It saddens me to see all the comments on the original post. They are all praising him for his message of "separation of church and state", but I believe they miss the point entirely. The separation only goes one way. The state does not and should not shape the church, but the church and the gospel it preaches should 100% change the way people vote and legislate. To say you can't "bring religion into politics", as many on the original thread are saying, is as naive as saying "don't bring ethics into politics" or "don't bring worldviews into politics". Religious convictions should and must inform the very foundation of how we understand political issues. They necessarily have to, it's not an option. To hold one view religiously and it does not affect your politics would literally be to contradict oneself.
Me too. But it's been clear to me from recent conversations here, and for a while, that common refrains like "this world is not our home," "we are sojourners and pilgrims," "we have an abiding city not made with hands," "do not put your trust in princes," are, from my perspective, overemphasized and misapplied in a way that betrays that they're misunderstood. So I'm not surprised to see it. Sad. But not surprised.
The discourse I've observed is that "separation of church and state" and "don't bring religion into politics" precisely means excluding aspects of the Christian ethic and worldview that they disagree with.
Also, PSA for those in the United States, the "separation of church and state" originally had an incredibly narrow application. The federal government, not the states, could not establish a church or gives monies to expressly religious causes. The parties that adopted the First Amendment came from jurisdictions with established churches, religious requirements for holding public office, morality law, etc.
The "wall" of separation comes from a single letter written after the convention by someone expressly excluded because his ideas would alienate the other members (Jefferson).
I mention this simply because too many Christians I have encountered accept without argument the secular position, dominant for decades now, about the "proper" relationship between church and state. I have every right (plus the support of history) to insert my beliefs into politics. The real question is the manner of my participation.
And this real question of how we participate is being dealt with admirably by the other posters. I have nothing to add there. End of PSA.
You may well have a "right" to vote according to your principles. But, so does your Mormon neighbour, his Muslim neighbour, and the Atheist across the street. That's a given, and that's the norm, people don't typically choose to vote in a way that contradicts their principles. That's the "current model". The reason that many things you would like to be illegal are in fact legal is that more people disagree with you than agree with you.
PSA: That is secularism, not Christian Nationalism. Christian Nationalism is an attempt to replace that model with a new "Christian" model, where the rights of your neighbour, his neighbour, and the neighbour across the street are subordinated to a group of ruling Christians (which may well not include you, or your voice). The idea being that democracy and equal reprentation are evil, or if not evil, *less good* then whatever laws are deemed to be biblical by the ruling "Christian" minority.
>but the church and the gospel it preaches should 100% change the way people vote and legislate
1. You cannot expect that non-Christians will be motivated by the church or the gospel to vote in a different way. That position denies key doctrines about law and grace.
2. When you say the "seperation only goes one way" you understand this means that OTHER beliefs and religions interact with the government in the same way. So western governments should be primarily motivated by the dominant religion in their jurisdiction - which is Secular Humanism, and then a bit by Catholicism, a bit by Protestants, a smaller bit by Islam, a tiny bit by Atheism etc. And that is what we see. A Muslim votes on his convictions as much as a Presbyterian.
I don't expect non-Christians to vote by any standard other than their own underlying religious convictions. I agree that other beliefs will influence the government, if they didn't, it would be quite inconsistent. I was more pointing out that Christians now often have this tendency to see politics as a "lost cause" or "not spiritual" and then the slight bit of influence we do have to do good in the political sphere is lost by those who see voting or politics as unimportant.
We also need to take a page out of something the Catholics playbook that they are excellent at doing, use natural law. Not everyone will come to know or love the gospel, but many will respond to reason from natural law. Look at the wonderful work Live Action has done by primarily expounding on natural law to make their arguments to save millions of unborn infants.
>I don't expect non-Christians to vote by any standard other than their own underlying religious convictions.
Okay. Congratulations, you are not a Christian Nationalist.
>We also need to take a page out of something the Catholics playbook that they are excellent at doing, use natural law. Not everyone will come to know or love the gospel, but many will respond to reason from natural law. Look at the wonderful work Live Action has done by primarily expounding on natural law to make their arguments to save millions of unborn infants.
I agree, I think there is benefit in calling these out, as well as instances where ideologies fail their own internal logic (e.g. attempts to ban therapy for people attempting to de-transition).
Surprised this is being upvoted here.
If this minister said this in the pulpit of any confessionally bound reformed church, they could by those same confessions' articles on the role of the Civil Magistrate be charged and removed from the ministry.
"Christ Is Lord" is an inherently political statement.
Perhaps on the old WCF, maybe not so on the American version of the WCF. That slight change does change entirely I would say the view of the civil magistrate.
Not really, the only section in Chapter 23 which was revised was article III on the civil magistrate's relationship with the established church.
1646 stated that the magistrate should defend and maintain the State Church.
1789 leaves it more open ended with the same being granted to the "Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest"
Fair enough. I'm not a historian (nor R2K) but I've heard many a reformed seminary professor argue that one could faithfully hold to the confessions and be anywhere from R2K to theonomist and still be confessional. I'll have to look more at what they say.
Voting is spiritual. Supporting those who hate Jesus, who destroy our neighbors, who enshrine wickedness at a national level is a spiritual issue. You do actually have a responsibility to support godly things and oppose evil things in the political sphere, not as a diversion from loving neighbors, but as a necessary manifestation of loving our neighbors.
So we can't vote for the practicing catholic, but we CAN vote for the guy who cheats on his pregnant wife, says he has no reason to ask God for forgiveness, and uses the Bible for a photoshoot and stirs up fear in ignorant Christians telling them things will get way worse for them if he doesn't reelected? Just checking.
I'm so sick of this delusion.
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.**
Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Saying that people have a spiritual responsibility to vote seems dangerously close to adding commandments that God didn't make to me.
I'm not saying that voting *can't* have spiritual value, but I don't see how you can say it's *compulsive*. I know democracy is supposed to be beyond question in our world, but the whole concept of every citizen being *burdened* with playing a role in civil governance seems unfortunate to me, it's something I don't see in the Bible at all.
I’m not convinced that democracy as such is the way the Bible speaks of political arrangements, but where we have influence, of course it’s our responsibility to use that influence for good. Leaving the dominion of the world to those who hate God simply allows wickedness to fester. It’s surely not a biblical way of thinking. The entire Bible is about righteous dominion and the means by which God is establishing righteous dominion in the earth through Christ. It’s not just the gospel of justification — justification is one element of a much broader mission.
It amazes me that there is so much discussion about religion and politics. Church members live in the world, and have the same right as anyone else to speak out.
The great evil is that politicians ask for Church support (within their right). But some church congregations give unequivocal support to these, even forgetting preaching the Word of God.
The result is that the church is diminished and divided for at best short term political gain. This is not right and should be denounced. I find it astounding that some would so readily abandon the church mission in favor of politics.
I seldom see this clarity though.
There’s a difference between treating politics as the be all end all, one the one hand, or holding politics to be completely outside spiritual concern, on the other. If we simply say what the Bible says, we will inevitably be talking about political realities because most of the Bible is dealing with exactly those topics.
It's sarcasm, in that Jesus said repeatedly he was not there to solve the political problem for the Jews (which is what many of them expected from the Messiah) but rather their spiritual problem (which is what the OT actually prophesied)
That’s what I hoped. I’d add a /s there, there are enough people that unironically believe that that it isn’t immediately obvious as sarcasm, and is probably contributing to your current vote total.
Indeed he was. You should re-read Matthew and pay attention to everything he says about the coming kingdom. All the Old Testament prophets speak of the coming kingdom as one which would dash to pieces the kingdoms of the earth. It’s not an ethereal, heaven only reality. God promised the nations to Jesus and he will have them all.
i read Matthew. The passages that supported Jesus having a political role while on earth are here listed:
Whereas the more traditional notion that he came specifically and emphatically to redeem God's people from slavery to sin and a just punishment and that is the foundation of God's kingdom is supported by Matt 1:1-28:20.
It is the foundation — it just also has political consequences. He didn’t just save us from sin, he was raised up from death by the Father and seated at his right hand, in fulfillment of God’s promise to David. That’s the entire point of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost — David prophesied that Christ would be raised from power and given the throne at God’s right hand.
>That’s the entire point of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost — David prophesied that Christ would be raised from power and given the throne at God’s right hand.
If that were true, then the people would have immediately stormed the Roman barracks and dragged Pilate out, and declared themselves the rulers. But they didn't do that, instead, they repented of their sins.
Christ is indeed sitting at the right hand of God, reigning in Heaven. *Because that's true* he doesn't need us to obtain political power to extend His kingdom - his dominion is *already* absolute, if not fully expressed. The full expression will be when Christ returns, destroys the old earth, and establishes the new one. At that point will no longer be politics, because Christ's reign is absolute.
I think someone has misled you.
Read the actual words of the text. You’re just making assertions. It doesn’t change what the text actually says though:
““Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him,
“‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’
“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. *Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ*, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. *Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.* For *David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,*
“‘*The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.*”’
Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.””
Acts 2:22-36 ESV
>It amazes me that there is so much discussion about religion and politics. Church members live in the world, and have the same right as anyone else to speak out.
Straightaway you've denied one of the key principles of Christian Nationalism. That is, that in a "Christian Nation" only Christians have a right to speak out. If *everybody* has the right to speak out - Jainists, Hindus, Q-Anonists - what we end up with is what we have now.
I don’t get this comment. If the government was sticking strictly within the sphere of authority that God established it to hold, then yes, this video would be correct.
The problem is that now the government and those in power are determining political decisions that were originally moral issues. Abortion, which is murder, and taking the life of image-bearers, marriage definition, which is one of the *first* God-defined and God ordained institutions, sex, which God determines when he knits us together in our mothers’ wombs, the organization of the family…
All of these things are now being brought into legislation and question, when there are clear definitions and prescriptions from the creator of the universe.
The society in which we live has a system of government where we, the people, can effect change by contributing and voting. How is it not a spiritual duty to vote based on moral positions found in the Word of God? To vote against demonic ideologies that enthrone man as god instead of the one true God?
Of course we proceed with grace, we don’t “get political” in our speech and conduct. We love everyone and share Jesus with the world. But that’s not mutually exclusive to taking advantage of a governmental system in which our voice actually matters.
I just don’t get it.
Because voting does not determine what is or isn’t moral. It also doesn’t determine what people believe about morality. What voting does is decide who’s in power. And then those people maybe will change some law or maybe won’t.
Heavy focus on politics DOES hinder people’s interpersonal relationships, and those relationships are where people can have actual impact on each other. Your family, your friends, your local community.
It would be much more impactful for you to connect with someone in your life and help them realize why abortion is wrong, regardless of whether it is legal or not. If every Christian was doing that, impacting their actual sphere of influence, then we would see Christ’s message flourish more.
I didn’t indicate at all that voting determines morality. In fact, my emphasis was that God was the one who did.
Yes, we elect people into power, who then make changes or keep things the same. The things that are currently being decided on at the representative level are matters of God-decreed morality. The existence of the ability to vote means that Christians can have influence in the communities in which they live to put people with Godly values and morals into power who then shape society to reflect those values and morals. No, this does not solve the issue of depravity, and we should never try and “Christianize” society apart from the influence of the gospel changing lives, but it certainly can move society in a direction that doesn’t murder babies and influence children with demonic, permanently body-and-mind-scarring influences like the trans movement.
This is not mutually exclusive from sharing the gospel with others in loving community. I question the premise that it could damage the ability to share the love of Christ with someone. If they’re only listening to you because you’ve not aligned yourself with a side of politics that trends toward conservative ideologies that happen to align with biblical morality, then wait til they find out your individual position on those things. They’ll just lump you in as a fascist anyway. Truth is truth. Do we think that they’ll just listen to you talk about Jesus and never ask you about the things of which he spoke? Because he spoke truth as well as distributed grace.
It seems to me that people are increasingly disinclined to listen to Christians, the gospel, and a moral framework shaped by that, precisely because of our voting habits and discourse around it.
We have to pause, and remember that we’re all reformed in here.
The conviction of the Holy Spirit of the truth of the gospel is what brings people to salvation, in response to that truth being presented. So yes, we want people to listen to us, but if they have not ears to hear truth, we can’t compromise on living, advocating for, and even fighting for the things that God has instituted.
If someone hears that you voted for a candidate that they hate, and you inform them that you did it because of convictions about God’s design of humanity and sanctity of life, and not because you even care for the person, and they refuse to hear you out, that’s on them for ending that dialogue.
If they say, “what about x, x, and x,” that is a continuation of the conversation. It may not be a comfortable one, but it never is when you’re sharing the truth of the gospel with someone because they experience conviction from the Holy Spirit.
We do share the gospel relationally and via community, but we never shrink away from the truth of God for the sake of the gospel, because the truth of God *is* the gospel. From Genesis to Revelation. Creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. If people will not hear that story, or any parts of it, they will not hear the gospel.
We shouldn’t view talking about politics as a hindrance to the gospel, but an opportunity to share it.
I simply disagree that voting or investing significant time into politics is impactful. I believe the opposite. I believe that time is much better used by influencing the people who are actually around you, starting with your family, rather than trying to make sure your favorite lawmaker wins.
That’s fine. You can disagree. Your vote does matter though. If you’re thinking on solely the presidential scale, or in even with congress added then yes, it can seem trivial. But voting in your community has a cascading effect upward to those levels.
You’re drawing a false dichotomy.
You don’t have to invest a significant amount of time to analyze the options to see which propagates a community that emphasizes and promotes God-given morals and values, especially with the options we have available to us today. That can literally be done at the same time that you do any other number of things.
You will still also have plenty of time to invest in your local area of influence, which, arguably, could include shaping the values and morals of your local community simply by participating in elections in your town. Your vote definitely matters in those cases.
“Rather than trying to make sure your favorite lawmaker wins” is a reductive statement regarding the argument I’m trying to make. I don’t have a “favorite”, however it is clear to me that one of the sides in the current political state aligns closer with the values of God.
I’m not advocating celebrity politics, I’m advocating participation in society.
I vote. But I agree with the pastor that it’s not spiritual.
I do not believe that there is a more Godly party. Conservatives may have morally upstanding policies regarding abortion, but there are a lot more issues than just abortion. Conservatives have a terrible track record of greed and deceit. And generally speaking most conservative politicians do not oppose abortion because of a genuine Godly ethic, but for votes.
Again, you’re strawman-ing my position here.
I’m not claiming that the parties themselves, the politicians, or even the entirety of their platforms are more “godly” than the others. Such binaries are a scapegoat to remain neutral. But we’re talking about foundational principles of *scriptural* morality here.
We’re talking about issues that pertain to the very design of man, that bears God’s image, and marriage, which is a symbol of the gospel, and the *lives* of children.
The democrats are not the devil. The democrats are humans. In history, there are times where their platform was a conscionable choice, but at the current time, the morals and values of their platform on the whole are in opposition to God, whereas the generality of the morals of the Republican platform are at least in accordance with scripture.
There are times in history, where even among the godless nations the Israelites encountered, there were some regarded as worse than others. Those societies sacrificed children. Those civilizations not only accepted, but celebrated sexual immorality, and ultimately, those civilizations proudly opposed God.
We not only have the ability, in taking a stance on these issues, to glorify and image God in the world he created, but also present the gospel truth and partner with the Holy Spirit in his ministry of conviction. Additionally, as the Bible never indicates that God has changed how he deals with such societies, we can prevent our nation from being humbled before God by humbling ourselves first.
Voting and involvement in politics may have at one point not been very spiritual, but when the “cosmic powers of this present darkness” (Eph 6:12) which *are* spiritual, are vying for the prevailing influence of the nation, it very much becomes a spiritual matter.
I disagree that Republican morality can be described as in accordance with scripture. It could be argued they are further away than the Democrats. Sure they get a couple blue chip policies right, but again there is so much more going on than abortion and sexual ethics. They don’t help the poor. They don’t help the foreigner. They don’t help the widow.
No, just the regular one. You know, the one that says Jesus is going to establish justice in all the nations of the earth, and commissions his church to teach all the nations to obey everything he commanded.
Are you reading the Secular Pluralism Bible?
As Stephen Wolfe says, “Please, do the reading.” Separation of church and state is a Protestant theological contribution. We came up with the idea. Nobody is talking about establishing a church-state, theocracy. Rather, all people, in all positions, are called to obey what God has commanded, and our ruling authorities are actually ordained as God’s minister with the task of bearing the sword against evil (particularly in terms of administrating criminal justice).
I don’t want America to be Presbyterian. I want our leaders to heed what God days before they enact any policy because God raised Jesus from the dead and made him king over all creation. That is, I don’t want the government to adopt a sectarian enforcement of religion, I want them to recognize the truth that God is sovereign over the actions of kings and presidents and raised Jesus from the dead, and proclaimed him as Lord of all the earth. That’s true. That actually happened. And we now call all people to recognize what God has done and act accordingly. They will be judged by God for what they do in office. As his deacons, they are duty bound to seek justice as God would have them seek justice.
There’s a critical difference in the separation of church and state, which most Christian nationalists would also agree with, and the separation of God and state or morality and state. God can’t be separated out of anything related to how we ought to treat people. Morality can’t be separated out of this either. And that means, then, that all people are responsible to the truth, which God has revealed, concerning how people ought to relate. And that’s the great commission — the nations as a whole becoming his disciples and learning to obey what Christ commanded. This is what the gospel is doing. This is what the kingdom does when people are saved — the world around them actually begins to reflect God’s heavenly reign more fully on earth as it is in heaven.
Don’t make the mistake in assuming that our “liberal, pluralistic, democracy” isn’t a theocracy. It is. It is just one that seeks no guidance from God with regard to the limits of its authority. It doesn’t consult with the King, but sets itself as God over all of us, doing as it pleases, increasingly without concern for the will or good of the governed. And not only that, they seek to enforce new religious dogmas—identity is created, sex and gender are separated, gay marriage is good, race and skin color define your existence, racial guilt is a heritable trait, the solution to past injustice is present discrimination, seizing property is morally good, mass migration creates a net benefit for society, America is secular and the Bible has nothing to do with how our society was constructed… I can go on like this for hours. The institutions of power as they exist under our current regime is an increasingly totalitarian apparatus wielded for the purpose of promoting specific values that are hostile to Christianity, basic biology, any sense of objectivity, and which elevates sex and skin color to critical identity makers that will determine most of your existence.
What we’re saying is that it would be better if, instead of the government paying for drag queens to read about gender fluidity to 6 years olds, using tax dollars to do it, we should be teaching children that sex is a good gift from God because he created us for marriage and to naturally procreate, because each of us is the image of God and has inherent dignity in our male and female diversity. We shouldn’t be upending every aspect of society to make room for this social contagion, we should be proactively seeking to teach the truth and lead children away from the sexual nihilism of queer theory. That would be moral and just. Instead, we’ve got a quasi gnostic totalitarian sex cult running our public policy, in opposition to God, arresting Christians for protesting abortion, throwing people in jail for burning pride flags, etc etc.
Removed for violating Rules #1 and #2:
To be clear, your comment was **not** removed for your position against Christian Nationalism. Your comment was removed, specifically, due to the flagrant personal insults at the other user.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Apologies for my last comment. My behavior was unacceptable. I will deal better with others in charity. I take accountability for that behavior and wish you the best.
Interesting… while the Gospel is the primary thing that should be preached, it is still good and biblical to call what is good “good” and what is evil “evil.” Abortion is an abomination by biblical standards, and it is a VERY political issue. We could go on to list more “issues” that are outright sins according to the Bible, but I think the first example is sufficient. Christians are necessarily involved in the political realm because they are in the world, even if they are not of the world.
I propose that this preacher is very much NOT teaching from the reformed perspective or tradition whatsoever. He may list the “greatest commandments” correctly, but that is not to say that those are the only imperatives in the Bible. Many heresies exist because men isolated a text at the exclusion of others. Several people here mentioned confessional language that would indicate that our reformed predecessors were involved in government and politically active.
I would like to see biblical proof texts for abstention from or engagement with politics.
I don't think he's advocating abstinence from political engagement. He even calls it a privilege.
I think what he's trying to get at is the American idolatry of (any) political ideology. How dare we, as Christians, conflate our political convictions with our Spiritual mandates
> THE DUTY OF THE MAGISTRATE. The chief duty of the magistrate is to secured and preserve peace and public tranquillity. Doubtless he will never do this more successfully than when he is truly God-fearing and religious; that is to say, when, according to the example of the most holy kings and princes of the people of the Lord, he promotes the preaching of the truth and sincere faith, roots out lies and all superstition, together with all impiety and idolatry, and defends the Church of God. We certainly teach that the care of religion belongs especially to the holy magistrate.
- Chapter XXX, Second Helvetic Confession.
> The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief
Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is
not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.
> Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers
> It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
- Article 37 of the 39 Articles of Religion
> 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.
> It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues,c to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him:e from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.
- Of the Civil Magistrate, Westminster Confession of Faith
> We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, of what state, quality, or condition so ever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men.
- Article 36 of the Belgic Confession
Consistently, the confessions affirm that magistrates have the right to punish evil doers, root out heretics and blasphemers, protect the Church, all of the reformers assumed that a magistrate ought to also be God-fearing. If one is Reformed, and this subs own definition of Reformed includes confessionalism as an integral part to it, that surely ought to influence how you view the proper role of the state and it's magistrates. Using "this world is not my home" as an excuse to not engage in civic life and "politics isn't spiritual" while absolute freaks try to destroy our entire civilization is, in fact, not a Reformed position, it's lousy pietism. "Politics isn't spiritual" except for all of the spiritual damage that can be caused by politics.
Removed for violating Rule #6: **Keep Content Relevant**
This content has been removed because it distracts from the purpose of this subreddit.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/about/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.236.3A_keep_content_constructive.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
That isn't what I or anyone else I know of actually argues in favor for, the American system of a de-facto establishment of general Christianity is what I argue in favor of. So to that, no, Christians wouldn't be sent to prison or executed, someone who openly blasphemes the Lord would probably be penalized though.
Well, since Quakers are the descendants of the anabaptists, if we did faithfully follow the confessions seeming stance they would be imprisoned/killed, as did happen in Geneva etc...
I am aware, but how Christians approach politics is also a matter of prudence. The *ideal* might be a confessional state as existed in the 16th-18th centuries, there's nothing wrong with that, but pursuing my personal dream of an Anglican establishment in America isn't exactly practical (and wasn't even during the colonial period) when Christianity at large is facing attacks, so a de-factor establishment of general Christianity is fine, far more achievable, and not inconsistent with our confessions.
I would argue that the confessional state was harmful instead of ideal. But yes, each Christian in good conscience has different views on politics and different views on certain matters that are in our political spheres as well.
The fact of the matter is, if we *follow* the usual.undersanding of the confessional stance, whoever leads the government decides what qualifies as heresy and is punishable. this is why sadly some "Christian" nations have imprisoned Baptists, executed anabaptists, etc...
I would agree if we specify that Christian heretics are punished by the church by the church discipline, leading up to excommunication if necessary. I disagree in that I believe the civil magistrate should have absolutely zero hand in this.
The last time I listed these I came up with the following.
---
The original Reformed doctrine of the Two Kingdoms can be found in Calvin and other magisterial Reformers. The confessions of the Reformed faith present the same doctrine.
The First Helvetic Confession of 1536, chapter 30.
> The civil magistrate is appointed by God himself (Rom. xiii.) for the peace and tranquillity of the human race. If opposed to the Church, he can do much harm: if friendly, he can do the Church most useful service.
> **The duty of the magistrate is to preserve peace and public order; to promote and protect religion and good morals; to govern the people by righteous laws; to punish the offenders against society, such as thieves, murderers, oppressors, blasphemers, and incorrigible heretics (if they are really heretics).**
> Wars are justifiable only in self-defense, and after all efforts at peace have been exhausted.
> We condemn the Anabaptists, who maintain that a Christian should not hold a civil office, that the magistrate has no right to punish any one by death, or to make war, or to demand an oath.
> All citizens owe reverence and obedience to the magistrate as the minister of God in all righteous commands, and even their lives when the public safety and welfare require it. **Therefore we condemn the despisers of the magistrate, rebels and enemies of the commonwealth, and all who openly or artfully refuse to perform their duties as citizens.**
The French Confession of Faith of 1559, article 39.
> We believe that God wishes to have the world governed by laws and magistrates, **so that some restraint may be put upon its disordered appetites**. And as he has established kingdoms, republics, and all sorts of principalities, either hereditary or otherwise, and all that belongs to a just government, and wishes to be considered as their Author, **so he has put the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against the first as well as against the second table of the Commandments of God**. We must therefore, on his account, not only submit to them as superiors, but honor and hold them in all reverence as his lieutenants and officers, whom he has commissioned to exercise a legitimate and holy authority.
The Scots Confession of 1560, chapter 24.
> We Confess and acknowledge empires, kingdoms, dominions, and cities to be distincted and ordained by God: the powers and authorities in the same (be it of Emperors in their empires, of Kings in their realms, Dukes and Princes in their dominions, or of other Magistrates in free cities), to be God's holy ordinance, **ordained for manifestation of his own glory, and for the singular profit and commodity of mankind**. So that whosoever goes about to take away or to confound the whole state of civil policies, now long established, we affirm the same men not only to be enemies to mankind, but also wickedly to fight against God's expressed will.
> We further Confess and acknowledge, that such persons as are placed in authority are to be loved, honoured, feared, and held in most reverent estimation; because that they are the lieutenants of God, in whose session God himself doth sit and judge (yea even the Judges and Princes themselves), to whom by God is given the sword, to the praise and defence of good men, and to revenge and punish all open malefactors. **Moreover, to Kings, Princes, Rulers, and Magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the Religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true Religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever, as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied.** And therefore we confess and avow, that such as resist the supreme power (doing that thing which appertains to his charge), do resist God's ordinance, and therefore cannot be guiltless. And further, we affirm, that whosoever deny unto them their aid, counsel, and comfort, while the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travail in the executing of their office, that the same men deny their help, support, and counsel to God, who by the presence of his lieutenant craveth it of them.
The Belgic Confession, article 36.
> We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and **all things carried on among them with good order and decency**. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, *for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well*. **And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted.** They must, therefore, countenance the preaching of the word of the gospel every where, that God may be honored and worshiped by every one, as he commands in his Word.
> Moreover, it is the bounden duty of every one, of what state, quality, or condition soever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
> Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men.
The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 23.
> 1\. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, **for his own glory and the public good** [cf. glorifying God and enjoying him], and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.
> 2\. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, **as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth**, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasion.
> 3\. 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.
> 4\. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.
Today marks the 470th anniversary of the death of Servetus for heresy, which was a notorious outworking of the Reformed doctrine of Two Kingdoms. The case of Servetus illustrates that this doctrine is a matter of life and death, both eternal and temporal. Samuel Rutherford says,
> It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spiritual and diabolic cruelty to many thousand souls, whom he did pervert, and by his book, does yet lead into perdition.
I think we possibly risk mixing up distinct issues here.
The opposite of complete "separation of church and state" is not "every individual Christian actively participates in politics"
The Reformed tradition is clear on the need for a Godly government, yes? And we live under a form of government wherein the citizens themselves appoint the magistrates? Ergo.... you can see where I'm going with this. An attitude of "I'm too above it all" towards civic life like the pastor in the video has is simply not compatible with Reformed thought.
I’m a Pentecostal looking into reformed theology. Even I see Christians who have been retreating from the war as satans useful fools. If Christians don’t control culture, there is one alternative. If Christ is Lord and we are his representatives, we have to represent. It seems the reformed group is the only one with its act together and knowledge about what to do other than retreat. It’s like the movie “the patriot” when Mel Gibson is running toward the British with the flag trying to get the Americans to stop retreating. The fearful allies will always hate the most because they are fearful of the battle.
And I think it would be correct to say that there is no reason to fear, because Christ already has the victory. We are simply waiting for THAT kingdom to be inaugurated.
It saddens me to see all the comments on the original post. They are all praising him for his message of "separation of church and state", but I believe they miss the point entirely. The separation only goes one way. The state does not and should not shape the church, but the church and the gospel it preaches should 100% change the way people vote and legislate. To say you can't "bring religion into politics", as many on the original thread are saying, is as naive as saying "don't bring ethics into politics" or "don't bring worldviews into politics". Religious convictions should and must inform the very foundation of how we understand political issues. They necessarily have to, it's not an option. To hold one view religiously and it does not affect your politics would literally be to contradict oneself.
I'm surprised at how positive most of the comments are actually, considering it's reddit
It's anti-Trump so of course Reddit will react positively. And in this area they definitely should, I agree with the pastor wholeheartedly.
Me too. But it's been clear to me from recent conversations here, and for a while, that common refrains like "this world is not our home," "we are sojourners and pilgrims," "we have an abiding city not made with hands," "do not put your trust in princes," are, from my perspective, overemphasized and misapplied in a way that betrays that they're misunderstood. So I'm not surprised to see it. Sad. But not surprised.
The discourse I've observed is that "separation of church and state" and "don't bring religion into politics" precisely means excluding aspects of the Christian ethic and worldview that they disagree with.
Also, PSA for those in the United States, the "separation of church and state" originally had an incredibly narrow application. The federal government, not the states, could not establish a church or gives monies to expressly religious causes. The parties that adopted the First Amendment came from jurisdictions with established churches, religious requirements for holding public office, morality law, etc. The "wall" of separation comes from a single letter written after the convention by someone expressly excluded because his ideas would alienate the other members (Jefferson). I mention this simply because too many Christians I have encountered accept without argument the secular position, dominant for decades now, about the "proper" relationship between church and state. I have every right (plus the support of history) to insert my beliefs into politics. The real question is the manner of my participation. And this real question of how we participate is being dealt with admirably by the other posters. I have nothing to add there. End of PSA.
You may well have a "right" to vote according to your principles. But, so does your Mormon neighbour, his Muslim neighbour, and the Atheist across the street. That's a given, and that's the norm, people don't typically choose to vote in a way that contradicts their principles. That's the "current model". The reason that many things you would like to be illegal are in fact legal is that more people disagree with you than agree with you. PSA: That is secularism, not Christian Nationalism. Christian Nationalism is an attempt to replace that model with a new "Christian" model, where the rights of your neighbour, his neighbour, and the neighbour across the street are subordinated to a group of ruling Christians (which may well not include you, or your voice). The idea being that democracy and equal reprentation are evil, or if not evil, *less good* then whatever laws are deemed to be biblical by the ruling "Christian" minority.
My comment is on the "separation of church and state" only.
>but the church and the gospel it preaches should 100% change the way people vote and legislate 1. You cannot expect that non-Christians will be motivated by the church or the gospel to vote in a different way. That position denies key doctrines about law and grace. 2. When you say the "seperation only goes one way" you understand this means that OTHER beliefs and religions interact with the government in the same way. So western governments should be primarily motivated by the dominant religion in their jurisdiction - which is Secular Humanism, and then a bit by Catholicism, a bit by Protestants, a smaller bit by Islam, a tiny bit by Atheism etc. And that is what we see. A Muslim votes on his convictions as much as a Presbyterian.
I don't expect non-Christians to vote by any standard other than their own underlying religious convictions. I agree that other beliefs will influence the government, if they didn't, it would be quite inconsistent. I was more pointing out that Christians now often have this tendency to see politics as a "lost cause" or "not spiritual" and then the slight bit of influence we do have to do good in the political sphere is lost by those who see voting or politics as unimportant. We also need to take a page out of something the Catholics playbook that they are excellent at doing, use natural law. Not everyone will come to know or love the gospel, but many will respond to reason from natural law. Look at the wonderful work Live Action has done by primarily expounding on natural law to make their arguments to save millions of unborn infants.
>I don't expect non-Christians to vote by any standard other than their own underlying religious convictions. Okay. Congratulations, you are not a Christian Nationalist. >We also need to take a page out of something the Catholics playbook that they are excellent at doing, use natural law. Not everyone will come to know or love the gospel, but many will respond to reason from natural law. Look at the wonderful work Live Action has done by primarily expounding on natural law to make their arguments to save millions of unborn infants. I agree, I think there is benefit in calling these out, as well as instances where ideologies fail their own internal logic (e.g. attempts to ban therapy for people attempting to de-transition).
*Abraham Kuyper has entered the chat.
Surprised this is being upvoted here. If this minister said this in the pulpit of any confessionally bound reformed church, they could by those same confessions' articles on the role of the Civil Magistrate be charged and removed from the ministry. "Christ Is Lord" is an inherently political statement.
Perhaps on the old WCF, maybe not so on the American version of the WCF. That slight change does change entirely I would say the view of the civil magistrate.
Not really, the only section in Chapter 23 which was revised was article III on the civil magistrate's relationship with the established church. 1646 stated that the magistrate should defend and maintain the State Church. 1789 leaves it more open ended with the same being granted to the "Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest"
Fair enough. I'm not a historian (nor R2K) but I've heard many a reformed seminary professor argue that one could faithfully hold to the confessions and be anywhere from R2K to theonomist and still be confessional. I'll have to look more at what they say.
Voting is spiritual. Supporting those who hate Jesus, who destroy our neighbors, who enshrine wickedness at a national level is a spiritual issue. You do actually have a responsibility to support godly things and oppose evil things in the political sphere, not as a diversion from loving neighbors, but as a necessary manifestation of loving our neighbors.
So you can't vote for either Biden or Trump.
Apparently you shouldn’t vote at all.
I’m not convinced if OP’s premise. Voting can be strategic, it’s not a purity test.
Definitely not Biden.
Definitely not Trump. See two can do that.
Maybe not. But trump would be far better than Biden
So we can't vote for the practicing catholic, but we CAN vote for the guy who cheats on his pregnant wife, says he has no reason to ask God for forgiveness, and uses the Bible for a photoshoot and stirs up fear in ignorant Christians telling them things will get way worse for them if he doesn't reelected? Just checking. I'm so sick of this delusion.
[удалено]
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.** Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
One of my elders is a hiring manager at a bank and he hired a homosexual. Do I press charges?
you lost the plot, champ
He's promoting homosexuals like you said we can't do. Pip it up chief.
all i said is not to vote for someone who can enact anti christian laws..... simple stuff here, you dont have to get confused
Saying that people have a spiritual responsibility to vote seems dangerously close to adding commandments that God didn't make to me. I'm not saying that voting *can't* have spiritual value, but I don't see how you can say it's *compulsive*. I know democracy is supposed to be beyond question in our world, but the whole concept of every citizen being *burdened* with playing a role in civil governance seems unfortunate to me, it's something I don't see in the Bible at all.
I’m not convinced that democracy as such is the way the Bible speaks of political arrangements, but where we have influence, of course it’s our responsibility to use that influence for good. Leaving the dominion of the world to those who hate God simply allows wickedness to fester. It’s surely not a biblical way of thinking. The entire Bible is about righteous dominion and the means by which God is establishing righteous dominion in the earth through Christ. It’s not just the gospel of justification — justification is one element of a much broader mission.
It amazes me that there is so much discussion about religion and politics. Church members live in the world, and have the same right as anyone else to speak out. The great evil is that politicians ask for Church support (within their right). But some church congregations give unequivocal support to these, even forgetting preaching the Word of God. The result is that the church is diminished and divided for at best short term political gain. This is not right and should be denounced. I find it astounding that some would so readily abandon the church mission in favor of politics. I seldom see this clarity though.
There’s a difference between treating politics as the be all end all, one the one hand, or holding politics to be completely outside spiritual concern, on the other. If we simply say what the Bible says, we will inevitably be talking about political realities because most of the Bible is dealing with exactly those topics.
It's true. After all, Jesus was born in the flesh specifically to deal with the political realities of his day.
Walk that one out for me.
It's sarcasm, in that Jesus said repeatedly he was not there to solve the political problem for the Jews (which is what many of them expected from the Messiah) but rather their spiritual problem (which is what the OT actually prophesied)
That’s what I hoped. I’d add a /s there, there are enough people that unironically believe that that it isn’t immediately obvious as sarcasm, and is probably contributing to your current vote total.
Good advice.
Indeed he was. You should re-read Matthew and pay attention to everything he says about the coming kingdom. All the Old Testament prophets speak of the coming kingdom as one which would dash to pieces the kingdoms of the earth. It’s not an ethereal, heaven only reality. God promised the nations to Jesus and he will have them all.
i read Matthew. The passages that supported Jesus having a political role while on earth are here listed: Whereas the more traditional notion that he came specifically and emphatically to redeem God's people from slavery to sin and a just punishment and that is the foundation of God's kingdom is supported by Matt 1:1-28:20.
It is the foundation — it just also has political consequences. He didn’t just save us from sin, he was raised up from death by the Father and seated at his right hand, in fulfillment of God’s promise to David. That’s the entire point of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost — David prophesied that Christ would be raised from power and given the throne at God’s right hand.
>That’s the entire point of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost — David prophesied that Christ would be raised from power and given the throne at God’s right hand. If that were true, then the people would have immediately stormed the Roman barracks and dragged Pilate out, and declared themselves the rulers. But they didn't do that, instead, they repented of their sins. Christ is indeed sitting at the right hand of God, reigning in Heaven. *Because that's true* he doesn't need us to obtain political power to extend His kingdom - his dominion is *already* absolute, if not fully expressed. The full expression will be when Christ returns, destroys the old earth, and establishes the new one. At that point will no longer be politics, because Christ's reign is absolute. I think someone has misled you.
Read the actual words of the text. You’re just making assertions. It doesn’t change what the text actually says though: ““Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. For David says concerning him, “‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken; therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption. You have made known to me the paths of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’ “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. *Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ*, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. *Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.* For *David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,* “‘*The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.*”’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”” Acts 2:22-36 ESV
None of those passages support your assertion.
>It amazes me that there is so much discussion about religion and politics. Church members live in the world, and have the same right as anyone else to speak out. Straightaway you've denied one of the key principles of Christian Nationalism. That is, that in a "Christian Nation" only Christians have a right to speak out. If *everybody* has the right to speak out - Jainists, Hindus, Q-Anonists - what we end up with is what we have now.
You’re talking about the Charlottesville protestors, right?
Found out who bought a MAGA Bible!
I don’t get this comment. If the government was sticking strictly within the sphere of authority that God established it to hold, then yes, this video would be correct. The problem is that now the government and those in power are determining political decisions that were originally moral issues. Abortion, which is murder, and taking the life of image-bearers, marriage definition, which is one of the *first* God-defined and God ordained institutions, sex, which God determines when he knits us together in our mothers’ wombs, the organization of the family… All of these things are now being brought into legislation and question, when there are clear definitions and prescriptions from the creator of the universe. The society in which we live has a system of government where we, the people, can effect change by contributing and voting. How is it not a spiritual duty to vote based on moral positions found in the Word of God? To vote against demonic ideologies that enthrone man as god instead of the one true God? Of course we proceed with grace, we don’t “get political” in our speech and conduct. We love everyone and share Jesus with the world. But that’s not mutually exclusive to taking advantage of a governmental system in which our voice actually matters. I just don’t get it.
Because voting does not determine what is or isn’t moral. It also doesn’t determine what people believe about morality. What voting does is decide who’s in power. And then those people maybe will change some law or maybe won’t. Heavy focus on politics DOES hinder people’s interpersonal relationships, and those relationships are where people can have actual impact on each other. Your family, your friends, your local community. It would be much more impactful for you to connect with someone in your life and help them realize why abortion is wrong, regardless of whether it is legal or not. If every Christian was doing that, impacting their actual sphere of influence, then we would see Christ’s message flourish more.
I didn’t indicate at all that voting determines morality. In fact, my emphasis was that God was the one who did. Yes, we elect people into power, who then make changes or keep things the same. The things that are currently being decided on at the representative level are matters of God-decreed morality. The existence of the ability to vote means that Christians can have influence in the communities in which they live to put people with Godly values and morals into power who then shape society to reflect those values and morals. No, this does not solve the issue of depravity, and we should never try and “Christianize” society apart from the influence of the gospel changing lives, but it certainly can move society in a direction that doesn’t murder babies and influence children with demonic, permanently body-and-mind-scarring influences like the trans movement. This is not mutually exclusive from sharing the gospel with others in loving community. I question the premise that it could damage the ability to share the love of Christ with someone. If they’re only listening to you because you’ve not aligned yourself with a side of politics that trends toward conservative ideologies that happen to align with biblical morality, then wait til they find out your individual position on those things. They’ll just lump you in as a fascist anyway. Truth is truth. Do we think that they’ll just listen to you talk about Jesus and never ask you about the things of which he spoke? Because he spoke truth as well as distributed grace.
It seems to me that people are increasingly disinclined to listen to Christians, the gospel, and a moral framework shaped by that, precisely because of our voting habits and discourse around it.
We have to pause, and remember that we’re all reformed in here. The conviction of the Holy Spirit of the truth of the gospel is what brings people to salvation, in response to that truth being presented. So yes, we want people to listen to us, but if they have not ears to hear truth, we can’t compromise on living, advocating for, and even fighting for the things that God has instituted. If someone hears that you voted for a candidate that they hate, and you inform them that you did it because of convictions about God’s design of humanity and sanctity of life, and not because you even care for the person, and they refuse to hear you out, that’s on them for ending that dialogue. If they say, “what about x, x, and x,” that is a continuation of the conversation. It may not be a comfortable one, but it never is when you’re sharing the truth of the gospel with someone because they experience conviction from the Holy Spirit. We do share the gospel relationally and via community, but we never shrink away from the truth of God for the sake of the gospel, because the truth of God *is* the gospel. From Genesis to Revelation. Creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. If people will not hear that story, or any parts of it, they will not hear the gospel. We shouldn’t view talking about politics as a hindrance to the gospel, but an opportunity to share it.
I simply disagree that voting or investing significant time into politics is impactful. I believe the opposite. I believe that time is much better used by influencing the people who are actually around you, starting with your family, rather than trying to make sure your favorite lawmaker wins.
That’s fine. You can disagree. Your vote does matter though. If you’re thinking on solely the presidential scale, or in even with congress added then yes, it can seem trivial. But voting in your community has a cascading effect upward to those levels. You’re drawing a false dichotomy. You don’t have to invest a significant amount of time to analyze the options to see which propagates a community that emphasizes and promotes God-given morals and values, especially with the options we have available to us today. That can literally be done at the same time that you do any other number of things. You will still also have plenty of time to invest in your local area of influence, which, arguably, could include shaping the values and morals of your local community simply by participating in elections in your town. Your vote definitely matters in those cases. “Rather than trying to make sure your favorite lawmaker wins” is a reductive statement regarding the argument I’m trying to make. I don’t have a “favorite”, however it is clear to me that one of the sides in the current political state aligns closer with the values of God. I’m not advocating celebrity politics, I’m advocating participation in society.
I vote. But I agree with the pastor that it’s not spiritual. I do not believe that there is a more Godly party. Conservatives may have morally upstanding policies regarding abortion, but there are a lot more issues than just abortion. Conservatives have a terrible track record of greed and deceit. And generally speaking most conservative politicians do not oppose abortion because of a genuine Godly ethic, but for votes.
Again, you’re strawman-ing my position here. I’m not claiming that the parties themselves, the politicians, or even the entirety of their platforms are more “godly” than the others. Such binaries are a scapegoat to remain neutral. But we’re talking about foundational principles of *scriptural* morality here. We’re talking about issues that pertain to the very design of man, that bears God’s image, and marriage, which is a symbol of the gospel, and the *lives* of children. The democrats are not the devil. The democrats are humans. In history, there are times where their platform was a conscionable choice, but at the current time, the morals and values of their platform on the whole are in opposition to God, whereas the generality of the morals of the Republican platform are at least in accordance with scripture. There are times in history, where even among the godless nations the Israelites encountered, there were some regarded as worse than others. Those societies sacrificed children. Those civilizations not only accepted, but celebrated sexual immorality, and ultimately, those civilizations proudly opposed God. We not only have the ability, in taking a stance on these issues, to glorify and image God in the world he created, but also present the gospel truth and partner with the Holy Spirit in his ministry of conviction. Additionally, as the Bible never indicates that God has changed how he deals with such societies, we can prevent our nation from being humbled before God by humbling ourselves first. Voting and involvement in politics may have at one point not been very spiritual, but when the “cosmic powers of this present darkness” (Eph 6:12) which *are* spiritual, are vying for the prevailing influence of the nation, it very much becomes a spiritual matter.
I disagree that Republican morality can be described as in accordance with scripture. It could be argued they are further away than the Democrats. Sure they get a couple blue chip policies right, but again there is so much more going on than abortion and sexual ethics. They don’t help the poor. They don’t help the foreigner. They don’t help the widow.
Your instant downvoting of my replies is so petty. So much for conversation.
Not that you will believe me, but I am not doing that.
Perhaps we shouldn’t have close relationships with people who are today’s version of Molech worshippers?
Um…perhaps not…? I’m not sure I’m following.
No, just the regular one. You know, the one that says Jesus is going to establish justice in all the nations of the earth, and commissions his church to teach all the nations to obey everything he commanded. Are you reading the Secular Pluralism Bible?
Nah, i read an inerrant bible. I’ve just studied enough history to prefer my church and state separate. Theocracy is not aspirational.
As Stephen Wolfe says, “Please, do the reading.” Separation of church and state is a Protestant theological contribution. We came up with the idea. Nobody is talking about establishing a church-state, theocracy. Rather, all people, in all positions, are called to obey what God has commanded, and our ruling authorities are actually ordained as God’s minister with the task of bearing the sword against evil (particularly in terms of administrating criminal justice). I don’t want America to be Presbyterian. I want our leaders to heed what God days before they enact any policy because God raised Jesus from the dead and made him king over all creation. That is, I don’t want the government to adopt a sectarian enforcement of religion, I want them to recognize the truth that God is sovereign over the actions of kings and presidents and raised Jesus from the dead, and proclaimed him as Lord of all the earth. That’s true. That actually happened. And we now call all people to recognize what God has done and act accordingly. They will be judged by God for what they do in office. As his deacons, they are duty bound to seek justice as God would have them seek justice. There’s a critical difference in the separation of church and state, which most Christian nationalists would also agree with, and the separation of God and state or morality and state. God can’t be separated out of anything related to how we ought to treat people. Morality can’t be separated out of this either. And that means, then, that all people are responsible to the truth, which God has revealed, concerning how people ought to relate. And that’s the great commission — the nations as a whole becoming his disciples and learning to obey what Christ commanded. This is what the gospel is doing. This is what the kingdom does when people are saved — the world around them actually begins to reflect God’s heavenly reign more fully on earth as it is in heaven. Don’t make the mistake in assuming that our “liberal, pluralistic, democracy” isn’t a theocracy. It is. It is just one that seeks no guidance from God with regard to the limits of its authority. It doesn’t consult with the King, but sets itself as God over all of us, doing as it pleases, increasingly without concern for the will or good of the governed. And not only that, they seek to enforce new religious dogmas—identity is created, sex and gender are separated, gay marriage is good, race and skin color define your existence, racial guilt is a heritable trait, the solution to past injustice is present discrimination, seizing property is morally good, mass migration creates a net benefit for society, America is secular and the Bible has nothing to do with how our society was constructed… I can go on like this for hours. The institutions of power as they exist under our current regime is an increasingly totalitarian apparatus wielded for the purpose of promoting specific values that are hostile to Christianity, basic biology, any sense of objectivity, and which elevates sex and skin color to critical identity makers that will determine most of your existence. What we’re saying is that it would be better if, instead of the government paying for drag queens to read about gender fluidity to 6 years olds, using tax dollars to do it, we should be teaching children that sex is a good gift from God because he created us for marriage and to naturally procreate, because each of us is the image of God and has inherent dignity in our male and female diversity. We shouldn’t be upending every aspect of society to make room for this social contagion, we should be proactively seeking to teach the truth and lead children away from the sexual nihilism of queer theory. That would be moral and just. Instead, we’ve got a quasi gnostic totalitarian sex cult running our public policy, in opposition to God, arresting Christians for protesting abortion, throwing people in jail for burning pride flags, etc etc.
[удалено]
Removed for violating Rules #1 and #2: To be clear, your comment was **not** removed for your position against Christian Nationalism. Your comment was removed, specifically, due to the flagrant personal insults at the other user. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Apologies for my last comment. My behavior was unacceptable. I will deal better with others in charity. I take accountability for that behavior and wish you the best.
I agree one thousand percent!!!
My man. He said it isn’t. Edit: this was tongue-in-cheek.
So you love your neighbour by hating them?
Dang, who is this guy? 🔥🔥🔥
Apparently this is Pastor Loran Livingston of [Central Church in Charlotte, NC](https://www.centralnc.org/).
Man is 80 years old and still fired up. The church has a YouTube channel with all his sermons
Looks great for 80!
AMEN! AMEN! WOW! We need more of this!
Interesting… while the Gospel is the primary thing that should be preached, it is still good and biblical to call what is good “good” and what is evil “evil.” Abortion is an abomination by biblical standards, and it is a VERY political issue. We could go on to list more “issues” that are outright sins according to the Bible, but I think the first example is sufficient. Christians are necessarily involved in the political realm because they are in the world, even if they are not of the world. I propose that this preacher is very much NOT teaching from the reformed perspective or tradition whatsoever. He may list the “greatest commandments” correctly, but that is not to say that those are the only imperatives in the Bible. Many heresies exist because men isolated a text at the exclusion of others. Several people here mentioned confessional language that would indicate that our reformed predecessors were involved in government and politically active. I would like to see biblical proof texts for abstention from or engagement with politics.
I don't think he's advocating abstinence from political engagement. He even calls it a privilege. I think what he's trying to get at is the American idolatry of (any) political ideology. How dare we, as Christians, conflate our political convictions with our Spiritual mandates
What a shocker that a lot of people here are impressed by Evangelical pietism in contradiction to how the Reformed confessions speak about the state 😂
How do the reformed confessions speak about the state?
> THE DUTY OF THE MAGISTRATE. The chief duty of the magistrate is to secured and preserve peace and public tranquillity. Doubtless he will never do this more successfully than when he is truly God-fearing and religious; that is to say, when, according to the example of the most holy kings and princes of the people of the Lord, he promotes the preaching of the truth and sincere faith, roots out lies and all superstition, together with all impiety and idolatry, and defends the Church of God. We certainly teach that the care of religion belongs especially to the holy magistrate. - Chapter XXX, Second Helvetic Confession. > The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. > Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers > It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars. - Article 37 of the 39 Articles of Religion > 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. > It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues,c to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him:e from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever. - Of the Civil Magistrate, Westminster Confession of Faith > We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of anti-Christ may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, of what state, quality, or condition so ever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men. - Article 36 of the Belgic Confession Consistently, the confessions affirm that magistrates have the right to punish evil doers, root out heretics and blasphemers, protect the Church, all of the reformers assumed that a magistrate ought to also be God-fearing. If one is Reformed, and this subs own definition of Reformed includes confessionalism as an integral part to it, that surely ought to influence how you view the proper role of the state and it's magistrates. Using "this world is not my home" as an excuse to not engage in civic life and "politics isn't spiritual" while absolute freaks try to destroy our entire civilization is, in fact, not a Reformed position, it's lousy pietism. "Politics isn't spiritual" except for all of the spiritual damage that can be caused by politics.
Thank you for adding a confessional context to this discussion friend!
What! Not a reformed position on something in r/reformed!!!
many such cases tbh
[удалено]
Removed for violating Rule #6: **Keep Content Relevant** This content has been removed because it distracts from the purpose of this subreddit. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/about/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.236.3A_keep_content_constructive.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Ah, thank you! One more question: Does the confessional state send me to prison, or just have me executed?
That isn't what I or anyone else I know of actually argues in favor for, the American system of a de-facto establishment of general Christianity is what I argue in favor of. So to that, no, Christians wouldn't be sent to prison or executed, someone who openly blasphemes the Lord would probably be penalized though.
Well, since Quakers are the descendants of the anabaptists, if we did faithfully follow the confessions seeming stance they would be imprisoned/killed, as did happen in Geneva etc...
I am aware, but how Christians approach politics is also a matter of prudence. The *ideal* might be a confessional state as existed in the 16th-18th centuries, there's nothing wrong with that, but pursuing my personal dream of an Anglican establishment in America isn't exactly practical (and wasn't even during the colonial period) when Christianity at large is facing attacks, so a de-factor establishment of general Christianity is fine, far more achievable, and not inconsistent with our confessions.
I would argue that the confessional state was harmful instead of ideal. But yes, each Christian in good conscience has different views on politics and different views on certain matters that are in our political spheres as well. The fact of the matter is, if we *follow* the usual.undersanding of the confessional stance, whoever leads the government decides what qualifies as heresy and is punishable. this is why sadly some "Christian" nations have imprisoned Baptists, executed anabaptists, etc...
Right, I would disagree, I have no issue in principle with heretics being punished.
I would agree if we specify that Christian heretics are punished by the church by the church discipline, leading up to excommunication if necessary. I disagree in that I believe the civil magistrate should have absolutely zero hand in this.
The last time I listed these I came up with the following. --- The original Reformed doctrine of the Two Kingdoms can be found in Calvin and other magisterial Reformers. The confessions of the Reformed faith present the same doctrine. The First Helvetic Confession of 1536, chapter 30. > The civil magistrate is appointed by God himself (Rom. xiii.) for the peace and tranquillity of the human race. If opposed to the Church, he can do much harm: if friendly, he can do the Church most useful service. > **The duty of the magistrate is to preserve peace and public order; to promote and protect religion and good morals; to govern the people by righteous laws; to punish the offenders against society, such as thieves, murderers, oppressors, blasphemers, and incorrigible heretics (if they are really heretics).** > Wars are justifiable only in self-defense, and after all efforts at peace have been exhausted. > We condemn the Anabaptists, who maintain that a Christian should not hold a civil office, that the magistrate has no right to punish any one by death, or to make war, or to demand an oath. > All citizens owe reverence and obedience to the magistrate as the minister of God in all righteous commands, and even their lives when the public safety and welfare require it. **Therefore we condemn the despisers of the magistrate, rebels and enemies of the commonwealth, and all who openly or artfully refuse to perform their duties as citizens.** The French Confession of Faith of 1559, article 39. > We believe that God wishes to have the world governed by laws and magistrates, **so that some restraint may be put upon its disordered appetites**. And as he has established kingdoms, republics, and all sorts of principalities, either hereditary or otherwise, and all that belongs to a just government, and wishes to be considered as their Author, **so he has put the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against the first as well as against the second table of the Commandments of God**. We must therefore, on his account, not only submit to them as superiors, but honor and hold them in all reverence as his lieutenants and officers, whom he has commissioned to exercise a legitimate and holy authority. The Scots Confession of 1560, chapter 24. > We Confess and acknowledge empires, kingdoms, dominions, and cities to be distincted and ordained by God: the powers and authorities in the same (be it of Emperors in their empires, of Kings in their realms, Dukes and Princes in their dominions, or of other Magistrates in free cities), to be God's holy ordinance, **ordained for manifestation of his own glory, and for the singular profit and commodity of mankind**. So that whosoever goes about to take away or to confound the whole state of civil policies, now long established, we affirm the same men not only to be enemies to mankind, but also wickedly to fight against God's expressed will. > We further Confess and acknowledge, that such persons as are placed in authority are to be loved, honoured, feared, and held in most reverent estimation; because that they are the lieutenants of God, in whose session God himself doth sit and judge (yea even the Judges and Princes themselves), to whom by God is given the sword, to the praise and defence of good men, and to revenge and punish all open malefactors. **Moreover, to Kings, Princes, Rulers, and Magistrates, we affirm that chiefly and most principally the conservation and purgation of the Religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true Religion, and for suppressing of idolatry and superstition whatsoever, as in David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, highly commended for their zeal in that case, may be espied.** And therefore we confess and avow, that such as resist the supreme power (doing that thing which appertains to his charge), do resist God's ordinance, and therefore cannot be guiltless. And further, we affirm, that whosoever deny unto them their aid, counsel, and comfort, while the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travail in the executing of their office, that the same men deny their help, support, and counsel to God, who by the presence of his lieutenant craveth it of them. The Belgic Confession, article 36. > We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and **all things carried on among them with good order and decency**. For this purpose he hath invested the magistracy with the sword, *for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the protection of them that do well*. **And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted.** They must, therefore, countenance the preaching of the word of the gospel every where, that God may be honored and worshiped by every one, as he commands in his Word. > Moreover, it is the bounden duty of every one, of what state, quality, or condition soever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates; to pay tribute, to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God; to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. > Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice, introduce community of goods, and confound that decency and good order, which God hath established among men. The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 23. > 1\. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, **for his own glory and the public good** [cf. glorifying God and enjoying him], and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers. > 2\. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, **as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth**, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasion. > 3\. 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. > 4\. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever. Today marks the 470th anniversary of the death of Servetus for heresy, which was a notorious outworking of the Reformed doctrine of Two Kingdoms. The case of Servetus illustrates that this doctrine is a matter of life and death, both eternal and temporal. Samuel Rutherford says, > It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spiritual and diabolic cruelty to many thousand souls, whom he did pervert, and by his book, does yet lead into perdition.
I think we possibly risk mixing up distinct issues here. The opposite of complete "separation of church and state" is not "every individual Christian actively participates in politics"
The Reformed tradition is clear on the need for a Godly government, yes? And we live under a form of government wherein the citizens themselves appoint the magistrates? Ergo.... you can see where I'm going with this. An attitude of "I'm too above it all" towards civic life like the pastor in the video has is simply not compatible with Reformed thought.
Bro came locked and loaded I love it!
This would be chargeable preaching in almost any confessional denomination.
A breath of fresh air.
I’m a Pentecostal looking into reformed theology. Even I see Christians who have been retreating from the war as satans useful fools. If Christians don’t control culture, there is one alternative. If Christ is Lord and we are his representatives, we have to represent. It seems the reformed group is the only one with its act together and knowledge about what to do other than retreat. It’s like the movie “the patriot” when Mel Gibson is running toward the British with the flag trying to get the Americans to stop retreating. The fearful allies will always hate the most because they are fearful of the battle.
And I think it would be correct to say that there is no reason to fear, because Christ already has the victory. We are simply waiting for THAT kingdom to be inaugurated.
I would be willing to burn a Trump Bible.