Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed

Return to Main Page Site Index		*Get on The Blue Banner* Mail and Email List, Free CD**
Trouble with drop box click here for help Printing Instructions for Articles

Discussion of George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty

Re: GWS-2 Questions for thought

Subject: Re: GWS-2 Questions for thought
From: "Gus Gianello" 
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:47:45 -0400

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_01BC4F12.FE501CC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Listserv,
This is certainly a wonderful format!  And a wonderful topic!  I have =
lurked til now, but let me hence my penny's worth declaim:
The illustrious Richard Bacon adminaverts:
 ----

>In the second paragraph of this section GG "gets down to it."
>He refers to the coercive power of the magistrate.  Is it possible
>to have law without coercive power -- or is law without sanction
>merely advice?  In mentioning "degrees" of offence and danger, does
>GG imply that there might be degrees of response on the part of
>the magistrate?

This I believe to be the foremost issue which distinguishes covenantal =
religion from facsimiles thereof.  I call it the "theology of coercion". =
 Every variant of Christian philosophy has such a theology, but most are =
not accurate.  Most leave little place, if any for coercion.  Yet, as =
Scripture says that the rod is for the child, the threat of the sword =
for evil doers, and the keys for the stubbornly unrepentant, so we have =
the acknowledgement of Scripture that without the threat of force, =
sanctioned by God, there can be no justice or mercy in this world of =
sinners.
Particularly when we speak of the magistrate his whole divine ministry =
according to Romans 13 is a ministry of force/coercion.  Most think the =
magistrate to be a kindly pater, there to stop squabbling among the =
brothers and sisters of a particular nation; redistributing the wealth =
of one to the other; healing their troubles; comforting the victims; =
providing the necessaries of life.  Scripture instead calls him an =
"avenger". His ministry is wholly one of wrath, and never of mercy.  He =
does good, when he does no good but restraining evil.
When he restrains evil, he does so by the table of the law.  Is idolatry =
an evil? then he is obligated to restrain it.  Why?  Because he is God's =
minister.  Thereby demonstrating that civil government is ordained of =
God, that it is not a necessary evil, and that the role of the =
magistrate is defined by God, who established government.
I am convinced as a result of my own studies that though the civil =
government was a natural ordinance protologically (at Gen. 9) that now =
as a result of the session of the glorified Christ, it is eschatological =
and therefore grounded in the authority of Christ.  All civil =
magistrates are therefore Christocrats and obtain legitimacy for their =
rule through Christ the king of kings.  Christ is in the process, by his =
Spirit, of pulling down all civil governments that will not acknowledge =
his authority.  This process we call world history.  History after =
Christ is one of glory and progress of the kingdom, whereas before =
Christ it was one of a lesser glory of condemnation and the =
preserveration of the kingdom of God institutionalized in theocratic =
Israel.
Therefore, the magistrate is required to uphold all 10 commandments.  He =
does so by retaliation.  Which means that he does not act, until the law =
is broken.  He has the power by the law of God to take into account =
mitigating factors in certain species of crimes, and he is not free to =
do so in others.  All is determined by knowing and understanding the =
Mosaic civil law and contemporalizing it. (With allowance of course for =
non applicable factors).
Therefore there are degrees of response to violations of the law and =
moreover without penalty there is no law.  One of the common errors of =
today is the idea that something is a law which is legislated.  =
Legislation does not make law, penalty makes law.  Or to put it another =
way an infraction without penalty is a law by formality, but is only a =
suggestion/advice in substance. Humanist man understands this, that is =
why, anything which he wishes to make a law, he always attaches a =
penalty to it, for failure to comply.

>How can the limits of toleration be known?  Is it possible to
>tolerate some differences without tolerating all differences?  Is
>there "room" for differences in fundamentals, non-fundamentals,
>etc.?
If the Law of God is our guide the above questions are easily answered.  =
The limits of toleration are known by reviving the art of Christian =
casuistry.  Yes, it is possible to tolerate some differences while not =
others--and this without being arbitrary.  An example is the toleration =
of pagan worship in Israel--if it was done privately, and if no =
prosletysm took place.  As to whether there is "room" for difference in =
fundamentals, non-fundamentals, etc., the answer is to note the room =
that God allows in his word.  Christian conscience is to be exercised =
over "adiaphora".  No one may call what is fundamental to the nature of =
the Gospel, "adiaphora." God does not care whether you smoke, drink or =
go to movies, he only cares whether you break his ten commandments.  =
Therefore sects of Christians ought to be free to have religious =
scruples which according to Scripture are "indifferent."
In the upholding of the first 4 words of the table, the original intent =
ought to be noted.  In other words as charitable an interpretation and =
application as possible ought to be construed, without doing violence to =
the passage of law.  Psalm-singers for example, often accuse those who =
sing hymns of idolatry.  This cannot be substantiated by appeal to the =
commandment against idolatry since its original intent was to prohibit =
foreign religions, and the degradation of true religion by the use of =
idols.  It is their interpretation that the use of hymns fits this =
category.

>Blackwood made the statement that some things may be punished because
>"everybody else is punishing it."  Does that follow?  Is there any law
>of jurisprudence that allows for such an interpretation of the
>light of nature?

Blackwood was not an apostle.  We are not to be taken captive by vain =
human traditions.  Blackwood represents such a tradition.  He is a =
latitudinarian legalist.  The foundations for jurisprudence for him are =
"common consent".  The bible forbids such principles and actions.  See: =
Exodus 23:2,3.  The idea of "community standards" is often applied in =
such a manner, as a test to see whether a particular activity is =
acceptable or is pornographic.  Such principles are undeniably anti-God, =
for it substitutes the community for God, and communal approbation for =
divine approbation.  Would the community of Sodom have found the =
behaviour of the men who demanded the angels for carnal intercourse, =
unacceptable? See: Rom 1:32.
I hope by my many words to have incited some discussion.  I have acted =
as an agent provocateur in order to incite some healthy and godly =
discussion. My apologies for the length.

yours respectfully,
Rev. Gus Gianello, RPCGA

--
Westminster mailing list.
Dick Bacon, Moderator pastor@fpcr.org
Chris Coldwell, Webmaster naphtali@naphtali.com

------=_NextPart_000_01BC4F12.FE501CC0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Listserv,

This is certainly a wonderful format! And a wonderful topic! I have = lurked=20 til now, but let me hence my penny's worth declaim:

The illustrious Richard Bacon adminaverts:

----

>In the second paragraph of this section GG "gets down to = it."
>He refers to the coercive power of the magistrate. Is it = possible
>to have law without coercive power -- or is law without sanction
>merely advice? In mentioning "degrees" of offence = and=20 danger, does
>GG imply that there might be degrees of response on the part of
>the magistrate?

This I believe to be the foremost issue which = distinguishes=20 covenantal religion from facsimiles thereof. I call it the = "theology of=20 coercion". Every variant of Christian philosophy has such a = theology, but=20 most are not accurate. Most leave little place, if any for coercion. = Yet, as=20 Scripture says that the rod is for the child, the threat of the sword = for evil=20 doers, and the keys for the stubbornly unrepentant, so we have the=20 acknowledgement of Scripture that without the threat of force, = sanctioned by=20 God, there can be no justice or mercy in this world of sinners.

Particularly when we speak of the magistrate his whole = divine=20 ministry according to Romans 13 is a ministry of force/coercion. Most = think the=20 magistrate to be a kindly pater, there to stop squabbling among the = brothers and=20 sisters of a particular nation; redistributing the wealth of one to the = other;=20 healing their troubles; comforting the victims; providing the = necessaries of=20 life. Scripture instead calls him an "avenger". His ministry = is=20 wholly one of wrath, and never of mercy. He does good, when he does no = good but=20 restraining evil.

When he restrains evil, he does so by the table of the = law. Is=20 idolatry an evil? then he is obligated to restrain it. Why? Because he = is=20 God's minister. Thereby demonstrating that civil government is = ordained=20 of God, that it is not a necessary evil, and that the role of the = magistrate is=20 defined by God, who established government.

I am convinced as a result of my own studies that = though the=20 civil government was a natural ordinance protologically (at Gen. 9) that = now as=20 a result of the session of the glorified Christ, it is eschatological = and=20 therefore grounded in the authority of Christ. All civil magistrates = are=20 therefore Christocrats and obtain legitimacy for their rule through = Christ the=20 king of kings. Christ is in the process, by his Spirit, of pulling down = all=20 civil governments that will not acknowledge his authority. This process = we call=20 world history. History after Christ is one of glory and progress of the = kingdom, whereas before Christ it was one of a lesser glory of = condemnation and=20 the preserveration of the kingdom of God institutionalized in theocratic = Israel.

Therefore, the magistrate is required to uphold all 10 = commandments. He does so by retaliation. Which means that he does not = act,=20 until the law is broken. He has the power by the law of God to take = into=20 account mitigating factors in certain species of crimes, and he is not = free to=20 do so in others. All is determined by knowing and understanding the = Mosaic=20 civil law and contemporalizing it. (With allowance of course for non = applicable=20 factors).

Therefore there are degrees of response to violations = of the law=20 and moreover without penalty there is no law. One of the common errors = of today=20 is the idea that something is a law which is legislated. Legislation = does not=20 make law, penalty makes law. Or to put it another way an infraction = without=20 penalty is a law by formality, but is only a suggestion/advice in = substance.=20 Humanist man understands this, that is why, anything which he wishes to = make a=20 law, he always attaches a penalty to it, for failure to comply.

>How can the limits of toleration be known? Is it possible = to
>tolerate some differences without tolerating all differences? = Is
>there "room" for differences in fundamentals,=20 non-fundamentals,
>etc.?

If the Law of God is our guide the above questions are = easily=20 answered. The limits of toleration are known by reviving the art of = Christian=20 casuistry. Yes, it is possible to tolerate some differences while not=20 others--and this without being arbitrary. An example is the toleration = of pagan=20 worship in Israel--if it was done privately, and if no prosletysm took = place. =20 As to whether there is "room" for difference in fundamentals,=20 non-fundamentals, etc., the answer is to note the room that God allows = in his=20 word. Christian conscience is to be exercised over = "adiaphora". No=20 one may call what is fundamental to the nature of the Gospel,=20 "adiaphora." God does not care whether you smoke, drink or go = to=20 movies, he only cares whether you break his ten commandments. Therefore = sects=20 of Christians ought to be free to have religious scruples which = according to=20 Scripture are "indifferent."

In the upholding of the first 4 words of the table, = the original=20 intent ought to be noted. In other words as charitable an = interpretation and=20 application as possible ought to be construed, without doing violence to = the=20 passage of law. Psalm-singers for example, often accuse those who sing = hymns of=20 idolatry. This cannot be substantiated by appeal to the commandment = against=20 idolatry since its original intent was to prohibit foreign religions, = and the=20 degradation of true religion by the use of idols. It is their = interpretation=20 that the use of hymns fits this category.

>Blackwood made the statement that some things may be punished = because
>"everybody else is punishing it." Does that = follow? Is=20 there any law
>of jurisprudence that allows for such an interpretation of the
>light of nature?

Blackwood was not an apostle. We are not to be taken captive by vain = human=20 traditions. Blackwood represents such a tradition. He is a = latitudinarian=20 legalist. The foundations for jurisprudence for him are "common=20 consent". The bible forbids such principles and actions. See: = Exodus=20 23:2,3. The idea of "community standards" is often applied in = such a=20 manner, as a test to see whether a particular activity is acceptable or = is=20 pornographic. Such principles are undeniably anti-God, for it = substitutes the=20 community for God, and communal approbation for divine approbation. = Would the=20 community of Sodom have found the behaviour of the men who demanded the = angels=20 for carnal intercourse, unacceptable? See: Rom 1:32.

I hope by my many words to have incited some = discussion. I have=20 acted as an agent provocateur in order to incite some healthy and godly=20 discussion. My apologies for the length.

yours respectfully,

Rev. Gus Gianello, RPCGA

--
Westminster mailing list.
Dick Bacon, Moderator pastor@fpcr.org
Chris Coldwell, Webmaster naphtali@naphtali.com

------=_NextPart_000_01BC4F12.FE501CC0--