In my last post I pointed out how the American Presby’s undermined themselves by changing the confession in the very part that is what gave them their confession. They pulled the rug out from under their own feet!
Next, I want to address our modern “reformed” brethren from the W2K camp and very simply and shortly show how their modern “2 Kingdoms” view still isn’t in line with even the American revision of the Standards. Take note of the items I highlight in bold. This is from the 1788 version of the WCF.
Chapter XXIII
Of the Civil Magistrate
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: 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 evildoers.
3. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
Chapter XXXI
Of Synods and Councils
4. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.
Even our American Presby brothers have no issues telling the civil magistrate what he “may not” do and what his duty is. They tell us that “God… has ordained civil magistrates to be under Him…” They even tell us what laws their should not be! Not only that, but in chapter 31, it seems they forgot to revise their chapter 4 (chapter 5 in the original). Since magistrates can’t call synods anymore, they shouldn’t have mentioned that synods can give their opinion to magistrates if the magistrate requires it.
Anyway, my point is that even our revised confession still has no issue giving authoritative direction to the civil sphere of government. But too often today, we have people within the church telling us that we (the church) can’t tell government how to govern and that governors only have “natural law” to rely on to discover how to rightly govern. Hogwash!
Kazoo
The Reformed Standard 
You forgot WCF 24.4
Note however, that all of this is not commanding what the civil magistrate must do, but what the civil magistrate must not do, namely anything religious.
Also, note that a civil constitution that prefers no religions above another (a civil sphere that has no category for religion), by default also prefers no Christian denominations above another.
Also note that a secular civil government that says “Devil worshipper/Presybeterian, those words don’t mean anything to the state; all we know is you can’t sacrifice babies!” sounds a lot like “It is the duty of all civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever.
Rube, this statement refutes you:
Here, the Confession ascribes to the State a duty which it also ascribes to Christ as our Redeemer, namely, to defend the Church (WCF SC 26). If this is not a religious duty, then neither is Christ’s duty a religious duty.
So not only are you wrong about the Confession not prescribing anything positive to the State, you are also wrong about the Confession prescribing religious duties to the State.
don’t forget to include the proof texts…that’s where we can understand better their intent
A good article written about this subject: http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/the-american-revised-confession-is-not-the-westminster-confession/
kazoo