Humanity’s eminent question is never that of god or no god, but which god: Yahweh or Baal (1 Kings 18:21), God or Caesar (Matthew 22:21), or God or mammon (Matthew 6:24)? “How long halt ye between two opinions? If Yahweh be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.” (1 Kings 18:21) This was Elijah’s challenge to the double-minded Israelites on Mt. Carmel.
What is today’s Mount Carmel? As individuals, we may each have several personal Mount Carmels to be scaled and conquered. However, as a nation, America’s Mount Carmel is unequivocally Yahweh versus We the People (a modern form of Baal).
I can understand humanists’ choosing We the People. We the People is just a collective form of a majority doing what is right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25). What I cannot understand is that Christians would choose to serve Yahweh as God on one hand and We the People on the other. What’s even more paradoxical is that “conservative” Christians are the greatest advocates of We the People and its humanistic government built upon the traditions of men.
The choice between gods comes down to which god’s law is paramount:
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)
And when they [disbelieving Jews] … drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also … and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. (Acts 17:6-7)
The Supreme Law of the Land
Nowhere did the constitutional framers acknowledge Yahweh (except perhaps as their document’s timekeeper in Article 7) or His morality as codified in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9). Compounding the problem, Article 6 of the United States Constitution brazenly pronounces the Constitution and all laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof as the supreme law of the land. Marbury v. Madison (1803) added, “…a law repugnant to the Constitution is void….”
The framers were fully cognizant of the word “supreme” and its meaning when they declared the supremacy of the Constitution. In so doing, they made the law of Yahweh subservient to the law of We the People, thereby making null and void any of Yahweh’s laws not in accord with the Constitution:
Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:6-9)
The framers and today’s political leaders and Constitutionalists pay homage to the traditions and commandments of men as the supreme law of the land. Even the Pharisees of Jesus’ day weren’t so brazen as to call their man-made traditions supreme.
The Supreme Being
A supreme law can only be created by a supreme being. Proclaiming (or even acknowledging) the Constitution as the supreme law of the land demands that the creators of that law are god to those who so regard the Constitution. Vox populi, vox dei: the voice of the people is the voice of god.
Consequently, Christian Constitutionalists (an oxymoron if ever there was one) are as double minded as were the Israelites on Mount Carmel. The question remains, “How long halt ye between two opinions? If Yahweh be God, follow him: but if We the People, then follow them.” Choose carefully!
For more on this issue, go to Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution.
This is all well and good buy you know as well as I do, it ain’t gonna happen. Instead of debating theology, Christians need to be rising up against oppression.
Joanne, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’m not sure what you’re referring to that you say “ain’t gonna happen.”
Along with rising up against oppression, Christian should also debate theology. That’s one thing that naturally comes from two or more people getting together after fulfilling 2 Timothy 2:15 personally. It’s also what’s essentially commanded us in Jude 1:3, etc. It’s also what you’ve essentially just done by challenging me that I shouldn’t debate theology–you’ve debated my theology that says we should debate theology.
That said, I’ve not debated theology in this article so much as I have fulfilled 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 and Ephesians 5:11. In fact, this article has done exactly what you say Christians should be doing–rising up against oppression. Because the framers nowhere expressly established the Constitution upon Yahweh’s morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments, the Constitution is the genesis of nearly all oppression found in America today and, therefore, I hope you’ll joining me in rising up against its oppression.
I know I have become more and more conflicted, or, I guess more and more CONVICTED that even the ” fundamental, Bible believing ” church I am a member of is deceived at best and out right untruthful at worst on a lot of issue. Civil government is just the tip of the iceberg. We are new testament believers, and we aren’t under part of the Law, because Christ fulfilled parts of the law. Other parts are still in effect It sure is funny how we are asked to put GOD’S TITHE and our offerings in the plate, but we do so many things that should be called ” lawlessness”. I don’t think you can pick and choose.
When I try to talk with folks about staying out of debt, paying their own way in life, eating healthy, moderation in all things…..It just doesn’t make a dent. Services have become like a ball game….Louder, two or three verses of scripture and 45 minutes of social commentary…….I wonder how long it will take us to get through the Bible at two verses of scripture a week? Everybody says they want ” revival”. Really? Open the book, then! Every time there wa a “revival” in the Bible, reading the Bible was what caused it!
Mr. Weiland, I am not sure I agree with you on every point, but I am sure I agree with you on most points. We have a real problem with the American church. I am not Solomon. I don’t have the answer, other than to do what you are doing, and that is keep making folks uncomfortable with what the WORD really says.
S.F. .
S.F., you hit the nail right on the head as far as “why” our churches are so anemic and irrelevant today, because, “Services have become like a ball game….Louder, two or three verses of scripture and 45 minutes of social commentary.”
Between pop-psycho-heresy-logy, and the emphasis on “Showtime for the sheep” as some call it, we have churches filled with CHINO’s and not Spirit filled, meat eating Believers.
(CHINO, CH-ristian I-n N-ame O-nly)
I was blessed with both an inquisitive, studious nature and the time to read through the Bible over 30 times, in various translations English, Spanish and references to the Greek & Hebrew. In so doing, I have discovered that what the Bible (God’s WORD) teaches and what the majority of American/Western churches teach (whether Reformed, Evangelical, Pentecostal doesn’t matter) is two different things. Don’t get me wrong, on the bare essentials, most Reformed/Evangelical churches get it right. On some essentials the Pentecostals get it right. But unfortunately, they actually preach/teach those things so little, so seldom, that their members don’t benefit by it.
If the Church is to be Salt and Light, it needs to wake up first and smell the coffee. It needs to stop emulating the World and start emulating Christ. Then, maybe then, God will grant us a revival across the land that will end in the restoration of this nation to her Judeo-Christian roots, and perhaps to an even better state.
Debating theology is a great start to rising above oppression. Patience, prayer and perseverance need to happen before rising above oppression or we will never get anywhere.
We have been raised to think it was a virtue to not argue religion, let’s just leave the constitution as a neutral document. But as you point out, it’s not a virtue at all, just ultimately a sell-out. Great article; seems pretty simple, but how easily we’re blinded.
Our government was taken over by the global bankers almost two years ago. So much for the constitution. It was cheap to pay them all off so where is value of a constitution if the people serve another god, and they do.
But if they serve Yahweh and his laws, how can we lose? Do you want to fight a revolution to take back America or do you want to follow Yahweh with his plan letting him lead the way. “If my people would- – – – – – – – – -.
Two years ago? Boy are you an optimist. Otherwise good comments.
Second that optimism about bankers only taking over in 2010. Study Andrew Jackson, esp. his farewell address March 1836. May have been the last presidential term where bankers didn’t control congress and president. Then study the powers that be behind Lincoln and decide about where, between the two, the bankers took effective control of Federal policy. Most folks are thinking logically about the prospects of current civil government bringing bankers to justice. Government functions on money, and bankers control money. They cannot cut off the limb that is holding them up. It must come from self-government of individual Christians, and I believe also the dedicated local congregations to stand against the theft through lying that is our current monetary system. Peruse https://sites.google.com/site/honmeasex/howto if you would like to review a possible bottom-up, Biblical solution and add the improvements you would make to the plan.
You have valid observations. I would only like to comment on one thing. Whereas the bankers did have a major influence on politics as far back as Lincoln, they did not actually take over our financial system till the creation of the Federal Reserve (Fed) in 1913. From that point on, the banking cartels, not the Citizens through their Representatives, have controlled the financial system of this nation.
One or two thoughts. First, those who did what you are saying we ought to do were the Puritans, who came here seeking to establish a commonwealth (and did so for nearly a century) based upon the law of God. In so doing they made two or more tragic errors: the first was that they hated the Indians, and even today we are, in my opinion, yet reaping God’s judgment for their sin (the Puritan’s sin, not the Indians)
Secondly, however, they did the very thing they sought to escape from in England, i.e. the tyranny of the ecclesiatical law of England, and unwittingly set up the very same thing here in America, namely a law to which all citizens had to subscribe, calling it, not without deliberate intent, The Law of God.
And it was a failure, pure and simple. When Roger Williams disagreed, and said so, like for instance that the King could not give to The Puritans what the King didn’t own, they hated Roger Williams and forced him to flee for his life (and yes, they would have killed him) causing Williams to go to what is now Rhode Island, and to enlarge upon the concept, brand new at the time but very biblical, called Freedom of Conscience, and that which, in my opinion, gives the lie to the idea that we can establish The Law of God here in the United States.
The reason for that is simple and straight forward. It is that no two representatives of that Law can agree exactly what form of that Law ought to be enforced upon the public. In Williams day he argued that only the second table (meaning commandments 6-10) could be enforced judicially. The first five commandments were a matter of the heart and not enforceable.
I argue vigorously that to do what is being promulgated here gives governmental power to the ministry, or in terms of the biblical principle, the priesthood, since every Protestant minister basically stands in the same place as the priest of the Old Testament. He, for all intents and purposes, is supreme in his congregation, and nothing that really disagrees with him will get to first base. He is, in biblical terms, the mediator between God and his congregation.
Enlarging upon what was said above. We now have something over 500 Protestant denominations in the United States. To which of these interpretations of the Law of God, I ask, will we give the force of law?
The fact of the matter, historically, is that among those who framed the Constitution, were a significant number of biblically knowledgeable men, men who knew and respected the Bible, and also men who knew what had happened in the century preceding their own, under the Puritans, and also of Roger Williams Freedom of Conscience ideas.
It might well be added that Williams believed that every man could hear God for himself, a doctrine that is very biblical but that is functionally denied in nearly all of the same denominations I referred to earlier. If you say, or otherwise indicate that God spoke to YOU or told you something people will look at you as if you believing something very close to heresy.
I don’t have all the answers, and nothing that I have said above should lead any reader to think that I do, but this I do know, that to give ministers of the gospel governmental power (and nothing less is contemplated in the idea of making the Law of God supreme in the land because the The Law of God MUST be interpreted) would be an unmitigated disaster in this country. It was in the days of the Puritans, and it would be again today.
David, thank you for your input.
The Puritans unquestionably made their mistakes. However, their mistakes (deviations from the perfect law of Yahweh–Psalm 19:7) and the consequences therefrom do not prove that Yahweh’s government and laws are flawed but just the opposite–that, regardless our intentions, when, as humans, we depart from doing it Yahweh’s way, we make a mess of things. It’s ironic that most men (even most Christians today) want to blame Yahweh, His immutable morality, and perfect law for man’s immorality and fickle edicts.
There’s a major difference between an ecclesiocracy and a theocracy. No one here is suggesting an ecclesiocracy. As for theocracy, please consider the following:
“There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.
“People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but
because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?”
Excerpted from “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.php.
You concluded your remarks by saying, “(…making the Law of God supreme in the land because the The Law of God MUST be interpreted [so must man’s]) would be an unmitigated disaster in this country.” And what is it we have today as consequence of the framers’ rebellion against Yahweh? Talk about an unmitigated disaster! Regrettably, finite men are in the mix regardless. However, I ask you: Which is more likely to produce the greater disaster: finite men ruling with man’s fickle immoral edicts or finite men ruling with Yahweh’s immutable righteous and perfect law and altogether righteous judgments?
Ted,
I would add two thoughts. First of all, We The People in the mid 1700s was an entirely different group that We The People today. They were, as is common knowledge, a church going, Bible-believing population. Not all by any means, but sufficient to heavily affect society.
Today, via a full fledged media assault that has gone on unabated for over a hundred years there has come about, albeit gradually, an entirely different concensus, one that is admittedly dominated by secular humanists.
Secondly, we have only to look at England in the 17th centuries, and all Europe before that, to see a land supposedly ruled by God’s laws. Let us not forget that the papacy, whether it was or wasn’t, CLAIMED to be the representative of God’s laws.
Again I ask, who will set forth what laws are to be enforced? Will we enforce the dietary laws of Leviticus. After all, that IS the law of God. Or will it be only the ten commandments? Will we punish all men everywhere who take the name of the Lord in vain? Will we punish (with death by the way) a man who violates the sabbath? And which day, therefore, is the sabbath? Seventh day adventists will maintain until the sun goes down that worshiping God on Sunday is the mark of the beast. What shall we do with them?
And the list goes on, which is why I stated what I did at the beginning. Who will decide what law becomes the law of the land? And who will do the enforcing?
I personally feel that the fundamental mistake is assuming that we can, or even should, attempt to make America, i.e. The United States of America a ‘Christian’ nation. It never was, at least not a Pauline description of what constitutes Christian.
If we were to have a nation that was truly Christian all the denominations would have to disband, yes, dissolve, because their very existence is schismatic. I wonder if we would classify Paul’s teachings as the ‘law of God’? Certainly if all these same denominations state in their doctrinal statements that the Old and New Testaments are the final rule for faith and practice it would appear that Paul’s teachings are very close to God’s new laws.
Ah, but there you have it. “The law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.”
To which I say, and conclude with, Praise God! And while it may seem a cop out it really isn’t. I am not of this world. I am most certainly in it, but not of it. I freely admit there is much discernment needed in understanding that, but as we do attain unto that understanding I think much will be made clearer to us.
Meanwhile I do not look for any change NATIONALLY to occur, because the prince of the power of the air rules there, as he has ruled in all nations everywhere, other than for a time in Israel, since time began.
Before signing off I might suggest a google search of McCandlish Phillips. He is probably in his 80s now, but 40 years ago was acknowledged as one of the finest writers with the New York Times, and was an outspoken Christian. He also wrote a book entitled “The Bible, The Supernatural, and The Jew” a most revealing book in which he traces the inroads of Eastern religion and the corresponding weakening of biblical beliefs that occurred in the 60s. Exceptionally good reading.
Once again, by citing European and English failures, you’ve only proven the truthfulness of Psalm 19:7-9. I would ask you if you believe (truly believe) what’s found in this Psalm. Of course, you may resort to Romans 8:2 ( a verse I love but one which I believe you’ve misused, particularly in context, such as Romans 3:31 and Romans 7:12-14) as your answer again. If that or something similar is your answer, I recommend a careful reading of “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.
Your questions regarding what law and by whom will it be regulated are probably at least one generation ahead of itself–unless, of course, Yahweh speeds things up. Not that they are unimportant, the answers to your questions are eventually imperative. Nevertheless there’s no reason for me to go there if you’re not even convinced of the superiority of Yahweh’s law and government over man’s.
With this in mind, I would ask you to answer the question I left you with in my first response to you. Which is more likely to produce the greater disaster: finite men ruling
with man’s fickle immoral edicts or finite men ruling with Yahweh’s
immutable righteous and perfect law and altogether righteous judgments?
For, what I believe, is more accurate picture of where the framers stood religiously (for the most part, they were neither Deists nor Christians), I recommend Dr. Albert Mohler’s recent interview with Dr. Gregg Frazer at
http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/09/10/what-did-america%E2%80%99s-founders-really-believe-a-conversation-with-historian-gregg-frazer-transcript/.
After reading it, ask yourself what kind of document could have such men produced?
Ted,
You haven’t answered my most basic question at all. Who is to decide what is and what isn’t to be included in the enforceable Law of God? That is the critical question.
Also, the matter of the Puritans is not lightly to be dismissed. Their venture as a commonwealth, existing in so many words to establish the kingdom of God on earth, was, for all its good, –and there was much good–in the long run a failure for the very reason I stated. They could not, and would not accept anyone else’s view of the scripture.
Furthermore, their view of the American Indians was, in a word, horrendously unChristlike. Whereas the Lord Jesus taught us clear to take the gospel of peace to all nations, the Puritans word to the native Americans was, ‘get out of here; this country belongs to us Christians.’
As I said at the beginning, if we want to reproduce what the Puritans DID produce for several decades approaching a hundred years, then let me not live there. They would surely expel me as they did Roger Williams.
I, like you, Ted, am very well versed in the scriptures. I have studied them seriously for three or four decades, and now in my senior years a bit less so due to many reasons which are irrelevant here. But I see no good from this knocking of our Constitution, not the least of the reasons being that we haven’t been de facto governed by it for one hundred years anyway. Our federal system now is NOT governed by the Constitution, which is provable by simply showing that when the Constitution is breached, which it has been seriously for a long, long time, those who breach it are not punished. Therefore, we aren’t governed by it.
As for the churches, –I know of zero exceptions anywhere–they aren’t governed by the the Jesus Christ of the Bible either, so what right do they have to step in and say away with the Constitution? And if they were, perhaps, just perhaps the world would take a second look and say ‘these people are onto something, perhaps we should listen.’
I did answer your question (at least as much as I intend to at this time, without you first answering mine, which are preliminary questions which need to be taken care of first), but it’s obvious you don’t intend to answer any of mine. We, therefore, won’t waste any more of each others time.
However, I pray that God would direct you in His paths.
So you’re throwing the ball in my court. I have asked you questions that I don’t think you can answer, and you say you have asked questions I won’t answer. Well, I agree, but this much I will leave you. The entire public church has some serious repenting to do, and it has nothing to do with the United States Constitution, valid or invalid.
And yes, I pray the same for you, with Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 1, 17 and 18 being uppermost for both of us.
Thank you for you prayer. It’s very much appreciated. The same for you.
Your welcome, brother. It is very easy to find subjects that drive us apart, but I’m persuaded our efforts should focus on things that draw us together, and thus bring glory to Jesus Christ. Amen.
By the way, should you have time I started a blog early in 2011 on Revelation. You can see it at http://dgregory1938.blogspot.com. I love the subject but the material is so voluminous I had to give it up. However, having recently come across the book I mention there, Barnes Notes on Revelation I may take it up again. Filled with the history of the early Christian church under the Roman Empire and centuries following.
Amen!
I take a look at your blog first opportunity I get, perhaps this weekend.
The constitution like a ‘driver license’, ‘income tax’ etc – idols, gods we serve, and high 5 others obeisance. What does God the Creator say?
If you apply his laws, statutes, judgments it will become self evident. and the rest of scripture will open up. In fact without certain standards one can’t help but READ INTO the holy Texts with what one’s doctrinal world view substance maintains…. be that origination in that grey matter filter OR subjugated thru religious institutional dogma.
Lamentations for instance – 1-2-3-4 – all together in harmony encompass so much of the bible, in fact there is one verse in mind from the whole book which ties much of scripture together and one could have an in depth series or book expounding upon such text nexus – but then again – we’d have to agree with Yah’s LAWS and KNOW the underlying story/reasons in his law that he was required to come in the flesh.
A standard is required to assay the purification of metal. Heck, even to find it harvest that metal – certain standards are required – once you begin to develop that out – the rest of your questions and reasonings will develop moth holes or a buttressed wedge of support.
Love of Truth is a critical key – meditate upon that.
Robert,
I fail to see what you’re getting at. I have had a ‘love of truth’ since I was 18 years old, the year I gave my life to Christ. Since then there have been many inner awakenings, but none so powerful as that which came 40 years ago when the Lord allowed me to be flat on my back with pneumonia so that I could be still and listen.
None of us have a hold on all the truth, except that Jesus Himself IS the truth, and He has lived in me, as He does in all those who truly love Him, for a long time.
As to reading into the text –eisegesis–I try to avoid that. When I read the Bible, -which I do every morning- I attempt to let it speak for itself, to draw out rather then read into. Yet even as I say that it is obvious that people who come from wholly different perspectives and upbringings will read the same text and come up with very different ideas.
And yes, I have had the four years of Greek like all the other guys who went to Bible school, but in the long run it isn’t the original languages that save us so much as the humble spirit that delights in the ways of God.
It behooves us, therefore, not to be too rigid. The Lord said in John 13 that the one thing that will identify us as HIs disciples was that we loved one another, not that we set out to prove that OUR understanding is better than the next guy’s.
I cannot help but mention that I think the word ‘idol’ is tossed around a little too freely. There are things that are a convenience in this world, driver’s license being one–and yes, I have read extensively about the scam that constitutes the whole idea of having to get permission to drive- but it is not an idol, it is a convenience.
May the Lord bless you, Robert.
David, I respectfully suggest you reconsider on the DL issue, it sounds as though you have the tools required to dig into the matter for yourself and discover the reality. Likened you can serve baal with more than one way with multiple elements attached so to here.
Robert, I have to agree with David on this. I fail to see where you’re going with this. Are you saying that because everyone is required to carry a driver’s license to operate a vehicle on the road, then everyone worships that license? That seems like an extreme stretch to me.
Fact of the matter is this. We are required by law to carry a license with us when we drive. We are required by law to pay income tax. We don’t have a choice in this except to refuse to obey, which will only get us into trouble. You could make your argument about everything the State demands from us and determine that everyone, everywhere is guilty of “idol” worship. You could say that if I voted in the last election (I didn’t), then I am worshipping at the altar of infancticide (abortion) because the law allows it. This is not scriptural, however.
An idol is anything which is valued higher than God Himself and His Word. In this respect, anything could be an idol. The Constitution, democracy, a Ford Mustang, plastic fingernails, gluttony, et al. Idol worship is completely voluntary and cannot be enforced by anyone other than the individual. (See Shadrach, Meschach, and Abed-Nego in the book of Daniel)
God’s Word says absolutely nothing about driver’s licensing. It has a lot to say about excessive taxation. It also tells us, as Christians, to be subject to the laws of the land insofar as those laws do not conflict with our duty and responsibility before God. I will carry a driver’s license until the day comes when I no longer need it. I will pay my income taxes as required. I will not ever endorse, promote, or favor infanticide.
Robert,
I should have added this before hitting the post button. If you wish to see more of where my interests have lain over the years, go to http://dgregory1938.blogspot.com.
Enjoying your discussion here. Let me offer some questions of my own to stimulate your imagination.
Why bother with punishing crime at all?
Which men living in this generation will God hold responsible to punish criminals – and bless or curse in time and eternity according to their works?
What civil law code will our Lord Jesus Christ use for His standard when He judges the living and the dead?
What is the logically consistent source of ethical sovereignty for defining what is “right” in sin and crime? Is it 1 man: dictator, few men: legislature; or majority Man: electorate?
Whatever you pick, can’t someone legitimately ask, “why not this other dictator, last year’s legislature instead of this one, or tomorrow’s electorate?
If majority determines what is right in defining law, how do you know what to vote for in the election — until after the election? Why isn’t the last election right, and this election wrong?
From these questions I have concluded that no one believes in democracy, if what we mean by that is an ethical standard to determine when men should take away other men’s life, liberty, and property.
Neither is it logical possible to believe majority determines right/wrong.
I know nothing more descriptive of the thinking of men in this area than “you shall be as gods knowing good and evil”. Obviously people are ashamed and embarrassed to say, “I am the determiner of right out of my own head”. Instead they are deluded to think that if a bunch of sinful men agreeing on some plan of action makes it right in the sight of God.
I like what Bahnsen said about making sure the whole-Bible approach provides the ethical imperative to do so, before you send out the policeman or soldier to take away life, freedom, or property rights from other men. The creator is the only one authorized to define crimes and how they should be punished.
Very good questions, John, ones that obviously deserve much careful thought. I will only answer briefly here, not the least of the reasons being that I don’t know that I am qualified to offer a more lengthy response.
I have just this morning finished reading Romans 7 over again, with the distinct statements that the law is good. There is no question in my mind that the enforcement of God’s laws (in a very broad sense referring to the ten commandments) is a good thing. More than good, desirable. There is another element, however, that must be taken into account, and that is intent. Some laws are broken as a result of a one time temptation, and others are broken with deliberate forethought, and they CANNOT be judged in the same manner nor punished in the same manner.
I’m not deliberately sidestepping the real issue here, only expressing some thoughts. To have men (as is stated above–policemen and other law enforcement personnel) who are men of prayer as well as men who wear guns and have arresting authority–well, that would be very desirable.
I’ll make it a point to give your questions some careful consideration, John. As I said they are very worthwhile.
I want to go back to the Puritan thing for a minute, because they attempted to do what I see postulated strongly here in this whole column, i.e. enforcing God’s laws upon the whole population. Would to God there had been more openness to Roger Williams. This is obviously something that can only be contemplated, but I wonder if they had made at least an endeavor to be receptive to Williams thoughts (which I am persuaded were right on) what difference it would have made in the ongoing success of the Puritan experience in the Massachusetts commonwealth.
Just thoughts. Must sign off; my day has started, and in an hour or so will have breakfast with some other brothers. Blessings to all. May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable…unto the Lord and unto the brethren.
David, I would suggest to you that Roger Williams is not someone you would want to emulate. You might be interested in Gary North’s “Conspiracy in Philadelphia: The Broken Covenant of the U.S. Constitution” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfQugOiwino. He addresses the controversial Williams and what came from him.
Ted, I have read extensively of Roger Williams, and find myself agreeing with him very much, and so I ask, what in particular is it that you find objectionable about him, without sending me to someone else’s book?
Much of his thinking–his neutrality in respect to God, his opposition to a Christian commonwealth based upon Yahweh’s morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments, and his promotion of secular government. In short, his promotion of humanism. For example, in 1647, he identified the government of the Rhode Island Colony as “democratical,” that is, “a government held by the free and voluntary consent of all, or the greater part of the fee inhabitants [we the people]”–all of which influenced and the framers and contributed to their thinking behind the humanistic secular (per the Preamble), antichristian (per Article 6), and polytheistic (per Amendment 1) U.S. Constitution.
Well, I guess I will have to go back and re-read the books on Roger Williams that I read ten years ago. That wouldn’t be a bad idea to begin with. But I wonder if what the problem was that the Puritans didn’t like anyone to disagree with them, at least disagree and be vocal about it, which Williams certainly was.
I wonder if you think the King of England ‘owned’ the new continent and thus had the right to ‘give’ it to the Puritans. I wonder also if you agree that the Puritans were right in their desire to rid the world of native Americans. I wonder if they hated Roger Williams because he manifestly showed friendship to them and was responsible for bring some of them to Christ. It was, after all, an Indian named Squanto whose knowledge of gardening was at least partially responsible for keeping them all alive in that first savage year. But I guess the gospel of peace doesn’t apply to the Indians.
You will, of course, recognize my sarcasm, and I believe it is rightly placed. The Puritans did not want any disagreement among their members, much as the clergy of today.
As to democratic government, is it your belief that I should have no say in how I am governed? In other words my open Bible is not quite as important as your open Bible.
Is it your opinion that any individual should be executed who, in an unguarded moment takes the name of the Lord in vain? How about an individual who shows what is construed to be disrespect to his parents? And, as I have mentioned previously, one who happens to be of the opinion that the sabbath is still Saturday? What shall we do with him? He will not attend out preaching services and thus will be ignorant of God’s truth.
And what about the Puritans disobedience to the clear teaching of Paul in 1 Cor 14:26 and following that puts forward a truly open meeting so that all have an equal opportunity to bring forth what the Spirit of God has shown them? The word sermon doesn’t even appear once in the entire New Testament, except of course in the added description of Matthew 5-7, The sermon on the mountain. Where did Paul, in any of his epistles or in the Acts ever give to one man more authority to speak than the others assembled?
In other words, just what does the the concept of New Covenant convey? Will the Spirit of God be poured out on all flesh as per Joel 2:38, and will it be as Hebrews 8 says that no longer will one man say to another “Know the Lord” because they will all know Him from the least to the greatest?
With regard to Williams stance on these matters I will have to defer for the moment until I re-read his works or works about him, but the above are my questions. Why did the early Puritan churches have a pulpit built high up above the congregation, certainly giving the occupier thereof an unquestioned authority over those below him, not so much as once even hinted at in that which we call the New Testament?
I wonder what would have happened if some man who eagerly read the Bible at home, would have ventured after the sermon to have said, ‘now, brothers, I would like to tell you what the Lord showed me this morning in His Word?’ Well, I can tell you what would have happened, he would have been thrown out of the church, much as he would be today, but Paul commands that the gathering be open to such.
Just some thoughts. There is a saying that goes like this. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The Puritans DID NOT have their own house in order, and they had no biblical right to ostracize Roger Williams, who by the way, was also a Puritan with the same scope of knowledge of the Bible that John Cotton did.
I do not mean to blast you, Ted, or others who read this. I am only saying that we do NOT have the right to pick and choose which scriptures we will and will not obedient to, except in an understanding as to what elements of the Old Covenant the New Covenant replaces, as per the entire chapter of 2 Cor.3, and a considerable portion of the Book of Hebrews.
If Paul said in so many words that he did not fail to present to the Ephesian elders the whole counsel of God, and if the New Testament represents in print that whole counsel, then some of this going back to the Old Covenant is missing something.
If might be so bold to suggest that before going back and reading the books on Roger Williams that you first read “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html which I believe will provide you with a more Biblical paradigm by which to evaluate Williams.
Once again, we’re back to a bunch of questions that I will not take the time to answer before my preliminary questions to you are answered first and also because many of them are taken care of in “BL vs. USC.”
History in general: Getting down below the “crust” of textbook history to original source documents and truthful reporting, (flawed tho it might be) — is a worthy but rewarding challenge. The longer you dig, the more you find out the popular stuff can be simplistic, limited to current popular notions, or can even be malicious propaganda.
Indians: is a case in point. The various Indian tribes/nations differed from each other — sometimes greatly. They also had such completely different worldviews compared to the Puritan attempt to see all of like through Bible lenses — is to tough for us to do a good job of judging from 2012. Make sure you are aware of the worldview of your authors. Highly recommend reading Lewis & Clark’s unabridged Journals. (watch out for the pornographic factual reporting). The various nations they traveled through were all across the moral spectrum.
Roger Williams: If and when you read back through Williams’ stuff, I would be very curious to know how his stuff looks to you now after you have had more life experience — especially in light of those basic questions I have posed above. ie. What should the laws be? Who is the reliable authority to legislate just laws? For instance, what is the exact percentage of a man’s labor/increase that belongs to civil government (tax)? How much County? State? Federal? How much of the Federal Treasury Checking Account Balance belongs to the hungry man who wants food stamps? Who is worthy to decide these questions? How does that square with “All authority is given men in heaven and in earth” and “ruler of the kings of the earth”? And how do we know what Jesus’s laws are about these things?
Was Roger Williams addressing sin or crime, when he was talking about freedom of conscience? Was he slurring the dividing line between the two?
Dear Ted and John both,
Since it appears that we are in a discussion in which it we have very differing ideas I wish to set forth what for me is foundational, and will then exit the discussion unless there is further affirmation for your side.
The prophet Joel promised, and both John the Baptist and Jesus re-affirmed that promise, that God would send forth a mighty baptism of HIs Spirit, indeed the Spirit of Jesus, the Spirit of Truth.
Several decades after Pentecost the apostle John in his first epistle, again re-affirmed that outpouring, speaking there ( 1John 2:18-the end of the chapter) of the Anointing, and its importance, and that the anointing was what would establish us in the truth.
He also said there that in the proper understanding of that mighty anointing there would be no need for us to be dependent on the teaching of others. Not that we would ignore them but that we would not be dependent on them.
That is one of two aspects of what I would present to you. There is that which has been given unto me (and unto all who love God and desire His ways) that WILL NOT LIE to me, and to which I am to pay the very strictest attention. Furthermore, that anointing is NOT as such the written word, because at the time John was writing, almost no one had the written word in their hands, not the least of which reasons, a two fold one, being that the canon had not yet even been completed, and secondly that even after it was the printing press did not come along for another several centuries.
So, to be very focused, any understanding of ‘law’ had to come from the Spirit, because there was as yet no written exposition of it.
The other aspect of my foundational beliefs is what the Word itself says about law. Firstly, that Paul tells Timothy in 1Tim 1:9 that “the law is not made for a righteous man…” because in simple fact a righteous man DOES NOT NEED LAW, any more that the Lord Jesus Himself needed it, to keep him in line. and Paul himself says it was added because of transgressions. Yes, Jesus kept all the ceremonial law of the Pentateuch because He was born into that system and He did indeed fulfill all righteousness according to that law, but HE EMPHATICALLY DID NOT NEED IT. And the reason He didn’t need it was because He loved men and His whole life was given to meeting their needs, the ultimately act of course being His taking His sins upon HImself upon the cross.
Let no one diminish the importance of Paul’s follow up teaching with regard to this because Paul sets forth very clearly that by faith we accept (enter into) Christ’s death as OUR OWN DEATH. Romans 6 is quite clear on these things, and I will not endeavor to expand, except to say that in our own day if ever there were a certainty at a funeral it would be that the person in the casket will never sin again.
We are baptized into Christ’s death, and whereas in Romans 6 we are said to have died unto sin, Romans 7 takes it a step further to say that we also died unto the law.
The law did not die, we DIED UNTO IT, and therein is the great secret. It is NOT the same as antinomianism, it is simply that the old David Gregory is no longer; the old sinner is died and buried, and his relationship to law is also terminated. Romans 7 says that I have died unto law in order that I may be married to another, namely to the resurrected Christ.
In 2 Cor. 5 Paul sets this forth again in terms of righteousness, saying at the very end that Jesus was made sin for us in order that we might become the righteousness of God IN HIM.
And that is where I stand, brothers. I have zero righteousness of my own, but I have Christ’s righteousness, because I have received of HIs Spirit, and He has given it to me, and to all those, as I said above, who have been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
By the way, Ted, I read the account of your conversion and found it beautiful. Praise God.
I would conclude this by asking both of you one singular question. Do you recognize those among whom you minister as your equals, those who have received the Spirit of God, and those who are not only permitted, but also encouraged by Paul in 1 Cor 14:26 to contribute actively in the regular meeting of the saints.
Do you allow that, and if not, why not? It is interesting that among all the other writing of Paul about character, this section, along with just a bit in chapter 11 is the only place where the focus is on what the believers do when they are all together in one place, i.e. what we would call a worship service. It was to be free, open, with no time constraints.
This is the foundation upon which my faith stands, and the foundation upon it will continue to stand. It is a good foundation thoroughly biblical and adequate.
As to the United States Constitution, I think perhaps we are endeavoring to implement here and now what the Lord only promises to fully establish upon His return in power and great glory.
I am presently reading Barnes notes on Revelation in which it is made clear that for the first two to three hundred years the Roman Emperors did everything that their very powerful arsenal could to wipe out every vestige of the Christian faith. They put Christians to death by the thousands. I wonder where the Kingdom was then? And I also wonder what has so singularly changed in our day that we think we can set up a societal Kingdom here on earth. If they hated our brethren back then, will they not also hate us today?
Well, enough. And as I said at the beginning, if all you will attempt to do is show that I am wrong, I will cease posting. I do NOT claim to have all the truth, ONLY the whole body has all of it, but what I have I know I have.
May the blessed Spirit of Christ minister grace and peace to you brothers, and may we all have our spiritual eyes and ears open to more of what the Spirit of God would minister to us. Amen.
What I am pitching here, David is real narrow – just defining what punishments go with what crimes. And what will happen to the men who are responsible if they fail to do it. Who gets to speak in church when is outside my scope. Also, I am very much trying to help myself and others separate sin from crime: like murder from hate. Not all sins are crimes. Certainly not all man-defined crimes are God-defined crimes, and vice versa.
It is not possible to think about right or law, unless you have in hand a measuring tool to mark out whether men are punishing the innocent or rewarding the guilty. Having that tool is inevitable, every man is using some Idea to mark his definitions. It helps to know what that is.
Is yours what the Spirit tells you in your heart? If so, doesn’t every other Christian who might differ from you? Now, if a community has to decide whether to kill a man, or force double-restitution for some behaviour — don’t you think we need something outside ourselves to guide us?
The Spirit’s impressions on our minds is great, if we are ordering Pizza, or deciding God’s will that only involves us or our family, especially in areas the Bible doesn’t give ethical principles for.
Also, I encourage you not to get distracted by the more obscure points of [Exodus-Deuteronomy] like Sabbath, incorrigibility, or blasphemy where the Church is so very rusty in Her thinking by not even thinking about these things for 100 years. Some of those side issues will require much wise comparing of Scripture with Scripture, and continual revisiting after we have applied and obeyed the more obvious stuff for a generation or two. Very counter-productive to tangle up the arguments about murder and theft, by throwing up one of these others, as if to say, “Of course we cannot take the written Mosaic legislation as authoritative because look how ridiculous it appears to our generation in Area X.” This is, after all, the Law that David and Paul said is “Holy and Righteous, and Good”, and our greatest love and delight. It is also that touchstone, in its smallest details, that Jesus will dictate our blessing or reward throughout the Kingdom of God in Mt. 5 — according to how faithfully we obey and teach it.
We can’t just say God’s law or not God’s law, like having no law is an alternative. It will always be somebody’s law, there can’t be a vacuum. You either punish another man, or you leave him alone, there is no third alternative, is there?
Yes.
John, thanks for joining the dialogue and adding such stimulating questions and insights. Blessings!
See my contribution to the discussion. Incidentally, would you post a citation or a link to the reference of Bahnsen.
John – why bother punishing crime?
Please…. please – do you honestly believe that?
I think you’re struggling with our society and perhaps specifically global society…. I believe the whole bible need more study… LAW/Statutes/Judgments – they REVEAL the ideal.
Technically speaking, we could have 12 different types of government all operating within YAH’s laws, and even executing them differently regardless of modality – the course to take though is a biblical world view or right & wrong according to Yahweh the living Christ Jesus. He’s ALREADY ordained proper execution & exceptions… we’re not required per se to do it perfectly to be RIGHT in Gods eyes…
All our elements in our daily, family, regional, national lives need to be focused on executing Gods ways – the rest will fall into place. One does not know now or ever ALL of ones SINS or imperfect doctrine…. GRACE & the Holy spirit with earnestly renewing our minds walking within His application will take care of the rest.
See my contribution to the discussion.
I recommend to all a really great book…. Walking in the Law of the Lord.
Who’s the author and do you have a URL to where it can be purchased?
The author is William O. Einwechter
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13570421-walking-in-the-law-of-the-lord
http://www.visionforum.com/browse/search/?search=walking%2bin%2bthe%2blaw%2bof%2bthe%2blord
Thanks. I second the recommendation, with one caveat: as with everything, including my books, 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22. In fact, I’m hoping to carry this book on our list, but have yet to hear back from Pastor Einwechter.
You guys are great! This is a thoroughly enjoyable discussion and I am glad to see it done in a non-acrimonius (if that’s a word) way. I want to weigh in, but there’s a lot here which I think needs to be re-examined, thought about, and prayed about before I start posting. Peace to all of you. I’ll be back.
Wow! I’ve thought about this conversation ever since I found it yesterday and still am a little hesitant to wade in.
Ted, John, David, it is clear to me that you have all spent a lot of time thinking about these issues and I want you to know that I appreciate everything you have said. It is helping me to arrive at a better understanding of my own responsibilities before God (YHWH).
Ted, I understand what you are trying to do and commend you for your efforts. In general, I agree with your position and would like to see something along these lines implemented as a BASE and GUIDE for us as we attempt to move toward a more righteous society. We have to have something outside ourselves to use as reference or else we will simply careen from one system to another in search of the perfect one. For my part, God’s Word is the ultimate guide and is far better than any other any man could imagine or dream up. On that score, you will get no argument from me.
However, I want to exercise a little caution here. It’s not to say that it would happen, but I can see the potential for abuse with what you are promoting. It has happened before and might again unless the protocol is shot through and through with love as exemplified in Jesus Christ. Law without love is tyrannical. Love without law is licentiousness. Neither is good without the other. We must have both.
I think I have a fairly good understanding of your position and would like to believe that love is, in fact, its very base. However, I am a little leery as well, because this has a sense of dogmatic legalism about it. I’ve no doubt that you believe what you say, but be careful, my brother, because people are afraid of someone who says this MUST be the way and there is no other. This may be the reason why you get so much resistance to your message. As much as possible, temper your words with love. You will get a wider reception.
David, you and I are on the same page. I, too, have been flat on my back and heard from God. I broke my leg while working on Sept. 27, 2012, and have been recovering ever since. For the first two weeks, I was literally on my back and did not get up except to go to the bathroom. During that time, I distinctly heard God say these words to me. “I can break you any time I wish, just like you were a dead stick.” Who can resist someone like that? It was at that moment I completely surrendered a life-long habit.
I believe that I hear you saying that you are living your own personal life in a spirit of love and that you have risen above the NEED for law to regulate yourself. A life of this nature can only come from years and years of being led by the Holy Spirit into all truth. I am just beginning to catch a glimmer of understanding about this, but it is enough to make me pursue it even more vigorously. Jesus Christ was able to live in a tumultuous world without it affecting Him in a negative way. He conquered the temptation to “fix” things as He saw fit and simply loved the people around Him. He also changed the world radically forever.
My goal and ultimate aim is to become that type of man. He is my model and my law.
That being said, sin still runs rampant in our society. There must be something we can use to address the problem of criminal behavior. How will we do that? What will we use as a fixed reference point to determine our policy regarding criminal activity? I think this is what Ted is pushing for in his own way. If we don’t use God’s Word and God’s Law as our guide, what will we use? Reason? The will of the people? Roger Williams? The fact of the matter is that people will not live without law and some law is going to reign. Which one will it be?
For myself, I would rather have a law structure which uses the moral code (as found in Exodus,Ten Commandments, case laws) as a starting point to mold our own legal system. Restitution by the perpetrator to the victim is far better than fines to the State and imprisonment. This is not to say that we must have a rigid, unbending adherence to the punishments dictated by Moses. We must, however, have zero tolerance for evil and a loving, righteous manner of dealing with it when it rises within our ranks.
John, you asked why we should even bother to punish crime at all. I’m fairly sure you were being facetious. However, just in case you were serious, let me say that I am certain you would want punishment if someone broke into your house, handcuffed you to your bed, brutally raped your wife and daughter, then ripped them open with a butcher knife while forcing you to watch. Extreme, yes, but I can guarantee that you would be the first one to demand that punishment be exacted.
To say that criminal behavior should NOT be punished is itself evil. I don’t believe this is what you were saying, but the fact of the matter is that evil must be punished or else everyone is at risk and no one is safe. As Christ’s representatives on earth, we are commanded to extend His rule throughout our world and part of that extension is the elimination of evil.
Which men will God hold responsible to punish criminals? Ultimately, every single one of us. We are all responsible to do our part to make sure that evil behavior is dealt with. That begins in our own lives and is extended outward in our sphere of influence, part of which is the US of A and its criminal codes. Specifically speaking, we have law-givers, judges, prosecutors, prison personnel, probation officers, etc. who put this into action. Society is blessed or cursed depending on whether or not we and these people do what they should.
Which civil law code will Jesus use for His standard? The unequivocal answer to that is undoubtedly, “None!” Jesus is His own law, which is righteousness, truth, and love. No civil code which men create can even come close to that standard. Beyond this, I will not speculate.
You asked, “What is the logically consistent source of ethical sovereignty for defining what is “right” in sin and crime? Is it 1 man: dictator, few men: legislature; or majority Man: electorate?” Isn’t this the exact same thing that Ted has been trying to answer? There has never been a “logically consistent” source of ethical sovreignty for defining what is right in sin and crime, except the Word of God. All of your definitions of consistent sources fall far short of the One True Source.
You also mentioned that, “The creator is the only one authorized to define crimes and how they should be punished.” Again, this is what we are trying to sort out. The Creator is the only One who is authorized to define crimes, but He has given us authority to punish criminal AND also guidelines as to how they should be punished. It is our responsibility to figure out what we are supposed to do. “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory
of kings.” (Proverbs 25:2)
My brothers and friends, we are all searching for the Truth. We are all imperfect. As we continue our walk here, may God give us the grace to find it and to live with each other in peace and love.
BTW, you can get a better understanding of the way I think by reading what I post on my blog. http://poorrogersalmanac.wordpress.com
Roger: “However, I want to exercise a little caution here. It’s not to say that
it would happen, but I can see the potential for abuse with what you are
promoting. It has happened before and might again unless the protocol
is shot through and through with love as exemplified in Jesus Christ.
Law without love is tyrannical. Love without law is licentiousness.
Neither is good without the other. We must have both.”
Ted: Amen and amen! And let’s not forget that “…mercy triumphs over judgment” (James 2:13)
Roger: “As much as possible, temper your words with love. You will get a wider reception”
Ted: I agree. I’m not making excuses, but because of time constraints, I tend to write in such a way as to be as succinct as possible (albeit seldom accomplished). Furthermore, I’m very candid and am not one to dilly dally around the bushes making my point. I understand this can be and is sometimes interpreted as not being very loving. Consequently, I appreciate your reminder. If, at any time, you or anyone else here thinks I’ve crossed the line or need to explain myself better, you have my permission to bring it to my attention.
Roger, thank you for what you bring to the table (particularly your spirit) in these discussions. Blessings!
Ted, I have spent a lot of time over the last 20 years reading Reconstructionist authors, particularly Gary North. He writes the same way you do without worrying about whether someone’s feelings are hurt or not. Straight out, no punches pulled. This style is absolutely necessary especially when confronting a flawed worldview which has been predominant for a long time.
I am slowly coming to the understanding that part of my “calling” (I prefer to call it responsibility) is to take what I have learned, soften it up, and bring it down to a level that more people can understand and receive it. Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers” and it may be that I have been given the gift of smoothing over troubled waters.
If indeed this is the case, I intend to be the best I can be.
Peace and blessings to you.
While I love Dr. North’s writings (although I’ve never debated more with an author in the side columns, I think his “Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus” is better than Rushdoony’s “Institutes of Biblical Law”), I personally think that he often “crosses over the line” and can be quite caustic. I hope your comparison doesn’t include this. If it does, I need to know when and where I do the same because that is never my intention and I actually try to avoid doing so.
I’m glad you’re around to soften guys like me who tend to be oblivious to how they are coming across to others.
He can be a overbearing at times, for sure. So far I haven’t seen anything at all you have written which I think needs to be “mellowed”, but if I do I’ll contact you.
Did anyone notice how many times the president said “we the people” in his inaugural speech today?
Particularly disturbing was the ‘Gay and Lesbian Marching Band’, yes, an actual banner going out before them in the celebration that followed the ‘victory speech.’ I was embarrassed by and for this nation today.
Jesus was mad and tore apart a temple, and God march with his people in battle, God never want His people to be tortured or slaved. And believe you me, the second coming is to be a battle, so do not tell me about love and no battle, cause Jesus battle more ways then one, and when you see him coming, and l hope we all do, then be sure, he is not going to sit down and have a quiet talk with satan.No way, he comes to battle with evil.And satan was made as the angels, he does not die like us humans, so there will be a battle to behold and all because Jesus died for us and he will fight for us….AMEN!