Or, what hath Geneva to do with Colorado Springs?
For Whom Would You Vote? (I appreciate the avoidance of the dangling preposition) is a resource provided by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Here is the justification:
As the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to foster a Reformed awakening, we want to offer a free resource to help voters to think biblically about their responsibility. In his helpful booklet, “For Whom Would You Vote?,” Dr. Roy Blackwood argues that the checkered history of both good and bad Jewish kings teaches us to be discerning of the character (the just-ness or “righteousness”) of those who rule over us.
Aside from the anomaly of likening the voting process to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and the naivete of thinking we can ever know our federal candidates’ personal qualities through the haze of sloganeering, advertisements, and photo-ops, is this really an instance of Reformed conviction and reflection? Or is it a case of Calvinistic evangelicals doing what evangelicals do, namely, bring God into the ballot box?
Protestants used to be bothered when Roman Catholics did this, and many American Christians don’t care for Muslim-Americans invoking Allah in public life. So what makes this permissible? What makes it Reformed?
156 Comments
Doug, but Kuyper agrees with me instead of you:
Does it follow, therefore, that the sooner we stop our observation of life the better, so that we can seek the rules of state polity outside life in Holy Scripture? This is how some mistakenly think that we reason…However, the opposite is true. Calvinism has never supported this untenable position but has always opposed it with might and main. A state polity that dismisses and scorns the observation of life and simply wishes to duplicate the situation of Israel, taking Holy Scripture as a complete code of Christian law for the state, would, according to the spiritual fathers of Calvinism, be the epitome of absurdity. Accordingly, in their opposition to Anabaptism as well as the Quakers, they expressed unreservedly their repugnance for this extremely dangerous and impractical theory.
If we considered the political life of the nations as something unholy, unclean and wrong in itself, it would lie outside of human nature. Then the state would have to be seen as a purely external means of compulsion, and every attempt to discover even a trace of God’s ordinances in our own nature would be absurd. Only special revelation would then be capable of imparting to us the standards for that external means of discipline. Wherever, thus, this special revelation is absent, as in the heathen worlds, nothing but sin and distortion would prevail, which would therefore not even be worth the trouble of our observation…However, if we open the works of Calvin, Bullinger, Beza and Marnix van St. Aldegonde, it becomes obvious that Calvinism consciously chooses sides against this viewpoint. The experience of the states of antiquity, the practical wisdom of their laws, and the deep insight of their statesmen and philosophers is held in esteem by these men, and these are cited in support of their own affirmations and consciously related to the ordinances of God. The earnest intent of the political life of many nations can be explained in terms of the principles of justice and morality that spoke in their consciences. They cannot be explained simply as blindness brought on by the Evil One; on the contrary, in the excellence of their political efforts we encounter a divine ray of light…
…with proper rights we contradict the argument that Holy Scripture should be seen as the source from which a knowledge of the best civil laws flow. The supporters of this potion talk as though after the Fall nature, human life, and history have ceased being a revelation of God and As though, with the closing of this book, another book, called Holy Scriptures, as opened for us. Calvinism has never defended this untenable position and will never acknowledge it as its own…We have refuted the notion that we entertain the foolish effort to patch together civil laws from Bible texts, and we have declared unconditionally that psychology, ethnology, history and statistics are also for us given which, by the light of God’s Word, must determine the standards for the state polity.
-The Ordinances of God
And…
The question is also brought up and is of importance: does not a part of the work of reformation belong to the magistrate? The question is especially whether the magistrate is not called, authorized and obligated “to prevent and exterminate all idolatry and false religion.”
Our conviction in this respect does not agree with that of our fathers. We do not make a secret of this difference. Only God’s Word, not the word of the fathers, is finally authoritative for us. And it is on the ground of God’s Word that we are convinced in conscience not to follow our fathers in this subordinate part of their Confessions.
The reason for this is that these words from the Confessions designate and imply that the obligation rests on the magistrate not only to, admonish heretics if they refuse to perform their public duty, but also to arrest, imprison, and pass sentence upon them, andexecute them on the scaffold.
This actually is implied in these words.
The proof of this is Calvin’s writings: “that heretics must be executed with the sword”; Beza’s Essay, “that heretics must be corporally punished by the civil magistrate”; and further the sentiments of Maresius in his explanation of the Confession. Compare also the sentiments of our theologians: Voetius in his “Dispute. Theol.” III, 802-809, and II, 122; H. Alping in his “Script. Heidelb.” Tom. 2, p. 2, probl. 20, p. 335, f. 9; Spanheim, “Vind. Euang, ‘ ‘ 1, II, lot. 20; C. Van Velzen, “Pheol. Pratt.” II, 1, I, p. 632; Gerdesius, “Bibel, menstr. Belg.” m. Jan. 1742, p. 30; J. a. Marck, “Med Pheol.” C. XXIII, para. 32; De Moor, “Comm. a Marck” VI, p. 490f.; and Turretin, “Theol. Hand.” T. 1, XVIII, p. 84, para. 30.
All these theologians are unanimously of the opinion that Article 36 of our Confessions actually lays on the magistrate the obligation to execute a heretic on the scaffold in the final analysis.
They differ from Rome in this that they leave to the magistrate its own judgment. Rome teaches that the magistrate must pass sentence on the ground of the ecclesiastical judgment. Our fathers say, on the other hand, Let the magistrate decide for himself.
They also grant that as a general rule the magistrate should not resort to this extreme punishment except in the worst instances and with the worst heretics, etc.
Also, it was usually added since the time of a Marck that the magistrate ought not to do this to a heretic as long as he was not a threat to the Republic. But however mildly and however carefully their sentiments were expressed it finally comes down to this, that when other means have failed, the extermination of idolatry must be carried out by fire and sword.
We oppose this Confession out of complete conviction, prepared to bear the consequences of our convictions, even when we will be denounced and mocked on that account as unReformed.
We would rather be considered not Reformed and insist that men ought not to kill heretics, than that we are left with the Reformed name as the prize for assisting in the shedding of the blood of heretics.
It is our conviction: 1) that the examples which are found in the Old Testament are of no force for us because the infallible indication of what was or was not heretical which was present at that time is now lacking.
2) That the Lord and the Apostles never called upon the help of the magistrate to kill with the sword the one who deviated from the truth. Even in connection with such horrible heretics as defiled the congregation in Corinth, Paul mentions nothing of this idea. And it cannot be concluded from any particular word in the New Testament, that in the days when particular revelation should cease, that the rooting out of heretics with the sword is the obligation of magistrates.
3) That our fathers have not developed this monstrous proposition out of principle, but have taken it over from Romish practice.
4) That the acceptance and carrying out of this principle almost always has returned upon the heads of non-heretics and not the truth but heresy has been honored by the magistrate.
5) That this proposition opposes the Spirit and the Christian faith.
6) That this proposition supposed that the magistrate is in a position to judge the difference between truth and heresy, an office of grace which, as appears from the history of eighteen centuries, is not granted by the Holy Spirit, but is withheld.
We do not at all hide the fact that we disagree with Calvin, our Confessions, and our Reformed theologians.
We readily testify that we therefore are not compelled by necessity through invincible testimony to let this difference come out.
We completely agree that those who accede to this paragraph in Article 36 have an easier position in this respect.
We admit that he who in this respect represents us in the church as deviating from the Confessions is true in his testimony.
Notwithstanding this serious objection which we do not consider lightly, we would nevertheless continue frankly to insist: In the name of the Lord we do not ash a scaffold for the heretic.
Because of this the church of our Lord Jesus Christ should understand and it should be sharply bound on the soul of the children of God who know love: Those teachers who claim to maintain this paragraph in Article 36, lay upon the people of God the demand that they shall approve of the execution of heretics. No, even more, if God wills it, they must confess and take upon themselves the responsibility for the blood of heretics once again.
If the children of God are of a mind to do this in their land, then naturally they must condemn us in this matter.
But a better testimony speaks in them: “I may not erect a scaffold for the heretic!” Let them then also have the courage openly to add their vote to ours so that the proponents and opponents of the burning and beheading of heretics may stand in clear and total opposition to each other.
As is known, we deny least of all that which is implied for the magistrate in Christ’s kingship and in both tables of the law. This, however, is treated in earlier paragraphs and need not be repeated here.
Permit us to add only this.
As much as our opponents must maintain that also Nero was obligated to burn the heretics according to his own judgment (i.e., the people whom he held to be heretics), they actually concede that this obligation can only be carried out properly by the magistrates who make profession of the Reformed religion.
And because there is no such magistrate who as yet has appeared in our land, we want the question asked if it is good to condemn brethren concerning such a painful question as the question of the scaffold for the obstinate heretics.
At any rate, we indulge in the hope that even those teachers who are zealous with respect to the preference for the maintenance of this “scaffold-sense” in Article 36, will be themselves the first to shrink back from the consequences of their position when the mayor of their town actually permits a heretic to be brought to the scaffold or the stake.
We think that in that hour they would, rather than to call for the blood of heretics, themselves carry water to extinguish the stack of wood, or in loving zeal cut the ropes which already are tied on the neck of their fellow citizens.
Doug Sowers: @Richard, nice try, but that won’t work.
Of course it’s moral to obey God, its called obedience! If God tells me to dig a ditch then I need to be obedient. But would that a moral commandment? Of course not! Is digging a ditch obligatory for all mankind? LOL! Your confusing obligatory morality with simple obedience!
RS: What God commands is morally obligatory because we are to love Him with all of our being at all times. The highest moral obligation is to love God.
Doug Sowers: If God says it’s not clean eat shell fish for a period of time, (which He did) and then later, says it’s clean to eat shell fish, then it wasn’t a “moral law. It was pedagogical; it teaches God’s people to be separate. For a law to be considered *moral* means it’s obligatory for all people, for both the Church and the world.
RS: I understand that point. However, at that time it was morally obligatory for all the nation of Israel and for any other person in the world who would become an Israelite.
Doug Sowers: Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not lie. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not commit adultery; those are moral laws, obligatory for all men. If you and Mark can’t see the difference between God’s temporary land directives, and laws prohibiting sexual depravity then I will be shocked.
RS: The command is not to murder, yet we are commanded to put murderers to death. Of course there were temporary laws regarding the land, yet those commands were morally obligatory because they were given by God.
Doug Sowers: BTW Richard I strongly suggest you listen to some of Greg Bahnsens lectures of ethics. He will set you straight on what is entailed for laws to be considered *moral*. Both you and Mark Macculley are making rookie mistakes on ethical questions, not that your bad guys. Check out Covenant media foundation.
RS: What I am about to say may sound a bit arrogant to you, but so be it. Greg Bahnsen and his teaching was not and is not the moral standard. God Himself as displayed in Christ is. I have listened to many lectures by Greg Bahnsen and read his book on ethics. The nature of holiness is not the same thing as ethics. The nature of love for God is not the same thing as ethics. I would say it is somewhat of a rookie mistake to confuse ethics with holiness, though it is true that there are places that they intersect. We are commanded to be holy as He is holy.
Richard, you don’t sound arrogant. And of course Greg Bahnsen is not the standard, and he would be the first to agree with you on that point. BUT are you still trying to hang on to the Notion that all God’s laws are moral? Or that you don’t see a catigory called moral law? Please flush that out for me.
Do you, like Mark Macculley chaff at the notion of moral law? Because you seem to be defending his asserstion that all laws were moral.
Zrim, as usual you’re out in left field. You completely missed my point by a few hundred years! LOL! Kuper came a few hundred years AFTER the WCF 19:4! So who cares what Kuper said? Cartwright on the other hand is germane because his was the most influential reformed thinker of his day, and his opinion shaped our Confession. So to say your miss reading 19:4 is an understatement.
Just learn from your mistakes and quit using the WCF as if it backs up your perspective; because it doesn’t.
Doug Sowers: And of course Greg Bahnsen is not the standard, and he would be the first to agree with you on that point. BUT are you still trying to hang on to the Notion that all God’s laws are moral? Or that you don’t see a catigory called moral law? Please flush that out for me.
RS: I think the main point I am trying to get at is that something is moral because of who God is rather than any other option. For example, the common old argument against God by some tells us that God chose His commandments in an arbitrary way or because He looked around Him and chose from some moral basis apart from Himself. My argument is that God commands what He commands with Himself as the standard. The heart of the commands is to be like God and we have no right to do anything contrary to what He says, though of course we have no power of obedience from the heart apart from His work of grace in our heart.
Doug Sowers: Do you, like Mark Macculley chaff at the notion of moral law? Because you seem to be defending his asserstion that all laws were moral.
RS: I don’t disagree with the notion of moral law in some respect, but again I would try to carefully distinguish between morality and holiness. Morality, at least as it is being used in our day, seems to govern the external man. Holiness, however, has to do with the inner man as well. My position, then, would say that a holy man sees that all that God commands would be the moral thing to do. But we must be careful to also say that keeping the law and being moral aquires no merit before God at any point.
Note to Dr. Hart: I am continuing to have to type my name and email address with each post.
@Richard Smith: Praise God, were on the same page! Now all we have to do, is talk some sense to Mark Macculley.