A Conversation Concerning Pretended Liberty of Conscience

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men … And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Ephesians 4: 4 – 14.)"

Introduction

Just as tyranny usurps the right and title of "Lawful Authority", Libertine License has engraved on her crown that pilfered title "Liberty of Conscience". Over the last five centuries, the West has escaped the former but to a large extent fallen prey to the latter. We no longer fear the blood thirsty Popes and inquisitors of the Roman Catholic Church. We have been liberated from the tyrannical imposition of man-made doctrines and traditions. We now labor under the reign of every man’s conscience.

Fears of past abuses have driven us to new abuses rather than to old remedies. Having rightly determined that no man, not even the magistrate, may impose his own religion upon another, we have erroneously gone on to conclude that no man, especially the magistrate, may impose the true religion, commanded by God, upon another. Since the ridiculous fictions of the Pope should not be forced upon the citizens of the land, neither should the eternal truth of God Almighty. (Though we don’t use these words, this is the consequence.)

In our new day of tolerance, homosexuality is openly paraded. Homosexuals are permitted to adopt and corrupt children. At the same time, we forbid the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places, lest any conscience feel imposed upon. Our military Chaplains may pray, but they may not use the name of our Lord. Our President may declare a generic National Day of Prayer, but not a Day of Prayer to the true God of Scripture. While God demands that we have no other gods, our Constitution commands the government to regard all gods equally and no god exclusively. If this were merely the prevailing sentiment of heathen rulers in our land, it would be wrong but not surprising. Sadly however, this malady pervades almost every corner of the Church.

Not one professing Christian in 1,000,000 would advocate the suppression of idolatry, blasphemy or heresy by the civil government through use of force, whether by fines, prison, banishment or beheading. "After all," they reason, "how would we like it if our religion were outlawed? We would wish to be tolerated, and so we must do unto others as we would have done to ourselves."

Thus, in Christian charity, the wolves are welcome to devour the sheep. They are given opportunity to seduce and destroy souls, to prey on the simple and unsuspecting, even to educate children in their ways. No doubt, we strongly disagree with their false teachings, but it would be un-Christ-like tyranny for us to deny these wolves their prey.

In many instances, the Church does not even discipline her own ministers or members for heretical views. Few churches require anything more than a minimal agreement in doctrine from their ministers or members. To demand that a church member hold, point for point, to a creed or confession, would be considered tyranny over the conscience by most. The battle cry of today’s Church is, "Let’s agree to disagree!"

In this brief dialogue I suggest a different view. Our liberties come from God. If God has given me the right to live, then no man has the right to take my life. (Thou shalt not kill.) If God has given me the right to own property, then no man may justly take my goods by force. (Thou shalt not steal.) Conversely, if God has forbidden men to shed innocent blood, or to take his neighbor’s goods by force, then no man, king or peasant, may claim the right to do these things. And so, I ask the question, "Has God granted men the right to devour his sheep, or to blaspheme His name, or to pervert His Gospel, or to misrepresent His law?" For example, when a college Professor endeavors and succeeds in leading his young student to forsake the God of Scripture for a secular, atheistic world view, is he doing what God approves, or what God forbids? Is he exercising a God-given right, or engaging in God forbidden behavior?

For some this is not the issue. They acknowledge that men are not free to revolt against the will of God as revealed in Scripture. They boldly affirm that all men are bound to obey God. However, say they, "Such crimes, though crimes, are out of human jurisdiction, and must be punished by a higher magistrate, by God himself." I will endeavor to show that this view is entirely foreign to the teachings of God’s Word. In the pages that follow, I hope to show that God has explicitly required the Church to hold its members accountable for their doctrine and practice, by means of instruction, correction, and the sacraments. Further, it will be demonstrated that God has charged the magistrate with defending his realm from false teachers and seducers, that he is to punish the profane, and that he is to protect and cherish Christ’s Church as if it were his own tender infant.

A final word before we embark. Every student of history is familiar with the many atrocities associated with national religious disputes. No doubt, men have abused every institution of God with which they have had to do. Spouses have abused spouses, but we do not denounce marriage. Parents have abused children, but we do not revoke parental authority. Tyrants have posed as lawful authorities, but we do not throw off all civil authority as despotism. While we must always be wary of unlawful authority, (such as the pretended authority claimed by the Pope,) and never bend our knee to usurpers, we must also at the same time shun anarchy, whether civil or ecclesiastical. Neither the abuse nor the abandoning of God’s institutions is permissible. And so, with this introductory plea, I offer the following dialogue.

Chapter 1

The weapons of our warfare are not carnal!

Student:

Sir, I have recently read of certain events in Geneva. Our reformed forefathers burned to death Michael Servetus for heresy. Further, I have read in the Westminster Confession of Faith, that those publishing such opinions, or maintaining such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity … may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, …by the power of the civil magistrate (Chapter 20;) and it is his (the civil magistrate’s) 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 (Chapter 33.)

Teacher:

I’m familiar with the event in Geneva and with the Confession’s teaching concerning heresy and the duty of both Church and State in that regard. What do you make of these things?

Student:

Frankly, I’m shocked. This flies in the face of all that is Christian. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal (II Corinthians 10: 4.) Are we to go into the world to slay unbelievers, or to preach the Gospel to them? And if we do both, that is, preach the good news while holding a sword to their throats, we will simply produce hypocrites and not disciples.

Teacher:

You have misstated the Reformed case. Servetus was guilty of far more than simply being an unbeliever. He was a publisher and preacher of damnable heresy who refused to be silent. Neither the Church nor the Magistrate is called to execute men for simply not believing.

Also, you have confounded the relevant parties and duties. The Church is entrusted with the duty of preaching the Gospel and making disciples. Ministers of the Church are to preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine (II Timothy 4: 2.) The Magistrate, not the Church, is to use civil force on the wicked. "…he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God … (Romans 13: 14.)"

As you said, the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. The Church is to rebuke heretics, not execute them. But this doesn’t mean that the magistrate is not to take action as well. Now because the Church does not fine the thief, does this mean that the Magistrate should not either? The Church cannot lawfully execute the murderer. Should the Magistrate therefore tolerate murder? There is a distinction of duty to be observed, one for the Church, another for the Magistrate. The Church should cry out against oppression, murder and heresy. The Magistrate should draw his sword against these crimes.

Next, without question, it is the gospel and not the sword that is the power of God unto salvation. It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (I Corinthians 1: 21.) But the goal of the Magistrate in silencing the heretic is not the salvation of the heretic, but the safety of God’s Church and the keeping of God’s truth pure and entire. The sword is not a supposed means of evangelism, but a means of restraining those who would prevent or pervert evangelism. It would be one thing to require one to believe or die, but quite another to forbid the publishing and preaching of soul damning heresy. The one requires true faith and repentance. The other requires only silence. Finally, if the use of force to prevent wolves from devouring the flock should produce hypocrites, is this the fault of the magistrate or of the hypocrite? If the seducer only refrains from seducing because he may be beaten, imprisoned or hung, then the fault is clearly his own. Many a man has refrained from murder, not out of love for his neighbor, but out of fear of the executioner. Without question, such men are hypocrites, but did the hangman create this hypocrisy? Should the magistrate cease all coercive action against murderers, lest he cause the murderer to hypocritically spare an innocent life?

Student:

Perhaps if the false teacher were patiently borne with he might repent. As it is, mere man has taken the place of God and he is slain before his time, without hope of later conversion.

Teacher:

The same argument might be made for the murderer. Perhaps, if we do not dispatch him to the next world, he might repent. Those unrepentant and unbelieving murderers perish without hope. And so, shall we only execute murderers who show remorse, faith and repentance, while patiently sparing the impenitent and blasphemous? Surely you agree this is too absurd to pursue any further!

Chapter 2

But we are not infallible!

Student:

The reasons you have given refute the case I have made thus far. However, I have had a moment to collect myself and will now argue more prudently.

The Pope long persecuted all who would not submit to his teachings. He claims to be the infallible head of the Church on earth. Thus, all Christians are to submit to his alleged unerring word as to the very word of God. As Protestants, you and I reject his claim of infallibility, not to mention his absurd claim to be head of the Church on earth! If we acknowledge that all men may err, then how can we command that others refrain from teaching doctrines contrary to our own? Perhaps the man we would condemn is sound in the faith and we are in error. It may be that we would persecute the faithful servant of Christ while mistakenly believing that we are doing God a service. Persecution of others without perfect knowledge cannot be just.

Teacher:

The dilemma you present is common among those who argue for an unrestrained license in the name of liberty. It is supposed that our only two choices are either an unconditional subjection of the conscience to the word of the Pope and his councils, or spiritual anarchy.

The Pope teaches that we ourselves need not seek in the Scriptures and traditions for what we are to believe. God has appointed the Church to be our guide to salvation and we must accept its teaching as our infallible rule of faith (Baltimore Catechism #3 question 561.) …the Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and the bishops, united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals (Baltimore Catechism #1 question 125). "…the Holy Scripture alone could not be our guide to salvation and infallible rule of faith…because there are many things in the Holy Scripture that cannot be understood without the explanation given by tradition… (Baltimore Catechism #3 question 562.)

To summarize, the Pope would have us believe that the Bible is not sufficient for instructing us in the way of salvation. His traditions must be added to Scripture. And since he is infallible, we must accept his traditions without question as the very word of God itself. For centuries the Popes withheld the Scriptures from the common man. The Council of Toulouse made it illegal for anyone but the clergy to possess a copy of the Scriptures. The Bible was confined to Latin, and safely tucked away out of the reach of the people. The Bible called the Bereans "noble" (Acts 17: 11) because they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul and Silas taught were true. Those who desired to examine the Pope’s teaching through the light of Scripture were called "criminal". The Roman Church did not feel it useful for their teachings to be compared with those of the Bible.

The Protestants, on the other hand, translated the Scriptures into the native tongues of the people all around the world, to be read by all. The Reformed Churches teach, that those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Westminster Confession Chapter 1.) The Pope says, "Obey me, for I am infallible!" The Protestant says, "The Scriptures are infallible, obey them."

And so, while we deny that we ourselves are an infallible rule of faith, or that we may add our own traditions, doctrines and practices to the teachings of Scripture, we do affirm that the Bible is both infallible and understandable. Hence, we may know infallibly that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that there is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved, that we are saved by grace thru faith apart from works, etc… Now I ask you, if the Bible can be understood, then should we not agree on who God is, what He has done on our behalf, and what obedience He expects of us?

Student:

I suppose so.

Teacher:

Let me reinforce your sentiments. Paul commands us in Titus 3: 10, "A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject…" Now if we could not certainly know whether the man teaching strange doctrine be a heretic, or if we be the heretics, then Paul’s command would be unreasonable and impracticable, would it not?

In Romans 16: 17 we read, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." If we must be supernaturally infallible in order to know Bible truth from heretical error, then how shall we know who to avoid and who to embrace?

In Galatians 1: 8 Paul tells us that even an angelic appearance should not shake our faith in the revealed word of God. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." If the scriptures were truly an indecipherable puzzle book, then these rebukes and admonitions would be unjust.

How shall we "…all speak the same thing…" and "…be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment… (I Corinthians 1: 10)," if no one can truly know what to believe? The fact that Paul instructs "all" to speak the same thing, "all" to be of the same mind, and "all" to be of the same judgment, implies that "all" may know the truth taught in Scripture. If this were not so, then how could we"…Prove all things; and hold fast that which is good… (I Thessalonians 5: 21)?"

There is a feigned humility which says to the truth of God, "Far be it from me to be so bold as to claim to understand thy holy command O God. Rather, I will humbly follow my own judgment and conscience, while respectfully disregarding thy written word." The Lord rebukes this conceit. "For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it (Deuteronomy 30: 11 – 14.)" "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isaiah 8: 20.)" "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path (Psalm 119: 105.)"

Student:

But do you not acknowledge that even the best and wisest man may err in his doctrine or practice? And if so, how can a mere man, who is himself, subject to err, judge another?

Teacher:

It is one thing to say that a man in error should not judge the man who is sound. It is another thing to say that all men may err, therefore no man may judge. By extension of your reasoning, —all men may mistake, therefore no man may correct. Any Pastor may someday commit adultery, therefore no Pastor may preach against immorality.

It is sufficient that the Judge be true and just in his judging, that the man giving correction be correct in his correcting, and that the Pastor not be hypocritical in his preaching. If the Judge is unjust, or the man correcting be in error, or the Pastor be hypocritical, then corrective action should be taken. However, we do not abolish all justice systems, or correction, or preaching, because of the human susceptibility to error.

If only those who are impervious to sin and error may act against an offender, then society may not act against anyone. Judges have many times sentenced the wrong man to fines, prison, or even death, sometimes by accident, sometimes intentionally for a bride. Juries are likewise flawed. Are we then to do away with all Judges and Juries because some, either intentionally or ignorantly, have miscarried justice? I know that you would not suggest this!

I acknowledge that men may err, but this does not mean that men cannot also know the truth with certainty. As we speak, many a man believes that he is performing his daily labor. Others suppose themselves to be in the midst of some enjoyable past time. Yet, they are all asleep in their beds, some fretting, others delighting, nonetheless all sleeping. Now, because some slumbering soul dreams that he is awake, does this mean that no one may infallibly know that he is awake and not asleep?

Student:

The man awake may know that he does not sleep, but it hardly seems fair to punish the sleeping man for dreaming that he is awake. How can he help himself?

Teacher:

There is no fault in dreaming of work or rest, but when men imagine or dream of a god who receives their merits, works and ceremonies as payment for eternal life, or when they declare a piece of gold, silver or baker’s bread to be their lord and savior, they speak not from innocent sleep, but from wicked delirium. Their delusion is the fruit of their self-righteousness and self love. "…they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie… (II Thessalonians 2: 10, 11.)" Such delusion must be preached against from the pulpit of the Church, and struck down by the sword of the Magistrate. The drunk driver is not pardoned because his judgment is impaired. Neither are men to be pardoned because their own spiritual inebriation has led them into assorted errors. "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind… (Romans 1: 28.)"

Student:

I agree, the truth may be known, and the Scriptures are sufficiently clear so as to render us accountable. Further, I withdraw my objection concerning the lack of infallibility. However, there is another issue which makes all this irrelevant to our contended point.

Chapter 3

The issue is jurisdiction

Student:

The issue is not whether or not we may know heresy from error. I agree heresy may be known, and is a crime. However, even a lawful magistrate can only punish crimes within his own realm. The French policeman does not travel to London for the purpose of arresting the Englishman who robs a British bank. He is out of his jurisdiction. That is the job of British law enforcement. In the same way, God alone is Lord of the conscience. We may witness a crime of heresy. We may testify of it. We may denounce it. However, the realm of conscience is out of our jurisdiction. To intrude upon another’s religious convictions with carnal force is unlawful. Job said of God and himself, "There is no umpire between us… (Job 9: 33.)" The only magistrate who may lawfully punish in that realm is God. All others are no more than lynch mobs who will some day give account for usurping God’s authority.

Teacher:

The scriptures tell us that God has appointed the magistrate as an avenger. In Leviticus 24: 16 we see that God commands spiritual crimes to be punished by mortal men. "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death." This law applied not only to those born and raised in the community of faith, but also to the stranger. It may have been that the stranger conscientiously acknowledged some other god, rather than the true God. Perhaps in the stranger’s conscience it was no crime to blaspheme the name of the Hebrew God. Nevertheless, God commanded him to be punished. In Deuteronomy 13: 5 – 10, we see what God would have us do to those who would lead us to serve other gods.

5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

This is hardly a "hands-off" approach commanded by God. Perhaps the blasphemer or the false prophet conceive their crimes in the realm of conscience, and indeed, God alone is Lord of that realm, but when these men exercise their conscientious beliefs in the physical realm, then the magistrate is to see that they are physically punished.

In addition to these explicit commands, we have also the approved examples of godly Kings who forbade idolatry and established the true religion. Consider Hezekiah in II Kings 18. "3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. 4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan." Removing the high places and destroying images and groves was a direct act of hostility toward the religious beliefs and practices of many people in that land. The Bible says, "he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD."

There was also Josiah in II Kings. "And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left (22:2.)" "he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven (23: 5.)" "And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba, and brake down the high places of the gates (23: 8.)" "And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem (23: 20.)" "Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD. And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him (23: 24-25.)"

Chapter 4

Old Testament Civil Government is no rule for the New Testament

Student:

These commandments and approved examples are from the Old Testament. The people of Israel had but one religion and denomination to choose from. In addition, they had the prophets who spoke immediately as the oracles of God in order to keep the people from error. Their rulers were supernaturally selected and guided by the hand of God. Perhaps if the same conditions existed in our times, then you might apply these texts, but, as it is, we have a multitude of religions all about us. Even in our one religion, Christianity, there is an assortment of denominations.

Teacher:

There were false teachers in the land then. Many times, the false prophets flourished throughout Israel and Judah. No doubt, they all claimed to speak for the true God. I just mentioned all the false religions, idols, wizards, workers with familiar spirits, etc… that filled the land prior to Josiah becoming King. In Ezekiel God speaks of the false shepherds which devoured his flock (Ezekiel 34.) Ahab was a King in the Old Testament. He was not divinely kept from error. In fact, God, as a judgment, put a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab’s false prophets (I Kings 22: 23.)

Throughout all of human history, there has been truth and error for man to choose from, even in the Garden of Eden we find a false teacher. If the law of God concerning the blasphemy, idolatry, etc… were to be suspended whenever deceivers came along, then it would never have been implemented in the Old Testament either. By your rule, the only time when heretics might be punished, is when none exist, and all are orthodox. You speak as though the age of enlightenment were before the birth of Christ, while now we abide in darkness.

If any dispensation has more light and revelation to walk by, it would be the New Testament age that we live in. The true Christian religion is no less clearly defined, regulated and established by God in the New Testament, than the Mosaic dispensation was in the Old Testament. We do not have mere types, images, and ceremonies, of the Old Testament, destined to last but a short time. We have the Son of God himself revealed, and his work accomplished in plain view for all the world to see. They had the truth in anticipation, we have it as manifested. They beheld the shadows from afar, we embrace the substance.

Besides, this argument seems to be much like your objection concerning infallibility, which we have already resolved.

Student:

Doubtless, there were false teachers and false prophets then as now, corrupt political leaders then as now, and false religions and denominations then as now. However, there is one undeniable distinction. In the Old Testament, there was much that was ceremonial and typical. These things were done away with in the New Testament. We now have but two ceremonial observances, baptism and communion. In the Old Testament, Kings like David and Solomon were types of Christ, just as the High Priest was. Their office and work typified what Christ would do as Prophet, Priest and King in his Church. We cannot arbitrarily take types and shadows of the Old Testament for New Testament Precepts.

Teacher:

Pork, which typified spiritual defilement, was forbidden then, now it is not. Pork was not then, neither is it now, a wicked thing of itself. The prohibition could be lifted without violating the law of nature engraved on the heart of man (Romans 2: 14, 15.) The moral law is perpetual, the ceremonial law was temporary. I would not suggest that we punish a man for eating pork. However, idolatry and blasphemy are violations of God’s moral law, which is perpetual. I see nothing arbitrary in saying that the prohibition on idolatry or any other sin against the first table of God’s law is still in force today.

Student:

I am not speaking of God’s prohibition, but of the civil punishing. I agree that idolatry, blasphemy, heresy, etc… are forbidden today, just as they were then. My point is that the Kings of that day operated in a typical capacity when they punished these crimes, just as Christ will punish them on the last day. Our civil magistrates do not have these typical prerogatives. They may only legislate, judge and punish purely secular matters.

Teacher:

I will grant that certain kings, like David and Solomon, were types of Christ in the Old Testament. However, this could not be said of all kings in the Old Testament. Consider Ahab for one. Did he typify Christ in anyway whatsoever? To a large extent, it may be argued that the Old Testament Kings were more like Anti-Christ than Christ.

For your argument to hold, it would have to be established that the Hebrew office of King was a typical ordinance. "Therefore," you might argue, "all who held that office were uniquely duty bound to be types of Christ in the way they governed and punished evil doers, though many failed." However, the office of King was like the certificate of divorce. It was granted to Israel because of the hardness of their heart. Remember, it was the rebellious crowd which cried out, "Give us a king to judge us… (I Samuel 8: 6.)" God did permit this. "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. (I Samuel 8: 7.)"

The Jewish office of King was not like the office of High Priest. The office of High Priest was divinely ordered after the heavenly pattern, and commanded of God. The office of King was demanded by the people, taken from the pattern of the heathen nations around them, and permitted by God. And so, neither the office of King, nor his responsibilities were ceremonial types which were to perish in the New Testament.

Besides all this, the command to punish idolaters existed well before there was ever a King over Israel. They were ruled for many generations prior to their monarchy, by elders and judges.

Another problem with appealing to typical abrogation is that preventing or allowing a false teacher to seduce souls and lead whole households to eternal damnation, could hardly be compared to a morally indifferent action like eating pork.

And so, I find no warrant for arbitrarily consigning this particular duty of the Old Testament Magistrate to abrogation; whether King, Elder, or Judge. Nowhere in the New Testament is this duty set aside. Neither the crime, nor the punishment is ceremonial or morally indifferent. They did not ceremonially lead men astray, and they were not ceremonially stoned. They were literally stoned for literally and immorally leading men to violate the law of nature.

Student:

Is there any explicit example of this command being carried over into the New Testament?

Teacher:

First, with respect to moral precepts, we need no such repetition. When God forbids bestiality in the Old Testament, it is still forbidden in the New. Secondly, the general equity of the Old Testament civil laws continues binding in our own day. Those civil laws which were morally derived, such as those concerning homicide, theft, idolatry, etc… had a divinely prescribed punishment. Men were not left free to assign whatever punishment they pleased. It was not left to popular vote or royal whim, but to God’s word. And so, men could not then, or now, justly execute a man for stealing bread. The magistrate is not sovereignly free to assign whatever weight he pleases to the crime. If he allows the poor to be oppressed by not punishing, or by scarcely punishing their oppressors, then he is unjust. He cannot in righteous judgment fine the oppressor a mere pittance for devouring a widow’s livelihood. "Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD (Proverbs 20: 10.)" God, our only Law-giver, has declared what is a just penalty for society to impose for each crime. And so, we first prove our case by principle rather than by example. However, the Scriptures are not silent concerning the magistrate’s duty in religious matters during New Testament times.

Isaiah 49: 23 tells us that the Kings of the earth, as Kings, shall watch over Christ’s Church as over their own infant children. "And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me."

Student:

This does not necessarily mean that Kings will punish heretics and blasphemers. Perhaps the prophecy is merely speaking of the Kings providing a safe haven for Christians, where they will not be persecuted for their faith.

Teacher:

If this were to mean simply that Kings will tolerate us, and not feed us to lions, then by your rule Kings are also to be nurse-fathers to blasphemers, heretics, seducers, etc… Is this the meaning of the text, that the age of Messiah’s kingdom will be marked by a safe haven for both Christians and all that is anti-Christian alike?

Consider this, the Scriptures describe false teachers as wolves which will not spare the flock (Acts 20: 29). How do these wolves devour the flock? Not by feeding them to lions. Verse 30 says by speaking perverse things and drawing away disciples unto themselves. What father would allow his infant child to live in the company of wolves? If you would be a father to your child, you must be an enemy to the wolf that would devour him. You will not allow both in your house.

You will love one, and hate the other. You will nourish one, and destroy the other. If kings will be nurse-fathers to the Church, then they will be the avowed enemies of false teachers.

Zechariah prophecies more explicitly of the way in which false prophets are to be treated in New Testament times: "And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth (Zechariah 13: 3.)" This is what Deuteronomy 13 required, and now the prophet tells us that it will also be practiced in the New Testament. At what point did this practice, which God required, become immoral, and at what point will it again become moral?

Student:

Why then did Christ not rebuke the first century magistrates for tolerating idolatry during his time on earth? In fact, Paul referred to the Roman Empire as God’s ordinance in Romans 13: 1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

Teacher:

You are correct. Jesus did not explicitly rebuke Caesar for tolerating idolatry, at least in the Gospel accounts. You will also notice that there is no record of our Lord condemning Pilate for mingling the blood of Galileans with the blood of their sacrifices. None of the Gospels record a single rebuke from him against State toleration of sodomites. He did not denounce Caesar for tolerating slave trade, nor did not speak out against Government toleration of infanticide. vHe did, however, affirm the authority of the God’s Law, which addresses each of these crimes. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5: 17, 18.)" In this one statement Christ rebukes every law-forbidden crime committed, and every law-required duty neglected including idolatry and the tolerating of idolatry. We must remember that God’s revelation to man did not begin in first century Roman.

As to Paul’s words in Romans 13, we must distinguish between lawful power and unlawful power. Paul is not saying here that any pirate who by violence seizes a ship, or every terrorist who takes control of a plane, is to be submitted to conscientiously. By extension, not every politician commanding an army is to be given conscientious submission. Simply having physical power to coerce others does not make one a lawful power to whom every Christian should submit. Otherwise, every bandit with a gun becomes a lawful magistrate.

In the same vein, not every invader or occupying power is to be conscientiously submitted to. Eglon the king of Moab invaded Israel and subjugated them. Then God raised up Ehud, who rather than serve the Moabite King with conscientious subjection, instead killed him with a dagger (Judges 3: 21.) In Judges 13 three thousand men of Judah came to bind Samson and deliver him up to the Philistines. "Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us? v. 11" But when they reached the Philistines "the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him," and he slew a thousand men with the jaw bone of an ass, rather than conscientiously submit to his oppressors.

Some might argue from these words that God had foreordained the Roman Empire to conquer the land and to rule over the people, and that God foreordains the rise and fall of all governments. "…the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will (Daniel 4: 25.)" Therefore, they argue, to resist Rome or whatever government is in power, is to resist the divine providence and plan of God.

Student:

We are Calvinists. This appears to agree with our view of God’s sovereignty. Who are we to war against God’s providence?

Teacher:

While it is true that all things which come to pass are ordained of God, including the rise and fall political powers, this does not mean that God’s providential workings are our rule of faith or practice. He may ordain that we fall ill. This does not mean that we should not resist the illness with medicine. He may ordain that we fall into the lake, but we are not required to sink to the bottom. He may ordain famine. Yet we may lawfully act against the forces of famine by stocking ahead, conserving and rationing, as did Joseph in Egypt. He may raise up Pharaoh to afflict His people. Yet, they may lawfully flee from him. He may ordain despots and tyrants to oppress the land, but we may lawfully revolt against them. Anyone who would approve of our own nation’s beginning would agree in this point.

Therefore, to be "ordained of God" must mean something other than "providentially ordered". It must mean that those powers exist as an approved and prescribed institution of God, just as marriage and parenthood are called institutions "ordained of God". Verse 4 confirms this in that Paul calls the magistrate the "Minister of God to thee for good." In verse 3 we see that the rulers that Paul had in mind were a source of terror to the wicked, and of praise to the righteous. Verse 7 tells us that these rules are worthy of, and are to receive from us, honor and reverent fear.

Now, how does this description compare with pagan Rome? Was Nero a source of praise to God’s saint, or of fear? In the centuries that followed our Lord’s time on earth there would be no less than ten brutal persecutions launched by Rome against the Church. It was their policy and practice to seek out Christians and feed them to lions, burn them, beat them, etc… Does this sound like an approved and prescribed institution of God? The Church received stripes, while heathen idolaters received protection. Yet our text says, "…rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same…" Infanticide, slavery, idolatry, and all manner of sexual immorality had the seal of Roman approval. Yet the ruler Paul wrote of was "… the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Clearly, the power Paul called the "ordinance of God" was not the Roman Empire.

If the "minister of God to you for good" described by Paul was the Roman empire, then why does he rebuke the Corinthians for going to secular courts to settle their disputes? "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust…? (I Corinthians 6: 1)" There was no such rebuke when Godly men ruled (see Job 29). Surely if the secular government of Paul’s time were a "minister of God to you for good", a source of praise to the righteous and of fear to the wicked, a ruler worthy of fear, tribute and honor, then this would be the one we should appeal to when we are wronged. Yet, Paul forbids it.

Clearly Rome was no more a lawful power, than Herod and Herodias were a lawfully married couple. Paul was not speaking of Rome as it was, but of God’s institution as it should be. Paul was affirming that God has ordained that there be civil authority and order. And so I deny that Paul was speaking of Caesar when he said that the magistrates are God’s ministers v. 6. We may submit to an unlawful magistrate as unto a bandit, in order to preserve our lives, so long as we do not violate God’s law, but we must never conscientiously submit to them as loyal subjects.

Student:

But there are many passages of the New Testament which appear to contradict the severity described in the Old Testament. For example in Romans 14 we read, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him." Now this is clearly a doctrinal dispute. Some believed that you must abstain from certain meats, others believed all to be clean. Paul did not call for the magistrate to imprison those who disagreed, but called on the strong to receive the weak.

Teacher:

First, not all errors in doctrine require civil action. If every offense of either the first or second table were visited with civil action, we would never be out of court or prison. Some doctrinal errors are more destructive than others, just as some crimes against our neighbors are more severe than others. If a parent punishes his child for every sin of infirmity, he will surely exasperate him. If God were to lay the rod upon his children for every sin of word, thought or deed, for every prohibition violated, for every duty neglected, they would shortly be swept away with unbearable grief.

For centuries, the Jews were taught from the word of God to abstain from certain foods, and to observe certain days. It was no doubt a difficult transition for them, and they were to be patiently accepted into fellowship while they worked through these doctrinal issues. However, Paul did say that they were weak, and that those who knew all foods to be clean were strong. Though bearing patiently with the weak, he nonetheless calls them weak, and thus gently prods them to become strong.

Secondly, these weak brethren were to be received into fellowship, but this is not the same as letting them take the pulpit and spread their misconceptions as the doctrine of Scripture. Those who taught were to be sound in the faith, not weak. Further, this is not the same as the weak leading Church members out of the Church to form new and separate Churches.

Thirdly, even if these disputes were of a more serious nature, suppose some damnable heresy, Paul still would not have called upon the magistrate, since the magistrate at that time had no regard for such matters of Christian faith.

Student:

What of the Samaritans in Luke 9: 51 – 56, who the apostles wanted to destroy with fire from heaven? Like you, they also referred to the Old Testament. "Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?" Our Lord rebuked them saying, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." If Christ would not have them destroyed with fire from heaven, then why should we destroy false teachers with the sword?

Teacher:

What in the text leads us to believe that the quarrel was doctrinal? Verse 53 tells us that the Samaritans "did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem." This is why James and John sought to destroy the Samaritans. There was a long standing enmity between the Jews and the Samaritans. When the Samaritans saw this mighty prophet on his way to minister in Jerusalem, they refused to aid him. No doubt this was an inhospitable and sinful act. But our Lord turns the other cheek. Bearing a personal wrong patiently and mercifully is not the same as allowing wolves to devour sheep, or seducers to lead souls to hell.

It should also be noted that our Lord did not come in the flesh to fill the office of civil magistrate. He did not measure out civil punishments to any crime, whether theft, murder, sodomy, adultery, or idolatry.

Student:

What of the great law of Christian empathy found in the golden rule? "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets (Matthew 7: 12.)" Is there any man in his right mind who would desire that someone imprison, beat or execute him for his religion? If he would not wish such a thing for himself, then how can he lawfully do so unto others?

Teacher:

If you were a blood thirsty murderer, would you wish to be imprisoned or executed? If you were a thief, how would you like being forced to repay your victims seven fold? These questions may seem foolish, but in effect you have just asked me if I were a heretic, preaching soul damning heresy, dragging whole households to hell, would I want to be punished by the magistrate? The simple answer to all is that no criminal would wish to be punished for his crime. But this is not within the scope of our Lord’s precept. His rule fulfills the law, and so can only be applied to lawful circumstances. —I would not wish to be robbed, therefore I will not rob. —I do not want to be murdered, thus I will not murder. However, this precept does not teach —I desire that someone would gratify all my wicked lusts; therefore I will gratify someone else’s wicked lusts.

The Golden Rule is not an unconditional rule of empathy, but is to operate within the context of the Law of God.

Student:

In Matthew 13 our Lord tells of a field where a man had sown wheat. His enemy later crept in and sowed tares among the wheat. When the man’s servants discovered the tares they asked if they should be removed. The owner of the field, concerned for the safety of the wheat said, "No; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." Our Lord explains that the good seed are children of the kingdom, while the tares are the children of the wicked one. How do you reconcile "Let both grow together until the harvest" with the imprisoning, banishing, or even executing of heretics?

Teacher:

The tares are not specifically described as heretics. I do not doubt that they are included in this group, but surely others are as well. In verse 41 they are described "as all things that offend, and them which do iniquity." This would surely include adulterers, thieves, perjurers, murderers, etc… That being observed, your application of the text would forbid the magistrate from punishing any criminal with the sword, lest he accidentally punish an innocent child of God. Rather, he must stand back and let society spiral into violent anarchy, lest some unintentional harm befall the innocent. Clearly this cannot stand. Our Lord’s explanation of the parable removes this difficulty. The servants are not symbolic of Ministers of the Gospel, or of Civil Magistrates. Rather, our Lord says that these are his angels (v. 41) who shall cast the wicked ones into hell, not simply the heretics, but all that offend and do iniquity.

The parable is not a directory for the magistrate’s or the minister’s conduct concerning heretics. Rather, it is a word of caution to the saints to be patient. The godly are often powerless to thwart the wicked in their courses. In such times, God may providentially wait many years to bring the lost Saul of Tarsus to faith and repentance. No doubt, many would be tempted to wish him plucked up and cast into hell years before they saw him converted.

Now because God providentially waits, and allows men to wreak havoc on the Church before converting them, does this mean that the magistrate is to patiently stand back and allow Christians to be stoned as Stephen was, because, who knows, perhaps the fellow holding the coats will be converted some day? As mentioned before, God’s providence is not our rule of conduct.

God ordained that His Son be betrayed, beaten and crucified. Would any of us wish to participate in these grievous sins because God had ordained them? Or would we shun the shedding of innocent blood as commanded in God’s law? Was Pilate innocent because he merely allowed what God had ordained, or was he a wicked ruler for not protecting one that he himself declared innocent?

Thus, the parable is not a guide for the magistrate in governing society, as to what he shall punish or permit. In that case, he would punish nothing with the sword. Rather it instructs us to bear God’s providence patiently, knowing that He is working all things together for our good.

Student:

It appears that I have erred on several points.

1. The civil punishing of crimes against the first table, such as blasphemy and heresy, does not require a prophetically infallible magistrate.

2. Nor is such civil punishing "lording over the conscience." In fact, such action is required by God in the law (Deuteronomy 16.)

3. Those laws are still to be enforced in Christian nations.

4. The assorted passages cited earlier in defense of tolerance were in fact no such thing.

Chapter 5

What shall we do?

Student:

I am still unclear about some particulars. For example, in our own land we have had the Gospel preached for centuries, yet, we tolerate every religion under the sun. The majority of our countrymen claim to be Christians, yet most all would oppose any coercive action of the state against false religions. Beyond that, there is so much diversity among those called "Christian" that we could scarcely agree amongst ourselves on what the true faith is. How are we to rise from our present secularism, to a Biblical magistracy?

Teacher:

To begin with, there must be a change in the Church. Her expectations must be lifted. She can no longer be satisfied with the heterodoxy and tolerance that have become her rule of faith. How can the magistrate be expected to govern according to the word of God if the Church cannot even agree on the meaning of His word?

Student:

What measures must be taken to produce such a change?

Teacher:

This is a subject that requires far more attention than we now have time for. However, there are a few particulars which will be useful to consider.

First, we must confess our sin before God and ask that He heal the many breaches in Zion, that He turn us from every man doing whatsoever is right in his own eyes (Deuteronomy 12: 8). We can hardly expect a sound, orthodox, biblical civil government to proceed from a confused, heterodox multitude. The Church must acknowledge and bemoan her sins in this regard. Of the thousands of congregations that fill our land, how many do you suppose corporately prayed this Lord’s Day that God would grant us repentance, and bring us into unity of the faith? How many congregations publicly lamented and mourned over our many differences and divisions? I would imagine very few.

Instead, we view our diversity and tolerance as high marks of spiritual maturity. A Church that houses people of many and varied perspectives is viewed as a group which has risen above petty squabbles and bickering in order to do the work of ministry.

Somehow, the work, will and nature of our God, (for these are at the center of our so-called petty squabbles and bickering) have come to be treated as matters as trivial as whether or not to pad the pews. It is assumed that if we are involved in "ministry", then we surely haven’t the time to wrangle over issues concerning the work, will and nature of our God.

It has come to the point that a congregation may have as many "gods" as they have members, so long as each member spells the name of his personal "god" the same as everyone else. Just call him Jesus, or heavenly Father, or Holy Spirit, and all is well.

The Jesus of one man died for everyone, even for Pharaoh who was burning in hell while He hung on the cross. The Jesus of another man died only for His Church. One God receives human merit, another God receives human merit if sprinkled with the blood of Christ, and still another God receives the blood and obedience of Christ alone. This God would have us observe the Christian Sabbath; another God says that there is no such thing. The God of some allows only adults to be baptized. The God of others would have us baptize infants as well.

These differences in Christendom imply blasphemy and rebellion in at least some of Christ’s Church. If we are saying contradictory things about the will, work, and character of God, then someone is speaking lies in the name of Christ. We must count these contradictions as a loss rather than a trophy. If schism were treated like adultery or drunkenness it would not be so common. We must stop this foolish "agreeing to disagree" but rather, obey the scriptures which instruct us all: "speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (I Corinthians 1: 10.)"

Secondly, we must imitate Paul who ceased not to "pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him… (Ephesians 1: 17.)" We must hear the plea of Wisdom, who cries out at the city gates, "How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you (Proverbs 1: 22 – 23.)" We must cleave to God’s promise, "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God (Proverbs 2:3 - 5.)"

It should be the desire of every professing Christian to know the Scriptures, and to be wholly subject to their teachings. Families should daily search the Scriptures and pray, both together and apart. We must be faithful and diligent. Our Lord has promised that if we ask, seek, and knock, that we would receive, we would find, and it would be opened to us. The prevailing opinion that true unity of the faith is unobtainable is a testimony to the sad fact that we have not asked, sought, or knocked as we should. We have counted the truths of Scripture common, rather than precious. We have squandered our time and energy on amusements and worldly distractions, and not sufficiently applied ourselves to the word of God.

Thirdly, when we conclude a matter to be thus and so, as from the Lord, we must do so with fear and trembling, acknowledging our solemn responsibility to know, and to be in accord with, the one True Faith delivered once and for all by the apostles and prophets. We must abhor any and all graven images of God, especially those forged by our own imaginations, and templed in our hearts, knowing that they will be a snare to us, and an offense to God.

Finally, the Church collectively, and the Christian individually, must learn to exercise biblical and wholesome severity when circumstance requires. If you and I are both in agreement with God’s word, then we must surely agree with one another as well. Does this seem reasonable?

Student:

It is an inescapable consequence.

Teacher:

The corollary of this is that if we do not agree, then at least one of us is at odds with Scripture, and is misrepresenting God’s will, work, or character. Now, if the sound brother and the Church, in the spirit of gentleness, go to the erring brother and warn him of his error a first and a second time, and the erring brother obstinately continues in his error, then what should the Church and the sound brother do?

Student:

Since the truth of God’s word may be known, as we have already agreed, it follows that error may also be known. If the Church attempts to retrieve him from this error, and he obstinately refuses, then we must do as Paul commands, "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself (Titus 3: 10, 11.)" "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Romans 16: 17.)"

Teacher:

You have answered well. Now let us apply this more broadly. Over the years Churches have withdrawn from other Churches and formed their own confessions, communions and courts. Though these congregations have found the necessity to separate, their members nevertheless occasion one another’s fellowships. The member of one denomination will marry the member of another. They give each other the right hand of fellowship. One might happily be a Baptist today, a Methodist next month, some other denomination next year, only to become a Baptist again the year following that one. How does any of this square with Paul’s commands: "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject… (Titus 3: 10, 11.)" "… mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Romans 16: 17)"?

Student:

Truly, the Church at large has not treated the matter as soberly and gravely as they should. It often happens that a Christian leaves one denomination for a Church of another denomination because of the youth program, or the style (not the doctrine) of the preacher. Perhaps the new Church has an attractive daycare program, or private school discount. These reasons all betray the woeful ignorance and apathy in the visible church at this present time. If we have a just reason to leave one denomination to join another, then we are to avoid the one as heretical and cling to the other as sound. Perhaps if we had to struggle with the gravity and sorrow of either dealing out or receiving biblical church discipline, we would be less flippant and careless about our divisions.

Teacher:

If the Church were to take these sober measures, then much would be done to remove the existing divisions among us. As the Church finds agreement in the things of God, she will find her voice, and be a greater force for civil reform. Only after rejecting the unbiblical tolerance of heresy, blasphemy and idolatry within the Church, will we be able to stand against the pluralism and secularism of our civil government. After all, if we do not uniformly submit to his rule over our doctrine and practice in the Church, then how shall we affirm his crown rights over the nations?

On the other hand, if those people called by His name humble themselves and seek His face and turn from their wicked ways, then surely God will hear from heaven and heal their land.

Much more could be said about the necessary steps for remedy. Our immediate purpose however, has been to diagnose the disease —namely unbiblical tolerance on the part of both Church and State.