# America, Behold thy gods!



## RamistThomist

_So the king took counsel and made two calves of gold. And he said to the people, "œYou have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt." _

*Who Shall Write our History Books, Moses or Jeroboam?*
History is theological in character, or theological implications cannot be divorced from historical evaluations. Historical facts, like all facts, demand a worldview-context in which to be evaluated. Therefore, many (if not all) historical claims are theological.

When Jeroboam made Israel worship the golden calves, he was making not only a historical claim, but a theological one. In fact, his historical claim was theological. He did not deny the Exodus, but attributed salvation and deliverance to another deity. 

Likewise, many Americans (and Christians too), knowing that the foundation of America was Theocratic Puritanism, and scared of the implications of such, therefore lie and rewrite history to avoid the claims of God upon their lives. 

In our country it makes a difference who writes the history books, Moses or Jeroboam. What were the real foundations of American life? How come we never hear of the *militant* Calvinism of the Scotch-Irish who wrote the Mecklenberg Declaration? How come we see Lee, Jackson, Patrick Henry vilified while murdering terrorists (meaning, killing women and children in their sleep) like John Brown are sainted? It makes a difference who writes the history books. So, why do they do that, why do they lie thusly? 

The Elitist Establishment continues their power-grip via government schools because they are afraid of Christians getting mobilized and putting their faith in the public square _after reading that these men (Scotch-Irish, Lee, Jackson, Henry) were not only good Christian men but faught for the preservation of a Christian Moral Order._

Hopefully more to come...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> "This begs the question: Did the early Christians see their religion as having political implications, by virtue of this principle of resurrection, or did they see it as merely a private spiritual experience to be kept out of the public realm?
> 
> When one thoroughly examines the New Testament, it is readily apparent that not only was Christianity intended to be politically revolutionary, but also that Jesus of Nazareth was to be the head of this movement throughout history."
> *Martini, Gabriel, There is Another King, Jesus, p. 12*


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Hopefully more to come...



Let's hear it, brother!


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> _So the king took counsel and made two calves of gold. And he said to the people, "œYou have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt." _
> 
> *Who Shall Write our History Books, Moses or Jeroboam?*
> History is theological in character, or theological implications cannot be divorced from historical evaluations. Historical facts, like all facts, demand a worldview-context in which to be evaluated. Therefore, many (if not all) historical claims are theological.
> 
> When Jeroboam made Israel worship the golden calves, he was making not only a historical claim, but a theological one. In fact, his historical claim was theological. He did not deny the Exodus, but attributed salvation and deliverance to another deity.
> 
> Likewise, many Americans (and Christians too), knowing that the foundation of America was Theocratic Puritanism, and scared of the implications of such, therefore lie and rewrite history to avoid the claims of God upon their lives.
> 
> In our country it makes a difference who writes the history books, Moses or Jeroboam. What were the real foundations of American life? How come we never hear of the *militant* Calvinism of the Scotch-Irish who wrote the Mecklenberg Declaration? How come we see Lee, Jackson, Patrick Henry vilified while murdering terrorists (meaning, killing women and children in their sleep) like John Brown are sainted? It makes a difference who writes the history books. So, why do they do that, why do they lie thusly?
> 
> The Elitist Establishment continues their power-grip via government schools because they are afraid of Christians getting mobilized and putting their faith in the public square _after reading that these men (Scotch-Irish, Lee, Jackson, Henry) were not only good Christian men but faught for the preservation of a Christian Moral Order._
> 
> Hopefully more to come...


----------



## Romans922

Instead of complaining about it, why don't you do something about it like write history books or running for office to change such things?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Instead of complaining about it, why don't you do something about it like write history books or running for office to change such things?



I am writing a book on it. I have the outline, first chapter, and summary done, but it is on my computer at home. Secondly, I am comprising a notebook on American history for htis purpose, having already majored in it. Thirdly, I want to teach my kids history, law, and public policy so that they may be bold and fearless when standing in the gate. Fourthly, I swore that either me or one of my own will dethrone these idols, so help me God! 

Shall I go on?


----------



## Peter

Lots of history from a Presbyterian perspective here: http://www.puritans.net/curriculum/


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Instead of complaining about it, why don't you do something about it like write history books or running for office to change such things?



You sound like you are making a postmillennial statement. I mean, you are urging me to political action. Funny, I get in trouble when I make statements like that, but from others its called "insight."

Btw, I agree with you.


----------



## Michael Butterfield

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> . . . .
> 
> When Jeroboam made Israel worship the golden calves, he was making not only a historical claim, but a theological one. In fact, his historical claim was theological. He did not deny the Exodus, but attributed salvation and deliverance to another deity. ...





I have just a question for the purpose of clarity. Was Jeroboam's sin one of causing the people to worship a false god or was it causing the people to worship the true God falsely? I think the distinction germane to your point.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> . . . .
> 
> When Jeroboam made Israel worship the golden calves, he was making not only a historical claim, but a theological one. In fact, his historical claim was theological. He did not deny the Exodus, but attributed salvation and deliverance to another deity. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have just a question for the purpose of clarity. Was Jeroboam's sin one of causing the people to worship a false god or was it causing the people to worship the true God falsely? I think the distinction germane to your point.
Click to expand...


You raise a very good point and I thought about this. I was typing too fast to pay it much head. I think we can make an application either way. I really amnot committed to either view, as both seem good. I stand open to others' insights.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> . . . .
> 
> When Jeroboam made Israel worship the golden calves, he was making not only a historical claim, but a theological one. In fact, his historical claim was theological. He did not deny the Exodus, but attributed salvation and deliverance to another deity. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have just a question for the purpose of clarity. Was Jeroboam's sin one of causing the people to worship a false god or was it causing the people to worship the true God falsely? I think the distinction germane to your point.
Click to expand...


I would say it was causing the people to worship a false god, whether that was Jeroboam's intention or not. That was certainly the result, and this was the vehicle through which polytheism was introduced. Also note the wording "behold your gods, O Israel, that brought you up from the land of Egypt", which mirrors Aaron's proclamation after fashioning the golden calf.


----------



## Puritanhead

Excellent Jacob! My brain is tired and I need another able champion of liberty and virtue to inspire me at this late hour.

I will post the Mecklenberg Declaration.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Likewise, many Americans (and Christians too), knowing that the foundation of America was Theocratic Puritanism, and scared of the implications of such, therefore lie and rewrite history to avoid the claims of God upon their lives.



So you wish to return to "Theocratic Puritanism"?


----------



## SolaScriptura

The foundation of _America_ (the nation) was not theocratic Puritanism... the foundation of a few of the colonies was theocratic Puritanism. Certainly not all... or even most... or even half.
I'd get your facts straight before you go public with your book...


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> The foundation of _America_ (the nation) was not theocratic Puritanism... the foundation of a few of the colonies was theocratic Puritanism. Certainly not all... or even most... or even half.
> I'd get your facts straight before you go public with your book...



John Cotton aside, right? Doug Kelly must not have known his facts when he wrote _The Emegernce of Liberty_.

Of course the whole nation was not theocratic Puritanism, but the politcal ideas later adopted in America could only have arisen in the environment that the Puritans produced. What makes this even more striking is the success to which it was attended. In an atheistic moral order that France produced, the supposedly same ideas failed. Why? Well, government schools won't let us answer that question. But I didn't make my thesis real clear: Only a Calvinist heritage could have produced America. It would help to contrast America with France. Calvinism, contra modern political parties, believes God is sovereign and man sinful, therefore, man cannot be trusted with absolute power. He must be held accountable. France, ascribing deity to the political order, produced bloodshed and lost liberty.

[Edited on 1--20-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Likewise, many Americans (and Christians too), knowing that the foundation of America was Theocratic Puritanism, and scared of the implications of such, therefore lie and rewrite history to avoid the claims of God upon their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wish to return to "Theocratic Puritanism"?
Click to expand...


As opposed to a "Theocratic Secularism," absolutely. Theocracy is unavoidable. Its not a matter of whether we will draw the line on religion, only a matter of _where_. All ideas are religious. We will either worship God or man.

This is a more general comment: Many people get really mad when someone questions an aspect of Puritan theology, but no one is allowed to adopt the political aspects of Puritanism. In other words, we are to believe in the Sovereigny of God in our salvation, but not in politics, not in society. All I am saying is that we need to be consistent in our worldview. The best summary of what I am saying is in Doug Kelly's _The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern West_. What makes this book even more striking is that it is NOT written by a theonomist. Therefore, it is correct, fair, and accurate. Seriously, it is a book that begs to be read.


----------



## Romans922

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Instead of complaining about it, why don't you do something about it like write history books or running for office to change such things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like you are making a postmillennial statement. I mean, you are urging me to political action. Funny, I get in trouble when I make statements like that, but from others its called "insight."
> 
> Btw, I agree with you.
Click to expand...


It is not a postmillenialist statement. I have no problem with Christians being in government, the same as I don't have a problem with a Christian being a lawyer. 

I stated, instead of complaining, do something about it: 1) You could contact your representatives (I assume you have already done this, so I didn't mention it); 2) Write your own book; and/or 3) Run for a government position and work to change it. This is no way is a postmillenialist statement. I don't necessarily agree with your wanting to change the books or that it is that big of deal if they are changed or not. I was simply stating, that if you feel this way, then instead of complaining about it (seemingly) do something about it. 

The same for me: I think there is a problem with the truth being taught in the Church so I am becoming a pastor. By God's grace alone, I will do something about it.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Instead of complaining about it, why don't you do something about it like write history books or running for office to change such things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like you are making a postmillennial statement. I mean, you are urging me to political action. Funny, I get in trouble when I make statements like that, but from others its called "insight."
> 
> Btw, I agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a postmillenialist statement. I have no problem with Christians being in government, the same as I don't have a problem with a Christian being a lawyer.
> 
> I stated, instead of complaining, do something about it: 1) You could contact your representatives (I assume you have already done this, so I didn't mention it); 2) Write your own book; and/or 3) Run for a government position and work to change it. This is no way is a postmillenialist statement. I don't necessarily agree with your wanting to change the books or that it is that big of deal if they are changed or not. I was simply stating, that if you feel this way, then instead of complaining about it (seemingly) do something about it.
> 
> The same for me: I think there is a problem with the truth being taught in the Church so I am becoming a pastor. By God's grace alone, I will do something about it.
Click to expand...


I was teasing you about the postmillennial statement.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> The foundation of _America_ (the nation) was not theocratic Puritanism... the foundation of a few of the colonies was theocratic Puritanism. Certainly not all... or even most... or even half.
> I'd get your facts straight before you go public with your book...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Cotton aside, right? Doug Kelly must not have known his facts when he wrote _The Emegernce of Liberty_.
> 
> Of course the whole nation was not theocratic Puritanism, but the politcal ideas later adopted in America could only have arisen in the environment that the Puritans produced. What makes this even more striking is the success to which it was attended. In an atheistic moral order that France produced, the supposedly same ideas failed. Why? Well, government schools won't let us answer that question. But I didn't make my thesis real clear: Only a Calvinist heritage could have produced America. It would help to contrast America with France. Calvinism, contra modern political parties, believes God is sovereign and man sinful, therefore, man cannot be trusted with absolute power. He must be held accountable. France, ascribing deity to the political order, produced bloodshed and lost liberty.
> 
> [Edited on 1--20-06 by Draught Horse]
Click to expand...


I've not read Kelly... but if he perpetuates the Christian myth of a "Christian America" then yes... he got his facts wrong.

It is pretty simplistic of you to say "Calvinism" is what helped America, while the lack of it has been the bane of France. 

I believe that a very very very good case can be made for the fact that the English system of government (a la Locke) is better than France's system of government not because of Calvinism, but because it is simply based upon better reflection of that "natural light" given to all mankind. Also, we had some very wise deists while France had foolish deists. So, for instance, Jefferson supported religion because it led to good morals. The French, on the other hand... 
There are a whole host of reasons why America is better, and yes, some of it is because our founding fathers saw the value of supporting religion rather than opposing it, but that is most definitely not the biggest or only reason.


----------



## Richard King

You wrote:
But I didn't make my thesis real clear: Only a Calvinist heritage could have produced America. It would help to contrast America with France. Calvinism, contra modern political parties, believes God is sovereign and man sinful, therefore, man cannot be trusted with absolute power. 



Not to get off topic but: 
I had a professor in a Methodist University (McMurry U) who taught exactly this value of the Calvinist heritage in the classes I took from him in the mid seventies. 
I took History of Western Civilization and also Rennaisance and Reformation from him. 
I had never even heard of Calvin until then. 
The professor's name was Dr. Alexander Ungvary, an immigrant from Hungary. At times he was accused of teaching possibly antisemitic thinking and of slamming the Catholics just because he dared to praise the Protestant Ethic or "rugged Calvinism" too much. 
He was wonderfully challenging and so controversial among his peers and the leadership that he was later removed from the faculty. I was too young and stupid to grasp most of what he had to offer. He once threw me out of his class for coming in barefooted. He called me a spoiled American hippie and a disgrace to my forefathers because of the little respect I had for my learning opportunities. 
I thought I was an artist so I wanted to do a paper on Rembrandt in his class. Ungvary told me that I didn't truly know what I was capable of and made me do one on Machiavelli instead. 
He was right.

Because of him I read history in a different way the rest of my life. He taught me to love liberty as a blessing from God instead of something the American government gave me.
...So I guess my point is, you can have a powerful impact that you will never realize if you teach boldly outside the inner circles and in the wicked old world. Dr. Ungvary did on me.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Likewise, many Americans (and Christians too), knowing that the foundation of America was Theocratic Puritanism, and scared of the implications of such, therefore lie and rewrite history to avoid the claims of God upon their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wish to return to "Theocratic Puritanism"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to a "Theocratic Secularism," absolutely. Theocracy is unavoidable. Its not a matter of whether we will draw the line on religion, only a matter of _where_. All ideas are religious. We will either worship God or man.
> 
> This is a more general comment: Many people get really mad when someone questions an aspect of Puritan theology, but no one is allowed to adopt the political aspects of Puritanism. In other words, we are to believe in the Sovereigny of God in our salvation, but not in politics, not in society. All I am saying is that we need to be consistent in our worldview. The best summary of what I am saying is in Doug Kelly's _The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern West_. What makes this book even more striking is that it is NOT written by a theonomist. Therefore, it is correct, fair, and accurate. Seriously, it is a book that begs to be read.
Click to expand...


So, when we return to theocracy, who will be king (under Jesus of course)?


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Likewise, many Americans (and Christians too), knowing that the foundation of America was Theocratic Puritanism, and scared of the implications of such, therefore lie and rewrite history to avoid the claims of God upon their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wish to return to "Theocratic Puritanism"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to a "Theocratic Secularism," absolutely. Theocracy is unavoidable. Its not a matter of whether we will draw the line on religion, only a matter of _where_. All ideas are religious. We will either worship God or man.
> 
> This is a more general comment: Many people get really mad when someone questions an aspect of Puritan theology, but no one is allowed to adopt the political aspects of Puritanism. In other words, we are to believe in the Sovereigny of God in our salvation, but not in politics, not in society. All I am saying is that we need to be consistent in our worldview. The best summary of what I am saying is in Doug Kelly's _The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern West_. What makes this book even more striking is that it is NOT written by a theonomist. Therefore, it is correct, fair, and accurate. Seriously, it is a book that begs to be read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when we return to theocracy, who will be king (under Jesus of course)?
Click to expand...


I'd volunteer!


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Likewise, many Americans (and Christians too), knowing that the foundation of America was Theocratic Puritanism, and scared of the implications of such, therefore lie and rewrite history to avoid the claims of God upon their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wish to return to "Theocratic Puritanism"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to a "Theocratic Secularism," absolutely. Theocracy is unavoidable. Its not a matter of whether we will draw the line on religion, only a matter of _where_. All ideas are religious. We will either worship God or man.
> 
> This is a more general comment: Many people get really mad when someone questions an aspect of Puritan theology, but no one is allowed to adopt the political aspects of Puritanism. In other words, we are to believe in the Sovereigny of God in our salvation, but not in politics, not in society. All I am saying is that we need to be consistent in our worldview. The best summary of what I am saying is in Doug Kelly's _The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern West_. What makes this book even more striking is that it is NOT written by a theonomist. Therefore, it is correct, fair, and accurate. Seriously, it is a book that begs to be read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when we return to theocracy, who will be king (under Jesus of course)?
Click to expand...


No king. Decentralized local governments. See my signature and the stalwart who said it.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Likewise, many Americans (and Christians too), knowing that the foundation of America was Theocratic Puritanism, and scared of the implications of such, therefore lie and rewrite history to avoid the claims of God upon their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you wish to return to "Theocratic Puritanism"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to a "Theocratic Secularism," absolutely. Theocracy is unavoidable. Its not a matter of whether we will draw the line on religion, only a matter of _where_. All ideas are religious. We will either worship God or man.
> 
> This is a more general comment: Many people get really mad when someone questions an aspect of Puritan theology, but no one is allowed to adopt the political aspects of Puritanism. In other words, we are to believe in the Sovereigny of God in our salvation, but not in politics, not in society. All I am saying is that we need to be consistent in our worldview. The best summary of what I am saying is in Doug Kelly's _The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern West_. What makes this book even more striking is that it is NOT written by a theonomist. Therefore, it is correct, fair, and accurate. Seriously, it is a book that begs to be read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when we return to theocracy, who will be king (under Jesus of course)?
Click to expand...


No bishop - No King! LOL... We can stick with a representative govt. if we like. God's rule, God's law though. At one time I thought we had a rule of law rather than men...


----------



## Robin

In deference to the youth and zeal for righteousness, of brother Jacob ....I echo Patrick's question.

My conscious binds me to humbly point out, that the tired word "theocracy" is somehow inaccurate. It is unbiblical. ?? Thus, it is NOT the case that it is _unavoidable_ in the SENSE that Biblical Christianity is NOT a culture. Nor will it ever be. Rather...

*It is written* (obviously) man is lost in sin and is either in Adam (the first) or *IN* the Second Adam (Christ.) There are only 2 categories the entire human race inhabits.

Scripture teaches this grid from which to view anthropology and the history of the world. 

Romans 5 -- 6 -- 7 Keep it in context!

Here I stand.



Robin


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> The foundation of _America_ (the nation) was not theocratic Puritanism... the foundation of a few of the colonies was theocratic Puritanism. Certainly not all... or even most... or even half.
> I'd get your facts straight before you go public with your book...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Cotton aside, right? Doug Kelly must not have known his facts when he wrote _The Emegernce of Liberty_.
> 
> Of course the whole nation was not theocratic Puritanism, but the politcal ideas later adopted in America could only have arisen in the environment that the Puritans produced. What makes this even more striking is the success to which it was attended. In an atheistic moral order that France produced, the supposedly same ideas failed. Why? Well, government schools won't let us answer that question. But I didn't make my thesis real clear: Only a Calvinist heritage could have produced America. It would help to contrast America with France. Calvinism, contra modern political parties, believes God is sovereign and man sinful, therefore, man cannot be trusted with absolute power. He must be held accountable. France, ascribing deity to the political order, produced bloodshed and lost liberty.
> 
> [Edited on 1--20-06 by Draught Horse]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not read Kelly... but if he perpetuates the Christian myth of a "Christian America" then yes... he got his facts wrong.
> 
> It is pretty simplistic of you to say "Calvinism" is what helped America, while the lack of it has been the bane of France.
> 
> I believe that a very very very good case can be made for the fact that the English system of government (a la Locke) is better than France's system of government not because of Calvinism, but because it is simply based upon better reflection of that "natural light" given to all mankind. Also, we had some very wise deists while France had foolish deists. So, for instance, Jefferson supported religion because it led to good morals. The French, on the other hand...
> There are a whole host of reasons why America is better, and yes, some of it is because our founding fathers saw the value of supporting religion rather than opposing it, but that is most definitely not the biggest or only reason.
Click to expand...


I would read Kelly before you so casually dismiss him. Now, what do I mean by Christian America? I do not mean taht everyone was a bible-thumping Calvinist, but let's go beyond that. Are we talking about the Puritan Foundations, or Constitutional Foundations, or both? If we are talking about the former then you have to grant me that the Puritans were Christian. If we are talking about the latter, then, granted, the Christianity gets confused and compromised. But this raises yet a further question, what counts as valid evidence? Historians, especially those driven by tenure and academic terrorism, exclude contrary evidence to their claims. This further complicates our task.

I maintain, over against Christ-hating secular textbooks, that the _roots_ of America were formed by Puritan Calvinism in the North and Hugeonot Reformed Christianity in the South. Some quotations will suffice:



> Puritanism formed the moral and religious outlook of fully 75% of people who declared their independence in 1776, Sydney Alstrhom, *Religious History of the American People*, 124



Again, one need only refer to John Cotton's Abstracts.

Doug Kelly again:


> Hence, unlike modern liberal democratic ideas, the New England Puritans were not primarily individualists seeking a neutral public open to all religious vies. Rather, they held to a Christian commonwealth, which they hoped would aid in reforming the rest of the world by being a "city set on a hill." p.126



Further evidence

*Presbyterian Rebellion*
When King Charles Stuart I declared a war on Parliament to extend his tyranny over church and state, that war was called "an Episcopal War." When the colonists fought to preserve a Christian Moral Order against Parliament and George III, that was known as a "Presbyterian Rebellion." They knew what true liberty was in Church and State. They were willing to die for it. So, the State of Virginia has as its state motto, "Sic Semper Tyrannus."

Walpole in England referred to the colonial uprising as, "Cousin America has run off with the Presbyterian Parson," referring to John Witherspoon. He was correct. He rightly identified the "Black Regiment" as the key point of resistance. He knew that a Presbyterian worldview had long issued death warrants for unlawful tyrants. Presbyterians believed that no man could lay claim to ultimacy in the State. Man was sinful. To make one man more powerful than the other was to make one sinner more powerful than other sinners. As such, the King was under the Law (Samuel Rutherford). 

The Real battle cry of 1776 was not "taxation without representation," but "No King but Jesus." The colonials, and you will never hear this in your government school textbooks, feared England placing the colonies under an Anglican Archbishop (see, Bridenbaugh, _Mitre and Scepter_, pp. 91, 97, 110ff).

This is too exciting. I can go on forever. Time would fail me to speak of Samuel Davies' influence on the greatest American to ever live, Patrick Henry. What of the Election day sermons which warned magistrates of a higher law? What of John Adams saying that the most popular book during the Revolution was written by high-octane Calvinist, Phillipe duPlissey Mornay? 

Yes, I know the cons and will deal with them when time allows.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> In deference to the youth and zeal for righteousness, of brother Jacob ....I echo Patrick's question.
> 
> My conscious binds me to humbly point out, that the tired word "theocracy" is somehow inaccurate. It is unbiblical. ?? Thus, it is NOT the case that it is _unavoidable_ in the SENSE that Biblical Christianity is NOT a culture. Nor will it ever be. Rather...
> 
> *It is written* (obviously) man is lost in sin and is either in Adam (the first) or *IN* the Second Adam (Christ.) There are only 2 categories the entire human race inhabits.
> 
> Scripture teaches this grid from which to view anthropology and the history of the world.
> 
> Romans 5 -- 6 -- 7 Keep it in context!
> 
> Here I stand.
> 
> 
> 
> Robin



Thank you for not dealing with my arguments. I was almost worried you would have a case.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> In deference to the youth and zeal for righteousness, of brother Jacob ....I echo Patrick's question.


Praise God for Jacob's zeal for righteousness! May it spread and inspire.


> My conscious binds me to humbly point out, that the tired word "theocracy" is somehow inaccurate. It is unbiblical. ??


Insert word "Trinity". The concept _is_ biblical.


> Thus, it is NOT the case that it is _unavoidable_ in the SENSE that Biblical Christianity is NOT a culture. Nor will it ever be. Rather...


Equivocation. Theocracy is meant to be involved in the civil sphere. We're not talking of the overall cultural which would include the arts etc. We're not even talking about economics and science now although they need reforming as well. Nor will it ever be? I guess my pastor shouldn't preach this Sunday on the National Right To Life Sunday on the issue of life and death of abortion issues. We want the laws of America to reflect _just_ laws. I want abortion ended. I want rapists punished. I want murderers executed. And yes I want them all evangelized by the church. It is the civil aspect that we are talking about. There _is_ a separation of church and state. When the word theocracy is used, you might want to have Jacob clarify what he means. He will in no sense have church over state. 


> *It is written* (obviously) man is lost in sin and is either in Adam (the first) or *IN* the Second Adam (Christ.) There are only 2 categories the entire human race inhabits.
> 
> Scripture teaches this grid from which to view anthropology and the history of the world.
> 
> Romans 5 -- 6 -- 7 Keep it in context!
> 
> Here I stand.
> 
> 
> 
> Robin



Correction: Here you sit. I'd rather you stand up for God's law in this wicked and perverse nation and call it as a whole to repentance. Be a prophetic voice crying in the wilderness to bend the knee to King Jesus, ask for forgiveness and follow him.

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by crhoades]


----------



## RamistThomist

For what its worth I believe in the separation of church and state. Neither is ultimate and both are accountable to God.


----------



## Robin

Sorry, Chris....the Book of Romans, in its entirety, is where I'm standing. In context; beginning to end without stopping - without chopping-it-up; flipping chapters 5, 6 7, 8 forward or back.

Paul's letter speaks for itself.

Jacob is right about not addressing his "case." There is no argument there to address.

The Apostle's teaching supersedes all the arguments of men.

I must stand with Paul.

Courteously,

Robin 

PS. There is a curiouser question though....if Paul was a theocrat (?) then how come he became a Christian? The pharisee of pharisees makes no mention of retaining the "theocratic system." Hmmm....

 Inquiring minds want to know....


----------



## crhoades

Robin,

To ensure a fruitful discussion and to make sure we won't talk past each other, I have a couple questions for you.

How do you define theocracy/theocrat?

How do you view separation of church and state?

What is the foundation for the civil governement's laws and punishment?

Should abortion be illegal and if so why?

How do you interpret WCF 19.4?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Sorry, Chris....the Book of Romans, in its entirety, is where I'm standing. In context; beginning to end without stopping - without chopping-it-up; flipping chapters 5, 6 7, 8 forward or back.
> 
> Paul's letter speaks for itself.
> 
> Jacob is right about not addressing his "case." There is no argument there to address.
> 
> The Apostle's teaching supersedes all the arguments of men.
> 
> I must stand with Paul.
> 
> Courteously,
> 
> Robin
> 
> PS. There is a curiouser question though....if Paul was a theocrat (?) then how come he became a Christian? The pharisee of pharisees makes no mention of retaining the "theocratic system." Hmmm....
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know....



You just begged every question. Until you deal with arguments set forth by both Chris and myself, and until you define your terms, you won't get an answer from me.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Jacob - Have you read "In Search of Christian America" by Noll, Marsden, & Hatch? These 3 scholars are anything but liberal secularists...
I suggest it to you.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> For what its worth I believe in the separation of church and state. Neither is ultimate and both are accountable to God.



If one is Kuyperian than they don't propose a bizarre Byzantine fusion of church and state, but rather sphere sovereignty of ecclesiastical and civil authorities. However, the state doesn't blur its lines with civil society, in all encompassing _polis_, but rather acknowledges the authority and mandate of the church. Heaven help the state and nation that disrupts the Gospel commission by encroaching on the sovereignty of God.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I guess my pastor shouldn't preach this Sunday on the National Right To Life Sunday on the issue of life and death of abortion issues.



For the gnostic/statist to be consistent, one must answer "let the babies die. Christ's kingdom is not of this world."




> We want the laws of America to reflect _just_ laws. I want abortion ended. I want rapists punished. I want murderers executed.



You mean you don't want child rapists back on the street after 60 days?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Jacob - Have you read "In Search of Christian America" by Noll, Marsden, & Hatch? These 3 scholars are anything but liberal secularists...
> I suggest it to you.



Combined I have read about 10 books by Marsden and Noll. I have read articles in the above books, but not the whole thing. Although I will lose credibility in this next sentence, Gary North adequately rebuts that book in _Politcal Polytheism_


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> For what its worth I believe in the separation of church and state. Neither is ultimate and both are accountable to God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one is Kuyperian than they don't propose a bizarre Byzantine fusion of church and state, but rather sphere sovereignty of ecclesiastical and civil authorities. However, the state doesn't blur its lines with civil society, in all encompassing _polis_, but rather acknowledges the authority and mandate of the church. Heaven help the state and nation that disrupts the Gospel commission by encroaching on the sovereignty of God.
Click to expand...


Precisely. Neither sphere gains authority from the other sphere. This is old fashioned calvinism. Sovereignty of God being applied to political spheres ensures that no one sphere dominates the other. Why is this so hard to understand?


----------



## Puritanhead

Similarly, Christians that embrace otherworldliness under pretense of piety, and ignore the call to be salt and light, and seek their closets or escapism are neglecting their duty. In the face of the world's problems, some maintain that we deal with the sin of the world by declaring His kingdom as not being of this world. Similarly, their embrace of a 'do nothing' philosophy, ends up corrupting the teachings of our Lord in favor of some neo-gnosticism or quasi-nihilism masquerading as Christian piety.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_ We want the laws of America to reflect _just_ laws. I want abortion ended. I want rapists punished. I want murderers executed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you don't want child rapists back on the street after 60 days?
Click to expand...


No i don't want them there, but when we divorce all things God and His law from the civil sphere that is what we are left with. Collective autonomy is still autonomy. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes because everyone is their own law giver. Isn't that what Adam and Eve did?

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by crhoades]

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by crhoades]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> We want the laws of America to reflect _just_ laws. I want abortion ended. I want rapists punished. I want murderers executed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you don't want child rapists back on the street after 60 days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but when we divorce all things God and His law from the civil sphere that is what we are left with. Collective autonomy is still autonomy. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes because everyone is their own law giver. Isn't that what Adam and Eve did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's in the Old Testament, though.
Click to expand...


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by crhoades_ We want the laws of America to reflect _just_ laws. I want abortion ended. I want rapists punished. I want murderers executed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you don't want child rapists back on the street after 60 days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but when we divorce all things God and His law from the civil sphere that is what we are left with. Collective autonomy is still autonomy. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes because everyone is their own law giver. Isn't that what Adam and Eve did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's in the Old Testament, though.
Click to expand...


Creation ordinance - pre-Mosaic cult/cultus thingy.

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by crhoades]


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> The foundation of _America_ (the nation) was not theocratic Puritanism... the foundation of a few of the colonies was theocratic Puritanism. Certainly not all... or even most... or even half.
> I'd get your facts straight before you go public with your book...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Cotton aside, right? Doug Kelly must not have known his facts when he wrote _The Emegernce of Liberty_.
> 
> Of course the whole nation was not theocratic Puritanism, but the politcal ideas later adopted in America could only have arisen in the environment that the Puritans produced. What makes this even more striking is the success to which it was attended. In an atheistic moral order that France produced, the supposedly same ideas failed. Why? Well, government schools won't let us answer that question. But I didn't make my thesis real clear: Only a Calvinist heritage could have produced America. It would help to contrast America with France. Calvinism, contra modern political parties, believes God is sovereign and man sinful, therefore, man cannot be trusted with absolute power. He must be held accountable. France, ascribing deity to the political order, produced bloodshed and lost liberty.
> 
> [Edited on 1--20-06 by Draught Horse]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not read Kelly... but if he perpetuates the Christian myth of a "Christian America" then yes... he got his facts wrong.
> 
> It is pretty simplistic of you to say "Calvinism" is what helped America, while the lack of it has been the bane of France.
> 
> I believe that a very very very good case can be made for the fact that the English system of government (a la Locke) is better than France's system of government not because of Calvinism, but because it is simply based upon better reflection of that "natural light" given to all mankind. Also, we had some very wise deists while France had foolish deists. So, for instance, Jefferson supported religion because it led to good morals. The French, on the other hand...
> There are a whole host of reasons why America is better, and yes, some of it is because our founding fathers saw the value of supporting religion rather than opposing it, but that is most definitely not the biggest or only reason.
Click to expand...


Most scholars seem to be of the opinion that Locke's work, while secular, is heavily indebted to Presbyterianism and Calvinism in general and Rutherford's _Lex Rex_ in particular.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> The foundation of _America_ (the nation) was not theocratic Puritanism... the foundation of a few of the colonies was theocratic Puritanism. Certainly not all... or even most... or even half.
> I'd get your facts straight before you go public with your book...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Cotton aside, right? Doug Kelly must not have known his facts when he wrote _The Emegernce of Liberty_.
> 
> Of course the whole nation was not theocratic Puritanism, but the politcal ideas later adopted in America could only have arisen in the environment that the Puritans produced. What makes this even more striking is the success to which it was attended. In an atheistic moral order that France produced, the supposedly same ideas failed. Why? Well, government schools won't let us answer that question. But I didn't make my thesis real clear: Only a Calvinist heritage could have produced America. It would help to contrast America with France. Calvinism, contra modern political parties, believes God is sovereign and man sinful, therefore, man cannot be trusted with absolute power. He must be held accountable. France, ascribing deity to the political order, produced bloodshed and lost liberty.
> 
> [Edited on 1--20-06 by Draught Horse]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not read Kelly... but if he perpetuates the Christian myth of a "Christian America" then yes... he got his facts wrong.
> 
> It is pretty simplistic of you to say "Calvinism" is what helped America, while the lack of it has been the bane of France.
> 
> I believe that a very very very good case can be made for the fact that the English system of government (a la Locke) is better than France's system of government not because of Calvinism, but because it is simply based upon better reflection of that "natural light" given to all mankind. Also, we had some very wise deists while France had foolish deists. So, for instance, Jefferson supported religion because it led to good morals. The French, on the other hand...
> There are a whole host of reasons why America is better, and yes, some of it is because our founding fathers saw the value of supporting religion rather than opposing it, but that is most definitely not the biggest or only reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most scholars seem to be of the opinion that Locke's work, while secular, is heavily indebted to Presbyterianism and Calvinism in general and Rutherford's _Lex Rex_ in particular.
Click to expand...


Precisely, Locke couldn't have written but in a Calvinist context. He saw that Rutherford was right and Arminianized him.


----------



## Puritanhead

I don't particularly like Locke but do not hate him either... Straussians and neoconservatism interpret the Constitution through a Lockean lens. I agree with Russell Kirk's criticism of Locke in _Rights and Duties: Reflections on our Conservative Constitution_.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Robin,
> 
> To ensure a fruitful discussion and to make sure we won't talk past each other, I have a couple questions for you.
> 
> How do you define theocracy/theocrat?
> 
> How do you view separation of church and state?
> 
> What is the foundation for the civil governement's laws and punishment?
> 
> Should abortion be illegal and if so why?
> 
> How do you interpret WCF 19.4?



Let's not hi-jack J's, thread.

As for the questions, if standing with the Apostle Paul is confusing, what more could be said to clarify?

In Paul's time (among other civil brutalities) children were being left for dead on the roadside. Was Paul a pacifist or bereft of Christian compassion because he did not command sermons against the crimes of the government be proclaimed from the pulpit on the Lord's Day?

It's been said before....obviously, the Christian struggles to live in "two kingdoms." 

Jacob, For what it's worth, it's not possible for your position to speak to what precisely the Scripture reveals about Paul unless there's equivocating. On the other hand, the tighter we read Holy Scripture, the more our conduct will emulate what is written in it -- if we obey it.

Scripture is clear.

It's very important to hammer-things out, though. Keep at it, J!!

r.


----------



## RamistThomist

I have addressed your objections numerous times. See my other threads on "Restoration of Lawful Government." Try to actually deal with the argument instead of begging questions.

Here is what your argumetn looks like:

1. We live in two kingdoms (left undefined for the moment)
MASSIVE
GAPING
HOLE
----------------------------
Conclusion: The Murder of babies is no big deal.

All that I am saying is that people should obey the law. And by people I include civil magistrates. I really don't want to embarrass you by listing a long line of Reformed men who hold my view and abhored yours.

[Edited on 1--21-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> In Paul's time (among other civil brutalities) children were being left for dead on the roadside. Was Paul a pacifist or bereft of Christian compassion because he did not command sermons against the crimes of the government be proclaimed from the pulpit on the Lord's Day?



Where did you get a list of all of Paul's sermons? I want one.


----------



## Richard King

"œAll governments are theocracies," he said. "œWe now live in a secular humanist theocracy. I want to change that to a government with God at its head." -Gary Demar in MotherJones magazine


----------



## Puritanhead

We're already under a theocracy...
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." 
-Matthew 28:18


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> In Paul's time (among other civil brutalities) children were being left for dead on the roadside. Was Paul a pacifist or bereft of Christian compassion because he did not command sermons against the crimes of the government be proclaimed from the pulpit on the Lord's Day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get a list of all of Paul's sermons? I want one.
Click to expand...


They are in the New Testament....you knew that, right?


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I have addressed your objections numerous times. See my other threads on "Restoration of Lawful Government." Try to actually deal with the argument instead of begging questions.
> 
> Here is what your argument looks like:
> 
> 1. We live in two kingdoms (left undefined for the moment)
> MASSIVE
> GAPING
> HOLE
> ----------------------------
> Conclusion: The Murder of babies is no big deal.
> 
> All that I am saying is that people should obey the law. And by people I include civil magistrates. I really don't want to embarrass you by listing a long line of Reformed men who hold my view and abhorred yours.
> Draught Horse



In your own words, J...you're setting up a "false dichotomy"! 

Do you vilify a Christian by projecting onto (in this case) me such an abhorrent idea? ??? Surely not for where's the charity in that?

I know you're saying (and heartily agree with) that folks should obey the law. An important point is how the Christian comports him/herself in supporting that idea in culture.

Scripture is both sufficient and clear what should be preached (in the Place of Christ) from the pulpit, on the Lord's Day. All I hinted at is the pulpit is not for cultural issues on the Lord's Day, as per Scripture.



r.

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Robin]


----------



## Robin

A Mighty Fortress is our God

A mighty fortress is our God, 
a bulwark never failing;
our helper he amid the flood 
of mortal ills prevaling. 
For still our ancient foe
doth seek to work us woe;
his craft and power are great, 
and armed with cruel hate, 
on earth is not his equal.


2. Did we in our own strength confide, 
our striving would be losing, 
were not the right man on our side, 
the man of God's own choosing.
Dost ask who that may be? 
Christ Jesus, it is he; 
Lord Sabbaoth, his name,
from age to age the same,
and he must win the battle.


3. And though this world, with devils filled, 
should threaten to undo us, 
we will not fear, for God hath willed 
his truth to triumph through us. 
The Prince of Darkness grim, 
we tremble not for him; 
his rage we can endure, 
for lo, his doom is sure; 
one little word shall fell him.


4. That word above all earthly powers, 
no thanks to them, abideth; 
the Spirit and the gifts are ours, 
through him who with us sideth. 
Let goods and kindred go, 
this mortal life also; 
the body they may kill; 
God's truth abideth still; 
his kingdom is forever.


----------



## pastorway

> "We the people of these United States do hereby recognize the supremacy of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, King of kings, and Lord of lords; and we do hereby declare that no laws will be passed in this Christian Republic contrary to the revealed will of God found in Holy Scripture." -- James Henley Thornwell



So who decides whether or not the laws are contrary to the Word of God???


----------



## Bladestunner316

Pat robertson  

Sorry had too


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> So who decides whether or not the laws are contrary to the Word of God???



Oh yeah! We replace the Supremes with our _own nine Christian_ expositors of the Word: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Charles Stanley, D. James Kennedy, David Jeremiah, Joel Olsteen, John Hagee, and T.D. Jakes. That should be interesting... especially the 5-4 splits.
:bigsmile:


----------



## Bladestunner316

what about the women like joyce meyer, and Mrs. Crouch!!!!


----------



## Puritanhead

You can't have women on the Supreme Court!


----------



## Bladestunner316

you intolerant commie!!!


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I have addressed your objections numerous times. See my other threads on "Restoration of Lawful Government." Try to actually deal with the argument instead of begging questions.
> 
> Here is what your argument looks like:
> 
> 1. We live in two kingdoms (left undefined for the moment)
> MASSIVE
> GAPING
> HOLE
> ----------------------------
> Conclusion: The Murder of babies is no big deal.
> 
> All that I am saying is that people should obey the law. And by people I include civil magistrates. I really don't want to embarrass you by listing a long line of Reformed men who hold my view and abhorred yours.
> Draught Horse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your own words, J...you're setting up a "false dichotomy"!
> 
> Do you vilify a Christian by projecting onto (in this case) me such an abhorrent idea? ??? Surely not for where's the charity in that?
> 
> I know you're saying (and heartily agree with) that folks should obey the law. An important point is how the Christian comports him/herself in supporting that idea in culture.
> 
> Scripture is both sufficient and clear what should be preached (in the Place of Christ) from the pulpit, on the Lord's Day. All I hinted at is the pulpit is not for cultural issues on the Lord's Day, as per Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> r.
> 
> [Edited on 1-21-2006 by Robin]
Click to expand...


I am not projecting anything onto you. I am drawing your argument to its logical conclusion.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> 
> "We the people of these United States do hereby recognize the supremacy of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, King of kings, and Lord of lords; and we do hereby declare that no laws will be passed in this Christian Republic contrary to the revealed will of God found in Holy Scripture." -- James Henley Thornwell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who decides whether or not the laws are contrary to the Word of God???
Click to expand...


This isn't too hard. Let's see, abortion kills babies. God's word says not to murder. Ergo, laws passed against abortion. 

Eminent domain is theft by armed force. God's word says not to steal. Ergo, eminent domain is outlawed. 

God's word forbids homosexuality. Ergo...

But before I go on we need to develop a theology of the State. The State is only given negative sanctions in scripture. It is to kill evildoers and restrain the sinful actions of men (Romans 13). It is not to play god by setting up government schools, welfare, prison rehabilitation, etc. Whenever the State gets into the lives of the citizens unduly, it destroys the peace and wellbeing of all. I mean, bureacratic jokes are funny for a reason. Imcompentency because the State is try to do things it never was meant to do. Interstingly enough, the Magistrate is called a "minister" of good. He is not to write new laws but to administer old ones, revealed ones. 

Only the Church is given positive sanctions. 

But this can only work in a Confederated Republic, with the emphasis on the local (County) level. Furthermore, do you view constitions as expressed powers documents or implied powers documents? (You don't have to answer. I am just throwing this out for thought).


----------



## Craig

to Jacob  to Chris

I'd love to see more of your stuff on this.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Craig_
> to Jacob  to Chris
> 
> I'd love to see more of your stuff on this.



Here is a blog that I use mainly to post reports/essays on. Should have more on it in a week.

http://patrickhenrypatriot.blogspot.com/


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Excellent Jacob! My brain is tired and I need another able champion of liberty and virtue to inspire me at this late hour.
> 
> I will post the Mecklenberg Declaration.



I live 1 mile from the original spot the Mecklenberg Declaration was drafted. It is always a little sad to me when I drive by it. It's a little stone monument in a small grove-like area with a few picnic benches. Right next door is someones house. 

The America we all know in love is dead my friends. 

It has taken me a few years to come to grips with it. We are simply riding the coat-tails of our forefathers. Inevitably sinking into oblivion. 

God alone may provide new life to this dead country.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by Craig_
> to Jacob  to Chris
> 
> I'd love to see more of your stuff on this.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> 
> "We the people of these United States do hereby recognize the supremacy of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, King of kings, and Lord of lords; and we do hereby declare that no laws will be passed in this Christian Republic contrary to the revealed will of God found in Holy Scripture." -- James Henley Thornwell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who decides whether or not the laws are contrary to the Word of God???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't too hard. Let's see, abortion kills babies. God's word says not to murder. Ergo, laws passed against abortion.
> 
> Eminent domain is theft by armed force. God's word says not to steal. Ergo, eminent domain is outlawed.
> 
> God's word forbids homosexuality. Ergo...
> 
> But before I go on we need to develop a theology of the State. The State is only given negative sanctions in scripture. It is to kill evildoers and restrain the sinful actions of men (Romans 13). It is not to play god by setting up government schools, welfare, prison rehabilitation, etc. Whenever the State gets into the lives of the citizens unduly, it destroys the peace and wellbeing of all. I mean, bureacratic jokes are funny for a reason. Imcompentency because the State is try to do things it never was meant to do. Interstingly enough, the Magistrate is called a "minister" of good. He is not to write new laws but to administer old ones, revealed ones.
> 
> Only the Church is given positive sanctions.
> 
> But this can only work in a Confederated Republic, with the emphasis on the local (County) level. Furthermore, do you view constitions as expressed powers documents or implied powers documents? (You don't have to answer. I am just throwing this out for thought).
Click to expand...


Jacob, you truly are... "brilliant." Your blind adherence to your fanciful dogma is astounding.
"Eminent domain is theft by armed force." That is your interpretation. I - and millions others - happen to think that sometimes, no matter how rarely, eminent domain is good. 

Thanks for answering Phil's question in such a way that you prove his point...


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> 
> "We the people of these United States do hereby recognize the supremacy of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, King of kings, and Lord of lords; and we do hereby declare that no laws will be passed in this Christian Republic contrary to the revealed will of God found in Holy Scripture." -- James Henley Thornwell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who decides whether or not the laws are contrary to the Word of God???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't too hard. Let's see, abortion kills babies. God's word says not to murder. Ergo, laws passed against abortion.
> 
> Eminent domain is theft by armed force. God's word says not to steal. Ergo, eminent domain is outlawed.
> 
> God's word forbids homosexuality. Ergo...
> 
> But before I go on we need to develop a theology of the State. The State is only given negative sanctions in scripture. It is to kill evildoers and restrain the sinful actions of men (Romans 13). It is not to play god by setting up government schools, welfare, prison rehabilitation, etc. Whenever the State gets into the lives of the citizens unduly, it destroys the peace and wellbeing of all. I mean, bureacratic jokes are funny for a reason. Imcompentency because the State is try to do things it never was meant to do. Interstingly enough, the Magistrate is called a "minister" of good. He is not to write new laws but to administer old ones, revealed ones.
> 
> Only the Church is given positive sanctions.
> 
> But this can only work in a Confederated Republic, with the emphasis on the local (County) level. Furthermore, do you view conditions as expressed powers documents or implied powers documents? (You don't have to answer. I am just throwing this out for thought).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jacob, you truly are... "brilliant." Your blind adherence to your fanciful dogma is astounding.
> "Eminent domain is theft by armed force." That is your interpretation. I - and millions others - happen to think that sometimes, no matter how rarely, eminent domain is good.
> 
> Thanks for answering Phil's question in such a way that you prove his point...
Click to expand...


May I ask, under what conditions or circumstance is it "good" for the government to seize your property? And do you believe that the government can seize with impunity as long as its considered "good" by said government?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> 
> "We the people of these United States do hereby recognize the supremacy of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, King of kings, and Lord of lords; and we do hereby declare that no laws will be passed in this Christian Republic contrary to the revealed will of God found in Holy Scripture." -- James Henley Thornwell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who decides whether or not the laws are contrary to the Word of God???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't too hard. Let's see, abortion kills babies. God's word says not to murder. Ergo, laws passed against abortion.
> 
> Eminent domain is theft by armed force. God's word says not to steal. Ergo, eminent domain is outlawed.
> 
> God's word forbids homosexuality. Ergo...
> 
> But before I go on we need to develop a theology of the State. The State is only given negative sanctions in scripture. It is to kill evildoers and restrain the sinful actions of men (Romans 13). It is not to play god by setting up government schools, welfare, prison rehabilitation, etc. Whenever the State gets into the lives of the citizens unduly, it destroys the peace and wellbeing of all. I mean, bureacratic jokes are funny for a reason. Imcompentency because the State is try to do things it never was meant to do. Interstingly enough, the Magistrate is called a "minister" of good. He is not to write new laws but to administer old ones, revealed ones.
> 
> Only the Church is given positive sanctions.
> 
> But this can only work in a Confederated Republic, with the emphasis on the local (County) level. Furthermore, do you view constitions as expressed powers documents or implied powers documents? (You don't have to answer. I am just throwing this out for thought).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jacob, you truly are... "brilliant." Your blind adherence to your fanciful dogma is astounding.
> "Eminent domain is theft by armed force." That is your interpretation. I - and millions others - happen to think that sometimes, no matter how rarely, eminent domain is good.
> 
> Thanks for answering Phil's question in such a way that you prove his point...
Click to expand...


No problem. Any time.


----------



## VictorBravo

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> "Eminent domain is theft by armed force." That is your interpretation. I - and millions others - happen to think that sometimes, no matter how rarely, eminent domain is good.
> 
> Thanks for answering Phil's question in such a way that you prove his point...



No question that eminent domain is sometimes "good"-- for the majority that is, not necessarily for the landowner. And our laws have defined it to not be theft as long as there is "just compensation". The common law and tradition have recognized eminent domain for a long time. The question is, however, is it scriptural? I note that David as king bought the threshing floor even when it was offered to him as a gift.

So I tend to think that in our post-Kelo world, eminent domain is more like a Godfather business deal: "make him an offer he can't refuse."

Vic


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> "Eminent domain is theft by armed force." That is your interpretation. I - and millions others - happen to think that sometimes, no matter how rarely, eminent domain is good.
> 
> Thanks for answering Phil's question in such a way that you prove his point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question that eminent domain is sometimes "good"-- for the majority that is, not necessarily for the landowner. And our laws have defined it to not be theft as long as there is "just compensation". The common law and tradition have recognized eminent domain for a long time. The question is, however, is it scriptural? I note that David as king bought the threshing floor even when it was offered to him as a gift.
> 
> So I tend to think that in our post-Kelo world, eminent domain is more like a Godfather business deal: "make him an offer he can't refuse."
> 
> Vic
Click to expand...


By what standard do you define "just compensation?" Suppose this dear old grandma in her eighties is living in her family home that has belonged to the family for about 10 generations. She has no desire for wealth, only to live out her days in peace and quiet on her family estate. Exactly how do you give her "just compensation?"

Ironically, God destroyed Ahab for precisely that.



> make him an offer he can't refuse."



Brilliant!

[Edited on 1--25-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## VictorBravo

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> By what standard do you define "just compensation?" Suppose this dear old grandma in her eighties is living in her family home that has belonged to the family for about 10 generations. She has no desire for wealth, only to live out her days in peace and quiet on her family estate. Exactly how do you give her "just compensation?"
> 
> Ironically, God destroyed Ahab for precisely that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> make him an offer he can't refuse."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> [Edited on 1--25-06 by Draught Horse]
Click to expand...


I put "just compensation" in quotes because I meant to imply it was a tautology. It is "just" because a jury said so.

But the evidence allowed for determining that amount does not include grandma's sentiments. Rather, it is what a hypothetical buyer would accept and a hypothetical seller would pay (called sometimes the "reasonable person"). 

So, if Grandma doesn't want to sell, she is essentially presumed to be unreasonable. That's how we define "just" in our day. 

BTW, after I posted I thought about Ahab and Jezebel and the little vineyard. Good example.

(I can't write worth a hypothetical bean this morning. Sorry for all the edits.)



[Edited on 1-25-2006 by victorbravo]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> "Eminent domain is theft by armed force." That is your interpretation. I - and millions others - happen to think that sometimes, no matter how rarely, eminent domain is good.
> 
> Thanks for answering Phil's question in such a way that you prove his point...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question that eminent domain is sometimes "good"-- for the majority that is, not necessarily for the landowner. And our laws have defined it to not be theft as long as there is "just compensation". The common law and tradition have recognized eminent domain for a long time. The question is, however, is it scriptural? I note that David as king bought the threshing floor even when it was offered to him as a gift.
> 
> So I tend to think that in our post-Kelo world, eminent domain is more like a Godfather business deal: "make him an offer he can't refuse."
> 
> Vic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By what standard do you define "just compensation?" Suppose this dear old grandma in her eighties is living in her family home that has belonged to the family for about 10 generations. She has no desire for wealth, only to live out her days in peace and quiet on her family estate. Exactly how do you give her "just compensation?"
> 
> Ironically, God destroyed Ahab for precisely that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> make him an offer he can't refuse."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant!
> 
> [Edited on 1--25-06 by Draught Horse]
Click to expand...


Does Grandma like electricity? Eminent domain.

Does grandma like heat? Eminent domain.

Does Grandma like fresh food? Eminent domain.

Does Grandma like driving, or having people visit her using a highway? Eminent domain.

Does she like to buy things? They likely come over rail or by truck over routes purchased through eminent domain.

Does she like not speaking Russian or German? She is defended by military bases purchased through eminent domain.

America is the only State in the known history of the world to actually _pay_ for land it takes. To not have eminent domain makes the individual the emperor over everyone. It gives Grandma the power to say, the entire city of Jackson can't have power unless the government pays me {insert Dr. Evil voice} ONE BILLION DOLLARS for my shack and little plot of land that just happens to be the route that the electric lines must go.

Jacob, with respect, you obviously either do not understand eminent domain, or you have such a hyper-individualized view of the world that it makes no sense (either Biblically or practically).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I guess we don't need any roads either..... 

Does that violate a command to have roads?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I guess we don't need any roads either.....
> 
> Does that violate a command to have roads?



I actually have mixed views on that. Depends on how you define "road." Defined as "route" or as "road."....I know. sounds crazy but...oh well, wrong thread anyway.

Anyway, I accomplished my purpose for this thread. I quoted (either here or elsewhere) Reformers, Puritans, and Southern Presbyterians on the limits of civil obedience. I applied God's sovereignty to the realm of politics. And I got people mad. Fortunately, a lot of people here saw that what we call liberty, our forefathers called bondage (I think Thornwell said that). 

Y'all can make fun of me all you want. I really don't care. A lot of people here, while not being vocal on this thread, have told me in private that they like what they saw. However, Molech is drinking the blood of our children and the Church refuses to use her prophetic voice to call it into account. Even though I am postmillennial, I have a rather grisly view of the next 15 years. The Church is like the 200 pound weakling that is getting kicked in the teeth by the 90 pound bully. A few people have decided that enough is enough. Now, I ain't in to no people-pleasing, but it was nice to know that someone is taking me seriously. I have no desire to get the majority here around to my view point, but a few people have told me that they are reading Heiland and Confederate Gold. Mission Accomplished. I need to write little esle.


----------



## JohnV

Jacob:

You know who you remind me of? Me, when I was young ( in some ways. ) I don't know if that helps, though.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Jacob:
> 
> You know who you remind me of? Me, when I was young ( in some ways. ) I don't know if that helps, though.



Doc Holliday said the same thing to Johnnie Ringo. Sorry, couldn't resist. I am really not that wacko. I have thought through MANY of my beliefs (with the understanding that I have a long ways to go) and defended them in the face of vicious secularism at home and college.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Jacob, I'm not trying to make fun of you. You have some good ideas and much good to say to a complacent church. I just think you need to think things through a little more. There are other ways to motivate people to action than calling them a bunch of idol worshippers (not that it isn't necessary now and then). We can talk about that later though.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Jacob, I'm not trying to make fun of you. You have some good ideas and much good to say to a complacent church. I just think you need to think things through a little more. There are other ways to motivate people to action than calling them a bunch of idol worshippers (not that it isn't necessary now and then). We can talk about that later though.



I know you're not, Patrick. I think very highly of you and glad you put up with me teasing you in class . I am trying to think these things through. That is why when someone comes up to me asking me political questions, have read the historical backgrond of our country, works from Calvin and Knox, and say, "Jacob, do we rebel? DO we fight now?" I would answer, loudly, NO. However, my "no" should not be seen as a pacifistic no, as the time will come when the sword, to quote Presbyterian Samuel Davies, becomes consecrated to God. 

Again, I will refer men to the essay on this written by non-theonomist John Jefferson Davis. It is the best *short* work on the subject.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I guess we don't need any roads either.....
> 
> Does that violate a command to have roads?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually have mixed views on that. Depends on how you define "road." Defined as "route" or as "road."....I know. sounds crazy but...oh well, wrong thread anyway.
> 
> Anyway, I accomplished my purpose for this thread. I quoted (either here or elsewhere) Reformers, Puritans, and Southern Presbyterians on the limits of civil obedience. I applied God's sovereignty to the realm of politics. And I got people mad. Fortunately, a lot of people here saw that what we call liberty, our forefathers called bondage (I think Thornwell said that).
> 
> Y'all can make fun of me all you want. I really don't care. A lot of people here, while not being vocal on this thread, have told me in private that they like what they saw. However, Molech is drinking the blood of our children and the Church refuses to use her prophetic voice to call it into account. Even though I am postmillennial, I have a rather grisly view of the next 15 years. The Church is like the 200 pound weakling that is getting kicked in the teeth by the 90 pound bully. A few people have decided that enough is enough. Now, I ain't in to no people-pleasing, but it was nice to know that someone is taking me seriously. I have no desire to get the majority here around to my view point, but a few people have told me that they are reading Heiland and Confederate Gold. Mission Accomplished. I need to write little esle.
Click to expand...


This is not about making fun.

There is a HUGE distinction between abortion on demand and eminent domain. Notice that I never criticized your points about abortion. But when you put eminent domain in the same class you do a disservice to (and demean the importance of) resistance against abortion.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Jacob:
> 
> You know who you remind me of? Me, when I was young ( in some ways. ) I don't know if that helps, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc Holliday said the same thing to Johnnie Ringo. Sorry, couldn't resist. I am really not that wacko. I have thought through MANY of my beliefs (with the understanding that I have a long ways to go) and defended them in the face of vicious secularism at home and college.
Click to expand...


You show youthful zeal, my friend. And you're fired up. But there have been many people down the path you're on; it is well trodden. But you'll only know that when you look back. And there's so much that you don't see on either side of you. You need to focus, to be sure. Just don't shut out those who have been there, walking the same path, with the same ideals, probably a different program, and with the same aims. I don't want to quash those aims; the program didn't and won't work; and I still have those ideals. I have to live with that, because its the truth. But I'm not defeated. In fact, it was never mine to win. It was mine just to be faithful.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Jacob:
> 
> You know who you remind me of? Me, when I was young ( in some ways. ) I don't know if that helps, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doc Holliday said the same thing to Johnnie Ringo. Sorry, couldn't resist. I am really not that wacko. I have thought through MANY of my beliefs (with the understanding that I have a long ways to go) and defended them in the face of vicious secularism at home and college.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You show youthful zeal, my friend. And you're fired up. But there have been many people down the path you're on; it is well trodden. But you'll only know that when you look back. And there's so much that you don't see on either side of you. You need to focus, to be sure. Just don't shut out those who have been there, walking the same path, with the same ideals, probably a different program, and with the same aims. I don't want to quash those aims; the program didn't and won't work; and I still have those ideals. I have to live with that, because its the truth. But I'm not defeated. In fact, it was never mine to win. It was mine just to be faithful.
Click to expand...


I know. I have read Gary North. I know what NOT to do.  Just to put many fears to rest, I actually sold my rifle (I needed money and am not going to hunt in the near future). So, no immediate action for me. I am reflecting on these issues so that when someone asks me a Christian persepctive on law and civil government, I can give him an answer that won't get himself killed.

Fred,
My apologies if I put eminent domain in the same category as abortion. I still disagree with it, but not onthe same level for obvious reasons. I probably did do that in the midst of typing but wasnt aware of it. Thank you for pointing that out.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Fred,
> My apologies if I put eminent domain in the same category as abortion. I still disagree with it, but not onthe same level for obvious reasons. I probably did do that in the midst of typing but wasnt aware of it. Thank you for pointing that out.



No problem. My point was not that you were being offensive, but that I want your good message to be heard.

If it is one thing that I have learned over the years - maybe John agrees as well - is that it is far too easy to drown out a gallon of your own wisdom with a teaspoon of foolishness.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Fred,
> My apologies if I put eminent domain in the same category as abortion. I still disagree with it, but not onthe same level for obvious reasons. I probably did do that in the midst of typing but wasnt aware of it. Thank you for pointing that out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. My point was not that you were being offensive, but that I want your good message to be heard.
> 
> If it is one thing that I have learned over the years - maybe John agrees as well - is that it is far too easy to drown out a gallon of your own wisdom with a teaspoon of foolishness.
Click to expand...


Point taken. Fair enough.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> This isn't too hard. Let's see, abortion kills babies. God's word says not to murder. Ergo, laws passed against abortion.
> 
> Eminent domain is theft by armed force. God's word says not to steal. Ergo, eminent domain is outlawed.
> 
> God's word forbids homosexuality. Ergo...
> 
> But before I go on we need to develop a theology of the State. The State is only given negative sanctions in scripture. It is to kill evildoers and restrain the sinful actions of men (Romans 13). It is not to play god by setting up government schools, welfare, prison rehabilitation, etc. Whenever the State gets into the lives of the citizens unduly, it destroys the peace and wellbeing of all. I mean, bureacratic jokes are funny for a reason. Imcompentency because the State is try to do things it never was meant to do. Interstingly enough, the Magistrate is called a "minister" of good. He is not to write new laws but to administer old ones, revealed ones.
> 
> Only the Church is given positive sanctions.
> 
> But this can only work in a Confederated Republic, with the emphasis on the local (County) level. Furthermore, do you view constitions as expressed powers documents or implied powers documents? (You don't have to answer. I am just throwing this out for thought).



Because the scripture is silent as to the government providing, welfare, rehabilitation, schools and health insurance in no way means the scripture condemns a government getting involved in such activities. Your argument is based on silence.

Let us take education as an example. Knowledge has increased so profusely, that it is highly impossible to find parents who can solidify in their children the requisite education for their future vocation. From specialities from Biology, Zoology, Anatomy; Immunology, etc. Math in itself is another boogey man. How many parents are qualified to teach calculus? How about engineering of various kinds, chemical, biochemical, eletronic, electrical, civil, mechanical etc.

For a government to step out of Education in light of the rapid increase of knowledge would be grossly irresponsible albeit sinful, for the fact that they willingly deprive their citizens of knowledge. This deprivation thus result in ignorance. This severely contradicts the facts of the Bible, that it is God who gave knowledge and wisdom.

In the Bible we find many cases of the Government being involved in education i.e Moses, Daniel, Isaiah were all educated by the Governments of their time.

Does this mandate a fully funded government program? Probably not, but it sure doesn't mandate not having a fully funded government program, after all, a government needs educated people to carry out its duties whether in matters of Civil, Legislative, Military etc. And all these duties must be funded by tax collections.


----------



## VictorBravo

I also agree that abortion is much more of a moral outrage than eminent domain, but similar things are happening in both. Definitions and principles follow the downgrade. 

In abortion, life was redefined. Even after Roe v. Wade, the sand has shifted. If you have ever read Roe, you probably noticed that the decision (as bad as its reasoning was) actually allowed for state regulation of abortion in later trimesters of pregnancy. The court said that the state's interest increase as the pregnancy progressed. So what has happened to every attempt to so regulate it (like partial-birth, which usually is near the end of gestation)? It has been defeated because the right to "choose" has become all but absolute.

Similarly, in eminent domain, the original principal was that (1) the taking of private property had to be (2) for a public purpose and (3) had to be justly compensated. The first two prongs of that principal have badly eroded. "Taking" for the most part now means literally dispossessing one of the property. It does not generally apply to a governmental action that renders the property less (sometimes much less) valuable. And "public purpose" used to have a pretty narrow definition. The government had to actually own the property and put it to a public purpose that did not, in its intent, benefit any particular person. But now a public purpose is virtually anything that a local, state, or federal branch of government says it is. As far as the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned now, a municipality may properly condemn private property and sell it to another private individual for a profit and to increase tax base. That's a long way from dikes, canals, and roads.

So, I think there are plenty of battles to be fought in all directions.

Vic


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> I also agree that abortion is much more of a moral outrage than eminent domain, but similar things are happening in both. Definitions and principles follow the downgrade.
> 
> In abortion, life was redefined. Even after Roe v. Wade, the sand has shifted. If you have ever read Roe, you probably noticed that the decision (as bad as its reasoning was) actually allowed for state regulation of abortion in later trimesters of pregnancy. The court said that the state's interest increase as the pregnancy progressed. So what has happened to every attempt to so regulate it (like partial-birth, which usually is near the end of gestation)? It has been defeated because the right to "choose" has become all but absolute.
> 
> Similarly, in eminent domain, the original principal was that (1) the taking of private property had to be (2) for a public purpose and (3) had to be justly compensated. The first two prongs of that principal have badly eroded. "Taking" for the most part now means literally dispossessing one of the property. It does not generally apply to a governmental action that renders the property less (sometimes much less) valuable. And "public purpose" used to have a pretty narrow definition. The government had to actually own the property and put it to a public purpose that did not, in its intent, benefit any particular person. But now a public purpose is virtually anything that a local, state, or federal branch of government says it is. As far as the U.S. Supreme Court is concerned now, a municipality may properly condemn private property and sell it to another private individual for a profit and to increase tax base. That's a long way from dikes, canals, and roads.
> 
> So, I think there are plenty of battles to be fought in all directions.
> 
> Vic



Along those lines...

In the above posts there were 2 different categorizations going on. One grouped abortion and eminient domain together the other grouped them separately. As a matter of fact the OT judicials show the same categorization in regards to penology. Capital Punishment for murder and restitution for stealing. Do we group them together penologically or as both under breaking God's law? What happens is that we reformed people are agreed to murder = capital punishment"¦we are far less agreed on lesser crimes and the punishments fitted to them. We have to argue for all of them and humbly do what Bahnsen did that if there is unsureness to the application of the law against theft regarding the state then it is our sinful negligence of Scripture in that portion rather than saying well I guess the State can buy up all land it sees fit. The reductio would be that if emininent domain is ok as long as the state gives compensation, what stops the state from buying all property and printing more money to give to the people? Oh, I´m sorry "“ they´ve already done that with property taxes!!! Fail to pay them and see who owns the land then!!!


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> No question that eminent domain is sometimes "good"-- for the majority that is, not necessarily for the landowner. And our laws have defined it to not be theft as long as there is "just compensation". The common law and tradition have recognized eminent domain for a long time. The question is, however, is it scriptural? I note that David as king bought the threshing floor even when it was offered to him as a gift.



Correct, David offered payment, but it wasn´t out of some principle contrary to what we would call "œimminent domain" rather, it was because of a principle of _worship_: David would not burn offerings that cost him nothing. Don´t believe me? Read the account. Again, this has _nothing_ to do with the modern practice of imminent domain and everything about how we should approach worship. The civil government, in America anyway, pays for the land it "œtakes." 



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> By what standard do you define "just compensation?" Suppose this dear old grandma in her eighties is living in her family home that has belonged to the family for about 10 generations. She has no desire for wealth, only to live out her days in peace and quiet on her family estate. Exactly how do you give her "just compensation?"
> 
> Ironically, God destroyed Ahab for precisely that.



About the "œdear old grandma" scenario: please don´t romanticize it. It would be a travesty to allow the will of one person to override the good of the many. What is just compensation? Why, I´d do LESS than our generous government does: I´d give not one penny more than market value.

Regarding Ahab and Naboth´s vineyard"¦ hmmm"¦ I hope your understanding of Bible facts is not characteristic of what RTS Jackson puts out. And as offensive as that may be, I mean that. Absolutely inexcusable for a master´s level student at such a reputable school. A couple of things: Naboth had divine right to that land (part of that whole Old Covenant "œinheritance in the land" type thingy that was going on"¦ remember?) whereas you do not have divine right to your land. Ahab was NOT condemned for enforcing "œeminent domain" in anyway analogous to how we do it: He (actually his wife) went out and essentially murdered the guy and then took his land. This is in no way shape or form like what we do in our country. 


[Edited on 1-25-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> This isn't too hard. Let's see, abortion kills babies. God's word says not to murder. Ergo, laws passed against abortion.
> 
> Eminent domain is theft by armed force. God's word says not to steal. Ergo, eminent domain is outlawed.
> 
> God's word forbids homosexuality. Ergo...
> 
> But before I go on we need to develop a theology of the State. The State is only given negative sanctions in scripture. It is to kill evildoers and restrain the sinful actions of men (Romans 13). It is not to play god by setting up government schools, welfare, prison rehabilitation, etc. Whenever the State gets into the lives of the citizens unduly, it destroys the peace and wellbeing of all. I mean, bureacratic jokes are funny for a reason. Imcompentency because the State is try to do things it never was meant to do. Interstingly enough, the Magistrate is called a "minister" of good. He is not to write new laws but to administer old ones, revealed ones.
> 
> Only the Church is given positive sanctions.
> 
> But this can only work in a Confederated Republic, with the emphasis on the local (County) level. Furthermore, do you view constitions as expressed powers documents or implied powers documents? (You don't have to answer. I am just throwing this out for thought).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the scripture is silent as to the government providing, welfare, rehabilitation, schools and health insurance in no way means the scripture condemns a government getting involved in such activities. Your argument is based on silence.
Click to expand...


I was critiquing the presuppositions of statism inherent in modern governments. During the 1830s the government began to...never mind. This would rehash the public school debate and while I can defend my case, I would have to defend about nine other fronts as well. Bottom line: since the State views man as basically good it is faced with a dilemma when man does wrong. Since man is not sinful and thus the problem could not be found in man, it is found in his environment. We must change his enviroment (the prison system) and we must change him so that he can adapt to our enviroment (government education).

I guess a case could be made that men could do this without statist presuppositions. I am not denying that; I just haven't seen it.

Ben: I wasn't offended. To be honest, I ignored it and am not taking it seriously. I hope that wasn't offensive, either.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Ben: I wasn't offended. To be honest, I ignored it and am not taking it seriously. I hope that wasn't offensive, either.



Nope, no offense taken. It just clarifies that you're bound and determined to have your positions shape the meaning of Scripture than vice versa.

Its good to know where you stand. 

[Edited on 1-25-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Ben: I wasn't offended. To be honest, I ignored it and am not taking it seriously. I hope that wasn't offensive, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, no offense taken. It just clarifies that you're bound and determined to have your positions shape the meaning of Scripture than vice versa.
> 
> Its good to know where you stand.
> 
> [Edited on 1-25-2006 by SolaScriptura]
Click to expand...


I was ignoring the way you said it. Had you presented it differently I would have taken heed (actually, I did but didn't go further because I have different views on the "Israel only" argument, but didn't want to start another thread).


----------

