abstract: God condemns and hates political polytheism, and charges the civil magistrate to uphold, in relation to his sphere of jurisdiction, both Tables of the Ten Commandments. In this final segment, Brian surveys the NT evidence against political polytheism and answers objections to his thesis.
National Reform Association ==>Christian Statesman ==>November - December 2003 ==>Political Polytheism, Part 2
Editor's Note: Part 1 of this essay appeared in the September - October 2003 issue of The Christian Statesman
One of the greatest evangelical misconceptions is that New Testament teaching regarding the civil magistrate contradicts the Old Testament teaching. The basic idea is that Christ's kingdom is spiritual, an inward matter of the heart, therefore, Christians should focus on personal evangelism and leave politics to the Canaanites. Although it is true that Christ's kingdom is spiritual and that Christ rules from heaven and not from earth, the New Testament teaches that Christ's dominion extends far beyond the visible church. In fact, the New Testament passages which discuss Christ in His exaltation teach the same truths regarding Christ's kingship and its implication for the nations as the Old Testament prophecies.
The Great Commission says, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Mt. 28:18-20). Because of what Christ accomplished as the divine-human mediator by His life, death, and resurrection, every nation has been definitively set apart or sanctified by Him. By the preaching of the gospel, the sacraments, and the teaching of the whole counsel of God all the nations are to be brought into obedience to the Son. Daniel the prophet foretold these things,
I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed (Dan. 7:13-14).
Rushdoony states: "[B]y defeating on His cross the power of sin and death, Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, defeated the power of the prince of darkness in the very world he had corrupted and captured. Now this world could be reconquered, and the glory of God manifested in every area of life and thought."40 Christ has bound the strong man [Satan] and is progressively plundering his house (cf. Mt. 12:28-29). The theanthropic Christ is "King of kings, and Lord of lords" (Rev. 19:16). "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!" (Rev. 11:15). This means, according to Chilton, "The Kingdom of Christ now begins the process of encompassing and enveloping all kingdoms of the world. The earth will be regenerated."41 If Christ is the King over kings and has authority over all kings and nations, then obviously all rulers have a moral obligation to submit to His authority. They must "kiss the Son" (Ps. 2:12).
The apostle Paul teaches the same doctrine in his epistles. Paul said that Christ "must reign till He has put all enemies under his feet" (1 Cor. 15:25). Charles Hodge writes,
He must reign until the purpose for which he was invested with the universal dominion is accomplished. As in Ps. 110 it is said to the Messiah, "Sit thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool." ...Christ is to put down all rule, authority and power, v. 24, and he reigns until he has accomplished that work.... By subduing however, is not meant destroying or banishing out of existence. The passage does not teach Christ is to reign until all evil is banished from the universe. Satan is said to be subdued, when deprived of his power to injure the people of God. And evil in like manner is subdued when it is restrained within the limits of the kingdom of darkness.41
To the Philippians, Paul wrote:
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9-11).
Matthew Henry says, "The whole creation must be in subjection to him...every nation and language should publicly own the universal empire of the exalted Redeemer."43
To the Ephesians, Paul wrote:
He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:20-22).
William Symington says of verse 22,
Does not the apostle Paul speak of God having put all things under the feet of Christ, and "given him to be Head over all things to the church?" Mark the language. It is not only "Head over all things;" but "Head over all things to the Church." It is for the sake of the Church that he is invested with universal regal authority: in other words, the end of Christ's universal Mediatorial dominion is the good of the Church. Thus far, all is clear and undeniable. But the nations are among the "all things," over which Christ is appointed "Head." It follows then, that Christ is appointed Head over the nations for the good of the Church. If so, there must be some way in which the nations are capable of subserving the interests of the Church. Is it possible, then, to conceive that it is not the duty of the nations to promote, by every means in their power, the good of the church? Is it conceivable that nations are not under obligations to advance the very end for which they are placed in subjection to Christ?44
The Old Testament messianic prophesies (e.g., Ps. 2, 47, 110; Isa. 9:6-7, etc.) and the New Testament passages which discuss the result of Christ's exaltation are in complete harmony. All civil magistrates have a moral duty to submit to and publicly serve Jesus Christ. "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Ac. 17:30). Rulers must "bear fruits worthy of repentance" (Lk. 3:8). Paul said, "Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31).
Do civil rulers bring forth fruits of repentance by permitting and protecting abortion, homosexual bath houses, and temples of idolatry? Do civil magistrates glorify God by giving tax exempt status to Satanists, animists, and cults who are doing everything in their power to oppose Christ's church? The Bible says that Christ is the "ruler over the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5); that He is "the way, the truth and the life" (Jn. 14:6); and He is the only way to God the Father (Ac. 4:12).
Since these things are true and must be believed by all Christians, it is unscriptural and irrational for believers to argue that the only true religion should be considered by the state as no different than all the religions devised by Satan and his minions. Paul said that Christians are to pray, "For kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of our God and Savior" (1 Tim. 2:2-3). Note, that Christians not only pray that magistrates promote "a quiet, peaceable life" but one "in all godliness and reverence [or honesty]." McCrie states, "Rulers are not, in their official capacity, to be indifferent to godliness any more than honesty; both are to be countenanced and promoted by them, Ezra vi. 8-10."45
It is very unfortunate that evangelicals and even many Reformed Christians have neglected the biblical emphasis on the present kingship of Christ. The leaven of dispensationalism and pluralism has reached not only deeply into fundamentalist, evangelical, and charismatic churches, but has also affected the conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. Fundamentalists often urge sinners to receive Christ as savior while presenting Christ's lordship as optional. The dispensationalist teaches that Satan is the king of the earth--the devil controls this present world. But,
He overlooks the obvious fact that the only three passages of Scripture which denominate Satan "the prince of this world" assert that Christ by His death defeated Satan as prince of the world. With a view to His impending death Jesus said: "Now shall the prince of this world be cast out" [Jn. 12:31]; "the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me" [Jn. 14:30]; "the prince of this world is judged" [Jn. 16:11].46
Paul said that Jesus has a name above every name (Phil. 2:9). John said that Satan was bound by Christ, "so that he should deceive the nations no more 'till the thousand years were finished'" (cf. Rev. 20:1-3). Jesus is conquering the nations by the word of God. "Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron" (Rev. 19:15). It is important that Christians acknowledge and emphasize the mediatorial kingship of Christ over the nations for it is the only antidote to statism. Kuiper wrote:
The neglect of the present totalitarian rule of Christ is regrettable for more reasons than one. One extremely weighty reason is that this teaching of Holy Writ constitutes a potent argument against state totalitarianism. Those who slight this scriptural doctrine are discarding a compelling argument against the totalitarian state. The rule of Christ is totalitarian. That truth leaves no room for totalitarian rule by men. When men seek to exercise totalitarian rule, they arrogate to themselves that which belongs to Christ alone. A totalitarian state cannot but collide head-on with the kingdom of Christ. In a word, state totalitarianism is a manifestation of antichrist. There are many antichrists in the world, but none bolder than this.47
A portion of Scripture which is crucial in understanding the proper role of civil magistrates and the obligation of subjects is Romans 13:1-7. Since the purpose of this study is to prove that religious pluralism or political polytheism is immoral and that Christian nations have a duty to uphold both tables of the law, only a part of this passage will be considered. Paul wrote:
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor (Rom. 13:1-7).
The primary purpose of this passage is to teach Christians the proper relationship and behavior they are to have toward the civil government. (One must keep in mind that when this portion of Scripture was written the Jews were widely known as being rebellious toward outside authority. At that time there were many Jewish terrorists and revolutionaries functioning within Judea.) As Paul gives reasons why everyone is required to be subject to the governing authorities, he gives important information about the civil government itself. He teaches its role, or purpose, and defines its limits.
Paul gives three main reasons why every person is to live in subjection to the civil authorities. First, civil magistrates, "derive their origin, right, and power from God.... The civil magistrate is not only the means decreed in God's providence for the punishment of evildoers but God's instituted, authorized, and prescribed instrument for the maintenance of order and the punishment of criminals who violate that order."48 Second, civil magistrates are a terror49 to evil works. Third, the civil authorities are God's ministers or servants. As God's ministers they execute God's wrath upon those who practice evil. The civil magistrate does good by using the sword to punish civil crimes.
There are a number of statements within this portion of Scripture which directly relate to the issue of the civil magistrate's responsibility to suppress the open practice and propagation of false religions.
First, the civil magistrate receives his authority directly from God. "Exousia is a delegated power, power that is given to a person or group of persons by another. Paul uses it in Romans 13 because he wants to make it explicit that the authority of the governing powers is from God."50 Since civil magistrates receive their authority from God, they are responsible to submit to God's authority. Rulers are not autonomous powers. "If all authority comes from God, then all authority is plainly under God's law-word and entirely subject to it."51
Second, the civil magistrate is to praise good behavior and punish evil doers. "Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil" (vs. 3). How are rulers to determine what is good and what is evil? Where do ethical absolutes come from? How is a civil magistrate supposed to determine what is an evil act punishable only by a church court and what is an evil act that also is a crime punishable by the state? Clearly, the only standard by which a civil magistrate can rule justly is the Bible, the stand-alone infallible Word of God.52 Whenever the state makes laws that contradict the law of God, or ignores some of the laws in God's word such as laws against the open practice of idolatry, or makes laws that contradict God's limited role for the state (e.g., welfare programs, public schools, food stamps, etc.) then that state is in rebellion against God in those specific areas.
The state's role is to provide a law-abiding atmosphere in which individuals, families, businesses, and the Christian church can flourish. The civil government's job is to punish evildoers who violate those laws (as they apply to modern nations) which God has designated in His word as crimes. The state is to implement negative sanctions against criminals (biblically defined) and to protect the people within their borders from foreign invasions. North states, "Civil government is a God-ordained monopoly of violence. Allow arbitrary and unpredictable power here, and the entire society can be placed under the bondage of oppressors--oppressors who legally wield instruments of physical punishment."53 Bahnsen explains:
The magistrate...is to execute, not simply God's decretive will, but God's preceptive will--and he sins should he fail to do so. No man has the right to take another man's life or carry out punishment upon another without the approval of God, and thus the autonomous use of the sword in Israel was grave iniquity.... The magistrate cannot presume to take just anybody's life at his own whim (i.e., murder), but must execute criminals and punish evildoers as God so sanctions these punishments--in His law.54
Third, Paul refers to the civil magistrate as "an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (vs. 4). Does the civil magistrate mete out his own personal anger upon criminals? Are civil punishments expressions of the rulers own personal vindictiveness against evildoers? Given the fact that, in the preceding chapter (12:19), God had just prohibited the taking of personal vengeance, the wrath spoken of refers to God's wrath, not the civil magistrate's. "Thus the magistrate is the avenger in executing the judgment that accrues to the evil-doer from the wrath of God."55
God has given the civil magistrate the power of the sword to carry out His vengeance upon sins that He has designated as crimes. Since the magistrate is carrying out God's vengeance and not his own, this means that the magistrate has a responsibility to punish not those activities that he personally finds offensive, but only those acts that God defines as offensive (i.e., civil crimes). Thus, the most faithful method in which a civil magistrate can serve God is to study His word to determine what God considers to be criminal behavior. Also, since the magistrate's retribution is founded upon God's wrath, the magistrate has responsibility to impose the Spirit-inspired penalties found in God's word. The penalties must reflect God's attitude toward a certain criminal act and not the magistrate's personal attitude. When civil magistrates ignore God's penalties for crimes such as idolatry, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, rape, adultery, etc., by either eliminating the penalty (e.g., abortion, homosexual acts, adultery) or by greatly lessening the penalty (e.g., murder, rape, kidnaping) then the ruler has substituted his own concept of justice and retribution for God's. Bahnsen states: "Because the penal sanctions of God's law are imperatives delivered with divine authority and approval, the follower of Christ should teach that the civil magistrate is yet under moral obligation to enforce the law of God in its social aspect."56
Fourth, the civil magistrate is a servant of God (diakonos, vs. 4; leitourgoi, vs. 6). The civil magistrate (whether he is a Christian or not) has a moral duty to serve God within the sphere of civil government. He is not the servant of Baal, Krishna, or Zeus but Jehovah. The more a ruler rules according to God's Word the more faithfully he fulfills his divine calling. The citizens are to be in subjection to the governing authorities and the governing authorities are to be in subjection to God. The governing authorities might declare a nation to be secular, Buddhist, Islamic, Shinto, or Hindu but that declaration does not release the civil authorities from their responsibility to rule in terms of God's law and to submit to the King of kings, Jesus Christ. Rushdoony writes:
The state has a duty to be Christian. It must be Christian even as man, the family, the church, the school, and all things else must be Christian. To hold otherwise is to assert the death of God in the sphere of the state. Because of its failure to require that the state be Christian, because of its implicit death-of-God theology, the church has surrendered the state to apostate reason and the devil. The church has done this because it has denied the law of God. It has, in fact, implied that God is dead outside the walls of the church....57
The biblical case against the practice of political polytheism is overwhelming. However, the vast majority of Christians (at the present time) emphatically reject the idea of an explicitly Christian state. Since most Christian pastors, teachers, and elders regard the thesis enumerated above as heretical and dangerous, an examination of the objections to the establishment of biblical Christianity is in order.
First, keep in mind that a Christian civil government does not come into being through a revolution or physical violence. A nation will not become Christian until the majority of the people are converted to Christ. This may be centuries in the future. Becoming a Christian nation is a bottom up not a top down affair. Rushdoony writes:
The key is regeneration, propagation of the gospel, and the conversion of men and nations to God's law-word. Meanwhile, the existing law-order must be respected, and neighboring law-orders must be respected as far as is possible without offense to one's own faith.58
Second, in a Christian state (as noted earlier) it is not illegal to be an unbeliever. One can be an atheist, animist, Hindu, or anything one pleases. Personal belief and private practice are not civil crimes. It is the propagation and public practice of heathenism that is a civil crime according to biblical law (cf. Dt. 13:1-18, 17:2-7).
Third, some type of state persecution or intolerance toward religious practices is unavoidable and inevitable in every nation, even in secular pluralistic states. The United States does not presently permit human sacrifice or torture in religious rites. It does not permit the use of illegal drugs in "native American" religious rituals. Religious prostitution and child molestation also are not permitted. The point is that civil law must forbid certain religious practices.
How are civil magistrates to determine what is and is not permitted in their country? The only infallible, objective, absolutely moral guide for civil magistrates to decide these matters is the Bible. All civil laws are based on concepts of morality derived from religious or philosophical presuppositions. The only reason that America's present laws are as good as they are is because of our Christian roots. Will Christians still be in favor of religious pluralism when the state legalizes homosexual marriage, polygamy, drug use in sorcery and witchcraft, ritual sex orgies, etc.?
Fourth, on what basis can political polytheists condemn Christian civil magistrates for doing exactly what the Bible tells them they should do? Since the Bible cannot contradict itself, political polytheists can only condemn obedient Christian civil magistrates on the basis of a non-biblical philosophy or worldview. This is exactly what pluralists do. A Christian scholar in favor of "principled pluralism" wrote:
We cannot move directly from the text of the Bible to political theory.... The case for principled pluralism is based neither on a pietist hermeneutic nor on a proof-texting approach to Scripture.... The case for principled pluralism rests on the conviction that the order of society points responsively to an ultimate normative order beyond itself as the source and criterion of its meaning.59
There is no other "ultimate normative order beyond itself" except the Bible.
While the Bible does not teach a separation of Christianity and the state, or Jesus Christ's authority and the state, it does teach a separation of church and state. Christ is the King over the state as well as the church. The state is to follow Christ within its God ordained domain and the church must obey Christ within its God given sphere of duty. They are not to intrude in any way upon each other's sphere of duty. The church has a spiritual authority--the power of the keys. The state has the authority of physical coercion against criminals (biblically defined)--the power of the sword. Charles Hodge writes:
[T]he Word of God determines the limits of the magistrate's office in reference to both classes of his duties; and as, under the Old Testament, there was a form of religion with its rites and officers prescribed which the magistrate could not change, so there is under the New. But under the Old, we find with this church government the kings were required to do, and in fact did do, much for the support and reformation of religion and the punishment of idolaters; so they are now bound to act on the same principles, making the pious kings of the Old Testament their model.60
With Erastianism the magistrate is involved with many areas that are scripturally outside his domain. A Christian civil magistrate who obeys the Scripture does not attempt to micro-manage the church. If he does intrude upon the church's authority then he would be subject to church censure and if he is obstinate--excommunication. If lawfully excommunicated, the civil magistrate would be subject to impeachment, for a covenantal nation would require church membership in a Trinitarian orthodox Christian church for all judges and office holders.
The civil magistrate does, however, have an authority to call general assemblies, synods, and even church councils in the event of a spiritual or national crisis. Constantine (A.D. 306-337) acted properly when in the year 325 he summoned the council of Nicea to settle the Arian question. He also acted righteously when he banished Arians after the decision of the council was rendered in accordance with Scripture. During the religious and civil crises that occurred in England and Scotland during the 1640's, Parliament called into existence the Westminster Assembly (1643-1648). The result was the greatest, most biblical church standards the world has ever seen. They are still unsurpassed. Parliament did the right thing when it asked the church to deal with needed reform. George Gillespie concurs. He argues that if there is no hope "of redressing such enormities [e.g ., a widespread church apostasy] in the ordinary way, by intrinsical ecclesiastical remedies; that is, by well-constituted synods, or assemblies of orthodox, holy, moderate presbyters; in such an extraordinary exigence, the Christian magistrate may and ought to interpose his authority to do divers things which, in an ordinary course of government, he ought not to do."61
This is also the teaching of historic Presbyterianism:
The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.62
The fact that civil magistrates have abused their religious duty in the past is no reason to forsake the concept of a godly Christian civil magistrate. We do not abandon covenant headship in Christian families because husbands have abused their authority. Nor do we abandon Christian motherhood because some mothers have abused their children. We should work to apply the word of God to all areas of life, even the civil sphere.
Zechariah 4:6 says: "Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the Lord of hosts." It is argued that these words teach that Christians should just engage in spiritual activities such as witnessing and prayer; and that civil power should be left to secular hands. This argument is a perversion of the meaning of this passage. The Jews who returned from Babylon had the responsibility to rebuild the temple. These Jews were discouraged because they were few in number, poorly equipped and surrounded by powerful enemies. During this time of discouragement a wonderful promise is spoken to Zerubbabel by the Lord: "Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit." M'Crie writes:
...although ye are destitute of might and power for this work, the success of it does not depend upon these; my Spirit remaineth among you, fear ye not, he will carry on and consummate the work. But was this declaration made to Zerubbabel to cause him to drop the sceptre from his hands, and take no direction in the work, lest there should be an appearance of human authority about it?63
No, not at all. In fact verse 9 says, "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this temple; his hands shall also finish it." "It was by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts that the people were excited and animated to build the temple; and therefore they are said to be helped by the prophets of God, because they, as the Spirit's mouth, spoke to their hearts, Ezra v. 2."64 "The success of any Christian endeavor depends on the power of God's Spirit. Therefore, whether a person is a Christian minister, plumber, builder, or civil magistrate, he should pray for God's help and give God the glory for success. [W]hat God does is one thing, what men ought to do is another."65 We pray for our daily bread, and then we must plow the field and plant the seed.
Another passage often quoted against a Christian civil magistrate is John 18:36: "Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.'" Many Christians wrongly assume that Christ is teaching that His kingdom will not influence or change this world. They think that Christ is telling believers to live in a pietistic ghetto. But Jesus is saying that the origin or source of His kingdom explains His unique kingship. Christ's authority as King does not originate from earth but from heaven. Jesus proclaimed a redemptive, spiritual kingdom, a kingdom entered by being born again, by partaking in the first resurrection (cf. Jn. 3:5); a kingdom not of weapons and political might but of meek, humble service to Christ and one's neighbor (cf. Mt. 5:5; 18:3-4, 21:5; Lu. 22:25-26). Jesus rejected all Jewish efforts to make Him a political leader or revolutionary in a physical conflict with Rome.
But, although Christ taught that His kingdom originated from heaven and was spiritual, He also taught that it would penetrate and affect the whole world (cf. Mt. 13:31-33). Christ's glorious gospel will penetrate and sanctify men, institutes and cultures. That is why Christ commanded His disciples to pray, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Mt. 6:10). Calvin writes:
By this prayer we ask, that he may remove all hindrances, and may bring all men under his dominion, and may lead them to meditate on the heavenly life. This is done partly by the preaching of the word, and partly by the secret power of the Spirit; it is his will to govern men by his word.... We therefore pray that God would exert his power, both by the Word and by the Spirit, that the whole world may willingly submit to him.66
Christ commanded His people to disciple all nations (Mt. 28:19). This means that God wants every nation to submit to the word of God. The church was established to extend over the whole earth the crown rights of the resurrected victorious King. Christ's kingdom is not established or spread by bullets, bombs or revolution. But once a nation believes in Christ and submits to His kingship, it will covenant with Him to follow His laws. J. C. Ryle concurs:
The favourite theory of certain Christians that this text forbids Governments to have anything to do with religion and renders all Established Churches unlawful, is, in my judgment, baseless, preposterous, and utterly devoid of common sense.... The text declares that Christ's kingdom did not spring from the powers of this world, and is not dependent on them; but the text does not declare that the powers of the world ought to have nothing to do with Christ's kingdom. Christ's kingdom can get on very well without them; but they cannot get on very well without Christ's kingdom.... The Government that does not strive to promote true religion, has no right to expect God's blessing.67
Some Christians who oppose a Christian civil government quote 2 Corinthians 10:4 to defend their position. "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds." If Paul were writing about the duty of Christian civil magistrates in this chapter our opponent's argument would be well taken. But, it is obvious from the context that Paul is talking about the church's responsibility. The church should never use carnal means such as physical coercion to convert, convince or discipline sinners. This point is obvious from verse 5 where Paul says that the churches are used to cast down arguments. We are to bring "every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." Spiritual ends require spiritual means. If a professing Christian put a gun to a heathen's head and then commanded him to receive Christ, the heathen's profession would be insincere and useless. If people are offered a thousand dollars to believe in Christ they will become hypocrites not Christians. "What the a postle was thus confident he could cast down were imaginations [logimos], thoughts, i.e., the opinions, or convictions of those who set themselves and the deductions of their own reason against the truth of God."68 This passage no more forbids the use of sword by a Christian magistrate to punish idolatry, than it forbids a stick to Christian parents to spank their disobedient children.
Biblical liberty of conscience does not mean that people are free to publicly blaspheme God and worship idols. If the Bible taught such a liberty of conscience it would contradict itself. In a Christian nation, people are free to believe anything they please. But, the moment they publicly subvert the laws of Christ by openly preaching or practicing idolatry, they have committed acts which the Bible defines as crimes punishable by the state. M'Crie writes:
To assert the right of men to think and act as they please, without respect to the moral law, and without being responsible to God, would be atheistical. And to suppose that men, who are subjected to divine law, natural or revealed, are exempted from blame in every thing which they do agreeably to the judgment and conscience--would be to deny a fixed rule of good and evil superior to man; would make conscience the ultimate standard of their actions and render errors and crimes, in such cases, innocent.70
Most Christians today are shocked and upset when murderers and rapists are set free by our courts to walk the streets. But when people insult God and mock the Lord Jesus Christ it is considered a wonderful expression of religious liberty.
When the state by its laws gives men the liberty to commit acts which are evil, which are defined as serious crimes by the infallible Word of God, and which the Bible says must not go unpunished by the civil magistrate, then that state has rejected the authority of Jesus Christ. That state has set its own standard above God's righteous law. That nation has by implication proclaimed a liberty to publicly offend God. That nation which permits its citizens to publicly teach that Christ was not God, or that He did not rise from the dead, or that He is no different than Buddha or Krishna, or that His death on the cross is a myth, etc., has not kissed the Son. It has not acknowledged and honored Christ as king. The nation that does not submit to Jesus Christ will receive blows of judgement from the Lord of glory (Ps. 2:9-12).
The state as a religious establishment has progressively disestablished Christianity as its law foundation, and, while professing neutrality, has in fact established humanism as the religion of the state. When the religion of a people changes, it laws inevitably reflect that change and conform themselves to the new faith and the new morality.71
If Christians accept religious pluralism and refuse to apply the word of God to all areas of life including judicial and civil affairs, then the state will continue to use its power to promote false religion. Public (i.e., state) schools promote evolution, fornication, abortion, homosexuality, new age mysticism, native American animism, feminism, socialism, and so on. Christians are portrayed in schools, universities, modern music, television, and movies as hate mongers, idiots, bigots, unscientific and anti-intellectual fools. If the radical homosexual ideas regarding marriage, the family, and employment become law, then Christians will be persecuted by the state. Gary North states: "The pluralist is unwilling to admit publicly one of the fundamental principles of the Bible: there is irreconcilable conflict in history and in all of man's institutions between God and Satan, covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers, spiritual light and spiritual darkness."72
If Christians think they can avoid religious and ideological warfare by relegating the Bible to "spiritual" issues, and placing their trust in political polytheism, they have ignored both the Bible and history. North writes:
Political pluralism is founded on a lie, namely that all political issues are not at bottom, religious. Political pluralists refuse to admit that temporary religious and cultural cease-fires are not permanent peace treaties. At best, pluralism masks the escalating historical conflicts for a season.73
If Christians refuse to be salt and light to culture (cf. Mt. 5:13-14) and reject the biblical teaching that the state has a responsibility to obey and enforce God's law, then they will have a state that is a nursing father to sodomites, lesbians, atheists, pornographers, perverts, and criminals of every sort. There is no neutrality!
To assert that civil government can micro-manage doctrinal disputes between believers is to fall into the error of Erastianism. Although the civil government does not have the authority to punish people for holding to erroneous opinions, it can covenant with the people to adopt a confession or creed as most agreeable to God's word (e.g., the Westminster Standards). It also can set oaths for office which would only permit those who are members in good standing in Reformed denominations to hold office. In a Christian commonwealth, anyone who has a defective view of the triune God, the divinity or humanity of Christ, salvation, the law, etc., should not be eligible to vote or hold office. "The God of Israel said...'He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God'" (2 Sam. 23:3, 4). James R. Wilson writes,
His honor must be promoted by excluding his open enemies from office. "When the wicked beareth rule the people mourn" Prov. 29:2. Why? Because the Messiah chastises them for exalting the foes of his church, and law. To permit atheists, deists, Jews, pagans, profane men, heretics such as are the blasphemers of Messiah's Godhead, and papists, who are gross idolaters, to occupy places of honor and power, as legislators, judges, & etc. is to offer a direct insult to the holy Jesus. They do not, they will not, they cannot "kiss the Son," according to the Father's command. To elevate such men is direct opposition to the King of kings.76
A covenanted uniformity of doctrine, worship and church government founded upon God's Word is biblical and desirable, but these things can only occur when the majority of a people in a nation are first convinced of the truth by the Holy Spirit, not a bayonet.77 Christian civil government presupposes a great revival of biblical Christianity. Such revival presupposes postmillennial eschatology.
The kingdom will not be brought in by a bureaucratic theocratic regime, but by the heart-transforming work of the Holy Spirit. We therefore disagree with them concerning the supposed necessity of defining theocracy as a top-down social transformation. If God's kingdom rule is to be widespread in its influence in society, this transformation must be from the bottom-up: self-government under God. So, we do not call for a theocratic bureaucracy, either now or in the future. Such a top-down bureaucracy is not called for in the Bible, is impossible to maintain without unlawful coercion, and is not necessary to impose to bring in the kingdom.78
The Bible teaches that God hates all false religions and that the nations which permit idolatry and paganism to flourish will receive judgment. Scripture also says that all the nations of the earth have been given to Christ (the mediatorial king) as a reward for His obedience unto death. The Great Commission teaches that Christians should be working for the establishment of a worldwide Christian civilization. Are most Christians working to disciple whole nations? Are they teaching the kingship of Jesus Christ over all nations? Most believers are not at all concerned with these important Christian responsibilities. Why? Because they have accepted the myth that God approves political polytheism; that a state should remain neutral with regard to religion; that a state is not obligated to "kiss the Son."
Because many Christians have accepted the myth of neutrality, politically they are often found working on the side of the atheistic secular humanists. They are actually teaching and working against the Great Commission, the First Commandment and Christ's universal kingship. If Christians would only set aside their Americanized presuppositions, they would see that the testimony of Scripture is clear on this point. All nations have a moral duty to submit to Jesus Christ and His law; all nations by virtue of their moral subjection to the Messiah are obligated to legally recognize, favor, and support biblical Christianity.79 Once this point is understood, Christians will work for the same goal as set by the Great Commission. Will it be difficult? Yes. Will it take centuries of hard work? Maybe.80 But we should do nothing less than what our Lord has commanded. Has He not promised, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Mt. 28:20)?
Brian Schwertley is an ordained minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of the United States and the pastor of Chalcedon Christian Church in Haslett, Michigan. He is the author of various articles and books on subjects relating to the family, church, and state. His work can be found and downloaded at www.reformedonline.com.
40. R. J. Rushdoony, Christianity and the State (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1986), p. 72.
41. David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), p. 288.
42. Charles Hodge, I and II Corinthians (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974 [1857, 58]), p. 331.
43. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (McLean, VA: MacDonald Pub. Co., n. d.), Vol. 6, p. 733.
44. William Symington, Messiah The Prince (Edmonton, AB: Stillwater Revival Books, 1990 [1884]), p. 266. Charles Hodge writes of verse 22: "Christ is not only exalted above all creatures, but he has dominion over them; all are placed in absolute subjection to him...all beings save God alone are made subject to man in the person of Jesus Christ, the Lord of lords, and King of kings" (Ephesians [Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1964 (1856)], p. 51.). John Gill writes: "And this headship of Christ is the gift of God; and it is an honourable gift to him as Mediator; it is a glorifying of him and a giving him in all things pre-eminence; and it is a free-grace gift to the church, and a very special, valuable, and excellent one, and of infinite benefit and advantage to it; and which is expressed in his being head over all things to it; to overrule all things for its good; to communicate all good things to it; and to perform all the good offices of an head for it" (Exposition of the New Testament, Vol. 9, p. 68).
45. Thomas M'Crie, Statement of the Difference, etc., p. 143.
46. R. B. Kuiper, "The Word of God Versus the Totalitarian State," The Westminster Theological Journal XI (Nov., 1948) in Gary North ed., The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Symposium on Politics, (Summer, 1978), p. 170.
47. Ibid., p. 171.
48. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965), part 2, pp. 148-149.
49. "A terror (phobos). This meaning in Isaiah 8:13 does not approve all that rulers do, but he is speaking generally of the ideal before rulers" (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI, n. d. [1931]), Vol. IV, p. 407).
50. James Montgomery Boice, Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995), Vol. 4, p. 1644.
51. R. J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 540.
52. Many Christians will object to this statement and argue that with the demise of national Israel the standard for civil governments is natural law not biblical law. The problems with this viewpoint are manifold. First, natural law was never intended by God to function independently of divine revelation. Even before the fall, Adam and Eve had general and special revelation. Second, natural law alone can never be a dependable standard of civil government because (a) nature is fallen; (b) nature is often ambiguous. People tempered by special revelation, such as Thomas Aquinas, used natural law in a beneficent manner, while people who reject special revelation, such as the Marquis de Sade, use natural law in a sadistic manner. Third, natural law and biblical law both come from the same God--Jehovah. Therefore, they cannot contradict one another but must teach the same ethical standard. Once this is admitted (it cannot be denied on scriptural grounds) one must embrace biblical law because: (a) it is not affected by sin--it is infallible; and (b) it is perspicuous. It is both clear and detailed. The whole issue of natural law is basically a smoke screen used by those who do not want to use biblical law as their standard. The reason professing Christian scholars and pastors do not want to use biblical law is precisely because it is clear and detailed. God's word is much more difficult to twist and pervert into one's own standard of fairness than natural law.
53. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), p. 685.
54. Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1984), p. 381.
55. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, part 2, p. 153.
56. Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, p. 318.
57. R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes, p. 240.
58. R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes, p. 113-114. "Politics is the 'quick fix' approach to cultural transformation. 'The presidential election will turn the tide. A change in the Supreme Court will bring our nation back to righteousness. If we could only get more conservatives in office.' None of this will do it. Only a long-term effort to change all facets of society will bring about significant and lasting transformation. This means changing the hearts and minds of millions of people" (Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart, The Reduction of Christianity: A Biblical Response to Dave Hunt, [Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1988] p. 297).
59. Gordon J. Spykman, "The Principled Pluralist Position" in God and Politics, pp. 78, 82, 83. "Ironically, Spykman rejects natural law, yet he also denies that Old Testament laws provide the required content of these definition-less 'creature ordinances.' This leaves everything conveniently open-ended. That is the heart and soul of neo-evangelicalism: intellectually and morally open-ended. T. M. Moore is correct: 'Ultimately, Spykman exalts God's revelation in nature above the Bible. He insists that the meaning of Scripture can only be unlocked by first understanding the meaning of God's Word inherent in the creational norms around us.' 'The Christian Response to Principled Pluralism,' Ibid., p. 110" (Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism, p. 16, footnote 46).
60. Charles Hodge, "The Relation of Church and State" in, John Robbins ed., Against the World: The Trinity Review, 1978-1988 (Hobbs, NM: The Trinity Foundation, 1996), p. 306. Charles Hodge is against the establishment of Christianity in America. He writes: "[W]hen reasoning from the Word of God, we are not authorized to argue from the Old Testament economy because that was avowedly temporal and has been abolished, but must derive our conclusions from the New Testament." Where are we told that the whole Old Testament economy was temporal? North writes: "Any principle of biblical interpretation (hermeneutic) is dangerous which argues that unless an Old Testament case law is specifically repeated in the New Testament, it is automatically annulled in New Testaments times. Anyone who argues this way is going to run into major problems. For example, bestiality is not specifically mentioned in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, it is listed as a capital crime (Lev. 18:23).... Can you carry over the Old Testament's definition of the act as criminal and yet not carry over the Old Testament penal sanction? On what hermeneutical basis?" (Tools of Dominion, p. 100).
61. George Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossoming; or, The Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated, etc. (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle, 1985 [1646]), p. 82.
62. Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. XXIII, sec. III. "Today, on both sides of the Atlantic, the spiritual heirs of the Westminster Assembly affirm the radical Whig's secular idea of universal religious toleration, an ideal that appalled every member of the Westminster Assembly, an idea affirmed only by one man in that era, Roger Williams, whose 1644 book was ordered burned by the Parliament that had called the Assembly into existence" (Gary North, Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1996], p. 976). However, the vast majority of modern Presbyterians emphatically reject this section of the Confession with the excuse that it teaches Erastianism. The authors of the Confession with only one or two exceptions were vehemently anti-Erastian; specially the Scottish divines and the Scottish General Assembly that adopted the Confession of Faith.
63. Thomas M'Crie, Statement of the Difference etc., p. 156.
64. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (McLean, VA: MacDonald Pub. Co., n. d.), Vol. 4, p. 1418.
65. Thomas M'Crie, Statement of the Difference etc., pp. 156-157.
66. John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981), Vol. 1, p. 320.
67. J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Cambridge, England: James Clark, 1976 [1873]), p. 288. "To tell us that no Government can find out what true religion is, and that consequently a Government should regard all religions with equal indifference, is an argument only fit for an infidel. In England at any rate a belief that the Bible is true is part of the Constitution; an insult to the Bible is a punishable offense, and the testimony of an avowed atheist goes for nothing in a court of law" (Ibid ., p. 288). George Hutcheson writes: "Whereas private men, aspiring to a worldly kingdom, do use violence and force of arms, he had prohibited his disciples to fight in his defence in the garden. This is not to be understood as if Christ disallowed that they to whom he hath given the sword should defend his kingdom therewith; for if magistrates, even as magistrates, should be nursing parents to the church, and ought to kiss the Son, as the Scriptures do record, then certainly they may and should employ their power as magistrates for removing of idolatry and setting up the true worship of God, and for defending thereof against violence" (The Gospel of John, [Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985 (1657)], p. 388).
68. Charles Hodge, I and II Corinthians (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974 [1857-59]), p. 611.
69. A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958 [1869]), p. 265. "Although civil and ecclesiastical society do not take cognizance of religion in the same manners, to the same extent, and for the same purposes, yet the general principle respecting the liberty and right of consciences affects both, and would vindicate a general toleration and license in the church as well as the state" (M'Crie, Statement of the Difference etc., p. 166).
70. Thomas M'Crie, Statement of the Difference etc., p. 160.
71. R. J. Rushdoony, Christianity and the State, p. 7.
72. Gary North, Political Polytheism, p. 86.
73. Ibid. p. 84.
74. The Protestant pattern of establishment followed in the past was to have one denomination as the established church. The established church would receive public funds (i.e., taxes collected by the state) to pay for the church run public schools. The Protestant churches that were not part of the established church would be tolerated (there are notable exceptions to this toleration) yet their members had to pay taxes to support schools and other church projects with which they may disagree theologically. This pattern often led to a resentment of the established church and a desire for total disestablishment. Disestablishment led to the implicit establishment of secular humanism in the courts, legislatures and the public schools. Modern theonomists reject the whole concept of state financed education not just because it is coercive and unjust, but because the education of children is placed by God in the hands of the family, not the church or state. If parents want to delegate some of the teaching tasks to the church, tutors, or private schools, then they must pay for it instead of using funds stolen by the state.
75. William Symington, Messiah the Prince, p. 300.
76. James R. Wilson, "Prince Messiah's Claims to Dominion Over All Governments: And the Disregard of His Authority by the United States, in the Federal Constitution, A New Edition," ed., Gordon J. Keddie (Beaver Falls, PA: Semper Reformanda, Summer, 1997), Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 81.
77. Protestantism has fragmented since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Most people who consider themselves Protestants actually reject most or all of the doctrines of the Reformation. Virtually all of the mainline "Protestant" denominations are really temples of secular humanism. The leadership in these denominations are religious liberals who reject the infallibility of the Bible, the virgin birth, the atonement, the resurrection of Christ, and so on. Spiritually and ethically Protestant liberals are servants of Satan. Another group often referred to as Protestants are the Evangelicals. Most Evangelicals, however, believe in a God who is not sovereign or omnipotent. They also hold to a heretical view of salvation. These are the Arminians who teach that man allows God to elect and regenerate people by an act of the human will. Christ made salvation possible but only those who can self-generate their own faith through an autonomous act of the will are saved. Faith is not a gift of God to dead sinners but a meritorious act. Arminianism is fundamentally more Romanish than Protestant. Consistent Arminianism is heresy. There are still many Calvinist denominations which are faithful to the biblical doctrine of salvation. Christian civil government requires a country in which most people believe in biblical Christianity. This will require a great revival of Reformed Christianity (i.e., Calvinistic soteriology, the regulative principle of worship, a theonomic view of the law, postmillenialism, and the mediatorial kingship of Christ, etc.). Only after the Reformed denominations achieve a unity based on truth (not compromise) can any idea of a covenantal uniformity be achieved. The State cannot coerce men and women to accept something which they do not believe in.
78. Gary North, Political Polytheism, pp. 589-590.
79. William Symington, Messiah the Prince, p. 265.
80. "Reconstructionists generally believe they have time, lots of time, to accomplish their ends. Moreover, they are not revolutionary because they believe that Christians achieve leadership by living righteously. Dominion is by ethical service and work, not by revolution. Thus, there is no theological reason for a postmillennialist to take up arms at the drop of a hat. Biblical postmillennialists can afford to wait for God to judge ungodly regimes, bide their time, and prepare to rebuild upon the ruins. Biblical postmillennialists are not pacifists, but neither are they revolutionaries" (Gary North and Gary DeMar, Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn't [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991], p. 141).
Publishers of
The Christian Statesman.
Declaring the Lordship of Christ since 1864
editor
Bill Einwechter
A six month subscription to The Christian Statesman
is FREE on request. Renewals are FREE on request.
POBox 8741-WP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15221
Use this form to comment on this site. Use this form to request a FREE introductory six month subscription to The Christian Statesman or to renew your existing subscription.
For a FREE introductory three issue subscription,
send email to
Bill Gould with
your
name and mailing address.
Follow this link to buy your book from Amazon.com
and make a small contribution to the National Reform Association