Kings Your Foster Fathers and Queens Your Nursing Mothers: Biblical Religion the Duty of the Christian Magistrate

"Kings shall be your foster fathers and their queens your nursing mothers" (Isaiah 49:23). 

In today's America, a supposed religious neutrality is enforced by law, especially by a zealously secular judicial system. I question whether that was ever the intention of the Founders when they adopted the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Below is an extended quote from John Bannerman, in his book, The Church of Christ, in which he argues for the doctrine of the established church, as he knew in Scotland. 

"I take it for granted, as a fact not to be disputed, that the state, in all its acts, is to be accounted a moral and responsible agent, as much as any individual that is a subject of it; and that, although not under law to man, the supreme power, or organ of the state, is under law to God. I take it for granted, further, that, in consequence of this responsibility to God, the state is bound, as the first and chief of its duties, to own His will, as embodied in the form of a supernatural revelation from Him, and, in its national capacity, to recognize the authority and the Word of God as its law. And now, with an inspired revelation from God in its hands, what is it that the state learns as to its own interests and duties? It learns, in the first place, the intimate and indissoluble connection between the interests of civil society and the interests of true religion; and that, to promote the wellbeing, or, rather, to insure the existence of the state, it is necessary to call in the aid of powers and influences which the state has not in itself. It finds that what is awanting [sic] in civil society for accomplishing the very end of its own existence, the Gospel alone can supply; and that, for the state to dismiss, as a matter foreign to it, the religious instruction and spiritual wellbeing of the people at large, is to forego the main instrumentality which God has put into its hands for securing the authority of law, for promoting the ends of civil government, [and] for protecting the rights and furthering the peace of society. All this is too plain to need illustration. Without some religion, no society on earth, it is admitted by all parties, could exist at all; and without the true religion, no society can exist happily. Law would cease to be enforced if it had to trust to punishment alone for its authority, without any higher motive to secure obedience to it; and justice between man and man could not be carried into effect if it had no hold upon the conscience and the moral sense of a nation. And can it be alleged that religion is a matter with which states, as such, have no right to intermeddle, when it, in reality, forms the main and only secure foundation on which the authority of state rests - the only sanction sufficient to enforce right and to deter from wrong in a community - the only force strong enough to ensure obedience and respect for law - the only bond that can bind together the discordant elements of human society, and give peace between man and man? To assert that it is no duty of the civil magistrate to care for the religion of the people is nothing less than to assert that he is at liberty to forego the chief or only certain stay of his own authority, and to disregard what is essential to his own existence or wellbeing. If religion be the great and indissoluble cement of human society, then the magistrate is bound, by a regard to his own interests, and for the sake of the grand objects for which a state exists at all, to make the care of religion one of the first duties he has to discharge towards his people." [emphasis in the original]

When Are the "Last Days"?

Among those of a certain eschatological bent, the 'last days" of the New testament have been identified repeatedly with events current at that time. Most recently, the covid crisis and the war in Ukraine are cited as evidence that we are now in the last days, and that the rapture will occur any day. 

The problem is that none of those declarations ever give/gave proper consideration to how the phrase is used in the New Testament. "The last days" is treated as if it is disconnected from the rest of Scripture, with no meaning to those who used it, or as if it could be meaningful to its audience, even if it would occur two-thousand years (so far) in their future. 

Consider Hebrews 2:1-2: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but, in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world." To the author of the epistle, the last days were "these last days," not "those last days," as assumed by the dispensationalist. He considered the phrase to describe the time in which he wrote, not some far future time. He reinforces this intent by relating the last days to the coming of Jesus, i. e., His first coming, not the second. 

The Apostle Peter said something similar in I Peter 1:19-20: "But with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake." Peter is referring to two events that were past tense at the time he wrote, the plan for the Son from before the foundation of the world and His manifestation. When did that happen? At his incarnation, which is why Peter uses the past tense of the verb. To him, the last times were past (or continuing), not two-thousand years in the future. 

The Apostle John, the only writer to mention an antichrist, mentions antichrists in I John 2:18: "Children, it is the las hour, and, as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore, we know that it is the last hour." This one verse gives us two key pieces of information. First is that he refers to a belief among Christians of a coming antichrist. He corrects them in two ways, one that the word is plural, not singular, and the second that some of the antichrists had already come. Therefore, he concluded, the time in which he wrote was the last hour. His statements preclude a future Antichrist or last day, yet dispensationalists pass right over it. 

In Hebrews 9:26, that writer again describes the end of the ages: "For then He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But, as it is, He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Again, He identifies the last days not just with the coming of Jesus, as in the verse at the top, but specifically with His working of redemption. Again, that necessarily happened two-thousand years ago, past tense even when Hebrews was written, not in his or our future. To the same effect is Peter in I Peter 1:20: "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was made manifest in the last times for your sake." 

Together, these references are infallible evidence that a future "last day" is unbiblical, the invention of men, not just apart from scriptural support, but in contradiction to the biblical testimony. 

The Five Solas: God's Perpetual War Against Rome

In the Reformation, the Reformers developed a systematic formulation that delineated the distinction of the biblical Christian faith from the corrupted version held by Rome. These doctrines have come to be known as the Five Solas, from their Latin forms.

Sola gratia, by grace alone. The Bible says that justification is by the condescending mercy of God. It cannot be due to any will or worthiness in the sinner because there is none. 

Sola fide, by faith alone. For those whom God has mercifully chosen to save, that justification is applied to them by means of faith. That is, faith is not meritorious, but is rather an instrument for applying justification. 

Solus Christus, on the basis of Christ alone. Everything necessary to justify God's people was achieved by the atoning work of Jesus, i. e., His perfect life, atoning death, and victorious resurrection. No additional intent, ritual, or action of men is necessary or possible, because Jesus did all that was necessary. 

Soli deo gloria, for the glory of God alone. God's purpose in justifying His people was not for our sakes, though we are certainly the beneficiaries. He did it to display the glories of His mercy and to glorify His Son with a church. 

Sola scriptura, in Scripture alone. Everything necessary to know about our sin, God's judgment, the redemption purchased by Christ, and the life of sanctification is and can be found in the Bible alone, using the ordinary means of reason, illuminated by the Holy Spirit. No human tradition added to Scripture or in its place can ever bind the conscience of the man of God. 

Even after the five centuries which have passed since the start of the Reformation, these truths have not changed. Nor has Rome ever repented of her errors here opposed. When professed Protestants practice fellowship and cooperation with the Catholic Church, it is not because she has given up her errors, but because the Protestants have accepted them.

What Works Are Excluded from Justification?

I have had discussions with both Mormons and Catholics about Romans 3:28: "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." The topic was the doctrine of both groups that a person is justified by a mixture of faith and works, instead of by faith alone. They denied that a person is justified by faith alone, claiming that Paul rejects the works of the Mosaic code, such as circumcision, as contributing to justification. That is, they restrict the meaning of "law" just to the rules and ceremonies given to Israel through Moses. 

What neither will mention is Paul's other uses of "law," especially in Galatians. In Galatians 4:21-26, 28-31, he makes a case: "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, she corresponds to the present Jerusalem for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother... Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But, just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.' So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman." 

Paul makes a very clear distinction here. Is it between works of the Mosaic law and other works? Clearly not. Anyone with a modicum of biblical knowledge knows that Abraham lived four-hundred years before  Moses. Rather, he uses "law" to describe the works of the flesh, such as those of Moses, using the label of the part to represent the whole (a synecdoche), in distinction from the promise, which he uses to label grace alone through faith alone. 

Honorable and Dishonorable Use According to the Mind of the Potter

"That the creatures have at times deviated from their first rules and settlement is no derogation from the doctrine of God's sovereignty, but rather an illustration of it, as showing that the creatures are still in His hand, as clay in the potter's. Hence we find their innate propensities to be sometimes suspended; at other times, overacted; and at times again quite contrary to the law of nature. And this [is] not casually nor by the force of created powers, nor yet for any private or self-concern, but to serve some special and superior end which their Lord had to be done" --Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

He doesn't quote it, but Coles alludes to a reference from Paul: "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:19-21). 

If a potter splits his lump of clay, and uses one part to make a decanter for the finest wine, and the other part for a chamber pot, is that not his power to do? Can the chamber pot pipe up that it, too, wishes to hold fine wine? Of course not! Paul uses such an obvious example to make plain that the objection to God's sovereignty is equally irrational. 

While Coles widens Paul's text to apply to all created creatures, I want to focus, as Paul did, on God's sovereignty over mankind. It is all one to Paul, whether we are speaking of the lesser animals or to man; sentience is not grounds for autonomy. The sentient creation is still under the legitimate rule of his Creator. 

In theology, this is the contrasting doctrines of election, God's choice unto salvation and glorification, and reprobation, God's choice unto wickedness and judgment. Paul applies this dichotomy to an example which the Jewish Christians would have known well, the Pharaoh in Moses's account of the exodus from Egypt: "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth'" (Romans 9:17, citing Exodus 9:16). 

Paul's point in both his potter analogy and in the account of Pharaoh is to show that election and reprobation are not punishments or rewards for men, i. e., not something to be claimed by an autonomous creature. Rather, they are determined by His primary purpose, which is to glorify Himself. Granted, that is a concept that the unbeliever and many professing believers find abominable. Which is exactly the point of Paul's choice of words: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (Romans 9:20).

The implied answer is that, "You are no one." 

The Perfect and Proper Sovereignty of God Over His Creatures

"The heavens and the earth and all the hosts of them, as yet having no being, it was [according to] His pleasure whether He would make them or not. And, if He would, what being He would give them, to what end, and how that end should be accomplished. And that all these were ascertained by the decree is evident, for 'known unto God were all His works (which He would do in [the process of] time from the beginning of the world' (Acts 15:18)." --Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

In the quote above, we see the historic protestant view of the sovereignty of God. He created all things according to His plan of what to create, what the purpose and place of each would be, and how that purpose would be achieved. This is especially contrasted with the modern theology of Open Theism, which asserts that God cannot determine or even predict the contingent actions of animate creatures. But it also conflicts with the Arminian view, which claims that God has the power of sovereignty, but has withheld His determination in favor of free agency. 

Coles gave an excellent citation for his view, and against the various forms of autonomy: "Known to God from eternity are all His works" (Acts 15:18 NKJV). God had planned all that He would do in and with His creation before He created any of it. "Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose'" (Isaiah 46:8-10). 

Both Coles and the Bible describe a God who is very different from the deity of the Arminians.

God's Preservation of His People: The Perseverance of the Saints in Troublous Times

"Though I walk in the midst of trouble, You preserve my life; You stretched out Your hand against the wrath of my enemies, and Your right hand delivers me. The Lord will fulfill His purpose for me; Your steadfast love, O Lord, endures for ever. Do not forsake the work of Your hands." --Psalm 138:7-8 

As I write this, America is just past another wave of Covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine has just begun its third week. Unemployment is low, but inflation has jumped, especially in the prices of food and gasoline. We are in uncertain times. People are fearful, and many professing Christians have begun another round of talk about the Rapture and Mark of the Beast. 

Under such circumstances, unease is rational. Trusting in God does not mean that Christians don't have normal emotions. However, bad theology merely fans the flames of that unease, adding irrational fears to the rational unease. 

Good theology, on the other hand, brings comfort, and minimizes our fears. In particular, the knowledge that God, our God, reconciled to us through the blood of Jesus, always keeps us in His care: "We know that, for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified" (Romans 8:28-30). This is hard for our egocentric hearts to accept, but the purpose of God is not about us; it is for the glory of His Son that He causes all things to work for good for those who belong to His Son. 

Beyond that, however, it is the purpose of the Son to care for His people without failure and without ceasing: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:27-29). Because of His love to His sheep, Jesus guarantees to us that He cannot fail to preserve His sheep for eternity, and He calls on the love of the Father for Him to guarantee what He desires for us.