moving on

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

Subject: DEUT.13:6-9 From: Chris Coldwell Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 22:01:17 -0500 Mark Johnson asked me to forward this to the forum as he has had difficulty posting to it (I'm checking into the problem}. Jonny Keen and Westminster Forum, ->Vol. 4 to read Gillespie's introduction to the treatise-I noticed the ->Belgic Confession art.39 was refer to-I read the art.39 and found this ->note at the bottom "This phrase touching the office of the magistracy ->in its relation to the Church, proceeds on the principle of the ->Established Church, which was first applied by Constantine and ->afterwards also in many Protestant countries. History, however, does ->not support the principle of State domination over the Church, but ->rather the separation of Church and State. [ some deleted ] ->weapons only. Practically all Reformed churches have repudiated the ->idea of the Established Church, and are advocating the autonomy of the ->churches and personal liberty of conscience in matters pertaining to ->the service of God. . ." I think the above quote answers whether ->Christian rulers are to put to death heretics based on the judicial OT ->law-Deut.13:6-9. You probably mean to refer to Belgic Confession, article 36, "The Civil Government", not article 39, since the Belgic Confession only has 37 articles. Now the Belgic Confession is a fine confession, and I see nothing in article 36 that depends upon Erastianism. Further, if a magistrate would not permit autonomy and "liberty of conscience" regarding the second table of the law, why should he permit autonomy and "liberty of conscience" regarding the first table of the law? If enforcing the second table of the Law does not require Eratianism, why enforcing the first table? Deut.13:6-9 should not be used to justify the magistrate being able to determine fine points of doctrine or practice within the church. Deut.13.6-9 refers to gross idolatry: enticement to worship strange gods. ->In considering the above we have to ask "Is the holy catholic Church ->the same as OT Israel?" In the OT the Church was not separated from ->the State-but now in the New Covenant Age there is a separation ->between Church and State-it would be impossible to rule the Universal ->Church by the judicial laws of the OT-nation of Israel. What makes you say "in the Old Testament the church was not separated from the state"? 2 Chronicles 26:16f makes it quite clear there was a separation of powers in the Old Testament. Now if the Old Testament magistrate, distinct from the church, was to rule by God's judicial law, should not a New Testament magistrate, distinct from the church, also rule according to God's judicial law? Romans 13:1ff tells us that the magistrate is God's minister, and his purpose is to execute God's wrath. Isn't God's wrath expressed in the judicial law? Mark Arvid Johnson The truth is more important than the facts. ---- * CMPQwk 1.42 9931 * Sincerely, Chris Coldwell