political orders can be explained by some things being simply self-evident. Namely, that all of life is religious and thus must be ordered to the true religion. Even the most fanatical enemies of Christianity arguably follow this principle by substituting the true law and gospel for their own religious principle. In fact, whereas purportedly “secular and pluralistic” political orders such as modern America and Canada might claim to be “religiously neutral,” this claim should itself be subjected to sanctified critical reflection. Might not societies based on the worship of mammon and sexual perversion more accurately be described as Satanic rather than merely irreligious?
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Please feel free to call me Jerrold. I understand your post regarding the Establishment Principle, but my training, honed by my Highland instructors, knows that the EP inevitably leads to a state church. The data on the subject is clear. Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other.
By the Establishment Principle, I mean where both the Church and the State operate as equivalent powers, each with distinct jurisdictions, under the authority of the Word of God. The State is responsible for declaring, safeguarding, and advancing the true religion, upholding all ten commandments at a civil level, and establishing the true religion within its jurisdiction from a civic perspective, rather than a sacred one. This necessitates one Church for one nation. Or, one nation, one Church.
Conversely, the Church, which derives its existence and governance by Divine Right, is tasked with delivering God's Word to the State, ensuring it remains in line with these divine principles.
I am well acquainted with the passages you've quoted within this context, and the arguments supporting the Establishment Principle from them. None of them, you will notice, establish HOW they will be fulfilled or established. By which mechinism? By what path? Should not the scriptures dictate? That's my point. My main query lies in whether something as significant as the order of church and state, should be consigned to 'good and necessary consequences', or, as you say, 'simply self-evident', especially since the New Testament seems to point another direction.
Additionally, I'm interested in your thoughts on the idea that Constantine may have haphazardly merged Roman civil governance with the Christian Church, without thought or scriptural warant. And that it was adopted de facto by the infant church, and continues today, without an exegetical grounding, in both testaments, like say, the RPW. Or, why is the New Testament void of comment on the civil magistrate except to tell the infant church to pray for, obey, and be a good citizen toward them? I believe this is worth discussing.
What do you think of Jesus' words in John 18:36?
I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on these points.
I appreciate your clear summary of the establishment principle (EP) in your comment. It seems from your summary that the components of the EP follow from valid premises. Therefore, I would contend that rejecting it would require proving one or more of the premises to be invalid.
How is this principle to be implemented? In general, by means of Christian people carrying out their lawful callings in church, family, state, society etc. in faith and according to God’s revealed will. Specific actions will also be determined by Christian prudence and wisdom. The success that follows is always in God’s hands. Duty is ours, events are God’s.
Your comparison with the RPW is helpful.
On the one hand, I contend that the premises of the EP and RPW both logically follow from the moral law and human anthropology, and thus do not require specific warrant from special revelation. The covenant of grace in Christ in Old and New Testaments restores human nature from the corrupting influences of sin, but does not destroy God's original design concerning the moral obligations of human beings individually or collectively.
On the other hand, I can defend the EP and RPW on the same Scriptural grounds: Christ's affirmation of the abiding validity of the Old Testament Scriptures as an infallible rule of ethics for Christians.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)
I trust we agree that Christ's words give warrant to Christians searching the precepts and examples in the books of Deuteronomy or 1&2 Kings to vindicate the abiding principle that all worship which God does not command is forbidden. I likewise contend that the premises of the EP can be vindicated in the same way. Thus, the New Testament Scripture can hardly be characterized as silent on the relation of magistrates to the true religion when it expressly directs us to the Old Testament Scripture for moral instruction.
Regarding Constantine, my understanding is that he himself did not establish the Christian religion but rather publicly confessed Christ and ended persecution of the church. It was left to his successors to establish Christianity and suppress public displays of paganism. But I agree that his legacy is mixed and should be measured by the law of God, like any other civil ruler.
Regarding John 18:36, Christ here teaches that His kingdom of grace is from heaven and therefore its success is not dependent on human will but the power of God. Calvin’s commentary is helpful. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/john/18.htm
My definition of EP is actually a supposition rather than a premise. Thus my dilemma. If it were a premise, I would indeed need to showcase a flaw. But it begs the original question by doing so, thus it's a supposition.
Thanks for attempting to engage on the scriptural part. I appreciate it. I have thought of all those things over the decades and still do. They just seem contrived rather than organic which i find problematic. Especially given the NT's potential counter point. I'll postulate those thoughts in a future, I Wonder... DV.
Are you assuming the necessity of the State, or is it possible that there may be stateless governing authorities? If you assume the necessity of States, then you may assume biblical prescriptions for the State that are not logical necessities.
Gideon's words in Judges 8:23 offer an example of a stateless nation ruled by God. The conflation of the concepts of a nation and the State seem to be a modern convention.
If I understand you correctly, you're affirming Matthew 28:18-20 both in authority and task - often called The Great Commission. "All authority in heaven and earth" is not ambiguous, and neither is "Make disciples of all nations".
My question is: What is 'make disciples of all nations' if not Christian Nationalism?
As a reference, I have archived this extensive article in my library - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2023/03/christian-nationalism-isnt-cultural.html?m=0 - which I think makes a good case, among others I have read.
Would appreciate your thoughts on this!
For all his Anabaptist proclivities, AnteNicene historian David Bercot has quite helpfully exposed some of the malignancies that accrued to Christ's precious bride in the wake of the emperor's alleged 312 "conversion". Where there's much risk to the body in an unabashed profession of Christ as Savior and King, the soul is purified of temporal dross. Alas, the converse is also manifestly reliable. And so it goes, as the sun also rises. The very things our carnal souls crave, e.g., temporal security, freedom from danger (risk) and the like, are at once the selfsame things that foster insipid spiritual rigour, hence churchmen on the wide, smooth, path to destruction unawares. Would to God the confusion over the church's role in secular government was all that we inherited from the Constantinian aftermath. Huddled together with a single-eyed agenda of honoring Christ whilst preferring the needs of their fellows as their own, those 7 or 8 generations of believers from the late first century to the early fourth were so altogether lovely. Providence? Our doctrine grants no quarter for doubt. But, that an obedient response is required is equally sure. We have our liturgy . . . is it enough?
Hello Pastor Jerrold.
First, I would respectfully disagree that the establishment principle in historic Reformed theology entails a “state church.” This term seems to denote that the church is or should be an extension of the state or under the authority of the state as such. It seems that our fathers rejected this idea when they carefully refuted the Erastian error. In the magisterial Reformation there was a proper distinction drawn between ecclesiastical and civil government while recognizing their harmony under the law of God and Lordship of Christ. More accurately, the Reformers rejected “state churches” while affirming national churches and the requirement for national governments to defend and promote the Reformed faith as the one true religion.
Second, if the Biblical foundation of the establishment principle is to be fairly considered, I would argue that we should do justice to the numerous texts in both Testaments that directly or by implication speak of the responsibility of civil rulers to submit their authority to the Lordship of Christ.
“Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” (Psalm 2:10-12)
“And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.” (Isaiah 49:23)
“All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18)
“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:4)
“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 1:5)
“And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.” (Revelation 19:16)
Third, I would contend that the harmony of the Reformed establishment principle with prior Christian and even pre-Christian political orders can be explained by some things being simply self-evident. Namely, that all of life is religious and thus must be ordered to the true religion. Even the most fanatical enemies of Christianity arguably follow this principle by substituting the true law and gospel for their own religious principle. In fact, whereas purportedly “secular and pluralistic” political orders such as modern America and Canada might claim to be “religiously neutral,” this claim should itself be subjected to sanctified critical reflection. Might not societies based on the worship of mammon and sexual perversion more accurately be described as Satanic rather than merely irreligious?
Blessings in your ministry.
Pastor Benjamin Hicks
Hello Benjamin,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Please feel free to call me Jerrold. I understand your post regarding the Establishment Principle, but my training, honed by my Highland instructors, knows that the EP inevitably leads to a state church. The data on the subject is clear. Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other.
By the Establishment Principle, I mean where both the Church and the State operate as equivalent powers, each with distinct jurisdictions, under the authority of the Word of God. The State is responsible for declaring, safeguarding, and advancing the true religion, upholding all ten commandments at a civil level, and establishing the true religion within its jurisdiction from a civic perspective, rather than a sacred one. This necessitates one Church for one nation. Or, one nation, one Church.
Conversely, the Church, which derives its existence and governance by Divine Right, is tasked with delivering God's Word to the State, ensuring it remains in line with these divine principles.
I am well acquainted with the passages you've quoted within this context, and the arguments supporting the Establishment Principle from them. None of them, you will notice, establish HOW they will be fulfilled or established. By which mechinism? By what path? Should not the scriptures dictate? That's my point. My main query lies in whether something as significant as the order of church and state, should be consigned to 'good and necessary consequences', or, as you say, 'simply self-evident', especially since the New Testament seems to point another direction.
Additionally, I'm interested in your thoughts on the idea that Constantine may have haphazardly merged Roman civil governance with the Christian Church, without thought or scriptural warant. And that it was adopted de facto by the infant church, and continues today, without an exegetical grounding, in both testaments, like say, the RPW. Or, why is the New Testament void of comment on the civil magistrate except to tell the infant church to pray for, obey, and be a good citizen toward them? I believe this is worth discussing.
What do you think of Jesus' words in John 18:36?
I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on these points.
Thinking out loud.
Best regards,
Jerrold
Thanks for your reply Jerrold.
I appreciate your clear summary of the establishment principle (EP) in your comment. It seems from your summary that the components of the EP follow from valid premises. Therefore, I would contend that rejecting it would require proving one or more of the premises to be invalid.
How is this principle to be implemented? In general, by means of Christian people carrying out their lawful callings in church, family, state, society etc. in faith and according to God’s revealed will. Specific actions will also be determined by Christian prudence and wisdom. The success that follows is always in God’s hands. Duty is ours, events are God’s.
Your comparison with the RPW is helpful.
On the one hand, I contend that the premises of the EP and RPW both logically follow from the moral law and human anthropology, and thus do not require specific warrant from special revelation. The covenant of grace in Christ in Old and New Testaments restores human nature from the corrupting influences of sin, but does not destroy God's original design concerning the moral obligations of human beings individually or collectively.
On the other hand, I can defend the EP and RPW on the same Scriptural grounds: Christ's affirmation of the abiding validity of the Old Testament Scriptures as an infallible rule of ethics for Christians.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)
I trust we agree that Christ's words give warrant to Christians searching the precepts and examples in the books of Deuteronomy or 1&2 Kings to vindicate the abiding principle that all worship which God does not command is forbidden. I likewise contend that the premises of the EP can be vindicated in the same way. Thus, the New Testament Scripture can hardly be characterized as silent on the relation of magistrates to the true religion when it expressly directs us to the Old Testament Scripture for moral instruction.
Regarding Constantine, my understanding is that he himself did not establish the Christian religion but rather publicly confessed Christ and ended persecution of the church. It was left to his successors to establish Christianity and suppress public displays of paganism. But I agree that his legacy is mixed and should be measured by the law of God, like any other civil ruler.
Regarding John 18:36, Christ here teaches that His kingdom of grace is from heaven and therefore its success is not dependent on human will but the power of God. Calvin’s commentary is helpful. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/john/18.htm
My definition of EP is actually a supposition rather than a premise. Thus my dilemma. If it were a premise, I would indeed need to showcase a flaw. But it begs the original question by doing so, thus it's a supposition.
Thanks for attempting to engage on the scriptural part. I appreciate it. I have thought of all those things over the decades and still do. They just seem contrived rather than organic which i find problematic. Especially given the NT's potential counter point. I'll postulate those thoughts in a future, I Wonder... DV.