If the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state" does not mean separation of God from the State, then what does it mean exactly? What is the fundamental principle?
The principle is based on the concept that the Church consists of regenerate (born-again) people that of their own free will decide to follow Jesus. The idea is that the State has no right to compel anyone to follow Christ, as that perverts the whole principle of people voluntarily making that choice.
Before Christ, people thought there had to be a common sacral rite, some commonality in religion, in order for society to function. Even the Old Testament reflects this, although the believer would argue by God's intention. The idea that a soceity could successfully function while being religiously divided was seen as ludicrous in the ancient world and even as late as the founding of the American colonies. Mainstream opinion was that only fools like the Quakers thought they could be successful in allowing religious liberty, and they thought Pennsylvania's experiment in that regard would not work well.
But it did work well.
The Christian idea is that both the Church and State are responsible and accountable to God, but that both have different and separate spheres of authority. The Church deals with ecclesiastical and spiritual matters, and the State is forbidden to intervene or involve itself there. The State though has a legitimate God-given function administering justice, keeping the peace, etc,....The traditional Christian idea thus places restrictions on kings and the State not found before.
Moreover, the Christian idea is that the individual and his conscience constitute an internal government respected by God in the sense that God ordains that men must be true to their conscience, and thus should never be compelled for force to sin against their own conscience.
Was the First Amendment intended to express the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state?”
Yes.
Which one of the framers was the most ardent and articulate champion of the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state?"
First off, I think you need to recognize the concept originated and was placed into prominent practice in the colonies, or some such as Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, long before any of the framers were born. The framers were not then originating anything new in that regard, and were greatly influenced by men like Isaac Backus who lobbied them hard.
But the truth is many framers went along with the establishment clause as much to protect state's rights and official state churches as to ordain religious liberty. Massuchusetts was not required to give up having an official religion and religious requirements for office-holders. So the idea was to keep Congress out of picking an official church because some colonies had state religions, some had state religions but in name only, and some believed in religious liberty and separation of Church and State.
The free exercise clause, imo, is the stating essentially the same purpose. The reason not to have an established church is so that religious expression and freedom would not be hindered.
The term "separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution of course, and the Supreme Court quoting Jefferson in a decision I believe some decades ago does not amply illustrate that Jefferson wrote to the Baptists and was thus using their term. In fact, the "wall of separation" language simply echoes Roger Williams theology when he helped found Rhose Island, which in turn is based explicitly on Anabaptist theology.
What exactly is it that we should we render unto Caesar, and what to God?
Jesus referred to taxes, but I think though there are areas perhaps that are challenging to parse, the general idea is that civil matters and spiritual and ecclesiastical matters can be separated and dealt with by different institutions and groups.
Should we listen to advice and recommendations from the Government regarding the duty which we owe to the Creator?
What country are you referring to that does that? The simple answer is that regardless of who says something, if it is true, we should abide by it, and if not and it involves a duty to God, we should not abide by it. God comes first, not the State.
Where does the government obtain the moral authority to recommend that we should obey the Ten Commandments or a belief in “one Nation under God?”
I have virtually no idea what the heck are you talking about. The Ten Commandments? Does the anyone try to codify the whole Decalogue into law?
Where did Jesus talk about separate voluntary courts for the Church and what was the purpose of these courts?
Jesus says if your brother offend you, first go to him yourself, then take another brother and then bring it before the whole Church, and Paul advises the believers to pick out a wise among them to decide matters so we don't have believers appearing before the heathen for judgment. I am quite busy, but if you don't find these references, maybe tonight or this weekend, I can look them up for you.
Please cite one good source to back up your claim that the term "separation of church and state" was coined by the Anabaptists, but was used as far back as the Donatists. I know the concept goes back at least to the 1500’s with the Baptists, but you are talking about the term?
If the concept was the same, then it doesn't matter, does it? But here ya go.
All those who hold the idea of a free church and freedom of religion (sometimes called separation of church and state) are greatly indebted to the Anabaptists. When it was introduced by the Anabaptists in the 15th and 16th centuries, religious freedom independent of the state was a radical idea, and unthinkable to both clerical and governmental leaders. Religious liberty was equated with anarchy and Peter Kropotkin traces the birth of anarchist thought in Europe to these early Anabaptist communities. ("Anarchism" from The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910 By Peter Kropotkin)
According to Estep, "Where men believe in the freedom of religion, supported by a guarantee of separation of church and state, they have entered into that heritage. Where men have caught the Anabaptist vision of discipleship, they have become worthy of that heritage. Where corporate discipleship submits itself to the New Testament pattern of the church, the heir has then entered full possession of his legacy."
also
The present concept and idea of Anabaptism or rebaptism has existed at least since the 2nd century, and some Anabaptists also point to the 1st century example of the Apostle Paul in Acts chapter 19. Montanus, the Montanists, and Tertullian (2nd and 3rd centuries) denied infant baptism, practiced believer's baptism, and rebaptized those baptized by heretics. The Donatists (4th century) re-baptized those who had been baptized by bishops who were traditors, or who were from churches stained by fellowship with traditors[1]. Anabaptists (rebaptizers) were made criminals under the code of Justinian (A.D. 529). With anti-trinitarianism, it was one of two 'heresies' or schisms, punishable by death because of its political implications.
Their enemies and opposers gave Anabaptists their name; it is a term that means "rebaptizers." Nevertheless, the Anabaptists did not think of believer's baptism as "rebaptism". They did not recognize infant baptism as properly administered the first time. Though the main Anabaptist groups disagreed with few important Protestant doctrines, even the Protestants called them heretics. Zwingli called them Wiedertufer (Dutch, Wederdooper; Latin, Anabaptistae), Tufer (Dutch, Dooper or Doopsgezinden), and Catabaptistae (drowners[2]). Luther called them Schwrmer (fanatics, enthusiasts). They have also been known as Bolsheveki and "Stepchildren of the Reformation". The most common names the Anabaptists used for themselves were brethren, believers and Christians.
Anabaptism - Wikipedia
Note that the Wiki article does not deal with the Donatists specifically advocating "separation of Church and State" due to it's brevity, but it does mention the Donatists sharing a similar Anabaptist vision of the Church, and everything else flows out of that. The New Testament Christians and every restitutionist group such as the 16th century Anabaptists held to the view that the Church and the world are seperated spiritually. The Catholics introduced the concept that everyone in a geographic area in Christendom was Christian, and so the State should be allowed to enforce religion.
The Donatists rejected Catholicism. The reason they rebaptized was so that when a person of age committed to the Lord, their baptism could be of their own volition. If you understand the theology, then you can see that rebaptism and separation of Church and State must of necessity go hand in hand, except one can be for religious liberty and not for rebaptism, but not the other way around and be fully consistent in their theology.
Note as well that this theology goes further back than the Anabaptists.
™ Version 4.2
