Return to Main Page
Site Index

Trouble with drop box click here for help     Printing Instructions for Articles
Back to Index to Gillespie Discussion

Discussion of George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty
Re: WF: Questions for thought, section 1 
Subject: Re: WF: Questions for thought, section 1
From: Richard Bacon 
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 17:04:51 -0500

At 03:32 PM 4/23/97 -0500, Rev. Paul Armes wrote:

>Paul rebuked Elymas in the book of Acts and the Lord made him blind.  
>What was the Lord's part in doing this?  Should it really have been the
>magistrate's if he were a believer to penalize Elymas?

Pastor Armes brings up an interesting point here.  Since the man
in 1 Cor. 5 was to be excommunicated, does this mean the magistrate
should not enforce laws forbidding incest?  Since God smote
Ananias & his wife directly by the word of Peter, does this mean
the magistrate ought not to enforce laws regarding deceit or
embezzlement?  In neither of those (seemingly 2nd table) is the
magistrate called upon.  Does it follow from this that the magistrate
has no business with respect to the second table?  If that doesn't
follow (and IMHO it doesn't), then neither does it follow that 
because the magistrate was unwilling to punish a 1st table violation
that he *ought* not to have done so.

In fact, Rutherfurd, in his _Free Disputation Against the Pretended
Liberty of Conscience_ uses the very example of Elymas as indicating
that the magistrate *ought* to have punished Elymas.  Don't have it
in front of me, but page numbers upon request.


Dick Bacon
I'm your moderator, not your mother.