Theologizing Blind

Related to the prior post, the following are several quotes from American Puritan Samuel Miller's A Compleat Body of Divinity, specifically from the sermon on the duties of judges. Quote: Whether a judge is bound to execute a law, which he is convinced to be in itself unrighteous? It would take up too much time to discuss it distinctly; all that I say is, they are to judge for God primar­ily; and he loves righteousness, and hates iniquity; and we are told concerning such, Prov. 17:15, He that  justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. And  they that think such a man has two consciences, a public and a private, will find it a grand cheat one day, Quote: 5.) He is to allow a fair hearing to all parties, whose cause comes before him. There are two sorts of  causes which belong to the cognizance and determination of civil judicature, namely, matters criminal  or capital; and matters of controversy between man and ...

Over approximately the past decade and a half, the idea of churches exercising more significant discipline over their members has gained traction among certain groups of Evangelicals. The most mainstream example is Jonathan Leeman, formerly of 9Marks, who has probably done the most to revitalize the topic in print in the last decade and a half. But church discipline has always been exercised in one form or another, particularly by small churches with well-defined and rigid boundaries. The locus classicus for church discipline is, of course, Matthew 18, which lays out a three step process for how church discipline ought be carried out. But Matthew 18, even if it is where we begin, cannot be where we end. For it is perfectly possible to “follow Matthew 18” while railroading an innocent party to a completely unjust result. Where can we go to discover what makes the process of church discipline a just one, worthy of acceptation? Another requirement that is often cited, but that is ...