The First Proof in a Series Arguing for Christian Nations
(1) All moral entities ought to acknowledge the true God in word and deed.
(2) Nations are moral entities.
Therefore, (3) nations ought to acknowledge the true God in word and deed.
(4) The true God is the Triune God.
Therefore, (5) nations ought to acknowledge the Triune God in word and deed.
All moral entities ought to acknowledge the true God in word and deed.
Key here is understanding the nature of all moral entities. Moral entities are required to do good and not to do evil. Creation is largely composed of non-moral entities, which is not to say that they are bad, only that they cannot choose between good and evil. Rocks have no such choice; and non-rational animals (e.g., bears), while having volition, do not have moral choice. Moral entities can acknowledge good and evil and choose between them.
Man is under a moral law, which is the rule or standard of his right acting or righteousness. This law is natural to him in that it is engraved on his heart, is suitable and fitting for the sort of being he is, and is the rule to his natural end, namely his happiness. But even though man’s moral law is natural to him, the law is essentially command. Man’s nature demonstrates to him what is good and evil, but the oughtness (or the precept of natural law) comes from the free will of God himself—the One who Commands. In other words, the natural law is both demonstrative and preceptive. This both/and, middle-ground rejects the famous claim of Hugo Grotius—that natural law is binding even if God does not exist—and the Occamist position that the natural law is nothing but divine command. The middle position is that of Thomas Aquinas, Fransisco Suarez, Francis Turretin, and (to my knowledge) most Reformed orthodox theologians (before knowledge of the question was seemingly lost among Protestants)1.
The important point is this: even though the natural law says what is good and evil—and even though its goodness flows from God’s moral nature, is discoverable in principle by natural reason, and is suitable to the natural constitution of man—the natural law still flows from the command of God exercising his free will toward his creatures. Natural law is command. The oughtness of natural law is found in divine command.
The natural law being divine command, all moral entities (being under that law) are under commands issued by the Commander. Thus, all moral entities must acknowledge the will behind the moral precepts, which is nothing but the acknowledgment of God himself. An atheistical world might have moral council, but it does not contain moral obligation. This is precisely why John Locke, for example, while promoting maximal religious liberty, called for magistrates to suppress atheism: “Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.”2
The acknowledgement of the true God—being the Supreme Being—must exceed mere affirmation of his existence. It must lead one to beseech, give obeisance, recognize dependence, and act in light of his purposes from the world. This is not the mere “god of the philosophers” or the god of the deists, but the King of the universe.
Put simply, since all moral entities are under moral obligation, they ought to acknowledge God in word and deed, because moral obligation itself comes only from God’s will.
Nations are moral entities.
Nations are entities, because they can form political communities. All legitimate political communities are formed by consent—consent being a collective expression of an entity. Thus, if nations can express consent, they must be (collective) entities. It follows that nations have a collective personhood—they are moral persons—and therefore act morally as singular entities.
Furthermore, since the members of civil societies are bound by majoritarian decision (unless grossly unjust or tyrannical), the members are bound together as a whole. Thus, a nation as a civil society is a collective entity, for majoritarian decisions (e.g., laws passed by majority vote in a legitimate legislature) bind all persons, even the dissenting minority.
They are moral entities for several reasons. First, to speak of nations as “barbarous” assumes that the nation as such has a moral standard. Second, the nation institutes civil government for its good. The state must act for the good of the community, and it can act for evil. This presumes that the nation as nation is under a standard of goodness for which the government acts to bring about, sustain, or facilitate. Third, civil law itself must be derived from the moral law to bind citizens to obligation. Otherwise, it is no law at all. Thus, nations are under the moral law. Lastly, God regularly judges and condemns nations as nations for their acts of evil, even heathen nations (Ps. 110:6). If nations can be condemned for moral failure, then they are under a moral standard, namely moral law.
We can conclude, then, that nations are moral entities.
It follows (from the valid syllogism above) that nations ought to acknowledge God in word and deed. Nations are not human persons; they differ in species of moral entity. Yet they are moral persons, and so God wills nations to act morally.
While nations have international moral obligations, I focus here their acting for themselves. They act for themselves in two ways: law and custom. They enact law mediately through civil government. Laws are explicit and outwardly promulgated by legitimate authorities who enforce them through civil command and sanction. Customs (differing from law as species of ordering) are a sort of implicit authority, operating above the people in a way as “social facts,” to use Émile Durkheim’s terminology, and enforced socially. Thus, God’s will for nations is to act through law and custom for the good of the nation, and these acts ought to flow from acknowledgement of God.
The true God is the Triune God.
Now, we might conclude that nations ought to acknowledge the Triune God in word and deed, because the true God is the Triune God. I admit that this may not appear to be not solid proof, because the true God is also the God of creation. One might conclude that nations simply must acknowledge God as Creator. But while we should distinguish God as Creator and God as Redeemer (as Calvin did)3, we cannot separate. For contained in God as Creator is the will for eternal life (since Adam was promised eternal life for obedience)4, though the former means to the end (the covenant of works) is no longer attainable. Hence, God as Redeemer, revealing himself in the person and work of Christ, is now the only means to that original will of God as Creator. The will of God as Creator is attained through God as Redeemer. So, we distinguish but not separate. It follows that if nations ought to orient man to his original, heavenly end—namely eternal life— per the will of God as Creator, then they ought to orient man to the proper means to it, namely Christ. To prove the antecedent: Nations ought to orient man to his heavenly end, because the nation acting as such is a means to loving one’s neighbor; and what is greater love of neighbor than pointing people to their highest good?
Conclusion
I conclude, therefore, that the Christian nation—being a nation that in the totality of its acting orients its members to eternal life in Christ—is not only possible but true, good, and beautiful. It is the nation perfected in form.
Image Credit: Unsplash
What we argue from deductions becomes problematic when it can be challenged by induction. And there are three challenges that induction brings here. First, there is no such promotion for Christian Nationalism in the New Testament. Instead, there is an implied acceptance and expectation of a pagan or secular nation in which Christians live. Second, Church history not only does not confirm his conclusion, but strongly contradicts it. Finally, I will add a quote from James Boice which not only challenges a monastic approach towards government and society by some in the Church, it also challenges Christian Nationalism because of the similarities in the grounds for both..
Since I have provided the New Testament challenges to Christian Nationalism at other times, I will not repeat them. The same goes for the challenges presented by Church history. Boice’s quote that can be used to challenge Christian Nationalism is below:
‘First, it overestimates the godliness of the godly. The righteous are not as free of the world’s evil as they suppose. Second, it underestimates the value of this world’s culture and government, since there is such a thing called common grace, since there is such a thing called common grace by which even rank unbelievers are able to create objects of beauty, launch worthwhile social projects, and perform secular responsibilities with integrity and skill.‘
Here is another problem with Wolfe’s argument besides what already has been stated. He calls himself a Christian political theorist, and that is probably true. But the above argument is without any reference to the Scriptures and has no support from the New Testament. And so that above argument fails to be a Christian argument for Christian Nationalism. In addition, the first part of the premise begs the question of his definition of the moral obligations that would compel any nation to obey..
I’ve never seen such a weak comment by the Anabaptist before.
He addresses not a single premise of the syllogism, opting instead to distract from the argument at hand in order to confuse and mislead believers.
This possessed heretic needs to range-banned.
Curtis Day attempts to argue against “Christian nations” but he fails to understand the Great Commission.
“First, there is no such promotion for Christian Nationalism in the New Testament. Instead, there is an implied acceptance and expectation of a pagan or secular nation in which Christians live.”
The Great Commission calls us to go to all nations and Christianize them.
Matt. 28:18-20 NIV
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
As more and more become Christians in a nation, our goal is to make the laws consistent with scripture. Here we should make the distinction between the church and the state, but it follows as a society becomes more Christian they will naturally want to codify biblical standards into the local laws. Here I am not suggesting we force unbelievers to be Christian, but we provide a safe community of both believers and unbelievers where we allow religious freedom but do recognize and benefit the Christian church – such as Congress printing Bibles for the soldiers. We have Chaplains in the Army where Christianity is promoted. We may have blue laws, and laws against fornication and adultery. Other laws consistent with scripture are also made. The process of Christianizing a nation is not typically top down but primarily bottom up where the people want these laws because of their regenerated hearts. We should wisely enact laws as more and more become believers, but shouldn’t rush the process.
Yes, there is an implied expectation of believers and unbelievers as the parable of the tares and wheat illustrates. This is especially true during the time of the early
church but is also true at other times because there will always be unbelievers. There are always the Jacobs with the Esaus.
We also see the promotion of Christian nations in 1 Tim. 2:1-4.
“I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers,intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority,that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all peopleto be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
The prayer shows what we should work towards. We want to live quiet lives in all godliness and holiness so we can bring others to the Christian faith. Implied in this passage is what our agenda should be. We want to make Christian nations of all the nations of the world because this “pleases God our Savior, who wants all peopleto be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” We understand that not everyone will believe for not everyone is called by God, but we work expecting a harvest (Matt. 9:37).
We work towards a Christian nation for all nations, but we understand we will always have the tares (Matt. 13:24-30). So working towards a Christian nation is perfectly consistent with scripture.
Curt, I interact with you, not because I hope to change your mind, but because you help me understand how many American Christians think. (I do not live in America)
American Christians seem to be fixated on chapter and verse reasoning – demanding a verse that directly states your position. Two dangers with this approach: chapters and verses were not in the original manuscripts of most books in the Bible; (2) sometimes, the teaching of Scripture is so obvious that no Scripture reference is needed – it is taught EVERYWHERE.
The proposition that all moral entities should obey God is everywhere: just search for the phrase “Fear God”, “Obey God” Fear Him, Obey Him, etc.
It’s also taught by the light of nature. All Muslims would agree that nations should Fear God and obey Him. Most Christians in Africa would agree.
You have argued that Government- sanctioned slavery, codified in law by lawfully elected representatives of the nation, is sinful. A government of the people, by the people and for the people has sinned, you say. Therefore slavery was a national sin.
Most American blacks go a step further, arguing that America should repent of its national sin by taxing its people to give reparations to blacks.
You are hereby assuming that nations are moral entities, capable of sinning against God or obeying Him.
Joshua,
I fully agree that there is a danger in the chapter and verse approach some take. However, the danger mostly lies in not adjusting how we apply the Scriptures to the different contexts from which they were written. Here I would recommend Martin Luther King’s approach to Romans 13 as a positive way to use the Scriptures to a modern issue.
However, I am not just arguing that the New Testament does not provide positive support for Christian Nationalism, it argues against it in a number of ways. It argues against it in the Greek word for the Church. It implies the opposite when talking about Church discipline. It argues against it in how we are to relate to unbelievers. It argues against it when it talks about our place in an unbelieving world. And it argues against it in the lives and examples provided by the Apostles.
On the one hand, we don’t want to be chapter and verse people. On the other hand, we need to use the Scriptures as the canon for our beliefs and actions. Deductive arguments that are not supported by the Scriptures should be questioned and further examined. Deductive arguments that are challenged by Church history also need to be examined.
Please note that I used Church history as providing evidence that should challenge Christian Nationalism. I also used a quote from James Boice to do the same. And so my challenge to Wolfe’s article was not one-dimensional.
But to your final point, again you fail to make it. For your final point deals not with how we sin by not recognizing God, but by how we treat each other. In addition in all that I have said against Christian Nationalism, you should see that the moral standards that God puts on nations today is not identical to the standards that He puts on the Church and in our evangelism when we call people to repent. Why? Because God’s people are not defined by national identity. And even in the Old Testament, the nations were not judged by how they kept the covenant that God made with Israel, they were judged by how they treated their own people, people from other nations, and how they treated Israel.
https://reparationscomm.org/reparations-news/martin-luther-kings-case-for-reparations-still-rings-true/
Here is an article that argues for reparations on the basis that the American nation a moral entity. The federal government, supported by the American people, have committed national sin by oppressing blacks. The NATION has a moral obligation to pass a act, through its national legislature, to give money to African Americans.
African Americans would agree with Stephen Wolfe here.
1. Yes, the nation is a moral entity.
2. No, the nation does not have an obligation to give “reparations” to slave-descendants.
If nations are moral entities, they are capable of obeying or defying the first Table of the law. They are also capable of being either for Christ or against Christ. They cannot be neutral. No, being for Christ does not mean the State becomes identified with the Church. Their origin, aims, and powers are distinct, and that’s why it is possible for them to assist each other. A powerful moral entity may profess to be neutral, but Christ says it is already against Him.
Even the Israelite theocracy, for much of its history, did a better job than America today in keeping church and state confined to their respective spheres. In Israel, if the king attempted to offer incense in the temple, he was thrown out. But in the USA you regularly see presidential candidates (male and female) being welcomed into pulpits! And then you see ministers like Reverend Raphael Warnock leaving their pulpits to go into the Senate! (FYI – in some of the established Churches of Europe, he would have been deposed for taking political office.).
Nations in the OT were not just judged for wronging each other (2nd Table), but for idolatry, pride, and blasphemy (1st Table). See Isaiah 14:12-14, Jer. 50.29. Nebuchadness and Belshazzar were both punished for their pride. In Belshazzar’s case, he was punished for his pride against the Lord of heaven (Dan. 5:23). In their punishment, the whole empire was punished. This was just, because their pride reflected the attitude of the nation in general.
Nations are bound to obey both tables of the moral law. It’s impossible to limit obedience to one Table. Scripture does not even specify which commandments are on the first table, and which are on the second. The silence is significant – we are forbidden to draw a sharp distinction between the tables. They are inseparable – you can’t obey one and not the other.
Gallio is commended by many Americans for his complete indifference to religious matters (1st Table), but look what followed: complete indifference to the violent and lawless beating of Sosthenes. Similarly, if a nation protects open and avowed hatred of the true God, then the nation will hate the people He made, until the nation’s soil is soaked with the blood of millions.
Joshua,
There are problems with your post. First, you assume that your implication is true in lieu of showing it.
Second, you are not using the Scriptures to show your claim to be true.
Third, your claim contradicts what Paul says about the law. The law shows us our sin. We can only be in Christ if God has elected us and draws us to Him–that comes from John 6, Romans 9, and Ephesians 2. And so we can’t do anything to force people to have faith in Christ. If individuals cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws them, how can whole nations do the same?
Fourth, God’s election is not based on anything we have done, do, could do, or will do. That is demonstrated by Romans 9 and God’s choosing of Israel in the Old Testament.
Fourth, the New Testament shows that there are different moral standards to follow here. There is one for society and there is one for the Church. I showed that in a previous comment.
Joshua,
Finally, again, the nations were not judged for breaking the covenant that God made with Israel. But also note that even Israel didn’t keep the covenant that God made with them. The arrogance spoken against in those passages led to their abusing of Israel. Just as in Amos when nations are judged, they are judged according to how they treated others.
You seem not to understand the transition that took place between the Old and New Testaments. God’s people are no longer identified as being nations and no nation can make itself God’s people. That is because God’s people are identified by their faith in Christ. And again, no one is able to come to faith in Christ unless God has elected them. To the Reformers, to believe otherwise is to go, in whatever degree, in the direction of Pelagius.
1. What implication? That nations are moral entities? I thought you already agreed, since you have argued elsewhere that nations can be guilty of national sins, like slavery, and can be punished for them. National sins can only be committed by a nation that is moral entity.
2. Where am I not showing Scripture proof?
3. The law shows us our sin, yes. And it also shows us our duty. The whole point of law is to prescribe duty. Must I quote hundreds of verses to prove this? You agree that nations must observe the second table of the law, like not stealing, murdering, etc. Nations that vote to go to war unjustly against other nations, are breaking the sixth commandment as a nation.
4. I never mentioned election. God’s decree does not affect our duty. I could quote verses, but there’s probably a word limit on these posts.
5. I looked at your comments again but could not see any argument that society and Church have different moral standards. Even if that is true, it doesn’t relate to the point that nations are moral entities, obligated to obey God and punished if they blatantly and persistently disobey Him.
6. I never said that nations were judged for breaking God’s covenant with Israel. The nation of Babylon was punished for its pride and rebellion against God (Isa. 14:12-14). Again, I simply quote Scripture: “But when his [Nebuchadnezzar’s] heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne.” He was punished, you remember, for saying, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?”
Instead of giving glory to God for Babylon’s greatness, and his mighty throne, he gave all glory to himself. He made himself a god. That is a transgression of the first commandment.
In the case of Belshazzar (and Babylon), he was punished for lifting up himself against the Lord of heaven (Dan. 5). NOTE: Lifting up yourself against the Lord of heaven is a sin against God (1st commandment). Scripture says that he was dethroned, and his kingdom destroyed, because of this sin against the Lord of heaven. Sure, he may have oppressed others, but that is not the reason the SCRIPTURE gives for his punishment (and Babylon’s).
Jordan,
Nations are moral entities. But how comparable are their moral requirements when each nation contains a mix of believers and unbelievers while an individual is person whom we are called to evangelize and, if they believe, to take into the Church. The Church is a moral entity too. But does that imply that the moral requirements for being a member in good standing with the Church is the same as the moral requirements that a citizen has to be a citizen in good standing in society? Should it be unlawful for anyone in society to reject the Gospel.
What Wolfe does, and you seem too agree with, is that the moral requirements for a nation is the same as the moral requirements for the Church or the individual. That is what’s being implied. And here I am using the logical definition of ‘implication.’
Go to the Old Testament. Since when were the other nations held responsible for keeping the covenant that Israel had with God? Give me an example. We see examples in the Old Testament of God judging the nations. And those judgments revolved around how they treated people. Idolatry could have been involved, but judgment for that revolved around how that idolatry caused a nation or people to practice injustices against their own or other people.
You say that you didn’t say that nations were judged by their keeping the covenant Israel had. But aren’t you implying that a nation is responsible for keeping the New Covenant? And while you quote Isaiah to say why Babylon was punished, it was also punished for its treatment of Judah. That is in Jeremiah 50. Even Isaiah 14 talks about the injustices of Babylon. And so Babylon was not punished solely for its idolatry. And that is the point I am making. Belshazzar was punished for his pride and blasphemy. But Belshazzar was an individual who blasphemed God in the presence of God’s people.
Yes, God holds everyone accountable for their sins. But that does not imply that nations are responsible for maintaining the level of righteousness in their people that the Church is for its members. And fortunately for both of us, we have the forgiveness of sins available only through faith in Christ where Christ took our punishment.
Go to Acts 15 and read how the council approached the circumcision issue for the Gentiles. Read Peter’s statements made to the council in verses 7-11. Also read John 6:44. Realize that the only way to rightly recognize God is to believe in Jesus. But that believe cannot be manufactured by our efforts (John 1:12), but only by God having chosen that person to believe. Our efforts are important in evangelizing, be we do not control the results.
When you admit that nations are moral entities, you admit that nations OUGHT to be for Christ, not against Him.
Why?
The moral law – which can’t be split into halves – requires all moral entities to submit to Christ. Yes, law and gospel are distinct. But because they are both from God, they are not inherently contradictory. The law drives us to the gospel, and the gospel establishes the law (Rom. 3:31) by enabling us to obey it as a rule. The law essentially says, “Listen to God and obey Him.” If Christ is God, then all moral entities must listen to His Word and obey Him.
Nations OUGHT to be Christian. This is the very thing that most American Christians deny: “America, as a nation, must be religiously neutral.” But Christ says, He that is not with Me is AGAINST Me!” Therefore, demanding national neutrality is the same as saying, “America ought NOT to be for Christ.”
The moral requirements of nations may be less than the moral requirements of individuals. But that does not mean they have no obligations to Christ at all. It certainly does not mean they are incapable of performing national, Christian acts. And they can still promote outwardly Christian behaviour in their citizens.
Take, for example the Christian family. Christian families are capable of performing outwardly Christian acts, such as family worship, or praying together in the name of Christ. Every member of the family, even if not a believer, is expected to participate.
Christian parents cannot compel their children to faith in Christ, or heartfelt obedience to His law. For example, they cannot compel them to worship God in spirit and in truth (2nd commandment), revere and adore His name (3rd commandment), or keep His day holy out of love (4th commandment).
But they can and should expect outward Christian conduct from them, like going to church, using God’s name with respect (and disciplining them if they blaspheme it), and not working on the Lord’s day. Expecting this of their children makes it much more likely that the Holy Spirit will convert them. Not requiring any outwardly Christian or moral behavior of them is almost a GUARANTEE they will turn out irreligious and amoral.
Similarly, a Christian nation cannot compel faith in Christ. But it can promote outwardly Christian acts, like Bible reading, prayer, and church attendance. In theory it may outlaw outwardly anti-Christian behaviour, such as the public worship of Satan, fundamental polygamist Mormonism, and Sharia law. It could pass Sabbath laws forbidding unnecessary work.
But a Christian nation doesn’t even have to use civil laws to promote Christianity. It could show that it is FOR Christ by requiring its politicians to take oaths in the name of the true God, with their hand on a Bible. By beginning all cabinet and congressional meetings with prayer in the name of Christ, by distributing Bibles to every student in school. By Congress passing, and the President signing, a non-punitive proclamation encouraging everyone to read the Bible and go to church. These are all NATIONAL CHRISTIAN ACTS, promoting a NATIONAL CHRISTIANITY, which make it much more likely that the Holy Spirit will work faith in the nation’s citizens.
Your nation, Kurt, is deeply divided. Your fellow citizens on the left and the right are talking about CIVIL WAR. If you want the USA to stay united, you need some basis for union. What is it going to be? The Constitution? “No, it was written by white supremacists!” By the nation having one predominant ethnicity? “No, that’s racist!” By refusing to be FOR Christ? No, that’s not working well, and it’s not Biblical either.
Jordan,
I spent my last comment to you showing why I haven’t made the implication you say that I have. Such an implication is based on the assumption that all moral entities are obligated to follow one complete moral standard in order for its members to be in good standing. But if that is the case, how do we distinguish society from the Church? And I think you understand the difference between them. After all, do you believe that the lack of faith in Christ should be punished by the state like murder and theft are?
I have the same concerns about our country that you have. It causes a great deal of anxiety in me. But is the solution to force conformity to a faith that only the elect can have? Are the divisions and talk of Civil War due to trying to give freedom or by trying to force too strict a conformity? There is a certain level of conformity a society must have. We cannot tolerate murder and theft, for example. That is why we cannot tolerate elective abortion though we must be wise in how we oppose that practice. And so far, we have not shown enough wisdom. But when believers in Christ struggle greatly, and sometimes unsuccessfully, to abstain from sins such as sexual immorality, how can we expect unbelievers, who do no have the same help from the Holy Spirit which we have abstain the way we should? And again, Paul’s words in I Cor 5:12-13 are important here. For in those verses, Paul shows no concern for sexual purity in society, only in the Church.
BTW, regarding The Constitution, it was written by white supremacists. But what you are arguing for is Christian supremacy. Where is such a supremacy supported in the New Testament? If it isn’t so supported, are you not merely substituting one supremacy with another? With your argument, how is it, as I have said in other comments, that your argument is not based on the Scriptures rather than on an authoritarian mindset?
“Such an implication is based on the assumption that all moral entities are obligated to follow one complete moral standard in order for its members to be in good standing. But if that is the case, how do we distinguish society from the Church?”
Wow. You actually are retarded.
1. There are not two moral laws, there is one moral law. The moral law is equivalent to the moral standard all men are held to as all men are under the covenant of works.
2. All men are by nature under the covenant of works, the one law. Christ fulfilled the covenant of works and His righteousness is imputed to the elect who are the Church. The Church is the body of believers in Christ. That is the exceedingly simple and obvious distinction but this seemingly eludes rootless Anabaptists who are cut off from historic orthodoxy.
Zoomer,
And so if what you are saying is true, governments should ban all religions except the correct form of Christianity?
The issue here is what are governments responsible for enforcing. God holds all individuals responsible for their sins, and that includes both of us. But where in the New Testament does God hold governments responsible for punishing all sins?
BTW, before insulting people , you might want to consider what Jesus said in Matthew about doing so.
I don’t think you’ve read my earlier comment carefully.
My whole argument is based on the moral law, which is definitely Scriptural. And I stated expressly that the State cannot compel faith in Christ. Parents cannot compel faith in their children, but Scripture requires them to make their children participate in outwardly Christian acts. They can’t stop their children from refusing to believe in Christ, but they can stop them from overt anti Christian behavior, like refusing to go to church, blaspheming God’s name, etc.
No, the State does not deal with transgressions of each commandment in the same way as the Church. For example, if a Christian brother says publicly to another Christian, “I hate you with all my heart”, he may be disciplined by the Church but ordinarily the State does nothing. The State cannot compel love, nor can it prevent hatred.
But if the same person says, “I hate you and I am going to kill you,” then he may be disciplined by the Church and prosecuted by the State.
In both scenarios, the person is breaking the sixth commandment, and engaging in anti Christian behavior. But the state only prosecutes the serious, outward breach of it.
The State prosecutes outward transgressions of the 5th commandment – contempt of court, contempt of Congress, rude and disrespectful treatment of judges, etc. Some writers point out the fifth commandment could be on the 1st Table, because it describes our duties to God’s representatives. That’s why they are called “gods” in Scripture.
Adultery, by the way, can be prosecuted as a breach of contract, just like a business can be prosecuted for not fulfilling its end of the contract. Adultery was prosecuted in the USA on this basis as recently as the 1950s, and in other countries as well. The trauma it can have on children is well documented and this is also a factor in prosecuting it.
I could go through the ways that pagan, Muslim, and Christian states have prosecuted serious transgressions of other commandments, but time forbids.
The state can restrain serious, outward, anti-Christian acts, and promote Christian acts, like encouraging Bible reading, WITHOUT prosecuting people for what they do or don’t do in their hearts.
Please read the previous sentence carefully; it points out a key distinction.
Joshua,
Let me put it this way, just because nations are not required to require its citizens to believe in Christ, that doesn’t mean that God does the same. If we are talking about a moral law that God judges all individuals by, I agree with that. But laws determine who in a group is a member of good standing in that group. Those who break those laws must receive sanctions for those laws to mean anything. So unless a nation applies sanctions for violating moral laws, such as having faith in Christ, those moral laws become meaningless.
We see no such application of the moral law in the New Testament. Yes, God judges individuals by a universal moral law, but the situation and context in a nation is different than for how God judges individuals or the Church. If the Church and society use the same moral law to judge its members, then what is the difference between the two? Not only that, do we see any part of the New Testament telling us to make society’s laws and the Church’s laws the same? Here, read I Cor 5:12-13.
But you say that the Church can’t force people to believe. That much is true. But to assign belief in Christ as being part of the moral law in society means that the state must eventually punish those who lack faith or refuse to believe. Otherwise, it isn’t really a law regardless of what percentage of our elected officials are Christian.
If the 1st Century Church grew in very adverse conditions, how is it that today’s Church must reside in the “friendly” confiness of Christian Nationalism in order to effectually call people to repent and believe? Also, what kind of relationships with unbelievers are believers encouraged to have? Are we told to seek power and authority over others, especially unbelievers? Or did Jesus warn us against lording it over others? How did the Apostles spread the Gospel? Was it through making legal requirements or through the preaching of the Gospel?
By prohibiting unbelievers from holding public offices, what don’t you think the backlash will be? After all, such a move says to the unbeliever that they don’t deserve to be represented while Christians do. And in fact, does either Jesus or Paul tell us to seek such a position of power over others? If you really don’t want to see a Civil War, then argue against Christian Nationalism while evangelizing others.
I understand why you have come to the conclusions you have reached. You unnecessarily employ all-or-nothing thinking. Such thinking interferes with us being able to make distinctions. Such thinking leads us to believe in a one-size-fits-all approach to things. But the Scriptures do not tell nations to require its citizens to believe in Christ. God requires that of us as individuals and the Church does the same to its members. If you believe that I am wrong, then tell me where the New Testament supports you argument.
Finally, disobedience to God is not necessarily anti-Christian acts in the sense that disobedience are attacks on us. What people are saying to us is live and let live. They are telling us to let them do their thing while we do ours. It isn’t our responsibility to try to compel people into following Christ. But it is our responsibility to call them to repentance through evangelism. That is our tool for helping people to come to faith in Christ.
“And again, Paul’s words in I Cor 5:12-13 are important here. For in those verses, Paul shows no concern for sexual purity in society, only in the Church.”
Really? Paul doesn’t care whether people outside the Church are moral? I think God does, and therefore Paul does too.
Paul is simply saying that the Church has no jurisdiction over people who are not in the Church. But that doesn’t mean they can be as immoral as they please. Yes, he says that God judges them, sometimes in providence by sending venereal diseases, other times by judges who act for Him as ministers of God. Again, secular societies have noted the tremendous societal and medical costs that come with widespread immorality, and for that reason therefore have punished adultery by fines and imprisonment.
“Are the divisions and talk of Civil War due to trying to give freedom or by trying to force too strict a conformity?”
Divisions are certainly not due to too much conformity. Over the last 70 years, Sabbath laws have been revoked, penalties against adultery abolished, abortion and gay marriage legalised, etc etc. Never have Americans been so free to do what is right in their own eyes, and never have they been so divided.
Joshua,
What does I Cor 5:12-13 say?
‘12 For what business of mine is it to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the evil person from among yourselves..’
But is Paul just saying that he has no jurisdiction? But then wouldn’t Paul also say that he is frustrated by the disobedience of unbelievers? After all, in Romans 9 he expresses frustration with his fellow Jews who refuse to believe in Christ. Who does Paul say will judge those people? And so Paul expresses no concern nor feels any compulsion to intervene. His concern in that chapter is the purity of the Church, not society.
And yes, God does judge through natural consequences. And if He does that, why do we need to add to it especially when unbelievers battle temptations without the resources that we have.
The utter delusion. The reformers were too lenient when it came to Anabaptists such as yourself.
Paul is addressing the Church in Corinth as apostle. That passage comes just after commanding them to discipline a congregant for incest.
That passage specifically pertains to the context of church discipline. It is not the jurisdiction of the church to discipline unbelievers for moral infractions.
What Paul doesn’t say (but Anabaptist heretics, such as yourself, insert,) is that the civil government has not the jurisdiction to discipline unbelievers for moral infractions. Indeed the magistracy does, and it ought, as is attested to in Westminster and the Second Helvetic Confessions, both of which hold vastly more weight than the lone opinion of heretics.
Zoomer,
One of the problems that we Christians from the Reformed Tradition have is that we are the multiplicative inverse of rabbits. Whereas rabbits are known for multiplying,…
Why call someone a heretic because one doesn’t agree with everything that the Reformers said. Heck, they even struggled between themselves and they were often verbally abusive in doing that. BTW, read I Cor 5 about the merits of being verbally abusive.
The issue here isn’t whether the government cannot punish moral infractions. Of course it can. Murder is punished as is theft. The issue is how do we determine which moral infractions should be punished. I Cor 5 provides just a partial guide.
What was the discipline given out to the man guilty of immorality? Wasn’t it to be temporarily cast out of the church there and to live in society without the protection of the church there. And when Paul told the Christians there not to associate with him, he explicitly stated that refusal to associate with him did not apply to unbelievers who are sexually immoral or otherwise we would have to leave the world. But what would be the purpose of the state punishing sexual immorality by unbelievers but to cause the same effect for the believer that leaving the world would. But we are here to witness to them, to share the Gospel with them. But how can we do that when we shove our sexuality down the throats of those who do not have the same help from the Spirit that we have?
When we look at the middle section of I Cor 5, it casts doubt on your interpretation of I Cor 5:12-13.
Anabaptist,
1. “Why call someone a heretic…” This should be simple.
2. “How do we determine which moral infractions ought to be punished?” This is, again, an heretical opinion. To assert that there exist moral infractions that oughtn’t be punished is to assert that, in some realms, it is better to let satan reign than Christ. That satan should be sovereign over sexuality than God. Do you not realize that any moral imperfection is an offence against the very nature of God and sufficient to damn a man? It is a matter of justice to punish sin and a tremendous injustice to willingly let it go unpunished.
3. “But what would be the purpose of the state punishing sexual immorality by unbelievers but to cause the same effect for the believer that leaving the world would?” A simple equivocation, and a false one, for there is no need that the particular punishment Paul prescribed to the Church at Corinth would be identical to that enforced by the civil magistrate and neither that it should.
4. “…when we shove our sexuality down the throats of those who do not have the same help from the Spirit as we have.” A final heresy and perhaps the most damning. “Our” sexuality is not our own, it is God’s. Indeed, to no person belongs any particular sexuality but they are all held accountable to the one pure standard laid out in the law, even though none can meet it.
But you say “this isn’t fair, how can a man, even a man without the Spirit, be held to the impossible standard of the law?” But Christ commands “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind and thy neighbor as thyself.” All are commanded to follow this law even though it is impossible by man’s power. Hence, I believe your questioning pertains not to myself, but to the author and finisher of our faith.
Zoomer,
Heretical is a term we reserve for beliefs that disqualify one from being a Christian. Calvin was all too happy to call them heretics. But according to I Cor 5, we should consider whether we should shun both Calvin and Luther for their verbal abuse.
Which moral infractions should be punished? That depends on what those infractions are and who is doing the punishing. Should we count the worship of false gods as a moral infraction? If so, should the Church be alone in punishing it or should the state also punish it?
Read I Cor when Paul rebukes the Corinthian Christians for taking each other to court. Paul told them to let those offenses go and rest assured that God would punish the guilty parties. Here, we should note that both you and I commit moral offenses. Another term for moral offenses is ‘SIN.’ Should everyone of our sins be punished by the Church? Remember that Romans 2:1ff follows Paul’s listing of the sins of those who do not believe in God. What does it say? The issue here isn’t whether God gave us those commands; the issue is how do we distinguish which sins should be punished by the state and which ones should not.
So should we be punished whenever we lust after any woman who is not the wife? Do you see where I am going here? Do you really want the state to punish every sin that the Church should punish? Is the state even called to do so? If you answered ‘yes’ to the former question, then the next question is why? Why punish every sexual sin committed by an unbeliever? That certainly isn’t what Paul thought should happen.
This all-or-nothing approach to punishing sins is not just Biblically unsupportable, but is part of an authoritarian thinking pattern. In lieu of the state punishing every sexual sin, why don’t we share the Gospel with people instead? After all, sharing the Gospel is why we are put into the midst of a society that contains sinners.
And yes, to them, it is our sexual beliefs that are being shoved down their throats. Tell me, how comfortable would you be living in Saudi Arabia where Islam would be shoved down your throat? And those who would be shoving it down your throat would believe that they are shoving God’s word down your throat. Perhaps you could use your answer to that question to see why we should not force people to follow certain codes. BTW, wasn’t Jesus who told us not to lord it over others? And wasn’t it Jesus who told us that when someone does not want to listen to what we preach, that we should move on? And where in the New Testament did the Apostles say that sexual immorality should be punished by the state? Do you understand why some unbelievers hear what you are saying and then associate that kind of speech with the Taliban?
You have no New Testament support for your argument here. Trying to cleanse the world so we are happy with it is just another way of leaving the world. In addition, you are too eager to pronounce someone as a heretic.
Again, should the state punish everyone who follows another religion than the true religion?
The moral law can be the standard for both Church and state. But the State enforces it differently. See the above for examples. That is one distinction that you keep failing to make. The Church applies and enforces the law one way; the State applies and enforces it another way. Repeating myself so you will see the distinction.
Another distinction: outward Christian acts vs. true saving faith. Christian parents can require their children participate in a Christian act, even if they don’t have saving faith and don’t even believe the Bible. The State can do the same with those under their authority.
A nation that pursues social justice while rejecting the moral law is pursuing civil war.
Joshua,
The issue isn’t whether we can, it is whether we should.
But let’s go over your examples. Contempt of court is a violation of the 5th Commandment. But if we want to enforce the 5th Commandment, then we need to punish every act of disrespect towards one’s parents, towards one’s teachers, towards one’s bosses, and towards the protesting against the government. Should we punish them like the Court does when they find someone in contempt of court? Is that feasible?
As for adultery, is pre-marital sex a breach of contract? BTW, who’s writing the contract. And what are the sanctions for violating that contract? The moral law from the Old Testament would require the stoning of the guilty parties in an affair. Why not include that with your moral law?
Why are you so eager to codify the whole 10 Commandments? What good does it do? You earlier claimed that conformity doesn’t causes division. The attempt to unnecessarily enforce conformity does do that very thing to a heterogeneous population. How do you think unbelievers will react to us requiring them to follow all of the laws that we are to follow? And how are they going to look at us? Are they going to see us as having assumed a certain superiority over them? If so, what do you think their reaction will be to that assumption? And if they see us as having assumed that we are superior to them, will they want to hear us preach the Gospel?
BTW, please see my comments to Zoomer regarding I Cor 5.
The Anabaptist here adopts a common strategy.
He argues that to enforce the first table of the law along with the second (though his former comments have shown a hesitancy to enforce even that) he argues not that it is unjust but that it is impractical. He does prate.
“Why are you so eager to codify the whole 10 Commandments? What good does it do?”
Again, I would ask you to direct your comments towards the God who demands conformity unto not only half of His will, but the whole of it.
Zoomer,
First, I am Reformed though I also disagree with some Reformed traditions. Nothing wrong with that.
The Anabaptists were against Christians participating in the government, I am not.
Also, you use the label ‘Anabaptist’ on me so as to imply that people should automatically reject what I write. When you do that, you are not asking people to imitate the Bereans of Acts 17. To ask people to automatically reject or accept what another person, outside of those who were involved in writing the Scriptures is to promote authoritarianism. Again, contrast that with the Bereans.
BTW, the only way that we can perfectly conform to God’s will is to believe in Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. Reformed doctrine says that none of us can obey the law. That the first purpose of the law is to make us aware of our sins. That is we are to live by faith, not the law. We are to be led by the spirit, not the law. For the Spirit points to the Gospel, and faith in Christ enables us to bear the fruit of the Spirit. Relying on the law causes us to demonstrate the works of the flesh.
And the question being addressed in this discussion is whether the government should require unbelievers in society to follow the whole law. As was stated in the council meeting recorded in Acts 15, not even the Apostles kept the law. That is why they put fewer requirements on Gentile believers than was expected. And that was especially demonstrated in Paul’s preaching and teaching.
Just reading this now. Probably too late to respond. But readers might be interested in a response.
The point made repeatedly is that the State should enforce the law differently from the church. If you believe that it should enforce the most serious transgressions of the 6th and 8th commandments (murder and stealing), then there is no reason it can’t enforce the most serious breach of the 7th (adultery).
It’s ridiculous to say that because unbelievers don’t have the Holy Spirit, they can’t be held accountable for adultery. Murderers and thieves don’t have the Spirit either, but we don’t excuse them on that ground.
Lots of unbelievers have been able to get through life without committing murder, robbery, or adultery.
The State already prosecutes some sins against the 7th commandment, like pedophilia. I hope you don’t object to this on the grounds they can’t help it; they don’t have the Holy Spirit.
By the way, Christ as King of Kings sent angel to kill Herod for not giving glory to Him – a first Table sin. He did not kill him for killing James.
Acts 12 proves that Christ really will dash kings in pieces (Herod was eaten by worms) for not glorifying Him). All the warnings and demands of civil magistrates in Psalm 2 apply to the NT era.
“That the first purpose of the law is to make us aware of our sins. That is we are to live by faith, not the law. We are to be led by the spirit, not the law. For the Spirit points to the Gospel, and faith in Christ enables us to bear the fruit of the Spirit. Relying on the law causes us to demonstrate the works of the flesh.
“And the question being addressed in this discussion is whether the government should require unbelievers in society to follow the whole law. As was stated in the council meeting recorded in Acts 15, not even the Apostles kept the law.”
Some serious doctrinal errors here.
1. We live by faith in Christ, Who delivers us from the law as a covenant of works, and commands us to obey the law as a rule of life. “If you love me, keep my commandments.”
2. The Spirit leads us to holiness, and holiness is defined by the law, which is holy, just and good.
3. The Apostles said that believers did not have to obey the ceremonial law. They advised Jewish believers to obey some of its requirements for the time being to avoid stumbling Jewish unbelievers. But they did expect sincere though imperfect obedience of the whole law.
Paul carefully makes a distinction in 1 Corinthians 9:21 “To them that are without law, as without law (ceremonial), (being not without [moral] law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.”
Christ died to save sinners from sin and make them zealous of good works (Titus 2). It is the moral law that defines what good works are. Read the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter on Good Works.