Wrong for Governments to Use Force

[Link]

I have recently read a little about the iconoclast contraversy around 800-900 AD, and it got me thinking about the authority of Christian governments to stomp out idolatry. Another period of history that comes to mind is the time period of Gregory the Illuminator of Armenia.

Gregory's father had killed a king of Armenia and fled to another country where Gregory was either raised as a Christian or became one. Gregory went back to make ammends for his family and to share the Gospel. He was persecuted by the new king, the son of the old one, and put in a pit, according to legend, for years where a widow fed him. He managed to survive. When one of the king's family members was demonized, Gregory was called for and cast it out. The king was converted. The king, whose name started with a T. fought a war against armies of pagans, and used the sword to get rid of paganism and pagan temples.

The iconoclasts were those against the use of icons, primarily in the eastern part of the Roman empire around 700 and 800 AD. There were a few iconoclastic emporers who did away with icons and used force against pro-icon bishops and monks. Image worshipping bishops were deposed, and things of that nature.

Eventually a pro-image emporer took over and did away with the reforms.

I know the idea of the state doing anything against religion goes against American political philosophy. But I am asking you to set that aside and try to think about this Biblically for a moment. The kings in the OT who used force to kill the prophets of Baal and tear down pagan shrines were spoken of in a positive light. The New Testament says that rulers do not bear the sword in vain, that the ruler is a minister of God to execute wrath on him that doeth evil. Idolatry is evil. If a ruler chooses to use the sword against those who practice the evil of idolatry, is this wrong?

I am thinking of medeval and ancient kings, here, primarily, not promoting reconstructionism. I am not talking about rulers forcing people to convert to Christianity, but rather punishing those who worship idols. Any opinions?

 

[Claudia_T]

Well that would be interesting, finding out what our worldly Government's idea of what an "idol" is... from one day to the next and from one person in office to the next.

How about if we have a Roman Catholic controlled Government decide for one year what an "idol" is and let them stomp out heretics and then try it the next year with a Protestant Government?

Fortunately, people came over here in the first place to escape from such persecution.

 

[Monergist]

I find this an interesting take on the subject:

When someone comes and proselytizes for another god or another final authority (and by the way, that god may be man)--when someone tries to undermine the commitment to Jehovah which is fundamental to the civil order of a godly state--then that person needs to be restrained by the magistrate. However, this does not mean that individuals should be punished for holding heretical views, the views that Baptists think are heretical or Lutherans think are heretical and so forth. It simply means that those who will not acknowledge Jehovah as the ultimate authority behind the civil law code which the magistrate is enforcing would be punished and repressed. You would, therefore, be open, I believe, to hold Muslim views or Hindu views in the privacy of your own home, provided it was not a Christian home that you've now come into to subvert and draw away from Jehovah. You would be able to hold these views as a private conviction. But you would not be allowed to proselytize and undermine the order of the state. Before people who are non-theonomists get too terribly upset about this view, I would at least ask them to reflect on this fact: every civil order protects its foundations.

Greg Bahnsen, "An Interview with Greg L. Bahnsen," Calvinism Today, Jan. 1994, p. 23.

Proselytizing for another god

 

[billwald]

Bahnsen is (was?) a Reconstructionist. If they gained control then "Christian" would be defined by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church creeds. Only "real" Christians would have the vote.

see www.freebooks.com

 

[bmerr]

Link,

bmerr here. Interesting topic. Just off the top of my head, I'd say the idea of government enforcement of religious rules/violations is pretty scary. The others who have responded made good points.

The praise given to the few good kings of Judah and Israel is recorded for us in Scripture, but was probably not echoed in the "Washington (com)Post" of the time.

The Bible gives us God's view of the kings of that period in Israel's history based on their adherence to the Law of God. They either led the people to sin in following idols, or they led the people to righteousness in following Jehovah.

Another thing to consider is that there are very few monarchies with the power to dictate right and wrong for those they rule over these days.

In America, as you likely know, it is (or, at least it used to be) a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". The population elects leaders to enact laws that reflect their notions of right and wrong.

The laws of our nation may change from time to to time depending on the population's adherence to the Bible as the standard of right and wrong.

Unfortunately, the system of government set in place by the founding fathers has been hijacked by the "Immoral Minority", and laws are now often set according to the 9 "Kings" on the Supreme Court.

Before I get to rambling, let me just say two words about the Supreme Court: it's not.

In Christ,

bmerr