In some sense, of course, the state can be said to be answerable to the church in that, to it certain things, including the explanation of the scriptures are entrusted by Christ but not because of any authority in and of itself as if it’s rulings were the determiners of controversies.

The difference between this and popery is that the Roman Catholic Church claims inherent authority while in protestantism the church is only binding inasmuch as it agrees with the word of God. So National Confessionalism (or in Scottish Presbyterianism, the Establishment Principle) holds that the Church and the State are two distinct entities ruled by the one authority of Scripture, the interpretation of which is niether mediated through the church (Romanism) or the State (Irastianism).

The historic RC position has been that the king is answerable to Christ’s vicar on earth in moral and spiritual matters. Forgive my ignorance, but is the National Confessionalist position that the state is not answerable to the Church? In your view, is the state only answerable to a constitional document?

Whether my interpretation is correct or not, it is still a common misconception that these are the two positions, as if the protestant view is inherently two-kingdom. I hold to a national confessionalist position (which is not two-kingdom) and would suggest that this is the only logical outworking of true Reformed (Protestant not Roman Catholic) Theology. Furthurmore Romanism does not hold to the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ (the basis of the National Confessionalist Position) but holds to the Mediatorial Kingship of the Pope although she would not come out and say it in those words it works out logically to be that way (which is one reason why the reformers rightly labeled the pope and his office as the predicted Antichrist)!

Fellow protestants, especially Reformed Presbyterians (I am RP), we should not go the route of favoring popery (which still holds to the councel of Trent notwithstanding its flattering statements toward us in more recent times) in our reasoning for a Christian government since (1) they have rejected the true Gospel and (2) even its position on government alone is not consistent with our reformed standards.

Benedict on “untrue” churches
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/07/benedict-on-untrue-churches.html

What is fullness from Rome’s POV is idolatrous excessiveness from many a Protestant POV. The Catholic and Orthodox churches preserve the traditional definition of the local church: the people united with their bishop, the bishops having received a mandate in history from Christ. This position is necessarily distinct from ahistoric and individualistic models of the Church.

And yet, the careful reader will see that this document is not a triumphalist reiteration of Roman supremacy, but a nuanced look at the current divisions between Christians from a Roman perspective, an examination that also recognizes the damage done to the catholicity of the Catholic Church through these divisions: the Christian Church does not offer a universal witness to Christ in history (concl. to response to Fourth Question and see also the footnote and linked document).

Here’s another response to the document: “For an honest theological dialogue to happen, one should have a clear view of the position of the other side,” said Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, the leading ecumenical official of the Moscow patriarchate.

The path to unity is through truth and not through downplaying or concealing differences.

The reformation, in my mind has shown it to be the other way around.

Small “c” catholic for me.

“It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church…

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

“A new document authorized by Pope Benedict XVI restating Roman
Catholic views that Protestant denominations are not churches ‘in the proper
sense’ has been criticized as setting back the quest for Christian unity.
‘An exclusive claim that identifies the Roman Catholic Church as the one
church of Jesus Christ, as we read in the statement … goes against the
spirit of our Christian calling towards oneness in Christ,’ said the Rev.
Setri Nyomi, general secretary of the Geneva-based World Alliance of
Reformed Churches. The alliance groups 214 churches with roots in the 16th
Century Protestant Reformation.

The document says that Protestant denominations of the Reformation ‘have not
preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery
[and] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the
proper sense’.”

As for Frederick, this is not my blog so I’m in no position to exclude any contributor. But if you are going to enter this conversation from out of the blue with a wopper like “Christ expresses Himself in culture — that’s the only continuity I know” please don’t be surprised if this respondent doesn’t take you seriously (not to mention your gross comparison of me to Christopher Hitchens).