A Reply To Kinsella's "Thoughts On RLP Episode 24"

Kerry Baldwin and I thank Stephan Kinsella for considering and interacting with what we say in Reformed Libertarians Podcast episode 24, "Why Non-Christian Libertarians Should (And How They Can) Become Christians." We're glad he recognizes that we're on the same page about what libertarianism is. His work has brought tremendous clarity to foundational issues, from which we've learned a great deal. And we highly recommend his writings on libertarianism (for example, see here). 

Stephan has asked several important and relevant questions regarding our argument for religious non-neutrality, and the following is a start at answering those questions. We have argued at least three things his questions concern. First, in episode 24, we presented an argument that something must be self-existent. Second, not elaborated in episode 24, but in episode 19, we argued, among other things, that theories and concepts by necessity ultimately presuppose something as self-existent. And third, also in episode 19, we argued that taking something as self-existent is a religious belief. What we say in episode 19 goes some way in answering some of Stephan's questions. But here we will try to answer his specific questions directly.

These are the questions we answer:

1. What do these arguments (seek to) explain?
2. What do the terms ‘self-exist’ and ‘depend,’ as we use them, mean?
3. Why is belief in something as self-existent the right definition of religious belief? Isn't religious belief, rather, about belief apart from reason and evidence?
4. If everyone is religious, even if without knowing it, why not say everyone is a Christian, even if without knowing it?

It's important to clarify that none of our arguments mentioned above are intended as arguments for the existence of any god, let alone the Christian God, or for the truth of Christianity. The Thomistic (5 ways) arguments, the moral argument, and the ontological argument, are arguments for God's existence. However, the 11-lecture series on Philosophy Of Religion (linked in the shownotes of episode 24), at a semi-popular level, elaborates on why we don’t take such arguments to be good arguments, and in fact why the project of seeking to “prove” God's existence is fundamentally misconceived. 

It's also important to clarify that we recognize libertarianism can be held upon various differing grounds. We also recognize that affirming what libertarianism is, is enough to be libertarian regardless of one's grounds. To put it in other terms, we agree that libertarianism, as such, is “thin.” What we deny is that anyone holds to it “thinly,” that is without, at least implicit, grounds.

If one were to say, “look, I don't know why, but self-ownership, property right, and the non-aggression principle just seem right to me,” then we don't dispute that one is holding to libertarianism. However, further questions can be asked. Despite not being aware why it seems right to you, it could be asked what “seems right to you” means. Maybe it means it seems to fit with, or at least to not obviously conflict with, other things about the world that also simply seem right to you. And there you have grounds (if implicit) for your libertarianism in however “the world” seems to you to be. It's not that one must justify one's libertarianism in order to believe it. Rather, if one did seek to justify it, then such a justification would be grounded in some view or other of how things more broadly seem to you to be.

We can see this at work in the way some people, after initially claiming to believe it, have talked themselves out of libertarianism exactly by asking themselves such further questions. After identifying something about “how things more broadly” seem to them to be that conflicts with libertarianism, they abandon their belief in libertarianism. After further reflection, their grounds for affirming libertarianism appeared weak, and rather than changing their view of the world, they changed their minds about libertarianism. I don't suppose Stephan necessarily disagrees that this is how our minds and beliefs tend to operate. But I offer the explanation to clarify that we are not trying to argue that one must pronounce on this or that view of the basic nature of reality in general, or on what one takes to be self-existent, in order to affirm libertarianism. And yet, we do argue that such grounds are necessarily implied by anyone's affirmation of it. 

1. With that distinction clarified, we're in a better position to see the answer to the first (as I number it above) question. What do these arguments seek to explain? What are we trying to explain by arguing that a.) something must be self-existent, b.) theories and concepts ultimately presuppose something as self-existent, and c.) taking something as self-existent is a religious belief?

The answer is this: we're seeking to explain the (perhaps surprisingly) religious character of the ultimate grounds inevitably implied by one's belief in libertarianism. One may respond by saying, first, this seems counter-intuitive to me, and second, no one need pronounce on what grounds, nor needs to justify, one's libertarianism to believe it.  Our reply to this is yes, if you don't consider yourself or any of your beliefs to be at all religious, you will likely find this surprising or counter-intuitive, and yes, we agree that no one need pronounce on (or even be conscious of) grounds for, and no one need justify, one's libertarianism to believe it.

2. In episode 24, we argued this way that something must be self-existent:

“ Self-existence means being in a way that doesn't depend on anything else. Anything that exists either depends on something else for its existence, or it doesn't (in which case it is self-existent). Considering all that exists, either some part of it exists in ultimate dependence upon some other part that is self-existent, or no part depends on any other part, in which case the whole, necessarily, would be self-existent since there's nothing else for it to depend on. So, either some part of all that exists is self-existent, or the whole is self-existent. Any view of reality necessarily entails one option or the other. If anything exists, then something has to be self-existent. ”

In order to understand what is being argued here, the sense of ‘depend’ has to be understood. The general sense of ‘depend’ here is “require as an ultimate (pre)condition” for something's existence. So, ‘y’ depends on ‘x’ in this sense where ‘x’ is a necessary, ultimate condition for ‘y’ to exist. While a more particular sense of ‘depend’ can be relative to a more particular view of the two kinds of things in relation, this is the general, meaningful sense of ‘depend’ that obtains in every case. 

This may still seem too abstract to grasp a firm idea of it. And further, there is at least one type of view of what exists that tends to obscure this meaning of ‘depend,’ given that in such a view actual dependency is excluded, since only one thing exists. The following examples and further descriptions may clarify.

Suppose you held to a particular sort of physicalism or materialism. You believe that all that exists is purely and exclusively matter-energy. To exist is to be material; to be material is to exist. There isn't anything non-material that can exist. In this view, matter-energy is not a “part” of all that exists. Rather, matter-energy simply is all that exists (although matter-energy may be variously configured). In such a case, nothing other than matter-energy is taken to be a necessary ultimate condition, because there simply is nothing else. Matter-energy is unconditionally non-dependent, which is to say self-existent. It exists in a way that doesn't depend on anything else for its existence. So, to exist and to self-exist are identical. This view excludes anything actually depending on anything for its existence, since only material exists.

Such a view may be understood in terms of one or another sort of so-called strong reductionism. One sort of strong reductionism might be called “meaning replacement.” The nature of reality is exclusively that of ‘x’ (in this case, material) so all things have only properties of ‘x’ and are governed only by laws of ‘x.’ All terms supposed to have non-x meaning can be replaced by x-terms without loss of meaning, while not all x-terms can be replaced by terms supposed to have non-x meaning. Another sort of strong reductionism might be called “factual identity.” While, here too, the nature of reality is exclusively that of ‘x’ so all things have only properties of ‘x’ and are governed only by laws of ‘x,’ in this case, although the meaning of all non-x terms cannot be reduced to that of x-terms, their reference is, nevertheless, to exclusively x-things.

Now suppose you held to a different sort of physicalism or materialism. You believe that ultimately all that exists, and so the nature of reality, is most basically matter-energy. Some things that are not purely and exclusively material exist, but whatever non-material properties there are (or whatever non-material laws might govern them), it is only something's materiality that makes possible any other kinds of properties (or laws).

Such a view may be understood in terms of one or another sort of so-called weak reductionism. One sort of weak reductionism might be called “epiphenomenalism.” Non-x (in this case, non-material) properties exist, but all things are governed only by laws of ‘x.’ All genuine explanations must be given exclusively in x-terms. Another sort of weak reductionism might be called “causal dependency.” Here, there are non-x properties and non-x laws, however there is a one-way causality. Whatever non-x properties and laws exist could not exist without ‘x,’ while ‘x’ can exist without anything non-x. In either view, ‘x’ is unconditionally non-dependent, which is to say it is self-existent, because it exists in a way that doesn't depend on anything else for its existence. 

Unlike the cases of strong reductionism, with weak reductionism there are some things with non-x properties (or also laws) that exist and depend on ‘x’ for existence. And even though with strong reductionism, there is only what is self-existent, and nothing else to depend on it, the general sense of ‘depend’ as “require as an ultimate condition” for existence is still meaningful (if only instantiated negatively, in terms of non-dependence). So, the particular examples and further descriptions given should also help clarify what it means to self-exist, namely to be unconditionally non-dependent, or to exist in a way that doesn't depend on anything else for its existence. To “not depend” means to not require (anything) as an ultimate condition. So to be self-existent is to exist in a way that doesn't require anything else as an ultimate condition for its existence.

3.  But, why is belief in something as self-existent the right definition of religious belief? Isn't religious belief, rather, about belief apart from reason and evidence? The primary reason that belief in something as self-existent is the right definition of religious belief is that it is the only feature or element that all (what are commonly called) “religions” have in common. A view of faith as belief apart from reason and evidence is not a common feature of all religions; Reformed Christianity being one example of a religion with a different view of faith (namely, a view of faith as not apart from reason and evidence).

In episode 19 we addressed the possible objection that in order for belief in something as self-existent to be a properly religious belief, it must involve worship or ethics. But, that simply doesn't hold up under examination of various religions, as we explained. Still another possible objection is that granting belief in something as self-existent is the only feature all religions have in common, it doesn't necessarily follow that belief in something as self-existent is always a religious belief, because (even if unconsciously) taking something as self-existent is also (at least implicitly) implied by any and every theory or concept. 

Our concisely stated answer to that objection is this: as an equivalent and competing belief in something as self-existent to the belief in, for example, the Christian God, no belief in something as self-existent ceases to be an equally religious belief simply because it occurs in the context of a theory or concept. Whatever anyone takes to be self-existent (although what that may be can vary widely) plays the same role as grounds for the system or complex of one's beliefs as it does in religions, and is held on the same basis, namely, self-evidence.

In any case, it's certainly understandable why, for example, physicalists or materialists would prefer not to use the term “religious” in application to their own beliefs about the unconditionally non-dependent (self-existent) status of matter-energy. Since they associate (tho without warrant) all religious belief with irrationality, or as being apart from reason and evidence, then avoiding the term “religious” for their belief in something as self-existent is an attempt to make their beliefs look uniquely rational.

4. If everyone is religious, even if without knowing it, why not say everyone is a Christian, even if without knowing it? The answer is this: everyone who holds to any theory or concept (for example, the political philosophy of libertarianism) meets the criterion of having a religious belief, viz, that the given theory or concept, at least implicitly, implies some grounds in a view of the nature of reality and of something as self-existent. However, not everyone meets the criterion of being a Christian, viz, trusting in the person and work of Christ alone on their behalf for full and free salvation from the just penalty they deserve of God's everlasting condemnation as guilty sinners. 

In these replies, we hope we have offered clear and persuasive (if only initial) answers to Stephan Kinsella's questions. Of course, more questions can be asked. (Or perhaps we unintentionally missed a question). It may be, however, that further clarification requires consulting the more elaborate argument presented in Roy Clouser's The Myth Of Religious Neutrality. Nevertheless, our replies here might be helpful in elaborating what we say in episode 24.  Thanks, again, to Stephan, for all his work on libertarianism, and for graciously taking the time to interact on these issues.

 

 

How I Became A Reformed-Christian Libertarian-Anarchist

 some autobiography in which I recount
several factors in the development of my political views

Text originally published here: https://libertarianchristians.com/2025/02/19/a-reformed-path-to-libertarian-anarchism/

https://youtube.com/watch?v=yMh52HKHt5o

[ I'm an independent researcher and writer in philosophy, and co-host of the Reformed Libertarians Podcast. My primary interest is in developing and promoting the Neo-Calvinist philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd, the Reformed covenant theology of Meredith Kline, and a Reformed Christian perspective on libertarian-anarchism. ]

Unlike religion, politics was not a consciously prominent feature of my childhood. Nevertheless, without much reflection, I absorbed the political attitudes and opinions of my parents. In the home of my youth, from my birth in the early 70s through the 80s, it was largely treated as a given that the less government interference in society, particularly in the economy, the better. 

A central idea was that the United States Federal Government had gone fundamentally astray during FDR’s administration (1933-1945) with its economic interventionism. Constitutionally conservative political reform was necessary to restore the Republic, and to defeat domestic commies and all their pinko enablers. All this was obvious (so it seemed at the time), and so I didn’t think about it much.

However, in high school, I took up the anti-abortion cause, handing out pro-life pregnancy center info and evangelizing outside murder clinics, and so on. In my own minority religious community, and in the broader Christian community, abortion was considered (not wrongly, if myopically) the great societal evil of our day. Whatever the immorality of economic interventionism, legally permitting the mass slaughter of babies was a greater crisis, comparable to the enormity of Southern slavery, but worse. This was my political awakening. And, in a striking way, it brought personal and societal morality, politics, religion, and science, all together in a heady and revolutionary mixture. Abortion, or the anti-abortion cause, became a force that dragged me deep into my own religion and its civilizationally-significant philosophical meaning.

The minority religious community in which I was raised (largely in Baltimore, Maryland) was the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, within the camp of “traditional” confessionally-Reformed churches in the U.S. and Canada. The Reformed religion was once held by a majority of Americans, from colonial times until the early 1800s. However, today, there are only about half a million of us. That’s less than fifteen-hundredths of one percent of the U.S. population. There are about as many Amish and Old Order Mennonites in the U.S. as there are confessionally-Reformed Christians. 

Despite our vanishingly-small numbers, we possess a rich and fruitful devotional and intellectual religious heritage. And it was this religious heritage that I came to embrace, consciously and fervently, in my teen years, and that deeply shaped my philosophical and political development. (For those interested in an introduction to this form of Christianity, see “Recommended Reading” at the end of this essay.)

During high school, I read a number of Reformed theological classics, and books by more recent Reformed thinkers. Among the more recent, I read several books by Francis Schaeffer, who significantly helped build the pro-life movement among conservative Protestants. I was particularly inspired by his book The God Who Is There and by A Christian Manifesto. In Manifesto, one of the things that stood out to me was the confessionally-Reformed teaching on Romans 13:1-7. The view of that passage (and others like it, such as 1 Peter 2:13-17) held by the majority of Reformers, was that God only prescriptively ordains civil governance to use “the sword” or coercion against wrongdoing. 

When those who claim civil power create and enforce laws that do otherwise than punish actual wrongdoing, then they are unjust and tyrannical, and no one is required to submit to unjust or tyrannical power. Schaeffer particularly highlighted the book Lex, Rex by Samuel Rutherford who said, for example, “[While civil rulers act] against God’s law, and all good laws of men, they do not the things that appertain to their charge and the execution of their office; therefore, by our Confession, to resist them in tyrannical acts is not to resist the ordinance of God.”

The year after high school, I took a gap year teaching English in Japan. Besides exposing me to a substantially unfamiliar culture and social context, strange beliefs, values, institutions, and customs, and so broadening my sense of human experience, it gave me an opportunity to reflect on the meaning and significance of religious belief for history. That year one book that shaped my reflections was The Two Empires in Japan by John M. L. Young. This book helpfully recounts the history of conflict between a largely compromised Christianity with the predominant Shinto-Fascist Nationalism in Japan.

My first year in college (at a Reformed, Liberal Arts school in Georgia), when I was old enough to vote, I met and conversed with a visiting speaker on campus, Howard Phillips. He convinced me of the crucial importance of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the political philosophy of strictly limited government (classical liberalism) that served as its foundation. I became a member of the political party, of which he was a key founder, which came to be known as the Constitution Party. I wasn’t really politically active. However, believing that the U.S. government (not to mention most, if not all, local and particular state governments), as a matter of established policy, persistently violated the supposed “rule of law,” and so was in practice, if not in principle, illegitimate, provided plenty of opportunity to share my increasingly anti-government views. 

In the years following, I began to realize that the U.S. government had not only started to go wrong with FDR, but progressively violated its own Constitution and the principles of liberty from the beginning (e.g. The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-1794), and that the Constitution itself was an unlawful power-grab, against which the anti-federalists had warned.

In college I also read, and was strongly influenced by, the writings of Neo-Calvinist theologians Abraham Kuyper, particularly his famous Lectures On Calvinism as a worldview, and Meredith G. Kline, particularly his book Kingdom Prologue. I also discovered the writings of Neo-Calvinist (or “Reformational”) philosophers Herman Dooyeweerd, for example, his book Roots Of Western Culture among others, and Roy Clouser, and his book The Myth Of Religious Neutrality that superbly explains key elements of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy. These and other writings that articulated a Reformed worldview, a view of redemptive-historical Reformed covenant theology in Scripture, and a Reformed philosophical view of the basic nature of reality, continue to represent the biblical and theoretical perspectives from which I view life, religion, culture, society, and politics.

My fourth year of college, I took only one semester, and another single semester in a fifth year. Then I dropped out of school in 1997, not having finished my Bachelor’s, feeling frustrated and disillusioned with, among many other things, the college’s inability to provide deeper instruction in Dooyeweerd’s philosophy. After five difficult years of working numerous odd jobs and personal struggle (with a two year sojourn in southern California, where I also audited some evening courses at a Reformed seminary), I was able to enroll for a final year at a different Reformed, Liberal Arts college (in Ontario, Canada) that had a much stronger emphasis in Dooyeweerd’s philosophy, and finished my BA. 

The infamous 9/11 attacks had occurred only a few years before. And the U.S. government’s tyrannical response in the so-called Patriot Act and unjust invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, served to thoroughly undermine what remained of any naive “benefit-of-the-doubt” assumptions I had concerning the state’s supposed interest in protecting and promoting liberty and justice in domestic or foreign affairs.

Around 2003, I also became aware of Ron Paul, a medical doctor, who at the time was a U.S. representative for the 14th congressional district in Texas (that covered a coastal area southeast of Houston). Mostly through a friend who worked in his D.C. office, I became familiar with Paul’s long-time, solitary effort in the Federal Congress, standing for actual constitutional limits on government and for the political and economic liberty envisioned by many of the U.S. Founders.

Two years later, I enrolled at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam in a philosophy Master’s program. In the year and a-half I studied there, I focused on the philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd (who had been a professor at that university from 1926-1965). I especially focused on his so-called transcendental critique of theoretical thought, political and societal philosophy, and theory of what is called societal “sphere sovereignty.” Better understanding Dooyeweerd’s view of sphere sovereignty (a theory of the normative natures of, and relations between, distinct kinds of societal communities) significantly contributed to my eventual conversion to full-fledged libertarian-anarchism. However, during that same period, I also began an independent study in economics.

Through my acquaintance with the efforts of Ron Paul, I became aware of the Mises Institute, a research and educational non-profit dedicated to promoting (among other things) understanding of the Austrian school of economics. I found a large quantity of academic sources from the Mises Institute for my independent study. I became persuaded of an Austrian view of praxeology (the study of necessary pre-conditions for human action), its premise of “methodological individualism,” the importance of these for a proper understanding of economics, and of a thorough-going free market view. The central idea of methodological individualism is that only individuals intentionally or purposefully act. And this fact is not at odds or in tension with ideas important to sphere sovereignty, such as the reality of communities that cannot be reduced to inter-individual relations, and a non-individualistic conception of society. 

Worth mentioning here is that my study in economics and praxeology also led to discovery of ideas that significantly helped me understand other areas of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy. Often enough, discoveries in one field of study or even within a given school of thought can illuminate problems or ideas in another. This is a fact I believe many Christian libertarians have discovered in recognizing the mutually supporting beliefs of their religion and political and economic views.

My study of economics led me to the writings of Murray Rothbard, an Austrian economist and historian who also wrote on political theory. Two works crucial to my conversion to libertarian-anarchism were Rothbard’s books For A New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty (text here; audio here). Alongside those and many of Rothbard’s other writings, I was also influenced significantly by articles and lectures by Roderick Long, who is a professor of philosophy at Auburn University. In particular, I was helped by “Rothbard’s ‘Left And Right’: 40 Years Later” (text here; video here), “Libertarian Anarchism: Responses To Ten Objections” (text here; audio here), and his ten-lecture series “Foundations Of Libertarian Ethics” (audio here; video here). 

I remember very distinctly, one day in October 2008, while listening to the final lecture of the Foundations series, “An Anarchist Legal Order,” the proverbial light turned on in my mind. It took a few months, as I remember, to get used to the idea that I was now a convinced anarchist. At first, I didn’t dare admit it to anyone. The very notion seemed almost too shocking, even while I was fully persuaded of it. However, being able to see how the total rejection of aggression (or the initiation of coercion, and threat of it) against another’s person or property, and therefore, a total rejection of the monopoly state as an inherently unjust and illegitimate distortion of God-ordained civil governance, was not only entirely compatible with, but in fact, supported by my religious and philosophical convictions, reassured me that (however shocking), it was right to hold to libertarian-anarchism.

A few years after becoming a libertarian-anarchist, I moved outside the U.S. and taught English until mid-2018. During those years, I had begun sketching-out how to articulate the Reformed religious perspective on libertarian anarchism. In 2019, my friend Kerry Baldwin and I had begun brainstorming about creating a podcast devoted to explaining and promoting our shared views. By the end of 2020, we had written The Reformed Libertarianism Statement (and Principles), and in late 2022 we began recording episodes of the Reformed Libertarians Podcast as part of the Christians for Liberty Network. If you want to find out more about the Reformed Faith, the Reformed view of libertarian-anarchism, and why we believe them, you may find the podcast helpful.

Politics (including the politics of libertarian-anarchists) is by no means the solution to all of life’s problems. And on this side of Christ’s return in glory to judge the living and the dead, and to establish the new heavens and earth, even salvation doesn’t solve all our personal and societal woes. Nevertheless, as those who trust in Christ alone for our salvation, growing in our knowledge of Him, we can also grow in our understanding of what the Christian Faith means for our whole lives, including politics, in service to Him. The Lord does not promise that “it gets better” in this life, and that is not our ultimate hope. But it is our great privilege and joy, insofar as we may, to work for a politics that is more in keeping with the ordinances He has revealed.

Recommended Readings for an introduction to confessionally Reformed Christianity

• Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, by Michael Horton
• The Study Guide to The Westminster Shorter Catechism, by G. I. Williamson
• The Study Guide to The Heidelberg Catechism, by G. I. Williamson
• With Reverence And Awe, by Darryl Hart and John Muether

 

 

About Reformed "Close" Confessional Communion

 : Why "credible profession of faith" of penitent, baptized church members is not the biblically sufficient criterion for admission to the Lord's Supper

The usual standard for admission to the Lord's Supper in Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) congregations (and in congregations of other NAPARC denominations) is that the would-be communicant have a credible profession of faith in the gospel, live penitently, and be a baptized member of a gospel-believing church. The confessional Presbyterian & Reformed view of close communion or confessional communion is not widely known or understood today.  Below, this close/confessional view is described in contrast to usual OPC practice, and some Scriptural and doctrinal support for it is presented.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFFjrU3M5wg

1. Common OPC Practice

The OPC BD 2.B.2. states “The session shall examine the candidate for [communicant] membership to assure itself so far as possible that he [or she] possesses the knowledge requisite for active faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, relies for salvation on the work of Christ alone, is trusting Christ for salvation, and is determined by the grace of God to lead a Christian life.”

The OPC DPW 3.C.3. states “The minister shall then declare who may come to, and who are excluded from, the Lord's Table according to the Word of God…. to invite all who are right with God and his church, through faith in the Lord Jesus, to come to the Lord's Table. If you have received Christ and are resting upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to you in the gospel, if you are a baptized and professing communicant member in good standing in a church that professes the gospel of God's free grace in Jesus Christ, and if you live penitently and seek to walk in godliness before the Lord, then this Supper is for you, and I invite you in Christ's name to eat the bread and drink the cup.”

The OPC DPW 4.A.1. states “Only those may be admitted to full [Supper] communion in the church who have been baptized and have made public profession of faith in Jesus Christ.”

The OPC DPW 4.B.2. states “The minister shall then require the person to profess publicly his Christian faith by giving assent to these or equivalent questions:

(1) Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
(2) Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally there are three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—who are the same in being and equal in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come in the flesh?
(3) Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
(4) Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life?
(5) Do you promise to participate faithfully in this church's worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life?”

According to the above sections of the OPC BCO, as I understand it, and as is my experience of usual practice in OPC congregations, would-be participants are generally admitted to the Lord’s Supper on the basis of meeting several requirements:

A. Having received Christian baptism.
B. Having made a [credible] public profession of faith in Jesus Christ.
C. Living penitently [ie, not in unrepentant sin], seeking to live in a godly way.
D. Being a communicant member in good standing [ie, not under censure] of any church that “professes the gospel of God's free grace in Jesus Christ.”

Specifically, the public profession of faith in Jesus Christ required of those who would be communicant members of the OPC includes several distinct affirmations:

a. Belief in the whole Bible as God’s Word.
b. Belief in the Bible’s teaching of salvation to be perfect and the exclusively-true teaching of salvation.
c. Belief in the Trinity and Jesus Christ's identity as God the Son incarnate.
d. Confession of one’s sinfulness, self-abhorrence, humbling before God, and repentance of one’s sins.
e. Confession of one’s trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
f. Acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as one’s Lord.
g. Promise to serve Jesus Christ entirely, to forsake the world, to resist Satan, to mortify sin, and to live in a godly way.
h. Promise to faithfully participate in the church’s worship and service.
i. Promise to submit to the church’s government and to heed its discipline in doctrine and life.

2. Additional Scriptural Requirements

In addition to these things required of those admitted to the Supper in OPC congregations (as explained above), Scripture requires that those admitted to the Supper express affirmation (according to their ability) of the doctrinal standards of the church, not holding any principled objections to or disagreements with its teachings.
This includes a requirement that those admitted to the Supper express an understanding of the meaning and nature of the Supper (for example, as explained in OPC DW 3.C.2 and WCF 29.1, 7; WLC 168, 170), particularly Christ’s real, spiritual presence to those who participate in a worthy manner by faith, so that they are really spiritually nourished and strengthened by Him in the Supper. It may be the practice of some OPC congregations to require this, but it is not explicitly required in the OPC BCO (as far as I can tell).

Here is some Scriptural and doctrinal basis for the confessional Presbyterian & Reformed view of close/confessional communion:

While 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 has sometimes been taken to mean that those admitted to the Supper must have a credible profession of faith in Christ alone for salvation, I believe the passage also teaches that those admitted to the Supper must express an understanding of the meaning and nature of the Supper. Those who were being judged for eating and drinking in an unworthy manner, were receiving discipline from the Lord, not as unbelievers, but as believers, so ultimately they would not be condemned (11:32). The unworthy manner in which some were eating and drinking partly concerned their failure to “discern the Lord’s body” in the sacrament. That is, they ate and drank as though it were an ordinary meal (for example, to satisfy their hunger), without properly recognizing the special sacramental character of the Supper, particularly Christ’s nourishing, spiritual presence in the worthy-participation in the elements for believers. And so there is an exhortation to the church to examine and judge ourselves, in order to ascertain whether a would-be communicant has such discernment.

This passage (11:18) also refers to divisions among believers, not only expressed outwardly in their failure to eat and drink together, but improper divisions or disagreements in what they professed to believe (ie, in their “mind” and “judgment”).  1 Corinthians 1:10 says “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” So, part of what is required in 1 Corinthians 11 for proper participation in the Lord’s Supper is not only that believers should partake together and in a worthy manner, discerning the Lord’s body, but also that there must be no improper divisions among them in what they profess to believe.

Another relevant passage is 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 that says “If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.” One of the things said in that letter is (2:15) “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” At issue here is not that someone is denying Scriptural teaching that would entail they aren’t a professing believer. Rather, we are exhorted to not have (at least) Supper fellowship with those who, although they may be credible brothers, do not hold to some Scriptural teaching or other.

These Scripture passages mentioned, from 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians, require that those admitted to the Supper express affirmation (according to their ability) of the doctrinal standards of the church, not holding any principled objections to or disagreements with it. Other passages also require that church members must agree in what they profess to believe. Jude 1:3 speaks of contending for “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints;” Philippians 2:2 speaks of “being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.” Such passages refer not only to a common spirit of brotherly affection, practical care, and mutual edification, but also to a unity of fellowship among church members in their confession of doctrine.

In addition to the Scriptural basis for the close / confessional communion view explained above, this view can also be understood on the basis of ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church confessed by the OPC, particularly its doctrine of church authority.

3. Required By The Doctrine Of Church Authority

The OPC FG 3.3-5 says the following:

“3. All church power is only ministerial and declarative, for the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. No church judicatory may presume to bind the conscience by making laws on the basis of its own authority; all its decisions should be founded upon the Word of God. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship" [WCF 20.2].
4. All church power is wholly moral or spiritual. No church officers or judicatories possess any civil jurisdiction; they may not inflict any civil penalties nor may they seek the aid of the civil power in the exercise of their jurisdiction further than may be necessary for civil protection and security.
5. Nevertheless, church government is a valid and authentic jurisdiction to which Christians are commanded to submit themselves. Therefore the decisions of church officers when properly rendered and if in accord with the Word of God "are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word" [WCF 31.2].”

The (secondary) doctrinal standards of the church (namely, in the OPC, the Westminster Confession and Catechisms) are a “decision” of the church’s (ministerial, declarative, and spiritual) government which not only officers, but also those who would be communicants and communicant church members must receive and to which they must submit. The Confession and Catechisms are to be received not only as in agreement with God’s Word, but as itself an ordinance of God’s Word, declaring Scripture’s teaching.

The practical consequence of admitting to Supper communion those who decidedly object to certain teachings of the church is ultimately refusing to discipline with censure on those points, and declaring that ultimately one need not submit to the discipline of the church concerning those doctrines. And that is contrary to Matthew 28:19-20 because it is a failure to make disciples, teaching them to observe all Christ has commanded.

4. Taught In The Presbyterian Secondary Standards

In addition to the Scriptural basis for the close/confessional communion view, and how it may be understood from the doctrine of church authority, it is also a view taught in the Larger Catechism (although, obviously neglected by many churches that claim the Larger Catechism as a doctrinal standard). WLC 113 says that among the sins forbidden by the 3rd commandment are “misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting [God’s] Word, or any part of it… the maintaining of false doctrines.” (And, recall that WCF 28 says it is a “great sin” to “contemn” [treat with contempt] or neglect baptism’s application to a believer’s infant). Further, WLC 173 says that not only those who are scandalous, but also those who are “ignorant,” “notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s Supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.”  This is to say that those who have a credible profession of faith concerning the gospel should not be admitted to the Supper while they object to the church’s teaching.

5. Conclusion

Those convinced of the confessional Presbyterian & Reformed view of close / confessional communion might find themselves conscience-bound by the Word of God to abstain from participation in an improperly administered sacrament. And a possible, but erroneous, response might be to think that one's beliefs about what Scripture requires for admission to the Supper are irrelevant to the question of whether one should participate oneself. It might be supposed that believers should participate in a sacrament even if it is administered contrary to the Lord’s requirement.

However, since we are forbidden by God Himself to worship Him in any way not prescribed in His Word, then, the only profitable way to convince those who hold this view of close / confessional communion to participate in a Supper communion that includes those who openly disagree with the church’s teaching, is to convince them that admitting such people is warranted by Scripture, contrary to the evidence presented above.
 

---

Cross-posted at: https://gregorybaus.substack.com/p/about-close-confessional-communion

Related Posts:
1. https://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/one-among-ten-thousand-extended.html
2. https://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/recovering-reformed-communion.html
3. https://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2010/04/recovering-reformed-communion-2.html

Reflective / Critical Thinking Course

 check it out and register thru the end of Friday 16 Feb 2024
https://mereliberty.com/membership/courses/

 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=m-1Q4XrcNr8

 Empowering people to connect their thoughts with their actions through simple tools and fun practices that will cultivate a free and flourishing society.

There's a self-directed course for $97 or a live-guided course for $297.

The Liberty Seminar is grounded in "Socratic" practice, which is a time-tested way of learning to think well. It is a method developed over time into a form of pedagogy, inquiry and dialogue have proven useful in improving critical thinking skills. The Liberty Seminar promotes productive dialogue, civil discourse, and discovery. 

See R.C. Sproul on the Socratic Method here:

 https://youtube.com/watch?v=aOdjpByHLEQ

 

Liberty Seminar course guide, Kerry Baldwin, is an independent researcher and writer with a B.A. in Philosophy from Arizona State University. In addition to her content and courses on her website, MereLiberty.com, she’s also a regular contributor for the Libertarian Christian Institute.

She's a veteran homeschool parent, teaching critical thought using the Socratic method and dialoguing about the principles of a free society. Find out more: https://mereliberty.com/about/kerry-baldwin/

Also see her fb page here: https://facebook.com/mereliberty

 

The Reformed Libertarians Podcast

Kerry Baldwin of Mere Liberty and I are now hosts of a podcast produced by the Libertarian Christian Institute (along with several other podcasts) in the Christians for Liberty Network.

 Go to https://reformedlibertarians.com to find out more. 

We aim to educate and inspire listeners to intelligently embrace and passionately promote libertarianism as grounded in the Reformed Faith, and informed by a Reformed worldview.

In brief, the politics are what neocalvinist politics are meant to be (viz, thoroughly libertarian and grounded in the orthodox and confessional Reformed Faith).

For now, Lord willing, new episodes will be released every other Thursday.  Episodes that include interviewed guests might be a bit longer, but usually episodes will be between 20-40 minutes (I think). I'd love your feedback (even if unfavorable). If you don't find it on your preferred podcatcher, let me know. We intend to add alternative social media availability too. 

You might find this a helpful intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrT9GcCCRbA

 

Also posted here: https://gregorybaus.substack.com/p/the-reformed-libertarians-podcast

More on Disestablishment (with Hodge)

An addendum (to previous post): concerning establishment of 'religion'

In whatever way the English Dissenters/Nonconformists in the 1600s, the American Presbyterians in the 1700s, and Neocalvinists in the 1800s might have presented a Scriptural case against civil establishment of the church, I think Charles Hodge's argument is a sound one.

Some Reformed establishmentarians, however, try to argue for --not the civil establishment of a single church institution/denomination, but rather-- the civil establishment of 'religion,' whether that is conceived in broader Nicean orthodox Christian terms, or in relatively more narrow Protestant, or specific Reformed terms.

While I have highlighted the implied concern of Hodge's argument regarding faith and worship, I take one of the main concerns of establishment of 'religion' to be ethics.

If we characterize part of Hodge's argument as a sort of "exclusion" or "regulative principle" argument (viz, discipline in faith and worship are assigned the church, not to civil government, and therefore forbidden to civil government), and this is accepted arguendo, this nevertheless seems to leave open the question regarding ethics. The issue might be put this way: isn't discipline regarding ethics assigned to both church and civil government, although the means of discipline differ?

For example, theft is a matter of ethics, the discipline of which is assigned to the church, and yet discipline regarding theft is also assigned to civil government. So, why does this not extend to some, if not all, other ethical matters, even including those that overlap with matters of faith/heresy and worship/idolatry, such as blasphemy? In light of this, we can raise this fundamental question:
Is there any Scriptural criterion by which we can discern which ethical matters are assigned to civil government for discipline (if the set of ethical matters is not simply identical to those assigned to the church)?

As I understand it, many advocates of civil establishment of 'religion' employ a criterion of "public-ness". So, for example, one may hold private blasphemous opinions and even privately worship in a blasphemous manner, but one should be civilly prohibited from "publicly" blaspheming, say, by publishing a book that says belief in God is stupid, dangerous, and evil.

The following is how Hodge's Scriptural argument addresses this issue.

First, as an aside, notice that Hodge includes an initial 4th point (which may be said to concern sphere sovereignty) that I do not include in my quotation because it seems to me its character as a Scriptural point is not made explicit by Hodge. It focuses on the point of different particular ends ordained by God for these distinct institutions, so that the fact of their having the same general end does not permit the inference that they are assigned to identical matters.

I think that point can be argued in an explicitly Scriptural way. Although, I don't suppose 'religion' establishmentarians necessarily disagree with that point. What I think there is disagreement about is the criterion by which we should discern the respective assignments (to church and to civil government, concerning ethics), and what those assignments are.

Second, I think Hodge's last point about the coercive means instituted for civil government is the key to recognizing the criterion by which we can discern which ethical matters are assigned to civil government. (This is so, even if Hodge does not himself draw this out explicitly, but restricts himself to how we discern what is not assigned to civil government.)

Briefly stated, we may reason from Scripture on the issue like this: given the explicit institution of civil government in Genesis 9 by way of affirming the principle of proportionality in retributive justice, we must infer that the authorization of responsive coercion repeated in Romans 13 is restricted to the wrongdoing of prior initiation of coercion (aggressions) against persons and property. In other words, proportionality entails not only to what degree/extent coercion is used, but whether it is used at all. And to use coercion against non-aggressive immorality is disproportionate and violates the sword power authorized by God for civil government.

That, then, is the Scriptural criterion by which we can discern which ethical matters are assigned to civil government, and it's the way Hodge's argument, although requiring that elaboration, applies to not only establishment of a single church institution, but also to establishment of 'religion' concerning civil enforcement of ethics, or a public morality.

Also posted here: https://gregorybaus.substack.com/p/more-on-disestablishment-with-hodge

Hodge on Disestablishment

In 1863 Charles Hodge summarized how we Scripturally argue against civil "establishment" of the church in 3 points.

First, he says the proper task or duties of the church and civil governance “must be determined from the Word of God. And when reasoning from the Word of God [on these points], we are not authorized to argue from the Old Testament [old Mosaic covenant] economy [or administration] because that was avowedly temporary and has been abolished, [instead, we] must derive our conclusions from the New Testament. We find it there taught:

(a) That Christ did institute a church separate from [civil governance], giving it separate laws and officers.

(b) That [Christ] laid down the qualifications of those officers and enjoined on the church, not on [civil governance], to judge [which men in the church meet those qualifications].

(c) That [Christ] prescribed the terms of admission to, and the grounds of exclusion from, the church, and left with the church its officers to administer these rules.”

Second, Hodge says “the New Testament, when speaking of the immediate design of [civil governance] and the official duties of the magistrate, never [suggests] that [magistrates have] those functions [related to religious belief or practice that establishmentarianism proposes]. This silence, together with the fact that those functions are assigned to the church and church officers, is proof that it is not the will of God that they should be assumed by [civil governance].”

Third, Hodge says “the only means which [civil governance] can employ to accomplish many [duties proposed by establishmentarians, such as suppressing heresy and preventing false worship], [namely, by coercion], are inconsistent with the example and commands of Christ [concerning faith and worship]; [and inconsistent] with the [liberty] of Christians, guaranteed in the Word of God (i.e., to serve God according to the dictates of one’s conscience); [as well as] ineffectual to the true end of religion, which is voluntary obedience to the truth; and [are] productive of incalculable evil. …By enjoining [duties concerning faith and worship] upon the church, as an institution distinct from [civil governance], [the New Testament] teaches positively that they do not belong to the magistrate, but to the church.”

Also posted here: https://gregorybaus.substack.com/p/hodge-on-disestablishment

 

Now Also At Substack

I don't really have a large audience for my occasional posts, as far as I know. But blogger/blogspot doesn't really have good subscription options.  Various widgets have been discontinued and/or are at best only semi-functional.

I will be cross-posting here: https://gregorybaus.substack.com/

So, if substack is something you use or might try out, please subscribe to my blog there.
Thanks!

 

 

Recovering the Reformed Confession on Resistance

Here's my discussion with pastor Aldo Leon of Pinelands PCA (southeast Miami area) on the Gospel On Tap podcast, episode 95. We talk about the historical, confessional Reformed view of Romans 13 (the "prescriptive office" view), and its meaning for the proper role and strictly limited jurisdiction of civil governance, and The Right Of Political Resistance (even when the government is not requiring us to sin).

See the timestamp outline below the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UcwN0x5tvY

00:14  Pastor Aldo general intro

01:32  Topic intro
Discussed on Presbycast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC95p88UzKg

03:07  Gregory's bio https://sites.google.com/site/ideolog/

04:57  Gregory learned about the Reformed view of the role and limit of civil governance, and the Right of Political Resistance in F.A. Schaeffer's A Christian Manifesto
book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1581346921
video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwLDP8pocwo

06:21  Singleness https://thelaymenslounge.com/an-open-letter-to-christian-singles/

07:28  F.A. Schaeffer & R.C. Sproul on statism: https://www.ligonier.org/posts/statism-biggest-concern-future-church-america
 
08:12  The Main Question: Are we obligated by God to submit to everything civil government requires, unless it is requiring sin?
Why not?

09:48  Everything that happens is in God's providence. But the providential fact of someone in power is not God's "ordinance" in Romans 13.

13:50  Romans 13 says there is a God-ordained role/office of punishing actual civil wrongdoing; using coercion (the sword) against injustices (eg, murder and theft). This is the strict God-given limit on civil authority; civil government's actions outside that limited jurisdiction are illegitimate and sinful.

17:37  1 Corinthians 6:1-8 forbids taking civil disputes between Christians to unjust judges. If Romans 13 required submitting to the judgment of those who claimed civil power at the time, this would be a contradiction.

19:20  Reading Romans 13:1-7 from ESV

21:03  Clearly contrasting the wrong view and the right view:
The common wrong view is that we must submit to everything that is not sin required by whoever is, providentially, in power.
The right (Reformed) view is that we are only obligated to submit to what God prescriptively (morally) ordains: specifically, the lawful administration of civil justice. We are not prohibited from resisting tyranny or unjust laws, etc.

24:31  A "providential" view of the passage makes all civil power arbitrary; it amounts to nothing more than "might-makes-right".

26:40  When the false view is applied to and consistently worked-out in other spheres of God-ordained authority, such as home and church, then it would absurdly entail that abusive husbands and fathers are legitimate, and that false teachers could not be deposed from office.  
But God does not give us such unqualified "blank check" authority in any sphere.

31:32  Hosea 8:4 clearly teaches that existing civil governments can be contrary to God's will.

37:32  Hebrews 13:17 also speaks like Romans 13, in an indicative way (stating a fact), and it is understood as referring to a moral prescription for church office.

39:24  Question: How should we understand exhortations in 1 Peter about suffering? Or the appeal to Jeremiah 29 about promoting Babylon's peace, etc?

43:51 Correction!
Gregory meant to say John Milton wrote Paradise Lost (not, 'Divine Comedy' by Dante). But see Milton's entry in the bibliography.

44:09  The New Testament exhortations concerning suffering are about how to suffer in Christ (when it's unavoidable). We are not commanded to suffer, or prohibited from seeking to avoid suffering.

48:02  The Reformed Political Resistance Theology annotated bibliography - https://tinyurl.com/RefoPoliResistBib

50:42  Providence cannot be the basis for moral duty, because everything that occurs, even sin, is God's providence. If we shouldn't resist the government because of God's providence, wouldn't resistance to government be equally God's providence? So how can the duty to submit be coherently based on the fact of a government existing by God's providence? (It cannot).

55:17  Saying that any human authority, when they aren't requiring sin, has an otherwise unqualified or unlimited jurisdiction and scope of authority --such a view is idolatrous.

58:40  Question: Why have so many NAPARC (conservative, confessionally Reformed) churches neglected the historical, confessional Reformed "prescriptive office" view?
It is not taught in most Reformed seminaries. Why?
Possible contributing factors: pietistic "personal experience" focus, progressive/liberal accommodationist/syncretist identifying God's kingdom with the state, scholastic nature-grace dualism.
See Gregory's related post: https://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2022/01/reformed-biblical-theological.html

1:18:33  Elements of feminizing men and feminizing worship also contribute

1:27:23 Gregory's closing thoughts:

a. Westminster Confession 20.4 affirms the prescriptive office view in speaking of "lawful" power. (And the other Reformed confessions have similar language.)
b. see forthcoming info at Gregory's blog on authors from the bibliography about the Reformed View of The Right of Political Resistance. Preface here: https://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-right-of-political-resistance.html

1:31:18  Pastor Aldo's closing thoughts:
God's Word tells us what the proper role and limited jurisdiction of civil governance is. The church's role is to declare and minister that Word in witness to the world. And believers individually may testify before those who claim power to the truth of His Word.
Also, if a believer votes for a candidate to civil office, they should discern whether the candidate has a commitment to actual limited government, especially locally where local officers can serve to oppose higher levels of tyranny.

*Important caveat: while some Reformed authors did teach an erroneous 'providential' view, that view was rejected by the Reformed churches in their confessions.

The Right Of Political Resistance - preface

[audio/video forthcoming]

There is a prominent need for not only Reformed church laity, but also officers to gain greater familiarity with the historical, confessional Reformed teaching on The Right of Political Resistance. Shamefully, this teaching is largely ignored and contradicted in numerous NAPARC churches.

This topic is important for several reasons:

1. It is an ethical matter of “non-indifference.” It is a matter positively moral or immoral, addressed in Scripture and in our doctrinal standards.

2. As such an ethical matter, it is not something about which the officers of the church must remain silent, but something about which they are obligated to teach and administer discipline.

3. It is a frequently encountered ethical matter. Christians must make choices nearly on a daily basis that may be informed by one’s beliefs on the matter.

4. It is a matter of the church’s faithful witness to the truth of God’s Word; and misrepresentations can be a major, unwarranted stumbling block before unbelievers to the call of the gospel, and to the consciences of believers.

Given the great need for this teaching, and its importance, I hope to make it more accessible by presenting vignettes of several Reformed authors and their statements from an annotated bibliography on the topic. If you find this edifying, please consider sharing and discussing the bibliography and forthcoming posts, especially with your elders and other believers.

In summary, the historical, confessional Reformed teaching on The Right of Political Resistance is:

Since, according to Scripture, God prescriptively ordains the administration of civil justice, and civil governance is strictly limited to this task, we are only obligated to submit to actual civil justice. The claim to civil power or exercise of power that violates civil justice is not ordained by God, and may be legitimately resisted. It is not only orders to sin that must be refused, but any civil requirement beyond the God-ordained sphere of civil justice may, when not otherwise sinful, be justly ignored.

The doctrinal standards of the Reformed churches affirm that unlawful power and unjust exercise of power is tyranny, and may be legitimately resisted because it is not ordained by God, and so no one can be obligated to submit to it. The Westminster Confession of Faith 20.4 specifies that those who “oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it... resist the ordinance of God.” The Second Helvetic Confession of Faith 30 similarly specifies obedience only to “just and fair commands.” The Belgic Confession of Faith 36 specifies obedience only to “things that are not in conflict with God’s Word,” and denounces all, even civil powers, who would “subvert justice.”
[See also the Congregationalists' 1658 Savoy Declaration 24.4, and the Baptists' 1689 London Confession 24.3 similar use of the term lawful to WCF 23.4 in this comparison chart.]

Some prospective vignettes:
1. John Chrysostom (c.347-407)
    : one of the most important Nicene era pastors (and a martyr) in Antioch and Constantinople

2. Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)
    : Reformed pastor in Zurich and author of the Helvetic Confessions

3. Theodore Beza (1519-1605)
    : Reformed pastor in Geneva and founder of the university law school

4. Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583)
    : Reformed theologian in Heidelberg and author of the Heidelberg Catechism

5. Johannes Althusius (1563-1638)
    : Reformed legal scholar in Emden and author of Politica

and many more...