# The Pledge of Allegiance



## W.C. Dean (Dec 17, 2019)

Hopefully this is the right category - 

I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the Pledge of Allegiance. I think we all pretty much agree that we shouldn't sing patriotic hymns or have American flags in our sanctuaries, but I have some thoughts about the Pledge. Most important is its charge 'under God' (which by the way, was not added originally). Quite a few years ago the OPC decided that members ought to refrain from adhering themselves to the Boy Scouts for the same reason to avoid being a Freemason. You pledge allegiance to a god, but a generic nameless god. Anyone can be a boy scout, and you just have to believe in a higher power to be a freemason, therefore those pledges are not pledges to the Almighty Triune God of the Scriptures. I agree, and thus I believe that would extend to the pledge of allegiance. 

Less important I also have political issues with the pledge, particularly I think it would've been appalling to almost anyone from the Revolutionary War. It's funny for me to think of what Thomas Jefferson would say to people devoting themselves to a flag of a centralized power.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Timotheos (Dec 17, 2019)

I think the bigger question is pledging one's loyalty to an inanimate object. Granted, this is a civil pledge not a religious one. But you made a great point about centralized loyalty over against states' rights.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 17, 2019)

Timotheos said:


> I think the bigger question is pledging one's loyalty to an inanimate object. Granted, this is a civil pledge not a religious one. But you made a great point about centralized loyalty over against states' rights.



When I've repeated with others in the past I always refrain from saying "indivisible".

Also yes I agree it's a civil pledge. The pledge to be a boy scout is also non-religious, but it includes a reception of the nameless god, which the Pledge of Allegiance also holds.


----------



## Jake (Dec 17, 2019)

Could you provide more information about this? I've never heard about it and can't find anything searching: "Quite a few years ago the OPC decided that members ought to refrain from adhering themselves to the Boy Scouts"


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 17, 2019)

Jake said:


> Could you provide more information about this? I've never heard about it and can't find anything searching: "Quite a few years ago the OPC decided that members ought to refrain from adhering themselves to the Boy Scouts"



I read about it in D.G. Hart's book "Between the Times" but I did find an OPC article that talks about it. https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=597


----------



## jw (Dec 17, 2019)

My allegiance is to Christ, and His Kingdom. Insofar as other objects of authority respect that, I will obey them in their lawful and indifferent commands. But my obedience to them is unto glorifying Christ. Ergo, I do not pledge allegiance to a flag. I also reject concepts found in the aforementioned pledge:

1. The nation is _not_ indivisible, it's divided by states, who voluntarily came together to form a union, which -by design- ought to be able to leave voluntarily if any particular state does not like the direction the whole union is going in.

2. _God_ is not defined in the pledge, and we are most certainly _*NOT*_ a nation under the God of Scripture, Who brooks no competitors, and rejects "freedom of religion."

_etc_.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## Howard the Reformer (Dec 17, 2019)

My understanding is that the word "indivisible" was added after the Civil War as a slap to the Southern States that attempted to secede from the Union.


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Dec 17, 2019)

Joshua said:


> 2. _God_ is not defined in the pledge, and we are most certainly _*NOT*_ a nation under the God of Scripture, Who brooks no competitors, and rejects "freedom of religion."


3. The administrator of an oath, whether civil or ecclesiastical, ought to explain the meaning of the oath, and administer it with suitable solemnity. The well-being of individuals and of society requires that _the administrator of an oath know and fear God and understand its nature. _Oaths should be administered only to those who understand their meaning.
Eccl. 9:2; Deut. 6:13; Josh. 9:15, 19; cf. 2 Sam. 21:1-14.
RPCNA Constitution of Lawful Oaths and Vows.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Dec 17, 2019)

I have no problem pledging allegiance to my nation, under God. It is godly to be a patriot, loyal to one's nation, so long that nation occupies its proper place under God. Obviously, the U.S. doesn't do this this perfectly. At times, like many other nations have done, it presumes to demand an allegiance above God and becomes the beast of the sea described in Revelation 13. Whenever that happens, our allegiance to God must come first.

"Under God" is the only place in the pledge where this is made (somewhat) explicit. But most people understand that the principle is implicit whenever a Christian recites the pledge. We are not pledging _supreme_ _obedience_ to the nation, but merely a _proper loyalty_ that comes beneath our supreme loyalty to God.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## jwright82 (Dec 17, 2019)

The US, as of right now and the very very foreseeable future, does not ask us to pledge allegiance to it above God. It only asks us to be good citizens. Whatever lawful things we do in our spare time is our business.


----------



## jwright82 (Dec 17, 2019)

Joshua said:


> My allegiance is to Christ, and His Kingdom. Insofar as other objects of authority respect that, I will obey them in their lawful and indifferent commands. But my obedience to them is unto glorifying Christ. Ergo, I do not pledge allegiance to a flag. I also reject concepts found in the aforementioned pledge:
> 
> 1. The nation is _not_ indivisible, it's divided by states, who voluntarily came together to form a union, which -by design- ought to be able to leave voluntarily if any particular state does not like the direction the whole union is going in.
> 
> ...


Just a question, what do you mean by "rejects "freedom of religion"?


----------



## RJ Spencer (Dec 17, 2019)

I do not pledge allegiance to anything/anyone other than Christ. I don't even pledge allegiance to the OPC, because there is a chance that one day this denomination will go liberal. How can pledging allegiance be okay, if swearing or taking an oath is not?


----------



## jw (Dec 17, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Just a question, what do you mean by "rejects "freedom of religion"?


The very first commandment, applicable to all men without exception- is “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” It follows, then -with the modern definition of _freedom/liberty_- to clarify that the LORD rejects the idea that we, His creatures, are "free" to give our worship to any other.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 17, 2019)

W.C. Dean said:


> Hopefully this is the right category -
> 
> I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the Pledge of Allegiance. I think we all pretty much agree that we shouldn't sing patriotic hymns or have American flags in our sanctuaries, but I have some thoughts about the Pledge. Most important is its charge 'under God' (which by the way, was not added originally). Quite a few years ago the OPC decided that members ought to refrain from adhering themselves to the Boy Scouts for the same reason to avoid being a Freemason. You pledge allegiance to a god, but a generic nameless god. Anyone can be a boy scout, and you just have to believe in a higher power to be a freemason, therefore those pledges are not pledges to the Almighty Triune God of the Scriptures. I agree, and thus I believe that would extend to the pledge of allegiance.
> 
> Less important I also have political issues with the pledge, particularly I think it would've been appalling to almost anyone from the Revolutionary War. It's funny for me to think of what Thomas Jefferson would say to people devoting themselves to a flag of a centralized power.



I fully agree with the OPC stance. And I agree with what @Joshua has said so far. And to be clear, I speak as one commanded by God under Romans 13 to submit to our government's just and legal authority--which I believe it does have, except where God's law is violated. I am to do it, and strive to do it with joy, with patience, and as unto the Lord.

I think our nation is fine saying "under God" so long as its generic. Though, were you to be specific and say "under the Triune God" or "under Christ", you'd see pretty quick what Psalm 2 means by the nations raging against the Lord and His anointed. So long as God is left undefined, it's a false god by default. And the reaction will prove well enough that Jehovah is not intended.

Besides, in Psalm 2, God will not tolerate anything less than for kings, rulers and judges to "kiss the Son." God in the generic will not fulfill this requisite.


----------



## kodos (Dec 17, 2019)

The Pledge of Allegiance comes out of socialist thinking. It was created by a socialist minister and is the fruit of the social gospel.

Until 1954, it did not contain the words "under God". That was an addition proposed by Eisenhower.

You can read more here: https://www.ushistory.org/DOCUMENTS/pledge.htm

All that said, no way, no how am I pledging allegiance to a government that does not Kiss the Son.

Just watch how quickly it will turn against Christians. We are right on the cusp of that happening unless the Lord pours out His Spirit and is merciful.

Pray for revival and for the people to acknowledge Christ as their Lord.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Dec 17, 2019)

If you understood the pledge as being a loyal citizen (so far as Scripture permits) and that is it, would that make it justifiable to say?

I struggle with this. I've found myself increasingly uncomfortable with undue loyalty to the nation. Perhaps that is the crossing of the boundary between being patriotic and devout nationalism.

I love my country in the sense of being thankful to God for what we have, but I am also not under any guise that leads me to believe in unnatural exceptionalism.

*edit* Is it any different than obeying laws and customs? Is it any different than naturally being a part of a culture (which we are all part of one, Christian or not)?


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 17, 2019)

RJ Spencer said:


> I do not pledge allegiance to anything/anyone other than Christ. I don't even pledge allegiance to the OPC, because there is a chance that one day this denomination will go liberal. How can pledging allegiance be okay, if swearing or taking an oath is not?


Swearing and taking oaths _is_ ok. The Westminster Confession has an whole chapter on how and when it's ok.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Dec 17, 2019)

Jack K said:


> It is godly to be a patriot, loyal to one's nation, so long that nation occupies its proper place under God.


My Covenanter may be showing a bit here, but I am curious if being patriotic is limited to loyalty towards one’s nation or if being a true patriot means you want what is best for the nation and it’s inhabitants. 

If we agree that what is best for a people and a nation is to acknowledge Christ’s rule and as other have said, have it’s leaders ‘kiss the Son’, wouldn’t it be considered the hight of patriotism to demand that not only from elected officials, but also fully declare Christ’s headship in our constitution and pledges?


----------



## jw (Dec 17, 2019)

I want to clarify -lest I be misunderstood- that we owe obedience to our magistrates in their lawful and indifferent commands, and according to the wholesome laws of the common wealth. Sometimes, that may mean obeying a "lesser" magistrate over the unlawful commands of a "greater." In disobedience to unlawful commands without the comfort of protection from just lesser magistrate, that may mean our deaths or other forms of persecution. We are to fear God, honor the [magistrate(s)], be subject unto the higher powers, according to place or station . . . and that is not diminished one wit (again, according to their lawful and/or indifferent commands) if the magistrate is not a Christian (WCF 23.4). But none of these things is wrapped up in pledging allegiance to a flag.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 17, 2019)

I am a veteran, and while proud of that in moderation whenever the anthem is played or the pledge is said I stand respectfully, but do not participate in the reciting or singing.

As has been noted the Pledge was part of a movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries which was not only socialist, but utopian in mindset. The deistic Pledge and the various liberal "United" churches are fruits of that.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 17, 2019)

I've pondered this over the years. The pledge ranks right up there with the Battle Hymn of the Republic as questionable propaganda. 

Respect for the flag itself can easily be seen as an aspect of the fifth commandment. We are to show respect for an authority (symbolized by the flag) God has placed over us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 17, 2019)

RJ Spencer said:


> How can pledging allegiance be okay, if swearing or taking an oath is not?


There is certainly biblical and confessional support for taking oaths and vows in a lawful manner outside of a church context. Casting lots can even be done in a lawful manner with qualifications.


Joshua said:


> _God_ is not defined in the pledge, and we are most certainly _*NOT*_ a nation under the God of Scripture


So which God are we under? I am not currently aware of an inch of soil not under the reign and control of Yahweh.

I think USA pledge recital is a matter of conscience.


----------



## jw (Dec 17, 2019)

G said:


> So which God are we under? I am not currently aware of an inch of soil not under the reign and control of Yahweh.
> 
> I think USA pledge recital is a matter of conscience.


O, Friend, I think you're fully aware that I am not asserting a matter of not being under his sovereign control (the secret things, _a la _Deut. 29.29). I am talking, rather, about an acknowledgment of a people's willing submission to the God of Scripture. You should know better.


----------



## kodos (Dec 17, 2019)

G said:


> So which God are we under? I am not currently aware of an inch of soil not under the reign and control of Yahweh.



My Hindu parents would say "God" but would mean Brahma. A Mormon, a Jew, and a Unitarian would do something similar.

To go along with what you are saying, would mean that a nation that pledges its allegiance to Allah really means that they are under Jehovah. A strange thing to consider.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 17, 2019)

kodos said:


> My Hindu parents would say "God" but would mean Brahma. A Mormon, a Jew, and a Unitarian would do something similar.
> 
> To go along with what you are saying, would mean that a nation that pledges its allegiance to Allah really means that they are under Jehovah. A strange thing to consider.


Rom,

Respectfully I have said none of those things nor implied such.


----------



## kodos (Dec 17, 2019)

G said:


> Rom,
> 
> Respectfully I have said none of those things.



I'm confused. You asked a rhetorical question asking what God we are under; the implication being that the pledge's intention doesn't matter - since we are under Jehovah as a matter of fact. But the word 'God' does not signify Jehovah unless used in an orthodox Christian context.

That word can be used to speak of the god of Unitarianism, Deism, Mohammedism, and even Hinduism as my parents could attest to.

The Nation behind the Flag doesn't acknowledge the Triune God of the Bible and as such, precludes Jehovah from the Pledge.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 17, 2019)

Rom,

The pledge’s intention does matter. Again, regarding the USA pledge I think it is a matter of Christian conscience. In my current thinking I would likely abstain in most situation it was done. As always, I am open to change or further resolve.

A good post here:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ledge-of-allegiance.90419/page-2#post-1110960

And here:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/usa-residents-only-pledge-of-allegiance.90419/#post-1110766

@kodos {Edited Above}


----------



## kodos (Dec 17, 2019)

G said:


> Rom,
> 
> The pledge’s intention does matter. Again, regarding the USA pledge I think it is a matter of Christian conscience. I would have no issue saying the pledge among other Christians (like Trail Life or Heritage Girls). However I do not feel obligated to say it every time it is asked. As always, I am open to change or further resolve.



Thanks for taking the time to explain, brother!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 17, 2019)

Joshua said:


> You should know better.


? But I am not the only one who will read what you posted and I think it needed more qualification.



Joshua said:


> _God_ is not defined in the pledge, and we are most certainly _*NOT*_ a nation under the God of Scripture, Who brooks no competitors, and rejects "freedom of religion."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2019)

Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted ... (Westminster Confession 23:4)

By parity of reason, infidelity or difference in religion does not make void your patriotic duty to your nation. The fact that neither the civil magistrate nor the nation "kiss the Son" does not free you from your patriotic duties to your country any more than your parents or siblings being unbelievers frees you from your duties to your family.

If I lived in the USA, I would do what I presently do in the UK - salute the flag, sing the national anthem on all occasions except in a worship service, and oppose Marxist rebels and separatists (such as SINn Fein in Northern Ireland and the SNP in Scotland). We do not have a pledge of allegiance over here in the same way that you do. I have no problem, however, taking an oath of allegiance to our current monarch - recognsing that Queen Elizabeth II is our lawful head of state.

I would scruple to take the pledge in the United States because of "one nation ... indivisible." If it is merely saying that the nation _should not_ be divided, I could live with that assertion. If it is saying that the nation cannot and may never be divided, that is something to which I could not pledge. In which case, if I was ever asked to take the pledge, I would ask for that bit to be removed or make clear that I understood the phrase in the former sense.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## kodos (Dec 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted ... (Westminster Confession 23:4)
> 
> By parity of reason, infidelity or difference in religion does not make void your patriotic duty to your nation. The fact that neither the civil magistrate nor the nation "kiss the Son" does not free you from your patriotic duties to your country any more than your parents or siblings being unbelievers frees you from your duties to your family.
> 
> ...



The phrase “One nation under God” in the pledge is a breach of the third commandment to my understanding. It is also a breach of the ninth. 

Ironically, I would find it more palatable without that clause! I noted some caveats in your own intent to recite pledges.

And besides, being obedient does not require unqualified oath taking. I would never do so if my parents demanded that of me either.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted ... (Westminster Confession 23:4)
> 
> By parity of reason, infidelity or difference in religion does not make void your patriotic duty to your nation. The fact that neither the civil magistrate nor the nation "kiss the Son" does not free you from your patriotic duties to your country any more than your parents or siblings being unbelievers frees you from your duties to your family.
> 
> ...



I agree with you brother about obedience to the civil magistrates, I have a quite severe view of it actually, compared to some I know. (I believe the American colonies' rebellion was not justified) but the pledge is not a matter of obedience, as it isn't required by any government ordinance. Even if it was, I would still stumble over the acknowledgement of an unnamed god.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2019)

kodos said:


> The phrase “One nation under God” in the pledge is a breach of the third commandment to my understanding. It is also a breach of the ninth.



Do you believe in natural theology? Surely _not_ acknowledging God's existence would be a breach of the first commandment. I find it odd that people who complain that God is not mentioned in the Constitution also complain that he is mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance. While I have reservations about the Pledge myself, this objection is not one of them. 



kodos said:


> And besides, being obedient does not require unqualified oath taking. I would never do so if my parents demanded that of me either.



What if the oath requires nothing sinful?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## kodos (Dec 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Do you believe in natural theology? Surely _not_ acknowledging God's existence would be a breach of the first commandment. I find it odd that people who complain that God is not mentioned in the Constitution also complain that he is mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance. While I have reservations about the Pledge myself, this objection is not one of them.
> 
> What if the oath requires nothing sinful?



So the pledge would be sinful if it omitted saying that the nation is under God?

I won’t take an *unqualified* pledge to my parents. Nor would I demand my children make one to me.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2019)

kodos said:


> So the pledge would be sinful if it omitted saying that the nation is under God?



My statement is presupposing that the traditional RPCNA critique of the U.S. system is correct for the sake of argument. What I am saying is is that you cannot consistently maintain that it is wrong to give allegiance to the Constitution for not acknowledging God, while, at the same time, criticising the Pledge for acknowledging God. You can have one of these arguments or you can have the other. You cannot consistently have both at the same time. I am not saying that there are no issues with the Pledge that you might legitimately scruple. In fact, as you noted, I have listed some of them above. 

The question as to whether or not it would be sinful to say the Pledge if it did not contain "under God" is certainly an interesting one. I have no firm answer to give to it at present. Had it not been inserted, I would tend to say "no", but, now that it has been, I am not sure how to answer. I will consider the matter further.


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Dec 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I find it odd that people who complain that God is not mentioned in the Constitution also complain that he is mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance.


As far as I understand it, the Pledge of Allegiance is also a pledge to uphold and honor the Constitution. The Pledge may make mention of _a God, _the Constitution still is silent on the Lordship of Christ over the nation.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2019)

W.C. Dean said:


> I agree with you brother about obedience to the civil magistrates, I have a quite severe view of it actually, compared to some I know. (I believe the American colonies' rebellion was not justified) but the pledge is not a matter of obedience, as it isn't required by any government ordinance. Even if it was, I would still stumble over the acknowledgement of an unnamed god.



Granted, brother, I know that it is not something that you are legally required to do. What concerns me, however, in these discussions is the zeal of some brethren to distance themselves from certain expressions of patriotism without pausing to consider what their actions may be perceived as supporting. From what I can tell, opposition to things like acknowledging the American flag and the U.S. anthem is coming from extreme Leftists and anti-white racists. Christians should think carefully about doing anything that could be seen as giving such elements support for their evil.

That being said, there are times when even the most patriotic of us has to stand apart from expressions of patriotism when they are contrary to our duty as Christians. For instance, I sing our national anthem on all occasions except when it is sung in a church service because God has not commanded it to be sung in worship to him. I think that you would have to be highly uncharitable to assume that I was a SINn Fein/IRA sympathiser because my conscience will not allow me to sing the anthem in one particular scenario. If people do come to that rather foolish conclusion, then, other than politely correct them, there is not much that I can do about it and I will just have to bear reproach for conscience' sake.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2019)

Does anyone know what the RPCNA said about the Pledge when it was introduced? There are historical RPCNA periodicals online, which should answer that question. I suspect that they welcomed the phrase "under God" while being critical of it in other respects. But that assumption is just a guess.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 17, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> As far as I understand it, the Pledge of Allegiance is also a pledge to uphold and honor the Constitution. The Pledge may make mention of _a God, _the Constitution still is silent on the Lordship of Christ over the nation.


And yet we have Nehemiah who was apparently very faithful in his allegiance to King Artaxerxes. I’m not implying that Nehemiah took some unlawful oath, but it seems pretty clear from the text that the pagan King knew he could trust the allegiance of the man as a faithful cup bearer. Clearly Nehemiah was obedient to the higher authority, but he remained in service to a pagan king. I have my doubts that Artaxerxes ever swore allegiance to Christ alone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2019)

kodos said:


> I won’t take an *unqualified* pledge to my parents. Nor would I demand my children make one to me.



Yet is it a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority. (Westminster Confession 23.3)

If (note that I say _if_) an oath is merely requiring us to do something good and just - such as recognising a certain civil magistrate (such as Queen Elizabeth II in the United Kingdom) is your lawful head of state before you are admitted to a position of civic responsibility, we have no just cause to scruple it.

(I am not saying you are taking issue with such things, Rom, but just to be clear for those reading the thread.)


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Granted, brother, I know that it is not something that you are legally required to do. What concerns me, however, in these discussions is the zeal of some brethren to distance themselves from certain expressions of patriotism without pausing to consider what their actions may be perceived as supporting. From what I can tell, opposition to things like acknowledging the American flag and the U.S. anthem is coming from extreme Leftists and anti-white racists. Christians should think carefully about doing anything that could be seen as giving such elements support for their evil.
> 
> That being said, there are times when even the most patriotic of us has to stand apart from expressions of patriotism when they are contrary to our duty as Christians. For instance, I sing our national anthem on all occasions except when it is sung in a church service because God has not commanded it to be sung in worship to him. I think that you would have to be highly uncharitable to assume that I was a SINn Fein/IRA sympathiser because my conscience will not allow me to sing the anthem in one particular scenario. If people do come to that rather foolish conclusion, then, other than politely correct them, there is not much that I can do about it and I will just have to bear reproach for conscience' sake.



I understand what you're saying and I have recited the pledge before out of avoidance of being chastised or distrusted. Anyone who knows me personally would never assume I fail to pledge allegiance because of Marxism, actually most would assume I would refrain because of my political convictions, which is true. I stand for the anthem out of respect but refrain from singing usually, and I stand when the pledge is recited but fail to utter those words. I'm not sure about the RPCNA's historical thoughts on the document or how I feel about the inclusion or exclusion of God in the constitution. I don't appreciate the pledge because it is acknowledging a false god, much like the freemasons. If the pledge was specific about the Holy Triune God I wouldn't have a problem. If it didn't mention any god I wouldn't be that bothered because that's what I would expect from a nation that purposefully distanced themselves from one religion.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 17, 2019)

G said:


> And yet we have Nehemiah who was apparently very faithful in his allegiance to King Artaxerxes. I’m not implying that Nehemiah took some unlawful oath, but it seems pretty clear from the text that the pagan King knew he could trust the allegiance of the man as a faithful cup bearer. Clearly Nehemiah was obedient to the higher authority, but he remained in service to a pagan king. I have my doubts that Artaxerxes ever swore allegiance to Christ alone.



My problem is not being allegiant to one's nation or monarch. I should've clarified. My problem is the acknowledgement of a generic god


----------



## Edward (Dec 17, 2019)

W.C. Dean said:


> I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on the Pledge of Allegiance.



I think it is fine as long as you use the traditional Bellamy salute instead of the modern substitute.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 17, 2019)

W.C. Dean said:


> My problem is the acknowledgement of a generic god


What makes you think it a generic God in its original US context? Is it only because they don’t state the trinitarian formula?

Regardless of the motives of the phrase inclusion as I read the history the phrase addition seems to have been done in the context of a Christian God. However I am no historian and am happy to do further reading.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 17, 2019)

G said:


> What makes you think it a generic God in its original US context? Is it only because they don’t state the trinitarian formula?
> 
> Regardless of the motives of the phrase inclusion as I read the history the phrase addition seems to have been done in the context of a Christian God. However I am no historian and am happy to do further reading.


 
The man who wrote it was a Unitarian and a socialist I believe. Not sure who added 'under God'. No matter the intent, Papists, Jews, and others could easily utter the pledge, just like the boy scouts pledge, the intent may have been the true God, but it is opened up to, and received by non-Christians


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Dec 17, 2019)

G said:


> And yet we have Nehemiah who was apparently very faithful in his allegiance to King Artaxerxes. I’m not implying that Nehemiah took some unlawful oath, but it seems pretty clear from the text that the pagan King knew he could trust the allegiance of the man as a faithful cup bearer. Clearly Nehemiah was obedient to the higher authority, but he remained in service to a pagan king. I have my doubts that Artaxerxes ever swore allegiance to Christ alone.


Don’t misunderstand me, I am certainly subject to the President and even the Constitution. 

However, it is my patriotic duty, as far as it is in my power, to see to it that our nation be governed by godly men who promote true religion. Until that day, and it seems ever increasingly far off, I will not swear an oath unless it is towards a government leader who rules in the fear of the Lord.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 17, 2019)

I just want to clarify as the original poster, I don't necessarily agree with everything my Covenanter brothers are saying, unless I'm misunderstanding. I believe we owe respect and honour to government officials (Rom. 13, Tit. 3, 1 Pet. 2) regardless of their worship or lack thereof. I believe we are shown through those passages above and examples that only time we ought to break the law is when it specifically hinders us from obeying God. 

My problem with the American pledge of allegiance is that, much like the boy scouts and freemasons, it acknowledges a nameless non-specific god any theist could accept.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Dec 17, 2019)

I went back and forth on this issue. I did scruple over the "indivisible" part, but then I decided it was somewhat unlikely that an historically aware person would make the statement that a nation could never be divided. So I figured it's probably just a statement of aspiration and don't trouble myself over it anymore.

"The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been." -R_omance of the Three Kingdoms (_三国演义).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777 (Dec 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> such as recognising a certain civil magistrate (such as Queen Elizabeth II in the United Kingdom) is your lawful head of state before you are admitted to a position of civic responsibility, we have no just cause to scruple it.


That’s reassuring because I had to swear an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution when I entered civil service and I’ve always been uneasy about the rightness of doing it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 17, 2019)

A post I started a year or so ago has been referred to in this similar thread. So I will state my thoughts here, I agree with Joshua and Romesh.  NO PLEDGE!!! My allegiance must be completely to Christ.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2019)

Here is something from the preamble to the Solemn League and Covenant that is tangentially relevant to this discussion:

We noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens, burgesses, ministers of the Gospel, and commons of all sorts in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, by the providence of God *living under one King*, and being of one reformed religion; having before our eyes the glory of God, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, *the honour and happiness of the King's Majesty and his posterity*, and the true public liberty, safety and peace of the kingdoms, wherein every one's private condition is included ...

As will be clear from the sections in bold, the original Covenanters gave allegiance to King Charles I even though he had not submitted his rule to the kingship of Christ. In doing so, they were not legitimising his failure to rule in accordance with Christ's Lordship, but were merely recognising the allegiance that they owed to him as the loyal subjects of their rightful king. Of course, they were not unwilling to resist Charles when he played the tyrant. Still, their differences with Charles's religious policies did not absolve the Covenanters from recognising their allegiance to the King in the lawful exercise of his legal authority.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2019)

In fact, the third article of the Solemn League & Covenant is even more to the point:

We shall with the same sincerity, reality and constancy, in our several vocations, endeavour with our estates and lives *mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms, and to preserve and defend the King's Majesty's person and authority*, in the preservation and defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdoms, that the world may bear witness with our consciences of our loyalty, and that *we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majesty's just power and greatness*. ...

The original Covenanters took an oath to defend and preserve the King's person and just legal authority - even though the King was not of one mind with them in matters of religion. Obviously, this allegiance was not a blind, unreasoning allegiance (hence the reference to the defence of true religion), but neither was it the kind of all or nothing purism that we often hear today.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 17, 2019)

Andrew35 said:


> "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been." -R_omance of the Three Kingdoms (_三国演义).


I've been planning to read this. Would you be able to recommend a translation?


----------



## jw (Dec 17, 2019)

I’ve yet to understand where the Bible presses me to a “patriotic duty.” I am thankful for where God has placed me, I’m thankful for civil magistracy. I pray for my country, her magistrates, and her populace, that the LORD would grant her repentance and reformation, but I do not believe that requires me to take up mantras or a particular devotion to things like the Pledge of Allegiance. I pointed out WCF 23.4 earlier, as well as our duty to obey magistrates in their lawful and indifferent commands, but fail to see how that requires of me some of the things discussed in this thread. Also, I’m not an adopter of the SL&C.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Dec 17, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> I've been planning to read this. Would you be able to recommend a translation?


I read the CH Brewitt-Taylor translation (unabridged), and found it a bit stilted in language, but still quite good. It's supposed to be the more literal translation. The only alternative with which I'm familiar is the Moss Roberts translation, which most seem to prefer. It has notes that a lot of people find helpful. I haven't checked it out in detail yet. Maybe on my next read.

It was a slog, I won't deny, but absolutely worth it. Kind of like _Don Quixote_ in that regard.

Don't wait too long. Chinese say if you read it when you're too old, you'll regret all you could have learned from it.  (Conversely, they say don't read _Outlaws of the Marsh_, another of the four great Chinese novels, when you're too young, b/c you'll learn too much bad stuff from it.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2019)

Joshua said:


> I’ve yet to understand where the Bible presses me to a “patriotic duty.” I am thankful for where God has placed me, I’m thankful for civil magistracy. I pray for my country, her magistrates, and her populace, that the LORD would grant her repentance and reformation, but I do not believe that requires me to take up mantras or a particular devotion to things like the Pledge of Allegiance.



Is treason against one's country a sin? If it is, then the opposite virtue is commanded (remember the Larger Catechism's rules for understanding the Decalogue). How that duty manifests itself will, however, likely differ to some extent from country to country. (I will say more about this point in a subsequent post, DV.)



Joshua said:


> Also, I’m not an adopter of the SL&C.



Perhaps not, but it is useful for informing us as to the original intent of WCF. 23.4.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2019)

With regard to cultural expressions of patriotism, I would advise Christians to be very careful about unnecessarily abstaining from certain things without good reason. Now, there are some things from which a Christian should abstain. These include "my country right and wrong" thinking, which is downright idolatrous. Conversely, we should be careful to avoid giving offence on matters that are not unwholesome. 

Take the issue of wearing a poppy in the UK around the time of Remembrance Day. Not to wear one is basically a statement that you are a Marxist/SINn Fein-IRA supporting rebel or some elitist Liberal who has no respect for the sacrifice of earlier generations. For Christians to abstain from wearing poppies, is thus culturally offensive, extremely foolish, and may actually serve to erect a barrier to the gospel.


----------



## jw (Dec 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Is treason against one's country a sin? If it is, then the opposite virtue is commanded (remember the Larger Catechism's rules for understanding the Decalogue).


The opposite virtue(s) would be obeying God's commands to honor, pray for, and obey the magistracy in the lawful and indifferent commands. It is a wild stretch to say that applies to the Pledge (and I'm not saying you're necessarily saying that the Pledge is). Thankfully, I'm rarely in circumstances that would compel allegiance-pledging, but in such cases, I refrain respectfully, not drawing attention to myself.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 17, 2019)

Joshua said:


> The opposite virtue(s) would be obeying God's commands to honor, pray for, and obey the magistracy in the lawful and indifferent commands. It is a wild stretch to say that applies to the Pledge (and I'm not saying you're necessarily saying that the Pledge is). Thankfully, I'm rarely in circumstances that would compel allegiance-pledging, but in such cases, I refrain respectfully, not drawing attention to myself.



The opposite virtue(s) to the sin of treason includes seeking the good of your commonwealth and being devoted to its well-being. Obviously, such love for one's country is going to have outward manifestations, which may differ from culture to culture. I actually raised some points against the Pledge myself. It is not a live issue for me as I am not an American citizen. (I should say that some points raised by the brethren here have been useful in clarifying certain things about it.) What concerns me, however, is not so much that some people have an issue with the Pledge but the basis for such opposition, which I consider misguided.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 17, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> With regard to cultural expressions of patriotism, I would advise Christians to be very careful about unnecessarily abstaining from certain things without good reason. Now, there are some things from which a Christian should abstain. These include "my country right and wrong" thinking, which is downright idolatrous. Conversely, we should be careful to avoid giving offence on matters that are not unwholesome.
> 
> Take the issue of wearing a poppy in the UK around the time of Remembrance Day. Not to wear one is basically a statement that you are a Marxist/SINn Fein-IRA supporting rebel or some elitist Liberal who has no respect for the sacrifice of earlier generations. For Christians to abstain from wearing poppies, is thus culturally offensive, extremely foolish, and may actually serve to erect a barrier to the gospel.



I understand you're primarily discussing the topic with others but I just wanted to put final thoughts (at least for now) here. 

I agree with you about the context of the SL&C and I agree with what the Divines did and said. I believe we are shown explicitly and through the example that we offer our respect to our sovereign/government regardless of their godliness and we only dissent from their rule when they tell us to do something that would disobey the Lord. The reason I don't believe I ought to recite the pledge is not because of some lack of allegiance, or lack of honor for a non-Christian government but because the recitation of it declares a generic, false all-inclusive god. I know I've said this multiple times but I just want to clarify, because some of those who seem to agree with me about the pledge don't seem to have the exact same reasons.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 18, 2019)

I'm with Joshua and Rom on this, but I'll add another (for me) practical reason for not pledging allegiance.

I understand the flag to represent the actions of the "republic." It is raised before battles, it is over governmental installations. It is on the lapels of various governmental agents. It signifies action. It announces "in the name of the United States the following action is being performed."

I've sworn, in good conscience, to uphold the Constitution and the laws of my nation and state. I've also, from time to time, found myself in formal and vigorous opposition to agents of the government--such opposition being consistent with my oath. I cannot reconcile the notion of paying allegiance to a symbol, or a republic for that matter, that may be violating its organic charter while I try to remain true to upholding that charter.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 18, 2019)

W.C. Dean said:


> but because the recitation of it declares a generic, false all-inclusive god.


You do keep saying this. Do you have a source that would show that the purpose for the inserting “under God” was somehow to include all forms of generic god, as you say? Just looking to read more on that clause is all. I have not found anything yet to indicate it was meant to be anything other than the Christian God.

P.S. Let me just say I have no issue with anyone abstaining from reciting the USA pledge. Currently, I have a cleaner conscience sayings the pledge than I do about the Oath I took to be a federal employee. Still chewing

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 18, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> I'm with Joshua and Rom on this, but I'll add another (for me) practical reason for not pledging allegiance.
> 
> I understand the flag to represent the actions of the "republic." It is raised before battles, it is over governmental installations. It is on the lapels of various governmental agents. It signifies action. It announces "in the name of the United States the following action is being performed."
> 
> I've sworn, in good conscience, to uphold the Constitution and the laws of my nation and state. I've also, from time to time, found myself in formal and vigorous opposition to agents of the government--such opposition being consistent with my oath. I cannot reconcile the notion of paying allegiance to a symbol, or a republic for that matter, that may be violating its organic charter while I try to remain true to upholding that charter.


Vic,

I think these a good thoughts. I want to make sure I understand your reasoning.

Because you believe our current government is being unfaithful to the constitution, you abstain from saying the USA pledge of allegiance?

You had & have a clear conscience on taking the federal Oath because it was to uphold the constitution. Is that accurate?

I took an Oath a few years back myself. These are not rhetorical questions btw. Just trying to make sure I read you right and fairly.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 18, 2019)

G said:


> You do keep saying this. Do you have a source that would show that the purpose for the inserting “under God” was somehow to include all forms of generic god, as you say? Just looking to read more on that clause is all. I have not found anything yet to indicate it was meant to be anything other than the Christian God.
> 
> P.S. Let me just say I have no issue with anyone abstaining from reciting the USA pledge. Currently, I have a cleaner conscience sayings the pledge than I do about the Oath I took to be a federal employee. Still chewing



Well as I said, I don't believe the intent really matters because in our contemporary time it's obvious the pledge's phrase is open for anyone to say. However I will include a few things about the intent: 

"During the Cold War era, many Americans wanted to distinguish the United States from the state atheism promoted by Marxist-Leninist countries, a view that led to support for the words "under God" to be added to the Pledge of Allegiance." - this is the Wikipedia page on the pledge, you can check out this paragraph's sources. It was apparently first introduced by an Illinois politician. 

"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war." President Dwight Eisenhower the day he signed the phrase into the pledge by law. I think the sentence "reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith"


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 18, 2019)

W.C. Dean said:


> Well as I said, I don't believe the intent really matters because in our contemporary time it's obvious the pledge's phrase is open for anyone to say.


Well we would certainly disagree here. Thanks for sharing further.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 18, 2019)

Get rid of your money. It has a generic "In God we Trust." It's metal, has the word "God" on it, and has a graven image of a (probably) Masonic ruler.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Susan777 (Dec 18, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Get rid of your money


I’m glad to help anyone with that.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## W.C. Dean (Dec 18, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Get rid of your money. It has a generic "In God we Trust." It's metal, has the word "God" on it, and has a graven image of a (probably) Masonic ruler.



Well my reply to that would be that with money the government is the one declaring that, whereas with the pledge, I personally an expected to utte the phrase in question.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 18, 2019)

W.C. Dean said:


> Well my reply to that would be that with money the government is the one declaring that, whereas with the pledge, I personally an expected to utte the phrase in questio


So do you have an issue with a Christian saying “In God we Trust”? Or should he always have to say the trinitarian formula every time he/she wishes to simply say God?

Should we revise our Psalters to a more specific name when the name “God” is used in English?

If we have to drop using lawful things like the name God because someone else abuses it, then we need to say bye bye to all oaths, lots, wine, chocolate chip cookies, and the internet.

In the USA context, when I see “In God we trust” or “One Nation Under God”, it seems to be the Christian one historically and still some today (admittedly by a smaller margin). I suspect the same is true for @Reformed Covenanter across the pond. Even more so with our current POTUS and Pence. Please don’t hear me saying that Trump is a Christian role model. I am not saying that at all. However he has shown he is willing to protect the broad label of Christianity.

The Lord brought me through public school when the pledge was allowed. As a kid, I participated heavily in Boy Scouts before the homo agenda sparked. Of course I will not bring my children up in either institutions now, but none of that changes the fact that historically when these phrases were added it was within the context of the Christian God.

The USA culture now militating against Yahweh doesn’t change the past.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 18, 2019)

Did Nehemiah or did he not have to swear allegiance to his pagan king?

What was the custom in his time to be the king’s Cupbearer? Did he have to bow, kiss his hand, take an oath, salute?

Maybe a biblical historian can weigh in on King Artaxerxes.

P.S. Any RPCNA papers on the addition of “Under God” to the USA pledge or "In God we trust" on the currency?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 18, 2019)

G said:


> Because you believe our current government is being unfaithful to the constitution, you abstain from saying the USA pledge of allegiance?



Not just the current government. Historically our government has often acted contrary to the Constitution. From Jefferson to the present, state action has often exceeded lawful authority. Our system allows--demands--people to step up and challenge those abuses.

The word "allegiance" derives from the "liege" promising loyalty to his master or overlord. I believe the flag is the most obvious symbol for state action. Pledging allegiance to a flag, as opposed to my country and its constituted laws, is pledging allegiance to an unknown course of action. I can't pledge loyalty to any one or thing that is so fickle.



G said:


> You had & have a clear conscience on taking the federal Oath because it was to uphold the constitution. Is that accurate?



Yes, although I had to think it through fairly vigorously. Federal and State oaths of attorney and of judge.

To be clear, I am not a radical anti government zealot. If I am defending my country from enemies foreign or domestic, I will follow my leader's orders and (symbolically) the banner he carries to show the way. But if I see that banner is heading off a cliff, I'm going to pause and reassess, and maybe shout "wrong way!" Same goes for life in general.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 18, 2019)

Something happened this morning in DC that I think sheds light on what god is meant in the pledge of allegiance.

The House convened to vote on the articles of impeachment. They opened with two acts:
- Prayer
- The Pledge of Allegiance 

This is both Republicans and Democrats partaking in this act. Republicans joined in prayer with the Democratic party which is openly at enmity with the God of Scripture.

Which God was prayed to this morning? And what God is referred to in the Pledge?

In this scenario, it is impossible to say that all our leaders had reference to the Triune God, or the God of Scripture, even for the fact that the Democrats could participate.

Adding to this, about half of those in the House are Protestant (which likely includes liberals), 30 percent Catholic (a different god because of a false Christ), and a smaller number (about 8%) are mormons, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, universalists, or unaffiliated. Perhaps only half--give or take--are likely in the realm of orthodoxy (ie. Not heretics).


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 18, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> This is both Republicans and Democrats partaking in this act. Republicans joined in prayer with the Democratic party which is openly at enmity with the God of Scripture.


I don't think the party line clears up who is at enmity with our Lord. Both sides likely have goats and sheep.


RPEphesian said:


> In this scenario, it is impossible to say that all our leaders had reference to the Triune God, or the God of Scripture, even for the fact that the Democrats could participate.


No one here is arguing against this btw (or least I am not).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Dec 18, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> Which God was prayed to this morning?


My pessimism towards _both_ parties must be in full swing this morning, I read this and muttered ‘the god of their bellies’.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 18, 2019)

**We want the USA government to bow the knee to Christ, but we want to forbid Christians from seeking a civil office/position who might very well serve as the catalyst to spark good change? So we should only allow pagans to serve in our current government and pray that they pass God-honoring laws?**

This line of thought has caused me to reject some of the stances expressed in this thread. Sure our current government has vile laws (so did pagan rulers of old), but I think we have some freedom to do more than pray to hopefully affect the change I think we all long for. If the position does not require you to do anything directly immoral then surely one can serve this country. Of course seeking office is not a requirement either. I have enjoyed this thread.

Are there any reformed denominations who would hold a person in church discipline for serving as a Senator, Military Personnel, Mail Carrier, or other Civil servant?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 18, 2019)

G said:


> P.S. Any RPCNA papers on the addition of “Under God” to the USA pledge or "In God we trust" on the currency?



I have not got around to looking at the sources yet, Grant. One thing that does spring to mind regarding the RPCNA, is that during the Civil War there was talk of RPs who wanted to fight as soldiers in the Union Army getting to swear an alternative oath that omitted reference to the Constitution and just swore allegiance to the nation of the United States. From what I remember, the plan was dropped as soldiers were just asked to take something like a pledge of allegiance to the country in opposition to its enemies.[1] 

I also do not think that the RPs scrupled the Declaration of Independence's mention of God (even though it was primarily written by a Unitarian),[2] and, indeed, Alexander McLeod was the foremost clerical supporter of the War of 1812. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson once mused that about the "piety and patriotism" of the Revd McLeod. 

[1] I am speaking from memory here; I need to recheck the sources to be completely sure if what I have said is correct.

[2] Correct me if I am wrong on this one. It is a long time since I checked the literature, but it seems to ring true.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Timotheos (Dec 18, 2019)

RJ Spencer said:


> I do not pledge allegiance to anything/anyone other than Christ. I don't even pledge allegiance to the OPC, because there is a chance that one day this denomination will go liberal. How can pledging allegiance be okay, *if swearing or taking an oath is not*?


Are you not familiar w/ chapter 22 of your confession?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 18, 2019)

Timotheos said:


> Are you not familiar w/ chapter 22 of your confession?



Exactly


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 18, 2019)

Susan777 said:


> I’m glad to help anyone with that.



Debit cards are the answer


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 18, 2019)

G said:


> **We want the USA government to bow the knee to Christ, but we want to forbid Christians from seeking a civil office/position who might very well serve as the catalyst to spark good change? So we should only allow pagans to serve in our current government and pray that they pass God-honoring laws?**
> 
> This line of thought has caused me to reject some of the stances expressed in this thread. Sure our current government has vile laws (so did pagan rulers of old), but I think we have some freedom to do more than pray to hopefully affect the change I think we all long for. If the position does not require you to do anything directly immoral then surely one can serve this country. Of course seeking office is not a requirement either. I have enjoyed this thread.
> 
> Are there any reformed denominations who would hold a person in church discipline for serving as a Senator, Military Personnel, Mail Carrier, or other Civil servant?



No question at all, not in the least, that a Christian may serve as a governmental officer. That in itself is not outlawed. May God put many in office, we need them! We have had our fill of brambles and thistly bushes.

The question is whether you can swear to uphold a Constitution that essentially says that the nation will remain neutral in concerns to God (when Christ says he wjo doesnt gather, scatters). Under the First Amendment the government may not in any way countenance or aid one religion over the other, and no tax money may go to one religion or the other, and the govt may not publicly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religion. - Justice Hugo Black, in Emerson v Board of Education.

I cannot possibly promise to uphold that. I consider it a forbiddance of being a rewarder of good, and a perfect example of violating the title Minister of God given in Rom 13. Of course, I believe the government must base its laws on all ten commandments, so my presuppositions are different than those of others.

Now with that in mind, lets say I want to reverse Obergfell, and let's say I had some power to do it... how would I do that, legally? How would you ever get the definition of marriage back to one man and one woman without Scripture? I cant appeal to natural law--homosexuals disagree. I can't refer to God generically: the mormon God allows polygamy, so does the Muslim god. The God of Scripture? If that's my basis, it will be taken as an establishment of religion so long as the Bible is the authority.

Can we just let that slip? By no means. Judgment will come because of our sexual perversion. Can a magistrate really be unconcerned about condoning a practice that will cause God to destroy the citizenry--and the guilty magistrates?

Besides, I believe the government ought to countenance the true religion to the fullest. Pay for godly pastors and missionaries. Declare days of repentance and fasting. There is nothing better for a society in a wreck than sound, godly preachers. There's nothing so helpful as an open godly tone at the top. That'll go a long ways in solving issues of abortion, sodomy, prison reform, police abuse, murder rates, etc.

But as the First Amendment stands, or as is interpreted, the nation is not free to do things in its best interest--and I think, magistrates are not free to do what God commands them to do.

And so you know, your loving spirit in this discussion is appreciated. Want to make sure I take my cues from you here, despite feeling strongly on these things.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 18, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> I believe the government must base its laws on all ten commandments, so my presuppositions are different than those of others.


I hold the same.

However your personal position, in the current USA context, would forbid any Christian from taking office. Right? You cannot take office without the Oath (unless I am mistaken).


RPEphesian said:


> Can we just let that slip? By no means. Judgment will come because of our sexual perversion. Can a magistrate really be unconcerned about condoning a practice that will cause God to destroy the citizenry--and the guilty magistrates?
> 
> Besides, I believe the government ought to countenance the true religion to the fullest. Pay for godly pastors and missionaries. Declare days of repentance and fasting. There is nothing better for a society in a wreck than sound, godly preachers. There's nothing so helpful as an open godly tone at the top. That'll go a long ways in solving issues of abortion, sodomy, prison reform, police abuse, murder rates, etc.
> 
> ...



I too can say AMEN to this my brother.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 18, 2019)

G said:


> I hold the same.
> 
> However your personal position, in the current USA context, would forbid any Christian from taking office. Right? You cannot take office without the Oath (unless I am mistaken).
> 
> ...



I see. Agreed, I cannot. I would be swearing deceitfully. Will address your other thoughts when possible.


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Dec 18, 2019)

G said:


> However your personal position, in the current USA context, would forbid any Christian from taking office. Right? You cannot take office without the Oath (unless I am mistaken).



Historically, yes that would be correct. However, this does not mean they were not active in politics, quite the opposite.

@RPEphesian I recall that there are now special circumstances that would allow a member to participate in government? The same would also apply to serving in the military.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 18, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> Historically, yes that would be correct. However, this does not mean they were not active in politics, quite the opposite.
> 
> @RPEphesian I recall that there are now special circumstances that would allow a member to participate in government? The same would also apply to serving in the military.



I have to look it up, though RPCNA has the provision of an explanatory declaration. They may not even require that members abstain from oaths. Need to look. I believe Testimony encourages all active involvement in politics in lawful ways.

Here is an example of righteous political involvement. A local street preacher in Grand Rapids was threatened with arrest for preaching outside the abortion clinic because he used amplification (GR allowed "mild amplification" at the time). This man and a pro bono lawyer spent three years suing the city to get the ordinance changed.

Last month he and a brother spoke at the hearing for the noise ordinance. This brother spoke, and read from I believe Acts 19. Paul preaching in Athens. People snickered, but he spoke directly to the city council.

After he spoke, a brother from our congregation who essentually runs our weekly winter evangelism also addressed the city council. He explicitly told them that they were to submit to Christ as king and to make His laws to be their laws.

The result? The law got changed. The ordinance clarifies that you may now use amplification in public so long as hearing range is limited to 100 feet, and without it you may speak as loud as your voice may carry.

And this happened in a city which just passed an ordinance that adds sodomites to the list of protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.

The Lord reigns!

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Dec 18, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> I have to look it up, though RPCNA has the provision of an explanatory declaration. They may not even require that members abstain from oaths. Need to look. I believe Testimony encourages all active involvement in politics in lawful ways.
> 
> Here is an example of righteous political involvement. A local street preacher in Grand Rapids was threatened with arrest for preaching outside the abortion clinic because he used amplification (GR allowed "mild amplification" at the time). This man and a pro bono lawyer spent three years suing the city to get the ordinance changed.
> 
> ...


All glory to God! That is exactly how the RP engages the civil leaders. 

For a while I would read these journals, full of great examples of our denominations historical political activity. 
http://rparchives.org/


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 19, 2019)

Matthew Henry Commentary Nehemiah Chapter 1:



> 3. That God has his remnant in all places; we read of Obadiah in the house of Ahab, saints in Caesar's household, and a devout Nehemiah in Shushan the palace.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 19, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> Praise be to God. So long as no sin is required to get into such places. Though we need to pray God puts some there.


How can you pray for God to put them there but condemn those that do at the same time (strictly speaking for US context)?


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 19, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> I have to look it up, though RPCNA has the provision of an explanatory declaration. They may not even require that members abstain from oaths. Need to look. I believe Testimony encourages all active involvement in politics in lawful ways.
> 
> Here is an example of righteous political involvement. A local street preacher in Grand Rapids was threatened with arrest for preaching outside the abortion clinic because he used amplification (GR allowed "mild amplification" at the time). This man and a pro bono lawyer spent three years suing the city to get the ordinance changed.
> 
> ...



So I still do have genuine questions on the above. If the mods feel it is too off topic then feel free to delete.

1. Were there any Christians on the City Council?

2. Are you saying that Christians in the USA can break local neutral ordinance laws (noise control) to promote their cause? I assume he could have preached the gospel near the clinic without a microphone.



RPEphesian said:


> He explicitly told them that they were to submit to Christ as king and to make His laws to be their laws.



3. The amplification Law? Is that the law that was changed or was it the legalizing of abortion law that changed?


----------



## Timotheos (Dec 19, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> I see. Agreed, I cannot. I would be swearing deceitfully. Will address your other thoughts when possible.


So you are against taking oaths even though WCF has a chapter on taking oaths?


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 19, 2019)

Timotheos said:


> So you are against taking oaths even though WCF has a chapter on taking oaths?


I do not think Jake is saying that at all. He would likely take the Oath if he did not believe that the USA Oath was sinful.

From his view, taking an oath (in USA) to uphold, defend, and protect a document that contradicts some of the 10 Commandments is sinful. I totally understand that thought and wrestle with it myself given my line of work.

I further suspect that Jake would have no issue serving as a federal accountant so long as he was not required to take the USA's Oath for civil jobs.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 19, 2019)

@Timotheos

The RPCNA took a pretty hard & clear stance I think in 1908-ish for Christian involvement in USA politics.

https://puritanboard.com/threads/taking-an-oath-of-office-u-s-a-context.98817/


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 19, 2019)

Timotheos said:


> So you are against taking oaths even though WCF has a chapter on taking oaths?



So long as the oath requires nothing sinful in itself. As Ch 22 par VII says, VII. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise or ability from God.

Swearing as an American magistrate to never countenance the church is against Isaiah 49:23, Psalm 2, violates the title of Minister of God in Romans 13, causes the government to fail to reward the very highest of all goods, prevents the most effective terrors to evil, and runs the purpose of the magistracy in the first place.

In essence, I would be swearing to do things for which I may not then turn around and ask God to allow the church to live a peacable and quiet life in all godliness and humility according to 1 Timothy 2. I would be an enemy to that prayer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 19, 2019)

@Timotheos 

Might I add...

VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want; whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties, or to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.

An oath is made before God, so He must approve of it. So it may not run contrary to Hus Word. The purpose must be to better fit me to do the thingd I am commanded to do. I may expect nothing for an oath which I can't expect Him to bless. A good parallel is a vow of singleness or poverty. Vows are good, but not then.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2019)

One thing that the disinterested reader will notice about these discussions is that nothing or no one is ever pure enough for some of our brethren.

The United States' Constitution is deemed beyond the pale because it does not recognise God. But then the Pledge is judged to be a bad thing, even though it does recognise God because it does not mention the Trinity. If the Pledge were amended to explicitly mention God the Holy Trinity, that amendment would still not be good enough because Romanists could agree to it. If the Pledge were further amended, so that it recognised God the Holy Trinity and the Protestant religion, then that change would not be good enough because people who are not Presbyterians good agree to it. If the Pledge recognised the divine right of Presbyterianism, it would still not be acceptable because it does not recognise the Lordship of Christ. If it did acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, it would still not be good enough for them because it did not recognise the _mediatorial_ kingship of Christ over the state. And on and on it goes.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 19, 2019)

I will just that I do resonate with the RPCNA position and it is something that is likely on my mind more than non-federal employees. However, I have yet to get all the way in the RP camp on this matter. I already took the Oath in 2016 and it cannot be amended (I checked).

Like the RPCNA brothers here, my biggest hang-up is the constitutions freedom of religion. However, I wonder if that was originally meant to be theistic (Baal Included) or was it meant to be within the God of scripture, in other words giving freedom to protestant denominations. That seems plausible considering the religious context of that day. Of course today "religous freedom" is troublesome (ex. Satanism protected), but what was it originally meant to be that?


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 19, 2019)

Just dropping by to add a couple of thoughts (I don't take the Pledge for similar reasons as Vic)...

1) Sins of omission are different from sins of commission. Swearing to uphold the Constitution of a body that sins by omission is different from swearing to uphold a constitution that sins by comission.

2) The U.S. Constitution allows for an ammendment process. Swearing to uphold it is therefore not an absolute commitment to the Constitution in its current form.

3) The establishment principle is only operative in a Christian country, which the U.S. is not. It is a super-added duty on the Christian civil magistrate. The establishment of a church occurs after a period of sowing the gospel and growth of a Christian populace. If a Christian came into power in the U.S. right now, it would seem to me then--that given the current progress of the gospel in the U.S.--that he has done his duty for the church if he advocates for changes to promote the church's well-being and uses current powers (e.g., tax exemption) to also do so and resist powers (e.g., the LGBT lobby) that seek to persecute the church.

Edit: These lectures on the Pledge by Vaughn Hamilton are also interesting: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/usa-residents-only-pledge-of-allegiance.90419/#post-1110789

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2019)

While I am not necessarily apologising for taking oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution, part of the confusion in these discussions seems to stem from people assuming that an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution is analogous to an oath to own the Westminster Confession as the confession of your faith. 

From what I recall from a previous conversation I had on this board with Dr Strange,[1] an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution does not imply approbation of all of its contents (or else one taking such an oath could never seek to amend it) but merely that it is the legitimate system of government under which one lives. 

[1] My conversations with Dr Normal, by way of contrast, are not so profound.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2019)

Afterthought said:


> 1) Sins of omission are different from sins of commission. Swearing to uphold the Constitution of a body that sins by omission is different from swearing to uphold a constitution that sins by commission.



One point that should be kept in mind in relation to the American RPs critique of the Constitution, which, for the most part I still agree with, is that it originally required the swearers to uphold and enforce laws concerning slavery, which the RPs judged to be sinful.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 19, 2019)

To be clear I am fine with abstaining from the pledge but I don't abstain on the mere fact that it would lead me to say "one Nation under God". I like that phrase.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2019)

If you hold that the U.S. Constitution is illegitimate, then keep in mind that you run afoul of Westminster Confession 23.4, which recognises that non-Christian governments are legitimate even though they obviously do not uphold the first table of the law. As Ramón notes, the establishment principle is something to be pressed on Christian magistrates _professing the gospel of Christ_. The legitimacy of a civil government depends neither on the state having a Christian constitution nor on the magistrate himself being a Christian.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 19, 2019)

Besides don't we need Christians in the new US Space Force so we can get a reformed Church on the Moon






P.S. Just an attempt at mood lightening.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 19, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> From what I recall from a previous conversation I had on this board with Dr Strange,[1] an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution does not imply approbation of all of its contents (or else one taking such an oath could never seek to amend it) but merely that it is the legitimate system of government under which one lives.



Correct, otherwise we would have to affirm the 16th amendment as wise and good, which it isn't. It is Marxism.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 19, 2019)

G said:


> How can you pray for God to put them there but condemn those that do at the same time (strictly speaking for US context)?



Pray that God ordains they get in by lawful means.



G said:


> So I still do have genuine questions on the above. If the mods feel it is too off topic then feel free to delete.
> 
> 1. Were there any Christians on the City Council?
> 
> ...



From my perspective the microphone law was a cloak for evil. And GR law did not forbid the use of amp (maybe I wasnt clear). It was unclear as to the standard... which the ordinance revision changed.

Hearing in that location is quite difficult because of where you are legally permitted to stand in relationship to the entrance.

In any case, obey God rather than man.

Sadly, they did not do away with abortion at the meeting. However, the clarification of the noise ordinance was a result of the suit.

Were any Christians on the council? Dont know. This is a city that, this past summer, added sodomites to the list of protected classes. It is now in force.



Reformed Covenanter said:


> One thing that the disinterested reader will notice about these discussions is that nothing or no one is ever pure enough for some of our brethren.
> 
> The United States' Constitution is deemed beyond the pale because it does not recognise God. But then the Pledge is judged to be a bad thing, even though it does recognise God because it does not mention the Trinity. If the Pledge were amended to explicitly mention God the Holy Trinity, that amendment would still not be good enough because Romanists could agree to it. If the Pledge were further amended, so that it recognised God the Holy Trinity and the Protestant religion, then that change would not be good enough because people who are not Presbyterians good agree to it. If the Pledge recognised the divine right of Presbyterianism, it would still not be acceptable because it does not recognise the Lordship of Christ. If it did acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, it would still not be good enough for them because it did not recognise the _mediatorial_ kingship of Christ over the state. And on and on it goes.



So do you think I should be able to participate in the same prayer meeting as Hindus, Buddhists, liberal Congregationalists and non-Messianic Jews? Or recite the same pledge at the same time, all to this god referenced in the pledge?

Or is it lawful for me to swear that I will not countenance the church in any way? Can I do that so I may get in office in order to countenance? Lying under oath is a bad start to such an endeavor.

And does God accept prayers directed to Him as the "unknown God"--which, far as the Pledge (as others in this discussion agree to) and the First Amendment are concerned, is the god intended, as no particular religion may be established, favored, countenanced or supported?

I think you are forced to say that God abominates such things. 

You mentioned in another place Dr. Strange's words that taking the oath doesnt mean agreement. Nonetheless, it's a sure bet that were an US civil leader to attempt open countenance of the church with funds or anything else that he will be opposed on 1) grounds of the First Amendment, and 2) he swore as a condition of his office to uphold the First Amendment. That just seems to be plain reality.


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 19, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> In any case, obey God rather than man.


This is only true if the magistrates law requires you to break God's law. It is sinful to fail to submit to the magistrates law where it does not require you to break God's law. The magistrate passing a law on ALL citizens to reduce electrically amplified noise is not sinful in itself.



RPEphesian said:


> Were any Christians on the council? Dont know.


Okay, but this is an important question. We need Christians on both ends in the USA. I would suspect their were likely some Christians on the council.



RPEphesian said:


> You mentioned in another place Dr. Strange's words that taking the oath doesnt mean agreement. Nonetheless, it's a sure bet that were an US civil leader to attempt open countenance of the church with funds or anything else that he will be opposed on 1) grounds of the First Amendment, and 2) he swore as a condition of his office to uphold the First Amendment. That just seems to be plain reality.


Ironically, would not the RPCNA and the RPCGA condemn a church for taking advantage of government tax breaks or government funding? This is what I keep wrestling with...the practical out-workings just seem impossible.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> So do you think I should be able to participate in the same prayer meeting as Hindus, Buddhists, liberal Congregationalists and non-Messianic Jews? Or recite the same pledge at the same time, all to this god referenced in the pledge?
> 
> Or is it lawful for me to swear that I will not countenance the church in any way? Can I do that so I may get in office in order to countenance? Lying under oath is a bad start to such an endeavor.
> 
> ...



I said nothing about prayers. All I am saying is that you cannot complain about God not being in the Constitution while complaining about him being mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance. I notice that you have not addressed the central point of my post: namely, where does this purity spiralling end? At what point would the U.S. Constitution or the Pledge of Allegiance ever be acceptable to you? 

If you are going to maintain that it is _a sin_ to use the words "under God" in the context of the Pledge, you are going to need to prove it. Thus far, no one has done so. Remember, that the Larger Catechism lists as a breach of the first commandment the "denying or not having a God" (105). Hence, when a nation's constitution or other expressions of patriotism recognise that there is a God, we can hardly complain about that _specific_ point. We can, of course, encourage them to do more and recognise the Lordship of Christ over the nation. But the recognition of God's rule over them is legitimate as far as it goes.



RPEphesian said:


> You mentioned in another place Dr. Strange's words that taking the oath doesnt mean agreement. Nonetheless, it's a sure bet that were an US civil leader to attempt open countenance of the church with funds or anything else that he will be opposed on 1) grounds of the First Amendment, and 2) he swore as a condition of his office to uphold the First Amendment. That just seems to be plain reality.



If he were to attempt to countenance the church, the orderly way to do so with respect for the existing constitution is to seek the amendment of the existing constitution. The establishment principle does not mean that you completely disregard the existing legal procedures under which one lives.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2019)

@RPEphesian - Jake, you may find it useful on some of these issues to read Matthew Winzer's article on theonomy in the CPJ. While I disagree with Rev. Winzer on mediatorial kingship and a few other things (I am still a Diet Theonomist), his discussion of Christian constitutionalism is worthy of consideration.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 19, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> @RPEphesian - Jake, you may find it useful on some of these issues to read Matthew Winzer's article on theonomy in the CPJ. While I disagree with Rev. Winzer on mediatorial kingship and a few other things (I am still a Diet Theonomist), his discussion of Christian constitutionalism is worthy of consideration.


Links?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2019)

G said:


> Links?



You have to purchase the 2009 edition of the _Confessional Presbyterian Journal_ to read it, you cheap-skate. Lay off the burgers for a few days, and you will be able to afford it.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 19, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> you cheap-skate. Lay off the burgers for a few days, and you will be able to afford it.


Hey I resemble that statement

P.S. Give me a purchasing link.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2019)

And to further clarify, I am not even arguing at present for taking oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution or even to take the Pledge of Allegiance, all I am doing is pushing back against arguments made against doing so that run contrary to the original intent of Westminster Confession 23.4. 

The Confession makes it abundantly clear that a civil government neither has to be Christian, nor uphold the first table of the law, nor have an established church, nor submit to the Lordship of Christ in order to be a valid government. That being the case, from a confessional standpoint there can be no sin in recognising that such a government, notwithstanding these deficiencies is the ordinance of God nor in giving your allegiance to the nation over which it rules.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2019)

G said:


> P.S. Give me a purchasing link.



Hast thou never heard of Google? What else do you want me to do? Make your dinner for you?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Dec 19, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> And to further clarify, I am not even arguing at present for taking oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution or even to take the Pledge of Allegiance, all I am doing is pushing back against arguments made against doing so that run contrary to the original intent of Westminster Confession 23.4.
> 
> The Confession makes it abundantly clear that a civil government neither has to be Christian, nor uphold the first table of the law, nor have an established church, nor submit to the Lordship of Christ in order to be a valid government. That being the case, from a confessional standpoint there can be no sin in recognising that such a government, notwithstanding these deficiencies is the ordinance of God nor in giving your allegiance to the nation over which it rules.


Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, here is an extreme example. According to the standards it would not be a sin to recognize the legitimacy of the Third Reich?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, here is an extreme example. According to the standards it would not be a sin to recognize the legitimacy of the Third Reich?



There is a difference between a non-Christian government which is deficient and a tyrannical and terroristic regime. Civil government was made for man, man was not made for civil government. I would not recognise the Nazis for the same reasons that I do not recognise SINn Fein's legitimacy in Northern Ireland. Remember, though, that the Westminster Confession still recognises the "just and legal" authority of a non-Christian government.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Dec 19, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> There is a difference between a non-Christian government which is deficient and a tyrannical and terroristic regime. Civil government was made for man, man was not made for civil government. I would not recognise the Nazis for the same reasons that I do not recognise SINn Fein's legitimacy in Northern Ireland.


Right. And a nation that openly celebrates sodomy, the blaspheming of the marriage covenant and the genocide of the unborn? All justified by its own constitution?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> Right. And a nation that openly celebrates sodomy, the blaspheming of the marriage covenant and the genocide of the unborn? All justified by its own constitution?



The U.S. Constitution does not authorise any of these things. Even if it did, that would not absolve you from all allegiance to the _nation_ as opposed to the government. Prior to and during the Civil War, the RPCNA still supported the nation of the United States even though they dissented from the Constitution's toleration of black slavery.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Dec 19, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The U.S. Constitution does not authorise any of these things.


And yet the supreme court ruled all these evils to be constitutional. 



Reformed Covenanter said:


> that would not absolve you from all allegiance to the _nation_ as opposed to the government.


Correct, which is why I oppose the constitution and government because my allegiance is to the nation and it’s people. Clearly the constitution and government failed us and amendments should be made to correct the wrongs and return to godly sanity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 19, 2019)

G said:


> Hey I resemble that statement
> 
> P.S. Give me a purchasing link.



Because I want to support Chris any way I can:

http://www.cpjournal.com/store/products-list/the-confessional-presbyterian-5-2009/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 19, 2019)

Seeking_Thy_Kingdom said:


> And yet the supreme court ruled all these evils to be constitutional.



Indeed. Sadly, I think that the Supreme Court has proved itself to be a major weakness in the American Constitutional system.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 19, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I said nothing about prayers. All I am saying is that you cannot complain about God not being in the Constitution while complaining about him being mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance. I notice that you have not addressed the central point of my post: namely, where does this purity spiralling end? At what point would the U.S. Constitution or the Pledge of Allegiance ever be acceptable to you?
> 
> If you are going to maintain that it is _a sin_ to use the words "under God" in the context of the Pledge, you are going to need to prove it. Thus far, no one has done so. Remember, that the Larger Catechism lists as a breach of the first commandment the "denying or not having a God" (105). Hence, when a nation's constitution or other expressions of patriotism recognise that there is a God, we can hardly complain about that _specific_ point. We can, of course, encourage them to do more and recognise the Lordship of Christ over the nation. But the recognition of God's rule over them is legitimate as far as it goes.
> 
> ...





Reformed Covenanter said:


> And to further clarify, I am not even arguing at present for taking oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution or even to take the Pledge of Allegiance, all I am doing is pushing back against arguments made against doing so that run contrary to the original intent of Westminster Confession 23.4.
> 
> The Confession makes it abundantly clear that a civil government neither has to be Christian, nor uphold the first table of the law, nor have an established church, nor submit to the Lordship of Christ in order to be a valid government. That being the case, from a confessional standpoint there can be no sin in recognising that such a government, notwithstanding these deficiencies is the ordinance of God nor in giving your allegiance to the nation over which it rules.



Ah, now I understand. I was trying to figure out just what we were disagreeing on. But to be abundantly clear, I agree with every statement in your second quote. Every one. 

To be clear too, despite my strong opinions in other places, Donald Trump is my President, and by no stretch am I a Never-Trumper. And I hold the United States government to be a legitimate government, and I feel it my duty under God to obey all the US just and legal authority in their just and legal commands, and do it for conscience sake before God.

The law is the law, to be obeyed so far as I violate none of God's laws, as Daniel and his friends obeyed Nebuchadnezzar. But in nothing do we obey man over God.

I hope that helps. I'll touch on your other thoughts later if possible.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 19, 2019)

G said:


> This is only true if the magistrates law requires you to break God's law. It is sinful to fail to submit to the magistrates law where it does not require you to break God's law. The magistrate passing a law on ALL citizens to reduce electrically amplified noise is not sinful in itself.
> 
> 
> Okay, but this is an important question. We need Christians on both ends in the USA. I would suspect their were likely some Christians on the council.
> ...



Will give thought on amplification and answer on other thread you started.

May answer more another time if available.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Dec 20, 2019)

G said:


> This is only true if the magistrates law requires you to break God's law. It is sinful to fail to submit to the magistrates law where it does not require you to break God's law. The magistrate passing a law on ALL citizens to reduce electrically amplified noise is not sinful in itself.
> 
> 
> Okay, but this is an important question. We need Christians on both ends in the USA. I would suspect their were likely some Christians on the council.
> ...



I do have just a few thoughts on the last point here.

I would need to research what the RPCNA thinks on that matter, and why. I'm in the dark.

However, we are living with a society that has tried the experiment of remaining neutral toward God. We are 60,000,000 babies in the hole, we trust none of our politicians (for well-grounded reasons) our prison system is expensive and burdensome and counterproductive, and our legal code nearly reaches to the moon in its length--of which the tax code is probably half of it. We have classes of people who will not work because the govt pays them not to. We cannot get Roe v Wade overturned after near 50 years, and Obergfell is not going anywhere. Despite our economic prosperity (which is built on being the world bully and not paying what we owe), and other symptoms of latent tyranny, it vexes the soul of a Christian to live here. However, we don't complain about impossibilities because we learned to live with them.

We tried this experiment of being neutral toward God. It is a failure. I say, why not give a different outlook another go? I'd rather deal with the complexities of a Westminster view than the difficulties imposed by our current system.

Might start dwindling my responses after this. Good discussion

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Dec 20, 2019)

RPEphesian said:


> I do have just a few thoughts on the last point here.
> 
> I would need to research what the RPCNA thinks on that matter, and why. I'm in the dark.
> 
> ...


Jake these are all great observations. I think we agree on what our government should do, which basically amounts to the government needing to bow to Christ alone and uphold the 10 Commandments.

Our prayers are likely the same on this matter as well! We only differ on some of the methods we think permissible for Christians to take action in a USA context (ex. Voting).

Thanks for discussion!

Reactions: Like 1


----------

