# Right or Wrong if I Join the Military?



## Jonathan (Apr 13, 2005)

Ok, I have lately been feeling the need to join the military. It is not so much a what-I-want-to-do kind of thing, in fact I am kind of iffy about it. I have been praying about what I should do, considering the gravity of such a decision. So, here is the question, what are all your views on the issue? I know it is a good thing to defend one's country, however, with the subjection to world opinion and the decline in the world today, is it right or wrong for one to volunteer to serve in our military?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 13, 2005)

Oh... it is right, all right! Hooah!

There are some really good opportunities to gain some good experience and yes... make money... right now. Their enlistment bonuses are huge (for the Army) in many areas. 
However, I think longterm... if you are "iffy" it... I think that the best course of action would be to go to college and get involved in ROTC. THat will expose you to a military environment, with no initial commitment on your behalf... during the summers you can do some great military training (like going to Airborne School!). When it is all over, if you decide that the military is for you then you will enter as an officer... and I can tell you that being an officer is MUCH better than being enlisted.

[Edited on 4-13-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Jonathan (Apr 13, 2005)

What about the moral argument for fighting for one's country. For example, I believe Iraq was the right thing to do, also Afghanistan, and would proudly fight in either, however, lets say we get involved in some UN operation in some third world country or something. They want me to wear the blue and white hat... (though I do not see it happening with this oil for money scandal) what do I do in that situation...? I will not wear that cap, no matter what! if I am called to serve in that way, what do I do?

Also, our country is going down hill very fast; is it wrong to fight for a country whose morals are falling apart (though it still maintains many good things)?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 13, 2005)

I love the military. I am a Navy Veteran. I believe the World needs a different kind of soldier though. Our Country along with Europe and to the ends of the earth have no idea there is a Holy Righteous God who is going to judge them the way they don't want to be judged. They have self made Gods that are no God's. Especially in America. Join the Spiritual War. 

Matthew 9:36-38 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 13, 2005)

As a one who adheres to the Scottish Covenanter principles of political dissent, I believe fervently in patriotism and love of one's country. I am also of the convictions of Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee who served their states and their countries with the highest level of service. 

As fan of Tom Clancy, John Wayne and all sorts of war movies and books, I am inspired by the courage and character of soldiers of fiction and history.

I also believe that the oath of loyalty to the Constitution is sinful and thus I could not commend any vocation that requires it as does the military. 

I too support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I pray for the success and safety of our soldiers every day. They are doing good work for the most part. 

I was a supporter of Michael New though in that controversy and I deeply regret the subordination of the US military to the UN (and sometimes NATO) agenda. 

Anyone who takes an oath to serve the Constitution and agrees to submit themselves to military discipline (for which I have the highest respect) ought to consider the full implications. It is a decision of the greatest import.


----------



## Peter (Apr 13, 2005)

Jonathan and others, with utmost respect, I believe joining the military is sin. The oath of enlistment for the armed forces of the US requires swearing to defend the atheistic constitution. 2nd, the war in Iraq, and most other wars, was an unprovoked act of aggression. Sadaam and Iraq posed no immanent threat. To participate in such wars may be a violation of the 6th commandment. That being said, like Andrew, I admire the courage of our soldiers and haven't a doubt about their intentions. I will provide links later.


----------



## Augusta (Apr 13, 2005)

Paul clearly separated the civil magistrate from the church. They have their office exclusive of the church and vice versa. The civil magistrate has been ordained of God to protect the innocent and uphold justice. When they cease to do that then they are in the wrong and their time will be limited. Paul said that they do not bear the sword for nothing. If we resist their authority we resist God because he has placed them there. 

Peter the war in Iraq was not unprovoked. It had been in the process of provoking for years but no one did anything about it until GWB came along and saw the threat of terrorism to america and went straight for the first root of it that he had the power to go after. Power given him by the U.N. via no less than 18 resolutions the last one unanimous excepting those later found to be in bed with Saddam. Not to mention Saddam breaking the treaty that he surrendered under. 

Not to get sidetracked but here is the text of Romans 13:1-7.

Be Subject to Government
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 
4 FOR IT IS A MINISTER OF GOD TO YOU FOR GOOD. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, AN AVENGER WHO BRINGS WRATH ON THE ONE WHO PRACTICES EVIL. 
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 
7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. 

I do not see joining the military as anything but honorable. It is a very humble act. It is an act of selflessness. 

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 13, 2005)

I personally wouldnt but then Im not the military type even though I dont agree with both wars were in right now. Im just not into joining the military though some are. Pray about it. 

Blade


----------



## Authorised (Apr 13, 2005)

I don't see anything wrong with the oath of enlistment.

I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Basic summary of Romans 13:1-7.

As for swearing to defend the Constitution, what other document do you presume to defend by force? How can you, without logical contradictions, honour those who serve for us while you yourself would never do so, seeing that you believe it is sinful?

Read chapter Twenty-two of the Confession. 

(you know which one)


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 13, 2005)

Arnt we told by Jesus to not swear by anything? or take oaths etc.... ??


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 13, 2005)

Hampton Roads Confession of Faith

Chapter 22 
LEGITIMATE OATHS AND VOWS

"Moreover, I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet
to Corinth."
(2 Corinthians 1:23)


A - Swearing an Oath - Swearing an oath commits the swearer to absolute truthfulness. God Himself, able to swear by none greater than Himself, took an oath. God gave His word, solemnly binding Himself to do what He had said. When an oath is sworn by any person, he or she is calling God to witness his words and to judge him accordingly. Such an oath is to be taken in the plain and commonly understood meaning of the words used, without equivocation or mental reservation. 
Exodus 20:7 Hebrews 6:13-17 2 Corinthians 1:23 
Deuteronomy 10:20 2 Chronicles 6:22-23 Psalm 24:4 


B - Vows - A vow is a sacred promise made to God alone. Whatever is vowed is irrevocable and must be fulfilled regardless of the cost or change in circumstances. Therefore, unscriptural or careless vows should never be made by any follower of Jesus Christ. Examples of unscriptural vows are monastic vows, vows of poverty, vows of celibacy, etc. Jepthah, whose careless vow cost him his posterity, stands forever in Holy Scripture as a warning to those who make careless vows to God. Better not to vow at all, than to vow and not do what has been promised. 
Ecclesiastes 5:1-7 Ephesians 4:28 Matthew 19:11 
Judges 11:30, 35, 39 



C - Cancellation of Vows - Vows may not be made in isolation from God's appointed authority structure. Vows made to God by married women, or by daughters living at home, may be canceled by their husbands and fathers respectively, if they are canceled on the same day he hears them. If he does not cancel them on the same day he learns of them then the vows are binding. 
Numbers 30:2-16 1 Samuel 1:11&23 



D - Conclusion - In a world where the word of people means little, even under oath, and where sacred vows are disregarded, destroying the very fabric of our civilization, we do well to consider our Christian duty to counter the tide. The unchanging God, who always does exactly what He has spoken, expects His followers to reflect this aspect of His character. Believers should never commit themselves lightly, should be utterly reliable, and should probably make very few vows during their lifetimes. When a vow is made, it is a sacred promise. Under no circumstances may it be revoked. In like manner, the swearing of oaths should be rare for the follower of Jesus whose yes means yes, and whose no means no. However, should the swearing of an oath be required, the Christian may do so without anxiety of conscience. *TextThe teaching of Jesus to "swear not at all" must be understood in the context of interpersonal relationships, rather than in courts of law. Likewise, His teaching to "turn the other cheek" has interpersonal relationships for its context, and may not be misused to promote international pacifism. We find it inconceivable that Paul, appointed an Apostle by Jesus Christ, would make vows (Acts 18:18), and swear by God (2 Corinthians 1:23), in violation of his Master's will. Oaths and vows are not forbidden per se in Holy Scripture, but a definite warning is sounded to those who make them carelessly, insincerely, or unscripturally. Men and women will be called to account for their words.  * Jeremiah 23:10 Romans 12:2 Numbers 23:19 
1 Peter 1:15-16 Ecclesiastes 5:2,4 Judges 11:35 
Matthew 5:37 Nehemiah 13:25 Matthew 5:34 
James 5:12 Matthew 5:39 1 Samuel 15:1-4 
Matthew 12:36-37 




Back to Table of Contents | Chapter 21 | Chapter 23 |

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Craig (Apr 13, 2005)

Making a vow by enlisting isn't sinning against God. The Constitution, while not overtly theistic or Christian, is acceptable and can be adhered to conscienably before God...it doesn't require you to break God's commandments.

I think I signed several oaths over the years...usually involving employment. I think everyone here paying rent or paying on a mortgage made an oath...we are to make oaths and do them all the tim, simply let your yes be yes, and your no be no: no "iffys". (By the way...if you're a member reading my post, and are going to contradict me, didn't you agree to a set of guidlines set up by the Mods? That would be an oath)

The war in Iraq is a different can of worms. But you can enlist with a clear conscience. When Roman soldiers converted, were they told to renounce their jobs? That was Rome...we're on our way to being like Rome, but not nearly as godless as Rome was, and Paul didn't command these soldiers to leave their posts.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jonathan_
> What about the moral argument for fighting for one's country?



What about it? I don't mean to be cavalier, but the bottom line - and this is a point that has been made for hundreds and hundreds of years - in Luke 3, when some soldiers come to John the Baptist asking what they should do, he doesn't say to get out of the military (and yes, this would have been an option since the Roman military was a volunteer army)... likewise, Cornelius isn't told to get out of the military. And they served a government many, many, many times more unjust than ours!



> _Originally posted by Jonathan_
> For example, I believe Iraq was the right thing to do, also Afghanistan, and would proudly fight in either, however, lets say we get involved in some UN operation in some third world country or something. They want me to wear the blue and white hat... (though I do not see it happening with this oil for money scandal) what do I do in that situation...? I will not wear that cap, no matter what! if I am called to serve in that way, what do I do?



What would you do? Quite frankly, you'd go serve or you'd (likely) go to jail and then get booted out. A US soldier is given leeway - but only a little! - to refuse a blatantly illegal order. You, and others who think like you, may share the opinion that it is "illegal" to serve under the command of someone other than a US commander, but until the US government comes to share your opinion... well... 
Additionally, the UN may be a corrupt organization. They may promote all sorts of immoral things. But appealing to that alone wouldn't justify noncompliance of an order... the specific order would need to be an illegal one.



> _Originally posted by Jonathan_
> Also, our country is going down hill very fast; is it wrong to fight for a country whose morals are falling apart (though it still maintains many good things)?



It is easy to ask questions like this when it is applied to military service, but in truth, this question could be applied to society in general: is it wrong to work for a company that endorses immoral behavior? My company (like many - if not most- large companies) gives health insurance benefits to homosexuals and their partners. Does that mean it is wrong to work for them? 
I think one needs to contemplate the implications of the words of Paul in 1 Cor 5:9-10.

Some (here) may not like to consider it in these terms, but it is legitimate nonetheless: the military is a job. Like every job it has its ups and its downs. Sometimes you will have to work for and with people you don't really like - and who don't really like you - and at other times you will work for an with folks whom you will come to love as family. Sometimes you will have to do things you don't want to do and at other times you will love your job so much that you would do it even if they weren't paying you (like when I got to go jumping out of planes... they actually paid me to jump out of planes!)... I could go on and on. All folks around here seem to want to do is boil it to the lowest common denominator: if you join the military you're volunteering to die or kill. Whatever. The same could be said of any number of professions. And like many other professions, not all jobs in the military give you equal chances of doing either of those things. For instance, a computer technician in the Air Force has about as much chance at killing or being killed as a computer technician at any civilian company. Not every job in the military is infantry. Remember that. 

If you want a job - or a career - in which you have ample opportunity for professional development, if you want to make a decent living, if you want to tavel the world (at the government's expense - like me... I got to spend 7 years of my life in Germany... another 2 in Hawaii... a few more in Colorado...), if you want the opportunity to do things that most people only get to see done in movies, if you want a job that will keep you in excellent shape, provide you with fantastic benefits and perks... not to mention 30 days of vacation per year and many 3 and 4 day weekends... well, the miliitary has a lot to offer. Finally, like any job you will have ample opportunities to minister in the military. A lot of the folks - especially the younger enlisted guys- are searching for some meaning in their lives. A lot of them end up fodder for various cults. Oh that more solid Christians would go in and minister among them!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 14, 2005)

sola,
You have some good points. Though im not rushing to join up. Not againts a military, not interested. Doesnt mean I cant enjoy war movies etc... I do. But Im not the military type. If I have to fight I will. Im gona become a electrician Lord willing of course. Maybe work on crab boats in alaska like my mom did. She was a crab fisheman for two years then I happened. my grnadfather was a merchant marine for the glorious kingdom of Scandanavia "Norway". You know your pictrure reminds me of my friend who is a chaplain in the military he is reformed. You look exactly like him. Scary.

Sorry..

Jonathen,
Just be prayful and wise about your decision there are many 'perks' with military service I think most marines if that is the branch you go into become cops. Ill be praying for you. I would say if you dont want to end up under the command of a UN leader or disagree with the current foreign policiy then I would seriouselly(sp?) reconsider joining. not that joining is bad, just that if you have strong moral - beliefs issues with that as I would it may be better to not join up then to do so and up up serving an anti-christian org like the UN. Who knows. I support you know matter if you join or not. I support the troops not the war. I pray to God the christian men out there stay strong in the faith. you may consider being a chaplain. just a thought. Ill let you and God figure that one out. 

In Christ,
blade


----------



## satz (Apr 14, 2005)

hi folks,

just a query about the comments made on swearing and oaths, is any kind of promise made a bibical oath/vow?

For instance when u sign a contract, make a promise, is that considered an oath or vow?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 14, 2005)

A few comments regarding specific issues that have been raised:

* Swearing an oath before God is not sinful _per se_. The distinction must be made between swearing a lawful oath and an unlawful oath.

* Serving in the military or government is not sinful _per se_. Joseph and Daniel both served in ungodly administrations and examples have already been given about soldiers. Cornelius is a great example. However, if the condition for service is to commit a sin by swearing an unlawful oath, then one need look no further than the examples of Joseph and Daniel to see that they would have refused to sin if such a requirement were laid upon them. 

* Why is the oath of loyalty to the US Constitution sinful? Because governments are not amoral. The design of the Constitution is make our nation a secular republic. However, secular does not mean neutral in the Biblical sense. There is no neutrality when it comes to confessing Christ or denying him. Nations have a duty to confess Christ just as people do (see Ps. 2; Ps. 22.27-28; Isa. 49.23; etc.). The Constitution specifically claims to be the highest law of the land, but it is not based on the Bible. It specifically prohibits any religious test for public office which contradicts God's requirement in 2 Sam. 23.3. It specifically prohibits our federal government from fulfilling its duty to establish true religion in the First Amendment, in violation of the First and Second Commandments (see the duties enjoined and sins forbidden per the WLC). There are additional sinful provisions built into the Constitution. All of them make swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution a sinful act because the Constitution is in essence rebellion against God. 

* Those who have already taken an oath of loyalty to the Constitution though it was a sinful oath may still do good work in their vocations whether they be public servants or soldiers. Those are lawful vocations apart from the oath issue -- albeit they still have to address the moral issues that come with the job -- and hence Christians in government and military service may do good work. We are called to pray for those in authority over us and that is not conditioned on how they got the job. Render unto Caesar that which is due. Soldiers who protect our country warrant special thanks and honor. They are called, possibly, to sacrifice their lives in our defense, and there is not enough good that can be said about one who would lay down his life for his country. But all that said, the oath is still required, and it is still a sinful oath.

For a good read on the Covenanter view of civil government, see Alexander M'Leod's Messiah, Governor of the Nations of the Earth.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I also believe that the oath of loyalty to the Constitution is sinful and thus I could not commend any vocation that requires it as does the military.



With all due respect, Andrew, if you believe the Oath of Service is sinful, you have not read the Oath...or do not understand it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



With all due respect Kevin, I have and I do.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> * Why is the oath of loyalty to the US Constitution sinful? Because governments are not amoral. The design of the Constitution is make our nation a secular republic. However, secular does not mean neutral in the Biblical sense. There is no neutrality when it comes to confessing Christ or denying him. Nations have a duty to confess Christ just as people do (see Ps. 2; Ps. 22.27-28; Isa. 49.23; etc.). The Constitution specifically claims to be the highest law of the land, but it is not based on the Bible. It specifically prohibits any religious test for public office which contradicts God's requirement in 2 Sam. 23.3. It specifically prohibits our federal government from fulfilling its duty to establish true religion in the First Amendment, in violation of the First and Second Commandments (see the duties enjoined and sins forbidden per the WLC). There are additional sinful provisions built into the Constitution. All of them make swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution a sinful act because the Constitution is in essence rebellion against God.
> 
> * Those who have already taken an oath of loyalty to the Constitution though it was a sinful oath may still do good work in their vocations whether they be public servants or soldiers. Those are lawful vocations apart from the oath issue -- albeit they still have to address the moral issues that come with the job -- and hence Christians in government and military service may do good work. We are called to pray for those in authority over us and that is not conditioned on how they got the job. Render unto Caesar that which is due. Soldiers who protect our country warrant special thanks and honor. They are called, possibly, to sacrifice their lives in our defense, and there is not enough good that can be said about one who would lay down his life for his country. But all that said, the oath is still required, and it is still a sinful oath.



You´re backpeddling. What you´re saying, in essense, is that it is wrong to swear (or affirm!) that one will defend the constitution"¦ but once you´ve gotten over the hump of that initial sin it is then okay to actually engage in defending that constitution (which is what soldiering is!). Furthermore, your position NECESSARILY entails that all Christians leave the military since "“ and maybe you´ve overlooked this "“ soldiers have to reenlist every 3 or 4 years. Every time they sign a new enlistment contract they have to do the oath of enlistment.

Second, and this could change the direction of the thread, so please start a new one if you wish to discuss it"¦ 2 Sam 23:3 is NOT a faith test. Read it in its context. David is affirming the good that comes from having a ruler (in this case a king"¦ do we have kings in America? And yes, there is a difference between a king and a president) who rules in the fear of God. I won´t go into your other proof-texting, but the bottom line is that your position is based more on errant rationalization than sound exegesis. (The best example of this type of "œit-must-be-right-because-I´m-using-Scripture-and-my-argument- sounds-good" thinking is when Turretin tries to argue for the earth being at the center of the universe. )

Third, most significantly"¦ the uniform teaching of Scripture is that being in the military is ok, even if the government one is serving is intrinsically linked with paganism. Aren´t you aware that swearing absolute allegiance to a pagan ruler, law code, or deity has always been a part of military service? If Cornelius can remain in the military despite having to swear "œabsolute" allegiance to Caesar, then I can "œsolemnly affirm" that I will defend the constitution.
Perhaps the most striking example of a person in the military, who is affirmed in what he has to do, is that of Naaman. He was a general. In a pagan nation in the Ancient Near East. His position necessarily required that he formally attend pagan worship with his king. And what does Elisha say to him when he asks to be pardoned of this "œnecessary evil?" Hmmm"¦. I´ll take the example of Scripture, and the words of an inspired prophet any day over the theological rationalizing of well-intended men. We could go back to other gentiles, but again"¦ the uniform teaching of Scripture is that being a soldier is ok, even when one has to affirm allegiance to a sinful nation.



[Edited on 4-14-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> You´re backpeddling. What you´re saying, in essense, is that it is wrong to swear (or affirm!) that one will defend the constitution"¦ but once you´ve gotten over the hump of that initial sin it is then okay to actually engage in defending that constitution (which is what soldiering is!). Furthermore, your position NECESSARILY entails that all Christians leave the military since "“ and maybe you´ve overlooked this "“ soldiers have to reenlist every 3 or 4 years. Every time they sign a new enlistment contract they have to do the oath of enlistment.



I am not backpeddling. I am making a distinction between the oath initially required for service, which I contend is sinful, and the work of soldiering, which is about defending the country from harm, which is honorable work in itself. 

I agree that my position is a bar to Christians joining or reenlisting in the military (at least in the US today). The testimony of faithful Christians who refuse to swear unlawfully should not be underestimated though. Look at the examples, again, of Joseph or Daniel, who refused to sin for their governments. It is better to refuse to sin than to commit sin that good may result.



> Second, and this could change the direction of the thread, so please start a new one if you wish to discuss it"¦ 2 Sam 23:3 is NOT a faith test. Read it in its context. David is affirming the good that comes from having a ruler (in this case a king"¦ do we have kings in America? And yes, there is a difference between a king and a president) who rules in the fear of God. I won´t go into your other proof-texting, but the bottom line is that your position is based more on errant rationalization than sound exegesis. (The best example of this type of "œit-must-be-right-because-I´m-using-Scripture-and-my-argument- sounds-good" thinking is when Turretin tries to argue for the earth being at the center of the universe. )



Errant rationalization? "Do we have kings in America?" You can criticize and dismiss my position, and avoid interacting with the Scriptures, and with the Reformed Presbyterian article (sermon) that I cited, but it has always been the historic Reformed position that the civil magistrate has a duty to acknowledge and confess Christ in his official capacity. My position on this is probably not the minority position on the Board (it's the view of the Confession, chap. XXIII), even if my application of this position to the subject of the oath to the Constitution isn't. 



> Third, most significantly"¦ the uniform teaching of Scripture is that being in the military is ok, even if the government one is serving is intrinsically linked with paganism. Aren´t you aware that swearing absolute allegiance to a pagan ruler, law code, or deity has always been a part of military service? If Cornelius can remain in the military despite having to swear "œabsolute" allegiance to Caesar, then I can "œsolemnly affirm" that I will defend the constitution.
> Perhaps the most striking example of a person in the military, who is affirmed in what he has to do, is that of Naaman. He was a general. In a pagan nation in the Ancient Near East. His position necessarily required that he formally attend pagan worship with his king. And what does Elisha say to him when he asks to be pardoned of this "œnecessary evil?" Hmmm"¦. I´ll take the example of Scripture, and the words of an inspired prophet any day over the theological rationalizing of well-intended men. We could go back to other gentiles, but again"¦ the uniform teaching of Scripture is that being a soldier is ok, even when one has to affirm allegiance to a sinful nation.
> 
> 
> ...



I've looked at the Roman oath (sacramentum). It requires swearing by Jupiter that the Emperor should be worshipped by the human race. The word "absolute" that you cited is not present, but the language is problematic enough. Was Cornelius a true believer when he took that oath? Did he have to take the oath again to "reenlist" after he became a true believer? The answers to those questions would clarify whether he compromised his faith or not. The example of Naaman is certainly not something to be commended. Justifying unlawful oaths from his example is a pretty weak argument, in my view.

Matthew Henry on 2 Kings 5 v. 18-19:



> He owns he ought not to do it, but that he cannot otherwise not do it, but that he cannot otherwise keep his place,--protests that his bowing is not, nor ever shall be, as it had been, in honour to the idol, but only in honour to the king,--and therefore he hopes God will forgive him. Perhaps, all things considered, this might admit of some apology, though it was not justifiable. But, as to us, I am sure, (1.) If, in covenanting with God, we make a reservation for any known sin, which we will continue to indulge ourselves in, that reservation is a defeasance of his covenant. We must cast away all our transgressions and not except any house of Rimmon. (2.) Though we are encouraged to pray for the remission of the sins we have committed, yet, if we ask for a dispensation to go on in any sin for the future, we mock God, and deceive ourselves. (3.) Those that know not how to quit a place at court when they cannot keep it without sinning against God, and wronging their consciences, do not rightly value the divine favour. (4.) Those that truly hate evil will make conscience of abstaining from all appearances of evil. Though Naaman's dissembling his religion cannot be approved, yet because his promise to offer no sacrifice to any god but the God of Israel only was a great point gained with a Syrian, and because, by asking pardon in this matter, he showed such a degree of conviction and ingenuousness as gave hopes of improvement, the prophet took fair leave of him, and bade him Go in peace, v. 19. Young converts must be tenderly dealt with.



[Edited on 4-14-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## AdamM (Apr 14, 2005)

There is nothing in our Reformation teaching that would prohibit you from pursuing a career in the military. Being the best solider you can be is honoring to God. Puritan chaplains whose only weapon was the Gospel would be side by side with the troops as they went to battle.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 14, 2005)

Please keep the tone civil brothers. Stick to the topic, not to personal accusations.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Apr 14, 2005)

hmmmmmmmm...

How does all of this play out if, say, I enlist in the Soviet army or Hitler's storm troopers? 

Where does one draw the line?

If Andrew's position is extreme against aligning with a beastly pagan entity....I can also see an extreme in Ben's position in not offering much of a constraint against such egregious examples as the Nazis or reds. Surely the conscience would be defiled in such a situation.

Perhaps I need to re-read the posts here.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SmokingFlax_
> hmmmmmmmm...
> 
> How does all of this play out if, say, I enlist in the Soviet army or Hitler's storm troopers?
> ...



And Andrew writes:


> Look at the examples, again, of Joseph or Daniel, who refused to sin for their governments.



I'll respond to Andrew and then Christopher, as I believe that my answer to Christopher will flow naturally from what I believe to be true in the case of my answer to Andrew.

Andrew: I absolutely agree that Joseph and Daniel are excellent examples of two godly men who refused to sin for their governments. Good choice of examples.... but I believe that their example prooves my point! My point being this: it wasn't sinful for them to (work for) their respective governments, despite the godlessness and wretchedness of either of them. It was acceptable for them to be in their position despite the wicked policies of those nations! What Daniel and Joshua refused to do were _specific acts of sin_, not a general refusal to associate with others who are wicked. 
The US military gives their soldiers that freedom - in fact, soldiers are expected to disobey (and report!) illegal orders. However, as you point out, a Christian would be morally obligated to refuse to obey a sinful order even if the UCMJ didn't allow it, but be that as it may, the US allows such actions. 
So: It is ok to be employed by - and remain employed by - evil governments. The Christian only sins if he/she engages in a specific act that is sinful. 

Christopher: you probably see where I'm going... I think - in principle - that it would have been acceptable for a patriotic German to enlist in the German army in WWII. However, to knowingly participate in sinful acts would, as we both agree, be wicked and punishable by God. (In fact, it is a known fact that there were Christians in the German army... remember, most of the rank and file soldiers didn't even know about what was going on with the Jews and others.)

However... at the emotional level... I would never have voluntarily signed up to fight in German army... after all... they were fighting the USA! 

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 14, 2005)

> So: It is ok to be employed by - and remain employed by - evil governments. The Christian only sins if he/she engages in a specific act that is sinful.


Which is exactly what Andrew said. Exactly.

According to him (and the Covenanter Witness) the specific sinful act which would be _required_ as a condition of service or continued service would be the commissioning/ enlistment/ reenlistment oath. Hence, he could not agree to participate, which precludes the military of his fine services. To his conscience, they are demanding a sinful _act_ as a condition of service. So he must respectfully decline. There is nothing dishonorable (or unbiblical) about this position.


----------



## Peter (Apr 14, 2005)

Ben, the Reformed Presbyterian view of political dissent which both Andrew and I advocate does not teach pascifism or the idea military service is sinful.
We believe:
1) that the US Constitution is a wicked document that denies the royal prerogatives of Jesus.
2) to take an oath to defend an immoral constitution is sinful
The oath of enlistment requires one to swear to defend the constitution therefore taking the oath is sin. 

We have no qualms with those who serve an unlawful govt without conscientiously submitting or taking an oath to its immoral constitution- as Joseph, Cornelius, Daniel, et al.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 14, 2005)

Jonathan,

Two thoughts. First, you must remember the "two kingdoms" distinction. God has ordained the civil government to wield the sword in judgment and protection of its people. This is a valid, lawful, and divinely ordained function that must be recognized even though the government be creedally atheistic. As a Christian, you belong to the kingdom of Christ, yet we live between two worlds before His return. As an inhabitant of this world you are obligated to pursue lawful, gainful employment, and as the military falls under this category you should have no reservations on this level. Military service is not a sin, although having served for three years I can attest that it is quite a challenge to maintain spiritual purity. p0rnography and coarseness are rampant, and many of your team mates will be rank pagans. You, however, will be their salt and light! 

Second, on a more pragmatic level, if you have even a sprinkling of physical ability, mental agility, and desire a challenging, professional and serious minded lifestyle - join a special operations outfit. I served my time in the 3rd Ranger Battalion, and it is an experience that I would never give up. Painfully difficult on the physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual levels, yes (sometimes indescribably so), but it has shaped me for better in life in more ways than one, and I find that wisdom to be irreplaceable. 

There are many units and jobs to fit one's taste - Air Force para-rescue jumpers, Special Forces medics, Airborne Ranger forward observers (a task from my past), blah, blah, blah... Every branch of the service has them. Look into it. I absolutely would not be able to handle the silliness that occurs in much of the regular units (nor could I handle having a woman for a Commanding Officer, as one example of a very unwarrior-like happening that you may run into within modern day armed forces outside of SOCOM [special operations command]). 

Just a few thoughts for you. If you're going to do it, do it with the best of them (and do it to the glory of God!).


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> 
> > So: It is ok to be employed by - and remain employed by - evil governments. The Christian only sins if he/she engages in a specific act that is sinful.
> ...



1. I realized as I was posting it that this was true"¦ and that this simply begs the question of whether or not the enlistment oath is an act of sin.
What I have tried to show is that all governments have required some sort of oath, or some similar thing, in which their servants declare their allegiance and loyalty. If no biblical example is condemned for their so doing, then that speaks volumes to me "“ and to most. To argue that Joseph or Daniel never gave an oath or pledge of allegiance to their respective kings is simply naÃ¯ve. That´s like saying Jesus never went to the bathroom because the Bible never records such an event. The Bible isn´t interested in detailing every single event and detail of life in the Ancient Near East. It is just a simple fact that to serve in the court of a king that you would have to give allegiance to that king. Thus, I think that the reality of this, and given that there is literally no condemnation anywhere of them having done so, really does nullify your objection about it being necessarily an act of sin to swear (or affirm) that you will uphold the constitution.

2. It is possible to give an oath of allegiance to a king, or a legal code, while reserving pride of place to God. I mean, let´s be honest"¦ no where does the US oath of enlistment demand that the army, the Constitution or the UCMJ (which, incidentally has greater bearing on what you can and cannot do while you are in the military than does the US Constitution) take first place in your values. And I believe that too is important. And I think it testifies to the relative goodness of our system: we don´t demand that the Constitution take precedence in our value system over the Bible. 

3. Besides"¦ I´m an American Presbyterian. I´m not a Scottish Presbyterian. My version "“ the American version "“ of the WCF thinks that our constitution "“ the American constitution "“ is good. (See 23.3) "˜Nuff said! 

Here´s the most important thing for people who are really considering joining the US Military:
I understand that some people don´t, for one reason or another, want to serve in the military. And I´m fine with that"¦ I guess"¦ after all, people like me ensure that people like that can have their "œreasons." But anyway, I tell you what"¦ The military is a great gig. If you have something better going for you then fine"¦ but if you´re someone without any marketable skills, if you´re someone who doesn´t really know what (you) want to do with your life"¦ if you have a family to support without any other really viable way of doing so"¦ well, the military is a great place to be. (Not to imply that you have to be at the end of your rope for the military to be a good place for you to be!) Take my dad as one example: a "œsimple" auto mechanic. If he´d remained a civilian he would never have amounted to anything. However, the military gave him promotion opportunities and leadership opportunities"¦ and he retired after serving as a First Sergeant (the highest ranking enlisted soldier in a company)"¦ the army allowed him (and countless others) to develop skills that enabled him to "œdo something" with his life and provide "“ very well "“ for his family in a way that he never would have been able to do apart from the military. (For a further example, consider Colin Powell. Do you think that some little poor kid in the hood would have been able to make anything of himself were it not for the military?) Plus, the morals and values that are formally taught by the military are very honorable. Growing up in a military environment I was continually taught respect of my elders, being truthful, etc"¦ I mean, in how many other spheres of American life is adultery a crime? (Of course, the morals of many individuals in the military are deplorable"¦ but that doesn´t change the fact that formally, the military expects a degree of morality that is honorable.)
God bless the USA"¦ and those who swear (or affirm!) to defend her! 
Pro Deo et Patria!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> Second, on a more pragmatic level, if you have even a sprinkling of physical ability, mental agility, and desire a challenging, professional and serious minded lifestyle - join a special operations outfit. I served my time in the 3rd Ranger Battalion, and it is an experience that I would never give up. Painfully difficult on the physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual levels, yes (sometimes indescribably so), but it has shaped me for better in life in more ways than one, and I find that wisdom to be irreplaceable.
> 
> There are many units and jobs to fit one's taste - Air Force para-rescue jumpers, Special Forces medics, Airborne Ranger forward observers (a task from my past), blah, blah, blah... Every branch of the service has them. Look into it. I absolutely would not be able to handle the silliness that occurs in much of the regular units (nor could I handle having a woman for a Commanding Officer, as one example of a very unwarrior-like happening that you may run into within modern day armed forces outside of SOCOM [special operations command]).



Adam! I was in 2nd Bn, brother! When were you in? 'Bat boys unite! 

I agree that the best units are SOCOM units... I'd love to go back to one of the 'bats as a chaplain... but I'd settle for an SF group or even something with the 82nd. 
Rangers lead the way!


----------



## Augusta (Apr 14, 2005)

Andrew, respectfully, don't the old testament verses that you are citing when taken in context both covenantally and culturally apply to the OT Nation of Israel? At that time they were the ONLY nation that God had chosen and he ruled over them via the judges and the kings that Israel later asked for. They were also the only Nation/race that God dealt with directly through his covenant and the temple sacrifice etc. All of that has been fulfulled in Jesus Christ who is now our only King, High Priest etc. Now we are grafted in and there is no longer one nation but the covenant is to all of the nations.

Also in 1 Cor. 7:17-24 NKJV

Live as You Are Called

17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 
18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 
19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD IS WHAT MATTERS. 
20 LET EACH ONE REMAIN IN THE SAME CALLING IN WHICH HE WAS CALLED. 
21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 
22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave. 
23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 
24 BRETHREN, LET EACH ONE REMAIN WITH GOD IN THE STATE IN WHICH HE WAS CALLED. 

I think this passage in combination with the Romans 13 passage shows that we are not in the NC to live as the OT Jews did. We are from all nations and we are an invisible church now. Not a visible one as OT Israel was. Paul is saying here don't make drastic changes once you are called. Live as your were but keep his commandments. Don't do anything drastic like the Amish have separating themselves out where they cannot minister the gospel effectively off by themselves. 

I also don't know of any country that has God in their constitution or calls themselves a Christian Nation. The UK might have something on paper somewhere because of the Anglican church but they don't practice it. Should we all move to England. It is more liberal and immoral than America if that is possible. Look at the Netherlands. The dutch reformers would gasp at what they saw there now. God wants us to serve where we are to the best of our ability without sinning. If you could do that in Rome in the 1st century you can do that here. Just like any job you have or product you buy has some immoral ties that you could never avoid in so corrupt and fallen a world as ours, so will all of our governments be imperfect. There isn't even a such thing as a perfect church anywhere. We need to be where the gospel needs to be preached and that is among the tax collectors and sinners. In the world but not of the world.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> There is nothing in our Reformation teaching that would prohibit you from pursuing a career in the military. Being the best solider you can be is honoring to God. Puritan chaplains whose only weapon was the Gospel would be side by side with the troops as they went to battle.



It's interesting to note that the Puritan army was not fighting for the king but _against_ King Charles I. It was civil war. Much like the French Huguenots in the previous century's French Wars of Religion, their resistance to tyrannical government formed the basis for the development of what became known as the Covenanter doctrine of political dissent. When Charles II required an unlawful oath of his citizens stating that he was head of the Church, the Covenanters refused saying that Christ alone was Head of the Church. For this they were persecuted and eventually took up arms. Thus, the history of the Reformation in fact is key to understanding why some Christians would rather not take an unlawful oath than serve an ungodly government.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> 
> > So: It is ok to be employed by - and remain employed by - evil governments. The Christian only sins if he/she engages in a specific act that is sinful.
> ...



Thanks, Bruce. You articulated my position very well. Much appreciated.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 1. I realized as I was posting it that this was true"¦ and that this simply begs the question of whether or not the enlistment oath is an act of sin.
> What I have tried to show is that all governments have required some sort of oath, or some similar thing, in which their servants declare their allegiance and loyalty. If no biblical example is condemned for their so doing, then that speaks volumes to me "“ and to most. To argue that Joseph or Daniel never gave an oath or pledge of allegiance to their respective kings is simply naÃ¯ve. That´s like saying Jesus never went to the bathroom because the Bible never records such an event. The Bible isn´t interested in detailing every single event and detail of life in the Ancient Near East. It is just a simple fact that to serve in the court of a king that you would have to give allegiance to that king. Thus, I think that the reality of this, and given that there is literally no condemnation anywhere of them having done so, really does nullify your objection about it being necessarily an act of sin to swear (or affirm) that you will uphold the constitution.



So, your argument is that Joseph and Daniel must have sworn an oath of allegiance to a pagan government because the Bible is silent on the matter and therefore like Jesus going to the bathroom, the assumption must be made that it happened, and that therefore we have the right to swear allegiance to an ungodly government today. Hmmm... Well, that's too big of an assumption for me to make. In fact, I'd say that's pure historical speculation. I say rather that the Biblical silence on whether Joseph or Daniel swore such an oath as a condition for service to the king means that there is no basis to make such an assumption. What the Biblical record tells us, however, is that Daniel -- after he was already in the king's service -- was required to worship the idols of Nebuchadnezzar and refused to do so. He punished for it, but God used his witness in refusing to sin for his own glory. 



> 2. It is possible to give an oath of allegiance to a king, or a legal code, while reserving pride of place to God. I mean, let´s be honest"¦ no where does the US oath of enlistment demand that the army, the Constitution or the UCMJ (which, incidentally has greater bearing on what you can and cannot do while you are in the military than does the US Constitution) take first place in your values. And I believe that too is important. And I think it testifies to the relative goodness of our system: we don´t demand that the Constitution take precedence in our value system over the Bible.



It is precisely because the oath requires that in the name of God I agree to support and defend an godless Constitution which claims to be the supreme law of the land and contains many provisions contrary to God's revealed will that I cannot in good conscience take such an oath. See Wylie's treatise on why one may not in good conscience take the oath. 

I am in the legal profession. I work as a paralegal. I cannot aspire to work as an attorney because attorneys too have to take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. I have looked into modifications of the wording of the oath that would acknowledge my chief submission to God or Christ, but such modifications have been disallowed. The point is, anyone who does take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution is swearing to adhere to not a "relatively" good system of government, because there is no neutrality, but rather an antiChristian system of government. The oath requires one to submit to the Constitution, and it does not contain provisions for exceptions to higher law. Those Christians who get an "attack" of conscience after having sworn the oath have placed themselves in a dilemma of competing higher authorities. God's law and the Constitution are not compatible, hence, serving one on all counts means the other is not being served. 



> 3. Besides"¦ I´m an American Presbyterian. I´m not a Scottish Presbyterian. My version "“ the American version "“ of the WCF thinks that our constitution "“ the American constitution "“ is good. (See 23.3) "˜Nuff said!



I know the American revision was made to conform more to the US Constitution. My own church adheres to the 1647 Confession, however. Regardless, as I have carefully reviewed both Confessions, the civil magistrate is clearly said in the PCA version to have an official duty to maintain piety and act as nursing fathers to the church, sec. 2 and 3 (an allusion to one of the Scriptures I cited earlier which you have passed over). Those duties conflict with the Constitutional requirements for public officials.

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Andrew, respectfully, don't the old testament verses that you are citing when taken in context both covenantally and culturally apply to the OT Nation of Israel? At that time they were the ONLY nation that God had chosen and he ruled over them via the judges and the kings that Israel later asked for. They were also the only Nation/race that God dealt with directly through his covenant and the temple sacrifice etc. All of that has been fulfulled in Jesus Christ who is now our only King, High Priest etc. Now we are grafted in and there is no longer one nation but the covenant is to all of the nations.



Traci, let's go back to the verses I cited: 

Ps. 2 (I had in mind verses 10-12: Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.)

Ps. 22.27-28: All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations.

Isa. 49.23: And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.

OK, so it's your contention that these verses, while acknowledging that God is Lord over the nations during the OT era, no longer apply in the NT era? Well, my position is that they if they applied in the OT era, when Israel was the only covenanted nation and before the Incarnation of Christ the King, how much more do they apply in the NT era, now that Christ's mediatorial Kingship in heaven has been established. However, if you would like to explore NT verses which reaffirm the teaching that God is Lord of the nations (the implication I am trying to get at is simply that magistrates have a duty to confess Christ in their official capacities), then let's look at a few: 

Acts 17:30: And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 

Romans 13:4: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 

Revelations 11:15: And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

Revelations 19:6: And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

The last two verses are sung in Handel's _Messiah_, by the way. King George stood during the Hallelujah chorus precisely to acknowledge Christ's kingship over kings. 

In fact, the whole history of the Christian Church from Constantine (and earlier) to 1787 has been that at least official, or nominal, recongnition of Christ's Lordship over the nations is required by the state. 

I grant that one's eschatological view has much bearing on the issue of whether one understand's Christ's kingship to be a present reality or a future reality. But the Biblical reality is that Christ reigns now, and therefore all nations must confess him as Lord even as all peoples of the earth must do likewise. 

Irish Reformed Presbyterian Testimony: Christ is King

Irish Reformed Presbyterian Testimony: Church and State



> Also in 1 Cor. 7:17-24 NKJV
> 
> Live as You Are Called
> 
> ...



To the general position that we must live in the world (not of it) as salt and light, not separating ourselves from society, I most heartily agree. Please do not mistake the Covenanter view on political dissent as an Amish approach to life. I believe strongly in civic duty. I personally write letters to my representative officials all the time on various issues, and letters to the newspaper. There are other ways in which I am active on social issues too. I believe Christians are not to withdraw from society but to redeem it. I adhere to Kuyper's views on this. However, I will not compromise my witness by taking an unlawful oath merely so that I can serve the government. The key thing is, we must not sin so that good may result. Living a holy life in a godless society is extreme. It calls for separation from sin, not society, although there are times when Christians, like Lot, get too close to the fire, so to speak. But believe me, I do not believe in fundamentalist or Amish separation from society; quite the contrary. 



> I also don't know of any country that has God in their constitution or calls themselves a Christian Nation. The UK might have something on paper somewhere because of the Anglican church but they don't practice it. Should we all move to England. It is more liberal and immoral than America if that is possible. Look at the Netherlands. The dutch reformers would gasp at what they saw there now. God wants us to serve where we are to the best of our ability without sinning. If you could do that in Rome in the 1st century you can do that here. Just like any job you have or product you buy has some immoral ties that you could never avoid in so corrupt and fallen a world as ours, so will all of our governments be imperfect. There isn't even a such thing as a perfect church anywhere. We need to be where the gospel needs to be preached and that is among the tax collectors and sinners. In the world but not of the world.



As a matter of fact, the UK's constitution consists not of one document but many, all of which on paper acknowledge God as Lord. That's why the Irish RP Church (the reference is primarily to Northern Ireland) speaks differently in its testimony about the requirements of Christian citizens with respect to civic duty than the old American RP church testimony. Situations are different among other nations, and I would not presume to know all the nuances of Christian duty in every nation. 

However, I fully agree, as I stated, that one can serve God in a godless society such as America or Rome. I have never advocated being an expatriate -- on the contrary, I advocate patriotism (I know the words are not opposite, it's just a play on words). Nor have I never said anything about participating in sin because a Christian buys a product at Wal-Mart which was made in Communist China, for example. The only issue I have been addressing in this thread is whether it is lawful to take the oath of loyalty required by the Constitution for military service. I know that we as Christians are surrounded by sinful corporations, laws, media, etc. We need to carefully apprise how we deal with that so that our witness is not compromised by our sin. In the case of the oath, nobody is requiring it of me like a far worse oath was required of the Scottish Covenanters, but it is held forth as a condition of military service, and hence, my conscience is bound to God's Word, and I cannot agree to serve the Constitution. So I can serve God as a citizen, but the oath requirement bars me from service as a soldier. So as an American citizen I will serve God in my place and calling with a good conscience.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I say rather that the Biblical silence on whether Joseph or Daniel swore such an oath as a condition for service to the king means that there is no basis to make such an assumption.



You say? I guess I'm just too well educated, and too much of a realist, to accept such a position.... especially what I'm talking about is uniform practice in every situation.
Such a thing as you are wanting to believe is simply unheard of historically. 


Your very next line speaks of Daniel refusing to worship the gods of the Babylonians (it was his friends, I think)... true! But look, the penalty was DEATH! It was a miracle that spared him/them. I'm not saying that he ever engaged in the worship of false gods, but he would never have stood in the kings court if he had not given an oath of allegiance. 
I'm surprised that you lack the ability or willingness to see how we can (at one level) give our allegiance to a specific country while at another level we keep our ultimate allegiance to God. Fortunately most Christians are able to do so.



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The only issue I have been addressing in this thread is whether it is lawful to take the oath of loyalty required by the Constitution for military service.



Yes, it is lawful because nowhere does the oath ask us to elevate something higher than God, the values of our constitution are good and just and conducive towards members of society living in peace with one another... and because our Constitution gives its citizens the RIGHT to worship the one, true and living God. So if you want to join the military, you can do so with a clean conscience.

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by SolaScriptura]

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> You say? I guess I'm just too well educated, and too much of a realist, to accept such a position.... especially what I'm talking about is uniform practice in every situation.
> Such a thing as you are wanting to believe is simply unheard of historically.



Ben, I don't know how well educated you are, and I think the insuination that I am uneducated is uncalled for. The fact remains that you are justifying swearing unlawful oaths without any Biblical (or even secular historical) support. 

The oath to Caesar that we discussed earlier was an oath to Jupiter in which the oath-taker calls upon the human race to worship the Emperor. Are you seriously saying that a Christian can take such an oath and that there is no such thing as an unlawful oath when it comes to allegiance to one's government? Do you make no distinction at all between lawful and unlawful oaths? If so, what distinctions do you make since you have seemed to support an oath to Jupiter calling for Emperor-worship?




> Your very next line speaks of Daniel refusing to worship the gods of the Babylonians (it was his friends, I think)... true! But look, the penalty was DEATH! It was a miracle that spared him/them. I'm not saying that he ever engaged in the worship of false gods, but he would never have stood in the kings court if he had not given an oath of allegiance.



This is simply an unproven assertion as I stated. 



> I'm surprised that you lack the ability or willingness to see how we can (at one level) give our allegiance to a specific country while at another level we keep our ultimate allegiance to God. Fortunately most Christians are able to do so.



I have never said that one cannot swear allegiance to a country. I have only said that one cannot swear an oath to the US Constitution. The Scottish National Covenant -- because it is faithful to the Scriptures -- is a good example of a godly oath requirement.

For someone who boasts about being well educated, I'm surprised that you seem unfamiliar with the historical Reformed Presbyterian view of civil government. 



> Yes, it is lawful because nowhere does the oath ask us to elevate something higher than God, the values of our constitution are good and just and conducive towards members of society living in peace with one another... and because our Constitution gives its citizens the RIGHT to worship the one, true and living God. So if you want to join the military, you can do so with a clean conscience.
> 
> [Edited on 4-15-2005 by SolaScriptura]



We have fundamentally different views of the Constitution and the duties of the civil magistrate. My view is in accord with the Scriptures, Confession and Catechisms. You have not demonstrated Biblical or Confessional support for your view. Nor have you interacted with my critique of the Constitution except to give your contrary opinion. We seem to be spinning our wheels, so I think we need to agree to disagree.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> My view is in accord with the Scriptures, Confession and Catechisms. You have not demonstrated Biblical or Confessional support for your view. .



Actually, I've given many biblical examples to support the majority position. In fact, I've given the classic examples. As to the Confession... well, I cited the confession.

AS to interacting with your view of the constitution... well, quite frankly, I am not a theonomist and neither are most Christians. I literally laughed when I read your post. (It may be a bit impolite to admit that, but it is true.)
Our consitution is morally good (again, as evidenced by the correct version of the WCF!!!) in its requirements and it enables men to live in relative peace and harmony with each other. Such a thing is good.
Perhaps you want to go back to the days when Baptists were imprisoned (as they were in early America) or drowned as in Europe... as for me, well, I think that Christ's people have seen the error of their ways. 

But I do agree, we are spinning our wheels. At the end of the day, I have to console myself with the fact that people like me provide the very freedom your signature line boasts of loving so much which enables you to have such a position in the first place.

Pro Deo et Patria! 



[Edited on 4-15-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



I have shown how Naaman's example which you cited is not a commendable example. The examples of Joseph and Daniel which I brought forth you have said support your view because the Scriptures don't show them taking oaths, but they must have according to your unproven assertion. You also cited a section from the PCA Confession, but failed to respond to my citations which refute your interpretation. So I have dealt with your minimal citations, and refuted them, but you have not dealt with mine. 

As to the theonomy bit, that's quite amusing. As most people on this Board are aware, I'm anti-theonomy. I'm surprised that theonomists on this Board (which are large in number) haven't spoken up on this thread, because I'm sure they would agree that the civil magistrate has a duty to honor God in their official capacities. However, let the record be clear -- as I have stated numerous times in other threads -- I'm not a theonomist. The view I espouse is called National Confessionalism. There is a significant difference.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> But I do agree, we are spinning our wheels. At the end of the day, I have to console myself with the fact that people like me provide the very freedom your signature line boasts of loving so much which enables you to have such a position in the first place.
> 
> Pro Deo et Patria!
> ...



Although we disagree on this issue, I am grateful for your service to our country. Thank you, brother.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Well, I really, really, REALLY want to argue the point...BUT seeing you have a brain like a steel trap and argue better than William Jennings Bryan, I know I will have to put together a well reasoned argument.

Sadly, I lack the time just now, since I am in the last few weeks of the semester and absolutley buried in last minute projects that should have been begun (!) weeks ago.

So I guess you win this one by default! 

Or perhaps I lose be default....either way, you have to love providence. 

If the thread is still alive after about...:::checks calendar:::...May 15, I will send a lenghty reply. 

(I suspect you would have pummelled me anyhow! )


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Ben, the Reformed Presbyterian view of political dissent which both Andrew and I advocate does not teach pascifism or the idea military service is sinful.
> We believe:
> 1) that the US Constitution is a wicked document that denies the royal prerogatives of Jesus.



So raise the rebel flag again, renounce you US citizenship, and march on the Capitol. Having successfully overthrown the republic, you can set up a theocracy...

Seriously, though, it is inane and unconscionable to enjoy the freedoms of liberty in this nation, to sit in the shadow of the document you evidently deplore, and yet refuse to defend it.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I am in the legal profession. I work as a paralegal. I cannot aspire to work as an attorney because attorneys too have to take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. I have looked into modifications of the wording of the oath that would acknowledge my chief submission to God or Christ, but such modifications have been disallowed. The point is, anyone who does take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution is swearing to adhere to not a "relatively" good system of government, because there is no neutrality, but rather an antiChristian system of government. The oath requires one to submit to the Constitution, and it does not contain provisions for exceptions to higher law. Those Christians who get an "attack" of conscience after having sworn the oath have placed themselves in a dilemma of competing higher authorities. God's law and the Constitution are not compatible, hence, serving one on all counts means the other is not being served.



Doesn't this strike you as mildly hypocritical? You won't do an attorney's work, but you will support their work and make your living of of them? In essence are you not supporting them in their sin by supporting them in their work? Are you not complicit with them in their sin, if sin it is?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_So as an American citizen I will serve God in my place and calling with a good conscience.



And in so doing, you completely undo all of your armuments. I too proudly served in the military for 11 years. I took the oath of enlistment in good conscience. I served in good conscience. Other believers, too, serve in the military in good conscience. I'd be in Iraq right now sending Arabs to Allah (in good conscience), if I weren't so old and fat. 

And btw, it is the Constitution you denounce and withouth which there would be no USA, that makes you an American citizen...


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> But I do agree, we are spinning our wheels. At the end of the day, I have to console myself with the fact that people like me provide the very freedom your signature line boasts of loving so much which enables you to have such a position in the first place.
> 
> Pro Deo et Patria!
> ...



And thank you for your service! Oh to be sending terrorists on to their 70 virgins...or whatever.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 15, 2005)

Ben! Outstanding brother! I was in from '93-'96; my RIP class  was going on right after Mogadishu. So when we got to 3rd Batt. we newbies (to use a more appropriate term than originally given) were the target of some serious tension release. Although, being in C co. I did not have it quite as bad as a Christian brother of mine who was assigned to B co. (who, as you know, took the brunt of the action). 

I had hoped to be assigned to 2nd, since I'm a home-grown Pacific Northwesterner, but right as they were calling for volunteers to go to Fort Lewis an NCO pulled me aside to give him a hand with something, and you know that an incoming batt boy would never in his wildest dreams think of saying, "Um, just a moment Sgt, I have to..." "What? What did I hear you say!?! Get down, Get Down, GET DOWN!!!!!!" God's providence is a mysterious thing!

I sometimes miss that work so much that when I was at my first seminary, back in Oregon, I got a slot from a reserve SF unit up in Washington to train for the 18D position, and I almost took a year and a half off to do it! But having such young children I took what I felt to be a wiser course of action. For the first couple of years out of the service I used to have regular dreams of jumps, or night ops, or whatever. School was just a drag. Once you've really lived its hard to back to being normal! 

It's been suggested that I return as a chaplain, but I personally felt that there were more opportunities for evangelism and influence being on a team than from the outside. I loved our regimental chaplain - tabbed, combat scrolled, jumpmaster that he was - but, to be honest, when you're running around in the freezing wintery woods of Northumbria for six weeks, or the desert mountains for a month, or whatever, you don't really see the chaplain all that much (although the one time I did, he was manning the Mk-19 as part of a regimental HQ defensive perimeter - how's that for bucking Army protocol!).

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by Archlute]

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by Archlute]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I have shown how Naaman's example which you cited is not a commendable example.



I don't think so. You simply quote Matthew Henry. Ahem.. sorry, you'll have to do better than that in my book. He's no authority in my eyes (though he's given much authority here on this Board). Besides, I anticpated your type of response by referring to the fact that the word of the Prophet trumps man's arugments. What does Elisha tell him?



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The examples of Joseph and Daniel which I brought forth you have said support your view because the Scriptures don't show them taking oaths, but they must have according to your unproven assertion.



Well, ok... I will demonstrate the intellectual honesty to admit that the Bible's silence on the subject means that I can't proove that they gave an oath of allegiance. But surely you can demonstrate the same by acknowledging that _if_ they served their respective kings without giving such an oath it would have been an exception to the rule.



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> You also cited a section from the PCA Confession, but failed to respond to my citations which refute your interpretation.


Your "citations" don't refute the Confession. WCF 23.3 says, in the correct edition:

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and Sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. _Yet as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord_, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all  ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever; and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.

I've italicized the part to which you refer and underlined the parts that I believe emphasize the point. A few things:
1. I readily admit that when the framers of the Constitution talked about religion they most likely thought in terms of only various Christian denominations. I highly doubt that any of them had ever heard of Buddha, and though they may have heard of Muslims I doubt that they had ever really met any. I also admit that in our day the 1st Ammendment is used to justify all manner of false religions and cults. But in that case, if authorial intent is to have any bearing here, your real gripe is with the modern interpretation of the document rather than with the document itself.
2. Of course the civil magistrate is to protect the church! But it is an interpretation that goes beyone what is simply necessarily to say that this means that the civil magistrate must _favor_ the church. I especially think that such an interpretation (as yours) is unwarranted in the light of that last section I have underlined. In particular note the phrase "all their people." In using this phrase rather than the phrases used above -which naturally refer only to Christians- the Confession is acknowledging the responsbility to the magistrate that everyone - regardless of their faith - must be free from persecution in the exercise of their religion.

3. I believe that this stems from an acknowledgement that nowhere does the New Testament prescribe, authorize, or suggest that the State has the right to impose a certain relgion over another. However, regardless of their rationale, the bottom line is that clearly 23.3 agrees with the majority opinion (of which I share).



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> So I have dealt with your minimal citations, and refuted them, but you have not dealt with mine.



Minimal? John the Baptist to the soldiers (which is a classic example - they ask what they should do, he gives a prescription, your advice isn't in it. John did not think that it was necessary for them to "renounce" their oath and get out. To say anything else, in the light of the nature of their question and the nature of his response, is special pleading), Cornelius, Naaman, Joseph, Daniel, WFC23.3, (someone else quoted 1 Cor 7:24...). Basically, I've quoted every example! In each case there is no indication that they should leave based upon some alleged impropriety with them being believers and having sworn (as all public servants must do) to uphold the very institution they are serving.
As to your arguments... well, I do believe that I've responded to them. The majority position may not satisfy you, but oh well.



> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> As to the theonomy bit, that's quite amusing. As most people on this Board are aware, I'm anti-theonomy. I'm surprised that theonomists on this Board (which are large in number) haven't spoken up on this thread, because I'm sure they would agree that the civil magistrate has a duty to honor God in their official capacities. However, let the record be clear -- as I have stated numerous times in other threads -- I'm not a theonomist. The view I espouse is called National Confessionalism. There is a significant difference.



Ok, I will admit that I rushed to judgment there. Like I mentioned above, nothing in the NT authorizes or says that the state must impose "true religion" on its people. That is just a fact. Furthermore, the 10 Commandments themselves are given within a context. Read the preamble: it is given to a specific group of people who have been redeemed by God. Sure, there may be the moral obligation to worship only God, but the legal- covenantal - obligation given to Israel is not true of any other nation as a political entity. 

In Sum: I cannot reiterate enough that the US enlistment oath does not demand that the Constitution become the "god" of the one taking the oath. The legal privileges and rights given in the Constitution are good and helpful. If it weren't for the Constitution, do you actually believe that the overwhelmingly large Baptist majority would let you be a Reformed Presbyterian? The Confession acknowledges the equity of the values incapsulated within the Constitution.
Therefore, I can affirm that the Constitution is "good" and that I can safely be employed in a profession in which I am actively engaged in the defense of those ideals found in the Constitution. And so can anyone else.

P.S.
Brother, I do want to apologize for my snide remarks. I admit that I think the military has a lot to offer and therefore I am very fond of it. I admit that this leads me to get frustrated when I encounter (the occasional) Christian who opposes Christian involvement in it. I apologize for putting my feelings about a job (which is how I view the military) above my feelings for a brother. Please forgive me.
Ben


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> Ben! Outstanding brother! I was in from '93-'96; my RIP class  was going on right after Mogadishu. So when we got to 3rd Batt. we newbies (to use a more appropriate term than originally given) were the target of some serious tension release. Although, being in C co. I did not have it quite as bad as a Christian brother of mine who was assigned to B co. (who, as you know, took the brunt of the action).
> 
> I had hoped to be assigned to 2nd, since I'm a home-grown Pacific Northwesterner, but right as they were calling for volunteers to go to Fort Lewis an NCO pulled me aside to give him a hand with something, and you know that an incoming batt boy would never in his wildest dreams think of saying, "Um, just a moment Sgt, I have to..." "What? What did I hear you say!?! Get down, Get Down, GET DOWN!!!!!!" God's providence is a mysterious thing!
> ...



I feel your pain, brother! That's why I take every opportunity I can as a chaplain candidate to go to practicums... 

That's interesting that you mentioned your chaplain manning a MK-19... because I remember seeing our chaplain (occasionally) carrying an M4!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



No, Kevin, I don't think it's hypocritical to be a paralegal while adhering to the political convictions that I have. I think what I do is honest work and contributes to the service of the kingdom. The legal system is not inherently evil. Calvin trained as a lawyer, and many other Reformers and Puritans did as well. What the legal system needs is Reformation, and I am going as far as I can to assist in the Reformation today. 

We are all in this society complict to a certain degree in the sins of others. We pay taxes that contribute to abortions, and in numerous other ways we are part of a network of evil. But there is a world of difference between that situation in which we all find ourselves, and committing specifc acts of sin such as taking an unlawful oath. Again, like the case with soldiers, attorneys can do good work apart from the issue of the oath. The same is true of public officials and other government workers. My position does not require me to avoid interaction with anyone who has taken the oath; it simply means that the oath is sinful, that's all.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_So as an American citizen I will serve God in my place and calling with a good conscience.
> ...



I am an American citizen by birth, not because of the Constitution. Serving God according to my place and calling is the duty of every Christian and is entirely consistent with everything I have said on this thread.


----------



## Peter (Apr 15, 2005)

Kevin, did you read everything Andrew wrote? 1st of all you still obviously don't understand his position, 2nd, you must have missed the sacrifice he made to *avoid* being hypocritical- *he can never become a lawyer, to do so would mean taking an oath to defend the immoral constitution.*


----------



## Peter (Apr 15, 2005)

Ben, you seem to misunderstand us. Its not that the oath requires you to make "the constitution god", no one has ever said that, its that the constitution is evil. The constitution denies Jesus' mediatorial kingship over the nations and the kings of the earth, the oath makes you promise to defend it. Simply put, The oath requires one to solemnly call God to witness that he promises to deny Christ's headship over the nations.


----------



## twogunfighter (Apr 15, 2005)

Jonathan,

A. The nearly universal witness of reformed elders in all major denominations is that you can join the Army and take the oath without sin. With due respect to Andrew, I would take their opinion over his. 

B. Your concern should be:
1. Are you really interested in dying in defense of the Constitution. 
2. Are you convinced that what is currently going on in Iraq and Afghanistan is a defense of our Constitution. 
3. If you say yes to #1 and no to #2 are you still willing to die for whatever people in Iraq/Afghanistan are currently dying for. 
4. If/when you have kids are you willing to leave them fatherless for the reasons described above.

C. Once you have answered B in the affirmative:
1. The military is a great gig for all the reasons outlined quite well by Ben. 
2. I would consider going enlisted first and then switching over to officer. In my estimation, the best officers are those that have enlisted experience.
3. I would enlist for the most physically difficult MOS that I legitimately thought I could handle (and you probably can handle a lot more than you think). 
4. Look at going straight to a Special Operations unit if you can. I think that all of the services except for the Marines have this option. 
5. If you are a linear guy that likes the concrete and tangible think Rangers and Seals whereas if you thrive on ambiguity consider Special Forces or maybe the Air Force STS.
6. Research what the MOS that you are considering actually does. This will not be something that recruiters are especially supportive of you have to try to do it yourself. 
7. TELL your recruiter what you are going to do; do not let him be in charge of your future. Assume that he is willing to tell you anything you want to hear to get your signature. Do not settle; get exactly what you want; it is a sellers market and you are the seller. Wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.

So you know my point of view:

I am a special operator that aggreed with and fought in Afghanistan with the first elements on the ground there and yet disaggrees completely with the Iraq war and yet was seriously considering volunteering last week for a certain job over there because one ought never put off til tomorrow the muslim that you can kill today....Ergo I am some kind of unprincipled hypocritical adrenaline junkie who really likes the Army on most days. 

AAAND do as few rope jumps as possible before graduating to 25k night o2 rides.:bigsmile:

Chuck


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> I don't think so. You simply quote Matthew Henry. Ahem.. sorry, you'll have to do better than that in my book. He's no authority in my eyes (though he's given much authority here on this Board). Besides, I anticpated your type of response by referring to the fact that the word of the Prophet trumps man's arugments. What does Elisha tell him?



I'm not sure why Matthew Henry is problematic to you, but I do think this exposition of the Naaman passage is superior to yours. 



> Well, ok... I will demonstrate the intellectual honesty to admit that the Bible's silence on the subject means that I can't proove that they gave an oath of allegiance. But surely you can demonstrate the same by acknowledging that _if_ they served their respective kings without giving such an oath it would have been an exception to the rule.



I appreciate your acknowledgment that the argument from silence that oaths to idols or ungodly governments were taken by Joseph and Daniel is lacking. I too would be happy to conceed that if oaths to idols or ungodly governments were in fact taken by Joseph and Daniel, then I would have to reconsider my position. The fact remains, however, that the Bible does not tell us that they took unlawful or lawful oaths, and we know that the Scriptures contain all that we need to know for faith and practice, hence I am comfortable asserting that there is no basis to believe that they took oaths to idols or ungodly governments.



> Your "citations" don't refute the Confession. WCF 23.3 says, in the correct edition:
> 
> Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and Sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. _Yet as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord_, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all  ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever; and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
> 
> ...



The PCA Confession -- which you call the "correct" version -- does in fact teach that the civil magistrate is to "maintain piety" (sec. 2) and refers to magistrates as "nursing fathers" to the Church. Neither of those elements in the duties of magistrates is consistent with the US Constitution's prohibition against establishment of religion. 

The PCA Confession of course had its origin in the Westminster Confession of 1647, which only came about because the government of the time believed it had a duty to serve the cause of Christ in its relationship to the State. The 1787 Confession endorses Christian pluralism, but your position seems to be that the State should be completely neutral towards all religions, ie., pure pluralism. In your view then Satanism should be on par legally with Christianity. Your view is not consistent with the PCA Confession, let alone the 1647 Confession. Pluralism is a denial of the Lordship of Christ over the State, and although I can see now why you adhere to the Constitution so fiercely, because pluralism is enshrined in the First Amendment, nevertheless, it is not Biblical or Confessional. 



> Minimal? John the Baptist to the soldiers (which is a classic example - they ask what they should do, he gives a prescription, your advice isn't in it. John did not think that it was necessary for them to "renounce" their oath and get out. To say anything else, in the light of the nature of their question and the nature of his response, is special pleading), Cornelius, Naaman, Joseph, Daniel, WFC23.3, (someone else quoted 1 Cor 7:24...). Basically, I've quoted every example! In each case there is no indication that they should leave based upon some alleged impropriety with them being believers and having sworn (as all public servants must do) to uphold the very institution they are serving.
> As to your arguments... well, I do believe that I've responded to them. The majority position may not satisfy you, but oh well.



If you mentioned John the Baptist and the soldiers earlier, pardon my oversight. I have never said that any US soldier needs to "renounce" their oath, so that is a straw man argument. What I have said that the the oath ought not to be taken either when presented with the opportunity to join the military or to reenlist. You raised Naaman, which we discussed already, and I think Naaman is not the example to be followed by any Christian. You also raised Cornelius, which I addressed, then I raised Joseph and Daniel, and I believe all of their examples support my view not yours. The Confession has already been discussed. 

As to the "majority position," if you mean the view that the oath of loyalty to the Constitution is lawful, then yes, amongst US Christians and Reformed Christians on the PB, yours in the majority position. If you mean that the State has no duty to promote and confess Christianity, which is your position, then it probably is the majority position among US Christians but I doubt it is the majority position amongst members of the PB. The Confession contradicts that position (1647 and 1787). 



> Ok, I will admit that I rushed to judgment there. Like I mentioned above, nothing in the NT authorizes or says that the state must impose "true religion" on its people. That is just a fact. Furthermore, the 10 Commandments themselves are given within a context. Read the preamble: it is given to a specific group of people who have been redeemed by God. Sure, there may be the moral obligation to worship only God, but the legal- covenantal - obligation given to Israel is not true of any other nation as a political entity.
> 
> In Sum: I cannot reiterate enough that the US enlistment oath does not demand that the Constitution become the "god" of the one taking the oath. The legal privileges and rights given in the Constitution are good and helpful. If it weren't for the Constitution, do you actually believe that the overwhelmingly large Baptist majority would let you be a Reformed Presbyterian? The Confession acknowledges the equity of the values incapsulated within the Constitution.
> Therefore, I can affirm that the Constitution is "good" and that I can safely be employed in a profession in which I am actively engaged in the defense of those ideals found in the Constitution. And so can anyone else.



I'm glad you mentioned the Ten Commandments. They are binding all persons at all times, according to our Confession and Catechism (Conf. Chap. XIX, 5; LC # 93, 95, 99, 104-109). Civil magistrates are not exempt. The Constitution is a rejection of this basic principle of God's moral law. That's precisely why the oath to support the Constitution is unlawful, because the Constitution is in violation of God's moral law. 



> P.S.
> Brother, I do want to apologize for my snide remarks. I admit that I think the military has a lot to offer and therefore I am very fond of it. I admit that this leads me to get frustrated when I encounter (the occasional) Christian who opposes Christian involvement in it. I apologize for putting my feelings about a job (which is how I view the military) above my feelings for a brother. Please forgive me.
> Ben



Thank you, Ben. I appreciate your zeal for the military, and you should know that I am very appreciative of the work of all of our armed forces. I too have a tendency to get hot under the collar, and I apologize if my words were inappropriate in any way. 

Although we keep responding to each other's comments, I don't expect we will change each other's minds. 

Oh well, God bless you, brother.

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 15, 2005)

Andrew "“ 

I do share the opinion of others who have posted in regards to what you´re prescribing and how you´re living.... and what you're saying is acceptable for Christians in the US military.

I simply find it baffling that you don´t see the implicit contradiction in how you view those Christians who are in the military. On the one hand you think it is sinful for them to give an oath to defend (what you feel is) an "œevil constitution. On the other hand you think that it is not sinful for them to do their job "“ which is _nothing less than the execution of that very oath!!!_ If it is wrong to _swear/affirm _ to defend the US Constitution then it is wrong to _actually engage in _ defending the US Constitution! Thus, if your view on taking an oath to defend the US Constitution is correct, then it is a sin to not only take the oath of a US soldier, but to do the work of a US soldier!!!

It is precisely because of the necessary moral connection between swearing to do something and actually doing it that make John the Baptist´s words to those soldiers so pertinent, and it is precisely why Christians have used this passage as justification for serving in the military of various nations - all of which require an oath to a ruler or body of law or country, and none of which "“ with the possible exception of your opinion about Scotland´s, is any better "“ in fact, most are worse! "“ than ours. (I know that is a very poorly constructed sentence"¦ please forgive me!)

Also, I think you are throwing up a lot of subterfuge concerning the confession. The bottom line is, as TwoGunFighter pointed out, the vast majority of elders agree with the interpretation I am defending. The wording of the whole section "“ 23.3 "“ makes it clear that you are hanging your hat on just one clause rather than the whole section. 
About religious diversity/pluralism"¦. Well, I for one am glad that we have it. And you may like to say that it is an evil thing, but quite frankly it is precisely what allows you to worship freely and openly believe as you do in the face of an overwhelming majority who disagree with you. I for one am glad that the Roman Catholics aren´t the ones determining what "œtrue religion" is for the entire nation. I am glad that it isn´t the Assemblies of God or the SBC or the ELCA"¦ or the RPCA"¦ or even the PCA, or whatever. You can criticize the very system that provides you with the protection to believe as you do "“ and that is fine, for I too chafe under the ridiculous extremes to which modern lawmakers (and especially modern courts!) interpret the 1st Ammendment. At the same time, I am glad that our founding fathers "“ some of whom were infidels and some were saints "“ had the wisdom to build into the constitution protection from allowing the religious convictions of some to be imposed on others. The wisdom lies in that no man or group of men is the infallible interpreter of scripture"¦ it is possible, however unlikely!, that we are fundamentally wrong in our belief. For everyone is just as convicted about their beliefs as you are about yours. 
So until the Lord comes and sets everyone straight, I´m glad we have the system that we have. 


[Edited on 4-15-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Andrew "“
> 
> I do share the opinion of others who have posted in regards to what you´re prescribing and how you´re living.... and what you're saying is acceptable for Christians in the US military.
> ...



If the work of a US soldier consists solely in defending the document called the US Constitution, and the religious pluralism enshrined within, then I am against the work of a US soldier. However, take away the oath of loyalty to the Constitution, and the work of a soldier, as I see it, in defending our country from harm, is still instrinsic to the profession. In other words, if our country were Reformed and Covenanted, the US soldier would still be protecting our borders, fighting our enemies and upholding national security -- all good things. That is why I distinguish between the oath as a condition of employment for soldiers and other government workers, etc., and the work that is done by soldiers and government workers. I understand what you are saying, but I think the work of a soldier is more than upholding the parts of the Constitution that I find repugnant to God's law. There is actually quite a bit of good contained in the Constitution that is also defended and upheld by our soldiers and government workers. I'm all for the Second Amendment, for example. The point is, there is a major difference between the oath required and the work involved in being a soldier. If I am wrong on this, then your critique on this point is correct, but if Cornelius could be a good soldier and John the Baptist didn't tell the soldiers to resign, then I think my point is valid that unlawful oaths aside, the work itself is lawful. Defending the Constitution is ultimately wrong since God's law is violated, though there is some good in the document; defending our nation is a good thing. 



> It is precisely because of the necessary moral connection between swearing to do something and actually doing it that make John the Baptist´s words to those soldiers so pertinent, and it is precisely why Christians have used this passage as justification for serving in the military of various nations - all of which require an oath to a ruler or body of law or country, and none of which "“ with the possible exception of your opinion about Scotland´s, is any better "“ in fact, most are worse! "“ than ours. (I know that is a very poorly constructed sentence"¦ please forgive me!)



When a nation requires military service of its citizens and does not require them to violate God's law or their conscience in order to serve, then by all means, Christians can and should serve when called to do so. My point has been consistently that Christians should not sin in order to serve an ungodly government. 

The Scottish Covenanters laid down their lives for refusing to swear an unlawful oath that King Charles II was head of the Church rather than Christ. That is the example I am following. 



> Also, I think you are throwing up a lot of subterfuge concerning the confession. The bottom line is, as TwoGunFighter pointed out, the vast majority of elders agree with the interpretation I am defending. The wording of the whole section "“ 23.3 "“ makes it clear that you are hanging your hat on just one clause rather than the whole section.
> About religious diversity/pluralism"¦. Well, I for one am glad that we have it. And you may like to say that it is an evil thing, but quite frankly it is precisely what allows you to worship freely and openly believe as you do in the face of an overwhelming majority who disagree with you. I for one am glad that the Roman Catholics aren´t the ones determining what "œtrue religion" is for the entire nation. I am glad that it isn´t the Assemblies of God or the SBC or the ELCA"¦ or the RPCA"¦ or even the PCA, or whatever. You can criticize the very system that provides you with the protection to believe as you do "“ and that is fine, for I too chafe under the ridiculous extremes to which modern lawmakers (and especially modern courts!) interpret the 1st Ammendment. At the same time, I am glad that our founding fathers "“ some of whom were infidels and some were saints "“ had the wisdom to build into the constitution protection from allowing the religious convictions of some to be imposed on others. The wisdom lies in that no man or group of men is the infallible interpreter of scripture"¦ it is possible, however unlikely!, that we are fundamentally wrong in our belief. For everyone is just as convicted about their beliefs as you are about yours.
> So until the Lord comes and sets everyone straight, I´m glad we have the system that we have.
> 
> ...



The model for our present system of government is Roger William's Rhode Island. He believed as you do in religious pluralism. That is the prevailing philosophy in the modern age, and in the modern Church. My model is that of the Puritans who came to America not for religious liberty for all, but in order to set up a godly Commonwealth, a city set on a hill. Puritan New England, Calvin's Geneva, Covenanted Scotland, these are good models for civil government. They are consistent with the Scriptural understanding that God is Lord over the State, and the State therefore cannot be neutral towards religion. 

You have emphasized that yours is the majority view. Well, if it is, that does not deter me. As John Knox said, "One man with God is in the majority." If Martin Luther was swayed to remain in the Catholic Church because a majority was against him, then we would not have had the Reformation, for which I thank God. Ultimately, the Scriptures, as I have shown, call upon individuals and nations to confess Him, and those that don't will be brought low. The Constitution is in rebellion to God's command to confess Him. Whether or not a majority go along with that, my place is upon the Word of God. "Here I stand and can do no other."


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> The Scottish Covenanters laid down their lives for refusing to swear an unlawful oath that King Charles II was head of the Church rather than Christ. That is the example I am following.



And at this point you show that are not following an analogous example. The constitution does not require that we swear that someone is head of the church, or that some view is greater than the Bible.

Also, your bifurcation of what it means to be a soldier is splitting hairs. If you're defending the constitution at one point then you are defending the constitution in the whole, since the same constitution that allows you to bear arms also allows you to worship when, where and how you please. If it makes you "feel" better to say that a Christian soldier can defend part of the constitution to the exclusion of other parts... well...

I think it is just astounding that you argue that our constitution makes it so that our nation can't acknowledge God. Our nation is FAMOUS for its historic acknowledgment of God!

Interestingly, you have not responded to one - not one- of my explanations of the practical benefits of our constitution. Are you reluctant to admit that even you are thankful for our "sinful" system?



[Edited on 4-15-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



As Peter has well said earlier in this thread, and as I have also repeatedly stated, the Constitution denies the Lordship of Christ over this nation, and hence, it is sinful.



> Also, your bifurcation of what it means to be a soldier is splitting hairs. If you're defending the constitution at one point then you are defending the constitution in the whole, since the same constitution that allows you to bear arms also allows you to worship when, where and how you please. If it makes you "feel" better to say that a Christian soldier can defend part of the constitution to the exclusion of other parts... well...



The Constitution contains both good and bad provisions as I previously stated. They are distinguishable. The oath required of soldiers and the work required of soldiers is also distinguishable as I have previously stated. 



> I think it is just astounding that you argue that our constitution makes it so that our nation can't acknowledge God. Our nation is FAMOUS for its historic acknowledgment of God!



Individual Christian Americans have the liberty to acknowledge God and confess Christ. The Constitution prohibits our government from acknowledging God and confessing Christ. 



> Interestingly, you have not responded to one - not one- of my explanations of the practical benefits of our constitution. Are you reluctant to admit that even you are thankful for our "sinful" system?
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 4-15-2005 by SolaScriptura]



I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly here, but I have stated previously how there are both good and bad aspects to the Constitution. I am thankful for the freedom to worship God and express my views. I am saddened that our government is prohibited from confessing Christ as it should. I am thankful to be an American, but sad that America does not honor God as it should. Religious liberty for atheists and infidels is not something to celebrate but to mourn. The legacy of our Puritan founding fathers is something to celebrate and be thankful for. Constitutionally protected abortion is not something to celebrate but to mourn. Reformation in America is something to pray for and work towards. I don't believe in "America, right or wrong," I believe in Christ, Lord of the nations, who calls America to repentance. It is right and proper to be a good patriotic Christian wherever one is appointed by God live, and yet our higher citizenship is in heaven. 

Again, the Constitution denies Christ's Lordship over America; I am testifying to it by my refusal to swear loyalty to the Constitution.

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 15, 2005)




----------



## Peter (Apr 15, 2005)

It was observed by one Covenanter minister that if many Christians refused to swear allegiance to the constitution prior to the civilwar because in protecting slavery it violated human rights, then don't we have more of a reason to dissent b/c it violates Jesus' rights?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> It was observed by one Covenanter minister that if many Christians refused to swear allegiance to the constitution prior to the civilwar because in protecting slavery it violated human rights, then don't we have more of a reason to dissent b/c it violates Jesus' rights?



Although I may take issue with the basis of this statement, I agree with the import of what the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison said in the 19th century: "The Constitution is a pact with the devil and a covenant of death."

[Edited on 4-16-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 15, 2005)

> As Peter has well said earlier in this thread, and as I have also repeatedly stated, the Constitution denies the Lordship of Christ over this nation, and hence, it is sinful.



Well... that's just your inflammatory opinion.
The constitution _denies_ no such thing. In fact, it is based upon the philosophical ideals which were the basis of the Declaration of Independence... which expressly acknowledges God. 
The morals of the Constitution are pro-Christ. The logic and equity of the Constitution is pro-Christ. I have read and reread my copy. There is absolutely nothing in there that says that it binds the conscience the way Scripture does. It just doesn't. And since you want to (delude yourself) into thinking that "only what is written is what happened" in reference to Joseph and Daniel (say, I find it strangely ironic that you abandon this hermeneutic and allow other considerations to shape your views in regards to, say... infant baptism, of which there are no recorded instances. Most "selective".) then you should acknowledge that nothing in the wording of the Constitution denies Christ. Especially given two points: 1. The Constitution is written from the same worldview that penned the Declaration of Independence which acknowledges the sovereignty of God over the nations. 2. As I've already conceded, it is most likely that when the framers use the word "religion" they more likely mean something akin to the word "Christian denomination." 
Just because the Constitution does not overtly say "all hail King Jesus" does not mean that its values are inconsistent. As I've already shown, and you try to deny, the WCF 23.3 agrees. So, if we are to acknowledge Jesus' kingship in _every_ aspect of our life do you think that for something to acknowledge Jesus' lordship that it has to expressly say "all hail King Jesus?" I disagree. 
You need to consider the implications of Mark 9:40: "Whoever is not against us is for us." 
And the Constitution is most definitely not against us.

Also, I think that your presentation is so rife with internal contradiction in terms of the practical outworking of your ideas that either you should do more thinking or you really do have blinders on to the world. Seriously. It is just a silly statement to say that a soldier can defend some parts of the constitution while not defending others. I mean, that is just not possible. 
Oh that you would become consistent and say: "You know what? You're right! From this moment forth I'm going to tell every Christian that they are in sin if they serve because in so doing they are defending an "evil" Constitution. And I'm going to quit my job because I'm helping others as they carry out their evil task of defending this evil Constitution."
Oh wait. When the rubber meets the road is when it is time to find the loop holes and justify ourself, isn't it? 

[Edited on 4-16-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by twogunfighter_
> The nearly universal witness of reformed elders in all major denominations is that you can join the Army and take the oath without sin. With due respect to Andrew, I would take their opinion over his.






> _Originally posted by twogunfighter_
> The military is a great gig for all the reasons outlined quite well by Ben.



Thanks... I do wonder how many of the nay sayers would change their tune if they really new how good the military is.



> _Originally posted by twogunfighter_
> 2. I would consider going enlisted first and then switching over to officer. In my estimation, the best officers are those that have enlisted experience.
> 3. I would enlist for the most physically difficult MOS that I legitimately thought I could handle (and you probably can handle a lot more than you think).
> 4. Look at going straight to a Special Operations unit if you can. I think that all of the services except for the Marines have this option.
> ...



Good, sound advice. I especially agree about the Spec Ops bit.




> _Originally posted by twogunfighter_
> I am a special operator that aggreed with and fought in Afghanistan with the first elements on the ground there and yet disaggrees completely with the Iraq war and yet was seriously considering volunteering last week for a certain job over there because one ought never put off til tomorrow the muslim that you can kill today....



 Now here is a man who knows how to discern the greater good!   Hooooooo-aaaah, brother!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 16, 2005)

One thing I would like cited by both sides if possible is a proof that Jesus Christ is rightly honored as King and Lord of All in the constitution? 

If he is then it will change a few things for me if he is only alluded too and not specifically spoken of then I wouldnt hold that as much of anything as proof of Jesus Christ being held as Lord of all men.

Blade


----------



## Dan.... (Apr 16, 2005)

I have enjoyed reading through and pondering this discussion.

I have a couple of questions for Andrew and Peter :


Though the vast majority of Christians in the States are not presented the requesite to swear an oath to defend the Constitution, we are aquainted with the "Pledge of Allegiance". 

How does your position apply to the pledge to the Flag? Is it lawful for one to pledge allegiance to the Flag, or especially "to the republic for which it stands"?

Also,
Is it lawful to vote for a candidate to hold a government office knowing that such elected official would be required to swear an oath to defend the Constitution? Would voting for any candidate be viewed as a desire for that individual to sin in swearing such an oath?


----------



## Peter (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> I have enjoyed reading through and pondering this discussion.
> 
> I have a couple of questions for Andrew and Peter :
> ...



The pledge of allegiance to the flag, you are right, is spurious and I would not take it. I'll let Andrew answer the question in-depth as I have seen him address the question on the PB before.

_"Is it lawful to vote for a candidate to hold a government office knowing that such elected official would be required to swear an oath to defend the Constitution? Would voting for any candidate be viewed as a desire for that individual to sin in swearing such an oath?"_

EXACTLY. Actually this is how political dissent most often manifests itself. Covenanters used to be known as the Christians who don't vote. This is our witness against anti-christian government.

Reformed Presbyterian Testimony 1911

XXX:2. It is the duty of Christians, for the sake of peace and order and in humble resignation to God's good providence to conform to the common regulations of society in things lawful; but to profess allegiance to no constitution of govt which is in hostility to the kingdom of Christ, the head of the Church, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.

Jer 29:4 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away captives, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon; 5 Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; 6 Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. 7 And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. 


Psa 137:1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. 2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. 3 For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. 4 How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a strange land? 5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. 6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy. 7 Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. 
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. 

Act 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. 

etc.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 16, 2005)

Ben, Frankly it sounds like you're foaming at the mouth. I don't see any likelihood of continued reasonable discourse with you on this thread. God be with you.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> I have enjoyed reading through and pondering this discussion.
> 
> I have a couple of questions for Andrew and Peter :
> ...



Good questions, Dan. I too would not pledge allegiance to the Flag. My reasons are more complex than my simple opposition to the Constitution. I don't see how I could pledge my allegiance to an inantimate object for one thing. As to the Republic for which it stands, my objections to the Constitution would here kick in. Moreover, the history of the Pledge is illustrative of the fact that it came from a Socialist agenda: see this history.

Regarding voting, I would echo what Peter said. American Covenanters until the 1960's were known as the Reformed Presbyterians who wouldn't vote because they saw the Constitution as immoral and both those who took the oath and those who cast votes to bring them to office were both complicit in the Constitution's sin against Messiah the Prince. 

Back before the 2004 election, I debated this subject on a politics thread here on this Board. and explained why I personally abstain from voting. In my home state of North Carolina, when I lived there, anyone who registered to vote had to swear an oath to the Constitution. That's not true in every state, but the link between casting a ballot for someone whose first act must be to swear an unlawful oath is undeniable. Hence, I can't in good conscience cast a ballot in US elections as things stand presently. Some will say that it's hypocritical to enjoy the benefits of a system in which I will not participate, but it wasn't my choice to be born in this time and place. God has placed me here to witness in areas that I can shine the light of His Word. Political dissent is one of those areas. Proclaiming the Lordship of Christ in the area of civic government has cost me a great deal: military service, public office, attorney work, personal impact at the ballot box, etc. For one who is very civic-minded, that cost has been high. But I count the cost as dung compared to the riches of knowing and walking with Christ my Lord. My abstention from voting is not based on apathy or hypocrisy, but a sincere conviction that casting a ballot so that an elected official can -- as his first official act -- swear an unlawful oath to the Constitution is itself sinful. 

From the 1843 Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America: 



> Chapter XXX
> Of the Right of Dissent from a Constitution of Civil Government
> 
> 2. It is the duty of Christians, for the sake of peace and order, and in humble resignation to God's good providence, to conform to the common regulations of society in all things lawful; but to profess allegiance to no constitution of governement which is in hostility to the kingdom of Christ, the Head of the churhc, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.
> ...



PRINCE MESSIAH´S CLAIMS TO DOMINION OVER ALL GOVERNMENTS: AND THE DISREGARD OF HIS AUTHORITY BY THE UNITED STATES, IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION by James R. Willson, 1832

William Symington's Messiah the Prince


----------



## ChristianasJourney (Apr 16, 2005)

Jonathan,

This is a little off the current topic, and the rightness or wrongness of an oath, but it does have to do with your original question. Are you married, or do you have hopes of being married within the next 3 years?

It's my understanding that being in the military often causes considerable emotional hardship to a spouse and doesn't give her the physical support and encouragment that she needs. If you're not married it doesn't matter, but if you are married, than carefully consider whether you can be both a good soldier and a good husband/father.


----------



## Jonathan (Apr 16, 2005)

Wow, I was off for a couple days, came back expecting my post to be at the bottom of the list with 2 replies  Come back and there are 3 pages. Thank you all for your feedback. 
The argument about the consitution is very interesting, still trying to digest everything that was said. 
When I said i was "iffy" about it, I should have said, I am still unsure of the Lord's leading. I am trying to make sure it is not my youthful desire to go fight for the "glories of war" or the "pride in a uniform" etc. I want to make sure I am going for the sole purpose of glorifying God in defending this country. 
I still do not know, there are basically two paths in front of me, college this fall or joining the military. Unless the Lord opens another path, these are my two options. 



> Are you married, or do you have hopes of being married within the next 3 years?



17 years old right now . Unless the Lord places someone in my life, I will probably not be married till I am 25. 

I don't know, I am praying about what I should do; I have asked the Lord that His will would be clear to me. I do not want some issues sitting on my conscience and keeping me from serving in good conscience. It is a good time to rely fully on the Lord. 

_Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and *he shall direct thy paths.* _


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 16, 2005)




----------



## ChristianasJourney (Apr 16, 2005)

17! Ah, well in that case, have you discussed it with the authorities and advisors in your life (they used to be called parents, but one never knows, now days)?

Often God's will is made known to us when we continue to do what we "KNOW" is right. Be it having a good attitude or helping the neighbor shovel his snow. Often as we take one step in front of another His way becomes plain to us. Sometimes, though, even when we have a long trail of trying to do the right thing behind us, we are still confronted with a decision that must be made, and it seems like it's "our" decision to make. It really isn't, but our puny brains would like to see it that way.  At such times, the Godly thing to do is to rely on His wisdom. To look at all the evidence in front of us, to write down what our responsiblities and our goals for the future are and to make a logical decision based upon the facts in front of us. 

Is it right or wrong to join the military? Every person will have a different answer. (Personally, I have some hesistation about the effects of a military life on a soul that's trying to live pleasing to God). But we don't all have the same responsiblities or understanding of life. 

So my best advice is to seek wisdom from those God has placed around you, those who have responsibilty to care for you, and those that you have a responsility to care for, and ask God for wisdom and His will in the decision that's made.

[Edited on 4-16-2005 by ChristianasJourney]


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_No, Kevin, I don't think it's hypocritical to be a paralegal while adhering to the political convictions that I have. I think what I do is honest work and contributes to the service of the kingdom. The legal system is not inherently evil. Calvin trained as a lawyer, and many other Reformers and Puritans did as well. What the legal system needs is Reformation, and I am going as far as I can to assist in the Reformation today.



Let me begin by saying that my choice of words was inconsiderate. I realize emotions are running high on this thread (as they often do when people are passionate about their beliefs) and I did not intend to throw fuel on the fire. Instead of "hypocritical" I should have said "inconsistent."

My reason for asking the question is that you maintain that the Constitution is sinful and yet you labor in a field whose very existence hinges on the Constitution. That seems inconsistent.

Your argument also does not seem to follow when you say that taking the Oath of Enlistment is sinful, yet service is not. You cannot separate the Oath from the service. It IS the Oath that gives rise to the service. The Oath is the bedrock of military philosophy in this country. It is primarily because of the philosophy of the Oath that this nation has not degenerated into a military dictatorship in the last two and a half centuries. It is becuase the military inherently believes in the system of government and laws enshrined in our Constitution. Your argument would be something like saying adultery is wrong (a thing we can all agree on) but once your in an adulterous relationship, you might as well stay there. Naturally that is incorrect. And so is your assertion that the Oath is wrong but service isn'. They are inseperable.

By way of clarification, I have no animosity towards you (as you know ) or towards the legal profession. I just was exploting what I felt was a weakness in your argument.



> We are all in this society complict to a certain degree in the sins of others. We pay taxes that contribute to abortions, and in numerous other ways we are part of a network of evil. But there is a world of difference between that situation in which we all find ourselves, and committing specifc acts of sin such as taking an unlawful oath.



I agree. Where your analogy breaks down, however, is that I must pay taxes. I have very little control over how the government spends those taxes. I do, however, have 100% control over my profession. If I sincerely believe that something is sinful and yet labor in it anyhow, I am being inconsistent, am I not? For instance, if I sincerely believe that alcohol is sinful and yet I work in a brewery (though I do not imbibe), am I not being inconsistent? And yet this is the very position you seem to have.

With regards to the unlawful swearing of oaths, I remain unconvinced. All I've seen are discussions of the Confessions and arguments over which version of them are correct. I did not put much stock in the ravings of the ante-bellum Sessecionist you had me read. He was a product of his time, as we all are, and his sermon smacked more of 19th century liberation theology than sound exegesis, in my opinion.



> Again, like the case with soldiers, attorneys can do good work apart from the issue of the oath. The same is true of public officials and other government workers. My position does not require me to avoid interaction with anyone who has taken the oath; it simply means that the oath is sinful, that's all.



Well, again, soldiering cannot be separated from the Oath...indeed, one cannot even enlist without being properly sworn in, so that leaves us with two choices. Either all soldiering is sinful...or it is not. I still haven't seen chapter and verse on this whole issue which treads on another can of worms which I don't have the time to open right now.

I appreciate your remarks, Andrew. You really make me think, even if I disagree with you.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_I am an American citizen by birth, not because of the Constitution. Serving God according to my place and calling is the duty of every Christian and is entirely consistent with everything I have said on this thread.



There would be no USA without the Constitution. It is the Constitution which gives rise to our system of jurisprudence and guarantees us our rights. Without the Constitution you would still be alive, but you wouldn't be an American.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Kevin, did you read everything Andrew wrote? 1st of all you still obviously don't understand his position, 2nd, you must have missed the sacrifice he made to *avoid* being hypocritical- *he can never become a lawyer, to do so would mean taking an oath to defend the immoral constitution. *


*

I understand him just fine, Peter. But I disagree with him. Please don't just assume I'm thick. Second, I still think that he is splitting a very fine hair, given his beliefs.*


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 16, 2005)

Doesn anybody who adheres to the constitution as a biblical document have any proof of Christ being honored in the constitution? Dont take this as sarcasm I couldnt think of another way to say this as im quite tired.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Ben, you seem to misunderstand us. Its not that the oath requires you to make "the constitution god", no one has ever said that, its that the constitution is evil. The constitution denies Jesus' mediatorial kingship over the nations and the kings of the earth, the oath makes you promise to defend it. Simply put, The oath requires one to solemnly call God to witness that he promises to deny Christ's headship over the nations.



You haven't proven your assertion, indeed it is borderline ridiculous. Jesus IS Lord. Period. The fact that he is not acknowledged as such by our government in no way diminishes the fact.

The troubling thing here, is that you both seem to be imposing the civil use of the Law on our current situation and it is a paradigm that just doesn't fit. We are no theocracy like ancient Israel. But we are part of the Kingdom within this country. Thus our first and highest loyalty is to Christ.

You argue that the Constitution is evil. Prove it. Seems like Romans 13 teaches that all governments are ordained by God. Nowhere does the Bible say that a government must acknowledge in order to be ordained of God, yet such is your position, seemingly. Certainly there are varying degrees of wickedness, but the most we can probably hope for this side of glory is a government that will leave us alone. And THAT was the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Sounds evil...

Hmmm...I wonder what it would sound like if we made a recording of the Constitution and played it backwards... 

Sorry for the levity guys. I can linger no longer. It looks like the thread is dying anyhow.

Thanks for the good discussion.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Kevin, did you read everything Andrew wrote? 1st of all you still obviously don't understand his position, 2nd, you must have missed the sacrifice he made to *avoid* being hypocritical- *he can never become a lawyer, to do so would mean taking an oath to defend the immoral constitution. *


*

One more point on this subject. You maintain the Constitution is immoral. I have yet to find one immoral thing in it. I might be willing to accept that it was *ammoral,* but that is a horse of a different color, is it not?*


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Doesn anybody who adheres to the constitution as a biblical document have any proof of Christ being honored in the constitution? Dont take this as sarcasm I couldnt think of another way to say this as im quite tired.



I don't think anyone is arguing that it is biblical. I do, however, believe the burden of proof lies with those who believe it is sinful.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 16, 2005)

Thank the Lord for liberty of conscience!


----------



## Peter (Apr 16, 2005)

Kevin, I was completely disgusted by your last posts. Many of your mistakes are common place among the Reformed so excusable, however, some, I think, would be universally chided on the PB. Honestly you make yourself sound like pluralist at best or an unbelieving humanist at worst.

1st of all regarding the distinction between taking a sinful oath vs military service, which is really just a clarification of our position, service in the US armed forces does not necessarily constitute a defense of the Constitution. Protecting your homeland, your family and your people from invasion is hardly defending the constitution. Military excursions halfway across the world to topple regimes is also far from defending the US Constitution. If ever a civilwar broke out between one party espousing the bastard document vs those against it, siding w/ the former may be seen as defending the constitution. This really shows how inconsistent you are to your principle that only actual acts of sin are forbidden and not godly service to a sinful government. Likewise we believe that only actual acts of assent to or defense of a sinful constitution is sin, not godly service to a military determined to defend the sinful constitution. 

2nd, your crass remarks respecting a glorified saint and former minister of God reveal your ignorance on Covenanters and the matter at hand. 
James Willson was not a Seccessionist, 1 he was a northerner, 2 he was an abolitionist. He also did not believe in Liberation Theology, which, incase you were using the term w/o actually understanding its meaning, teaches socialism on a Xian basis. The accusation is absolutely absurd considering the only place in the world something even close to the modern notion of LT was practiced or espoused by then was by Jesuits in remotest brazil or tiny sects of Anabaptists. I advise you to "hold your peace" when you do not understand something and resist "laying open your folly."



> You haven't proven your assertion, indeed it is borderline ridiculous. Jesus IS Lord. Period. The fact that he is not acknowledged as such by our government in no way diminishes the fact.



Duh. Please re-read what I wrote. I never said the constitution diminishes Jesus' mediatorial kingship I said it DENIES it. Because the constitution doesnt uphold His rights doesnt mean He forfeits His rights. If a govt denies the basic human right to liberty by protecting slavery by a law that doesnt mean humans no longer have that right. Only someone who believes what God allows in His providence stamps his moral approbation upon it would believe that...

I will address some other unbiblical notions of Civil Govt in your posts:
1) NOT all brigands that providentially weild the power to preform their desires over people are the ordinance of God. MIGHT does NOT make RIGHT. Rom 13:3,4 qualifies what the "ordinance of God" is. 
_Psa 94:20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? _

2) I'm imposing the moral use of the Law on our situtation and the moral aspects of the civil Law, even as they are expressed in the Psalms and the NT:
_Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. 10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. 

Phi 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. _

3) It is incumbent upon all nations in the NT to become a theocracy. It has been repeated on this board by over and over by various persons, "theocracy is an inescapable concept", and "there is no neutrality". If Jehovah is not the god of a nation then something else will be, most often the State. This means the state becomes the ultimate authority and the source of laws rather then God. Your statement, "the constitution is ammoral" is true, but that is precisely why it is immoral. It has refused its obligation to make the living true God its god, and has made "we the people" god, which quickly became "we the state".

I will start a separate thread on the Constitution.

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by Peter]


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Thank the Lord for liberty of conscience!





And with that, I am off to enjoy a pipe on the back porch...


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Kevin, I was completely disgusted by your last posts.



Allow me to suggest the following remedies:

1. Develop a sense of charity. I may be wrong, a fact that I consider very often. If such is the case, I need to be patiently taught, not berated.

2. Develop a sense of humility. YOU may be wrong, a fact which may not have occurred to you. If such is the case, you need to be patiently taught.

3. Develop a sense of cameraderie. We BOTH may be wrong, in which case we both need to be patiently taught.

4. Develop a sense of unity. We both may be right. So often theology is not a case of either or, but a case of both and.


Andrew, I look forward to your response and hope you understand the respectful spirit in which I have written. 

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by kevin.carroll]

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by kevin.carroll]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Thank the Lord for liberty of conscience!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristianasJourney_
> It's my understanding that being in the military often causes considerable emotional hardship to a spouse and doesn't give her the physical support and encouragment that she needs. If you're not married it doesn't matter, but if you are married, than carefully consider whether you can be both a good soldier and a good husband/father.



Jonathan - and others even remotely considering the military,
I think that Janice does bring up a good point here. Although I have read your subsequent post(s) responding to her, so I know that you're only 17, I do think that it is a matter of prudence to consider the possible effects of military life on a family.
You will encounter many in the military for whom family is clearly not important. But it need not be that way with you. If you are a devout Christian, and if you marry a devout Christian, and if you have Christ as the foundation for your marraige and if you work at your marraige the way you should regardless of your chosen profession, then your marraige will be just fine. 
But if you want to make the military a career then you have to remember that you are signing not only yourself up, but basically your whole family, in that they will have to move start over and deal with the stress of seeing you deploy. Now, I loved growing up in a military environment. I loved having the government move us to neat locations ever 3 years or so. But for some people the idea of moving that frequently is a terrible prospect. 

About being away from home: again, some jobs will take you away from home more than others. An infantry guy will spend a lot more time in the field than a finance clerk. It just makes sense given the various job descriptions. Also, there is the possibility that you could get deployed in support of war operations - which, even if you're not in a combat zone, will take you from your family. However, please remember that wars end. We are not always at war. As an example, my dad was on active duty for almost 20 years. Of that, he was only deployed once and that was in support of the first Gulf War.

About enlisting: here is something to consider - take it for what it's worth...
I liken the appeal of joining a wartime military to the appeal of investing in the stock market during a bear market. However, as any wise investor knows, it is always good to buy when the prices are low. And prices are low! The war effort has left recruiting in a bind. They are way low on their enlistment numbers. They are offering absolutely obscene amounts of cash and college money - in addition to the free college you can do while on active duty - to enlist. Seriously, the options are wide open right now. Certain jobs that you may normally have a hard time getting in to (want to be taught a language and be an interpreter? Want to learn how to defuse bombs and work on a bomb squad? Want to become proficient in a technical job and become a warrant officer? Want to fly helicopters? etc...) now have unprecedented openings. Even in the Spec Ops community. They've even recently opened up Ranger School to non-combat folks because their numbers are so low due to all the deployments!

Another thing... as I mentioned at the beginning of this thread about ROTC... their numbers are down too! They are begging for cadets because of the large shortage of young officers. So even if your grades aren't all that stellar... well, you've never had a better shot at getting an ROTC scholarship (that means FREE RIDE!) to the school of your dreams.

Anyway, there are things to consider if you want to make the military a career, but I also think it is wise to "get while the getting is good." 

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Thank the Lord for liberty of conscience!



Yes, thank the Lord for liberty of conscience. But as our Confession says, Chap. XX:



> IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.



This Confessional position, however, is at odds with the US Constitution.



[Edited on 4-17-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Peter_
> ...


*

Kevin, What Peter and I are saying is that amoral = immoral. The state, like the individual, may not be neutral towards Christ. "He that is not with me is against me." (Matt. 12.30)*


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Kevin, What Peter and I are saying is that amoral = immoral. The state, like the individual, may not be neutral towards Christ. "He that is not with me is against me." (Matt. 12.30)



Well, as I noted earlier... amoral does NOT equal immoral. For as Jesus says in Mark 9:40: "Whoever is not against us is for us." 
The Constitution is not AGAINST Jesus... so it is FOR Jesus.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...


*

I agree to a point. I would respond in two similar veins, however. First, we cannot have the society you envision without havig a state religion. That is a paradigm that has not worked in Europe. State churches have led to dead churches and endless religious wars. Besides, who would be to say which religion the goverment would sanction?

Second, we should not forget the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God. Christ reigns today to be sure, but the Kingdom has not yet appeared in its fullness. We cannot bring it (the fullness of the Kingdom) about through our own efforts. This is something the Father is doing, putting all Christ's enemies under His feet. I realize we are involved to an extent...but ultimately it is God's work. Like it or not, we live in two worlds and must interract with them. A survey of the Gospels will demonstrate that Jesus did not have the antipathy towards Rome that some seem to have towards our own government. I think that is worth noting. The only times Christ remarked about the government was in noting that we should pay taxes and in reminding Pilate that Pilate's power was given him by God.*


----------



## Thomas (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Arnt we told by Jesus to not swear by anything? or take oaths etc.... ??


No, Taking a vow or an oath is allowed I believe if it is in truth, for example... Exodus 20:7, Hebrews 6:13, Genesis 24:3 50:25 2 Chronicles 6:22,23, Hebrews 6:16, Psalm 76:11 Just to name a few. Some may say what about James 5:12 As I understand it the Jews would swear by the temple and by Jerusalem as a way not to swear by God, therefore they were able to break it without breaking a swear to God.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...


*

While I do not fully accept the position established by Andrew and Peter, I agree with them in that the Civil Magistrate must confess Christ as King. Theocracy should not trouble Christians. As there is no religious neutrality in men's personal affairs, then there can be no neutrality in political institutions. Secondly, We are not arguing for a state religion in the form of one denomination over another, but that Christianity be THE religion. We already live in a theocracy. We bow to the god of secular humanism and appease him with blood sacrifices (abortion) and cult prostitution (homosexuality). That being the case, I want a Christian Theocracy very much.*


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> I agree to a point. I would respond in two similar veins, however. First, we cannot have the society you envision without havig a state religion. That is a paradigm that has not worked in Europe. State churches have led to dead churches and endless religious wars. Besides, who would be to say which religion the goverment would sanction?



You're right that state religion is a necessary implication of my argument. However, the idea that the state has be neutral towards God is just simply a myth. Secular government is not the answer to the problem of dead state churches, such as we see in Europe. Would you tell a person that God has not commanded him to repent, ie., that he can be neutral towards God or live a secular life, neither confessing Satan or Christ? Would you not agree that such is sin in the life of an individual? How much more so is that the case when the state, the "minister of God," according to Romans 13, fails to acknowledge God and His law and instead promotes at best indifference and at worst tolerates evil? There is no moral vaccuum in law. All law is a reflection of morality. Secular or amoral law is, as I said, a myth. The Ten Commandments are binding upon America, and it is the duty of the civil magistrate to enforce them. The Ten Commandments have not expired with the state of Israel. They bind us in all callings of life, including that of civil magistrate. Toleration of false religion or "stews" or murder of unborn children or Sabbath-breaking, all of which are legal under the amoral Constitution, are all sins forbidden by the Ten Commandments. The civil magistrate, the minister of God, sins when he winks at or connives at such sin in the name of pluralism. Thus, the question is not state religion versus secularism, but which state religion do we want as a nation, the worship of the true God or a false God named pluralism. It is not the fault of state religion per se that the churches in Europe are by and large dead and empty. It is unbelief -- the same sin that overtook the Hebrews during the OT theocracy -- that is to blame. The answer is not to divorce religion from the state, but for the state to fulfill its duty to God, within its proper sphere, which is separate but overlapping with the Church. "Coordinating authorities" is the term that has been used to describe the Biblical alliance between Church and State. I have referenced before good examples in history of this: Calvin's Geneva, Covenanted Scotland, Puritan New England. Toleration of sin has generally been the undoing of such governments. The Inquisition, the fear of most who oppose the concept of theocracy, is a product of Rome not the Reformation. True religion and reformation in the state is a product of true religion and reformation in the church. 



> Second, we should not forget the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God. Christ reigns today to be sure, but the Kingdom has not yet appeared in its fullness. We cannot bring it (the fullness of the Kingdom) about through our own efforts. This is something the Father is doing, putting all Christ's enemies under His feet. I realize we are involved to an extent...but ultimately it is God's work. Like it or not, we live in two worlds and must interract with them. A survey of the Gospels will demonstrate that Jesus did not have the antipathy towards Rome that some seem to have towards our own government. I think that is worth noting. The only times Christ remarked about the government was in noting that we should pay taxes and in reminding Pilate that Pilate's power was given him by God.



The fact that the kingdom is spiritual does not negate our duties here on earth. Are Christians permitted to avoid confessing Christ on earth, because their citizenship is in heaven? On the contrary, Christians are commanded to confess their faith before kings and magistrates. Likewise, Christians must obey Christ in all of our earthly vocations, including that of civil magistrate. We are not Anabaptists who believe that government is sinful per se. Calvin dealt with that wing of the Reformation and rejected it rightly. Jesus and Paul teach that we are indeed to pay taxes and render appropriate dues to the civil magistrate regardless of the religion they profess. But Jesus was called to yield his life unto death in a special way: 



> And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out [his] hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? (Matt. 26.51-54)



Does this passage teach pacifism? No. Does it teach that the civil authories can never be resisted when they act unjustly? No. It teaches that Jesus could have wiped out those who came to arrest Him but suffered it to be so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. 

When Paul spoke the magistrate as a minister of God, does he give the stamp of divine moral approbation to all governments, tyrannical or otherwise, because he ordained them providentially? Or rather, is he speaking of civil government rightly constituted? Is he calling Nero a minister of God? Heaven forbid! Paul is speaking of the calling of a civil magistrate, their duty before God, which duty the Constitution prohibits a magisrate from fulfilling. 

When Jesus and Paul laid down their lives before the Roman Empire, yes, they set an example for us in regards to suffering under tyranny. They did not justify the tyranny, they did not commend the tyranny, they witnessed against it. It may be that Christians in America are called to lay down their lives in the face of tyranny some day. 

But at the very least, we ought not to voluntarily take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution which 1) claims "we the People" as the source of authority; 2) sets up a godless Constitution as the highest law in the land; 3) prohibits state support for Christianity; 4) prohibits religious tests for public office; and 5) requires civil magistrates to support the amoral Constitutional laws which tolerate abortion, idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, and every other sin. 

When Clinton was in office and his private sins became public, the American public by and large said that his character was his own business not the nations. Christians generally said that private character was a matter of legitimate public concern. The Constitution, though, says that we may not test our public officials as to their religion, the source of all morality. If we believe in the pluralism enshrined in the Constitution, we have no basis to object to Clinton's private immorality -- or is it amorality? 

Religion is the source and fountain of all law. America -- and Christians in particular -- cannot pretend that its secularism will result in a good legal system that meets with God's approval. It won't. Therefore, we are back to the one and only choice that every nation faces: confess Christ or oppose him. 

Psalm 22 is a Messianic psalm. It says that the Lord is Governor among the nations. It is speaking of Christ in his kingly office. That mediatorial office demands that the magistrate, the minster of God, acknowledge his authority as the basis for his law. As Samuel Rutherford said, "Lex Rex." The law is higher than the king. The law is higher than the people. And the God's law is higher than the Constitution, though the Constitution specifically claims to be the Supreme law of the land. God is not indifferent to the Constitution's claim for Supreme authority in the land. He does not condone amorality any more than immorality. Thus, our nation must conform to God's law in a public way or else be dashed to pieces (Ps. 2).


----------



## Peter (Apr 17, 2005)

and  !

I would like to further note that I do believe in national establishments, ie, the state should care for and defend one church, Christians of one nation should be united under one visible church, and indeed the whole world should by united by a single ecumenical synod. Is 9 explicitly says that the State shall be a nursing father to the Church. Also read Zech 4. You will notice Joshua and Zerubabell, a priest and a king, are the sons of oil that supply the candlestick of the temple, ie, the church. The symbol is repeated in Revelation. The meaning is that by the faithful exercise of ministry and magistracy God would sustain His Church.

As for the unfaithfulness of European established churches, that has nothing to do with the establishment principle but everything to do with the enlightenment, the Revolution 1789, and liberalism, which is also the fountainhead of tolerationism.

Kevin, very funny! in all seriousness though I believe my disgust and indignation was appropriate so I wont be taking your advice! Ex 32:9; Ps 69:9.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 17, 2005)

Geneva, Scotland, and New Enlgand. How are these good examples? I think there are some good ideas they tried to work out. But, in every case, the civil magistrate was an impediment to church reform and faithfulness. All Calvin's reforms had to be approved by the civil magistrates and often led to disagreements. The same problems occurred in Scotland. Who changed Scotland from presbyterian to anglican back to presbyterian again? The magistrate. In New England, the church often had too much say in civil affairs, i.e. Salem Witch trials, which ultimately led to a seperation of church and state in the new MA charter. It wasn't until we figured out toleration that the church's finally were able to govern themselves as the Scriptures laid out for us. If you would like to improve upon these 3 examples, then throw out some suggestions. But these 3 examples though noble attempts, were not successful in the long run.


----------



## Peter (Apr 17, 2005)

Sad but true! Judgment has not yet been given to the saints 

Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, *How long*, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?


----------



## Augusta (Apr 17, 2005)

I have never been in the military, I am fairly neutral here and I really want to understand what Andrew and Peter are getting at here and I really have not seen any scriptural warrant for what you guys are saying yet. Is this idea put forth anywhere else than the Scottish Covenanters? Is there anything like this in any of the church divines, Calvin, Knox, etc? 

1. Christ's kingdom is not of this world.

2. He is already putting the nations under his feet.

3. He ordains all of the leaders good and bad to his own purpose.

4. Psalm 2 is all about him putting his nations under his feet etc. 

5. Psalm 22 is also just stating the facts that God is over all nations and it is talking about the end of the world when all will bow down to him.

6. Isaiah 49:22 is talking about how God will go to all the nations and the in the end the kings and queens of this world "shall bow down to you with their faces to the earth, And lick up the dust of your feet."

7. Acts 17:30 just says for all to repent, which is a standing order to all high and low.

8. Romans 13 tells us to obey the governments he puts over us.

9. Revelations 11:15 & 19:6 are the end again when every knee shall bow etc.

I just don't see any verses here that say we can't acknowledge a government or participate in a system that doesn't declare that the Jesus is Lord over them in a document. Is there any place that explicitly says that we can't be involved with a civil magistrate unless they declare Jesus is Lord? Rom 13 says obey them and he is talking to the Romans in Rome. He says if we resist them we resist God. I am befuddled.

Also Andrew I read that part of your confession Chap. XX:IV like five times and maybe I am dense but it sounds like it is saying that "they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God." Ok its restating Rom 13 here, then it goes on to say that "And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness;(still talking about these that disent on pretese of christian liberty)or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church,"(still talking about the disenter and things they may publish)"they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate." Ok so disenters under the pretense of christian libery who publish such stuff and are destructive to the external peace and oder which Christ established in the Church are to be called to account not only by the church but also the civil magistrate. 

I don't see how this part of your confession supports your position. I actually sounds like it is against your position. I am could be reading it wrong but I read through it carefully several times. Also the verses you sited earlier I just don't see how they apply to your position either. I sincerely would like something more. I have always thought your opinions thus far were very good this is the first time you have ever written anything I didn't agree with. Is there anything else??


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> I don't see how this part of your confession supports your position. I actually sounds like it is against your position. I am could be reading it wrong but I read through it carefully several times. Also the verses you sited earlier I just don't see how they apply to your position either.



Don't worry. _You're _ not reading those things wrong.
Did you see 23.3 from the WCF that I posted and then his reading of it?
In case you missed it, the WCF clearly states that the Magistrate has the responsibility of promoting an atmosphere that is not hostile to the expression of religion... this responsibility is conveyed through the use of a father metaphor. Here it is again for you or for anyone else interested to know what the Confession has to say about the matter of the Civil Magistrates' duty in regards to matters of religion.

WCF 23.3
Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and Sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, _without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest_, in such a manner that _all ecclesiastical persons whatever _ shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. *It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person  be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever; and to take order, that all  religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.*

[Edited on 4-18-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Geneva, Scotland, and New Enlgand. How are these good examples? I think there are some good ideas they tried to work out. But, in every case, the civil magistrate was an impediment to church reform and faithfulness. All Calvin's reforms had to be approved by the civil magistrates and often led to disagreements. The same problems occurred in Scotland. Who changed Scotland from presbyterian to anglican back to presbyterian again? The magistrate. In New England, the church often had too much say in civil affairs, i.e. Salem Witch trials, which ultimately led to a seperation of church and state in the new MA charter. It wasn't until we figured out toleration that the church's finally were able to govern themselves as the Scriptures laid out for us. If you would like to improve upon these 3 examples, then throw out some suggestions. But these 3 examples though noble attempts, were not successful in the long run.



All three examples are of states which attempted to govern on the basis of Biblical law. In other words, piety was upheld by the civil magistrate (as our Confession, 1646 and 1787, calls for). For example, the civil magistrate enforced external Sabbath-keeping. What we know as "blue laws" (which forbad stores to operate or certain products from being sold on the Lord's Day) are the legacy of Puritan New England, for example. Such laws are truly an unConstitutional establishment of religion today, but they were based on the idea that it was right and proper for the civil authorities to help God's people in the exercise of piety and prohibit public irreligion. There were no mosques in Scotland or Geneva during Reformation times as we have today. There was no toleration of public blasphemy, no toleration of public homosexuality. There was censorship of impious or immoral expressions of thought by the civil authorities because such tend to undermine the peace of the state and bring the reproach of God upon society ("Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people," Prov. 14.34). The grounds for objecting to all the public sins that I have mentioned was not because of some Supreme Court's standard of decency, or because the majority wanted it that way, but rather because God's law said such sins were crimes. Public sins are indeed crimes against the King of kings. In Scotland, Geneva and New England, Reformed principles of civil government held sway for about a century before both church and state declined. 

Howbeit, each of those three examples that I gave also shows the same pattern that we see in the Book of Judges and throughout the OT: God's people look to the Lord, then they get complacent, then the next generation arises and compromises, then by the third generation sin reigns supreme, then God's judgment brings the people back to him in national repentance. That's a common theme in Biblical and post-Apostolic history. 

We ought not to set the bar lower because people fall away from God's high standards, however. The Mayflower Compact, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, the Scottish National Covenant, the Solemn League and Covenant, the Geneva constitution, all of these are sterling examples of attempts to bring God's law to bear upon civil society. 

Calvin's _Institutes_ supports this view. The Westminster Assembly and its Standards are a product of this view. Every Reformed/Presbyterian (ie., non-Independent) Confession prior to 1787 teaches this view. It was not until the Enlightenment era that any nation or Presbyterian church dared to challenge the view that the state is intrinsically religious, not secular. In 1787, modern political polytheism, to use Gary North's term, was America's contribution to church-state relations. And American Presbyterianism is a sad testimony to the truth, far beneath that of the Reformation. Pluralism as required by the US Constitution is not a desirable state of affairs, and it has made the Presbyterian witness in America one of unmitigated compromise for over 200 years.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> I have never been in the military, I am fairly neutral here and I really want to understand what Andrew and Peter are getting at here and I really have not seen any scriptural warrant for what you guys are saying yet. Is this idea put forth anywhere else than the Scottish Covenanters? Is there anything like this in any of the church divines, Calvin, Knox, etc?



The concept of pluralism was not put forth in any Reformed Presbyterian Confession prior to 1787. Calvin, Knox, Rutherford, and indeed virtually all the Reformers and Puritans taught that the state has a duty to uphold God's law in the civil sphere. This concept is foreign-sounding to Americans, but it was the accepted understanding within the Christian Church (Anabaptists excepted) until the Enlightenment. 



> 1. Christ's kingdom is not of this world.
> 
> 2. He is already putting the nations under his feet.
> 
> ...



Traci, What's your eschatological viewpoint, if I may ask? Your assumption seems to be that 1) if a verse in the OT says that God is Lord of the nations that such verses ceased to be applicable in the NT and/or resume being applicable at the end of history; or 2) if a verse is in Revelations it applies only to the end of history. The principle of the mediatorial kingship of Christ (as espoused in the various articles and books I have submitted previously by historic Reformed Presbyterian teachers) teaches that his reign is present and ongoing, not confined to the end of history. He rules in the affairs of men now, not just providentially, but here and now. He requires men in all their vocations to acknowledge his rule. For some reason, you are assuming that civil magistrates are exempt from any acknowledgment of Christ in their official capacity. Apply that to any other vocation and you may see how strange that sounds. 



> I just don't see any verses here that say we can't acknowledge a government or participate in a system that doesn't declare that the Jesus is Lord over them in a document. Is there any place that explicitly says that we can't be involved with a civil magistrate unless they declare Jesus is Lord? Rom 13 says obey them and he is talking to the Romans in Rome. He says if we resist them we resist God. I am befuddled.



I have not said anything about disobeying government. Refusing to take a voluntary but unlawful oath is not disobeying the government. Yet, if the government did require an unlawful oath, such as was required of the Scottish Covenanters, then "we ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5.29). I have said it before and I'll say it again, service in an ungodly government per se is not sin. Joseph and Daniel and others in Scripture did it. It is only when the requirement for such service is to commit a sinful act that such service cannot be condoned. It's all about the oath. If the Constitution is sinful, then the oath is sinful. If the Constitution is not sinful, then the oath is not sinful. Oath-taking is a serious business. If at any point, the Constitution requires sin on the part of one who swears before God to uphold it, then one has broken the Third Commandment. I have shown repeatedly how the Constitution does require such sin. Ergo, the oath is sinful and voluntarily taking it to serve the government is also sinful. 

Also, although I have said this again and again, Romans 13 is not saying that tyrannical government is approved by God, which is the implication of assuming that Nero was a "minister of God." Ordained providentially, and ordained morally, are two different things. Romans 13 in fact speaks of the right moral institution of government by God. To think otherwise is to say that God approves of tyrannical government. It also implies that civil disobedience is never lawful because to resist the government is to resist the ordinance of God. However, Peter resisted civil authorities, and his example is commendable. Therefore, Paul is clearly speaking of government rightly instituted, ie., that which honors God in magistracy, as being "ministers of God," and not saying that all governements which exist providentially are "ministers of God." To say otherwise is truly blasphemy.



> Also Andrew I read that part of your confession Chap. XX:IV like five times and maybe I am dense but it sounds like it is saying that "they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God." Ok its restating Rom 13 here, then it goes on to say that "And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness;(still talking about these that disent on pretese of christian liberty)or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church,"(still talking about the disenter and things they may publish)"they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate." Ok so disenters under the pretense of christian libery who publish such stuff and are destructive to the external peace and oder which Christ established in the Church are to be called to account not only by the church but also the civil magistrate.
> 
> I don't see how this part of your confession supports your position. I actually sounds like it is against your position. I am could be reading it wrong but I read through it carefully several times. Also the verses you sited earlier I just don't see how they apply to your position either. I sincerely would like something more. I have always thought your opinions thus far were very good this is the first time you have ever written anything I didn't agree with. Is there anything else??



The Constitution prohibits magistrates or government workers from punishing people who, in the excercise of their First Amendment freedoms, publish or practice principles in opposition to Christianity. For example, the Constitution does not permit Congress to bar Roman Catholic books from being published in America, or p0rnography, or Islamic literature, the list goes on ad nauseum. Yet, the Confession says that the civil magistrate has a duty to censor, yes, censor such things. Thus, as I said earlier, the Confession and Constitution are at odds on this point.

[Edited on 4-18-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Augusta (Apr 17, 2005)

Ben you are right that about the confession you are referring to which Andrew admits is friendly to our Constitution but he is using a different version of the WCF the 1647 version. Which is the one he quotes that still does not seem to support his position. 

I am not fluent in the history of the revolution against the King by Oliver Cromwell etc. I saw the movie and that is about it. What I gathered from the movie which may or may not be spin was that the reason they revolted was because the government was trying to impinge on church practice which is clearly not allowed and I would revolt also. I would appreciate any links to a history of this revolution. I will also get a library book so that I can educate myself more on it.


----------



## Augusta (Apr 18, 2005)

Andrew my eschatalogical view is as I stated Jesus is Lord and has been since creation. This is eternal and not subject to any earthy magistrate or king and quite the contrary he says that they will all bow to him in the day of judgment. They are not doing it yet and of course there is a standing order for all high and low to repent. 

Are there any examples of this blending of church and state in the early church? It seems like it occured post-reformation as a reaction to the RCC which as far as I know was the first time church and state was blended like that. We all know how that turned out. They tyrannized God's people for centuries. 

My take on the NT and the new covenant is that the church has its office and that the civil magistrate has its and ne'er the twain shall meet. 

I understand that the constitution is not perfect. I believe it is ammoral as stated earlier. I just don't see this Civil magistrate has to acknowledge Jesus as Lord anywhere in governing documents type of way anywhere. I see a general call for them to acknowledge Jesus is Lord just as there is a general call for all to do that. I am looking for something more concrete. 

I would love to have a government that does what you require. I know though that fallen men are everywhere and will corrupt all that is good. I believe that is why in the NT it is directed that they keep there office to bear the sword for civil justice and the the church keep its office and they don't impinge on each other. 

Maybe my view is too simplistic but yours is just does not sound biblical. If the reformers did agree with this I am surprised after they just got out from under the yoke and slavery of the RCC. The passage from Galations I think is relevant here. Paul says don't let yourselves be subject to yoke and slavery again by the old covenant ways. We are free. I think if you try to yoke church and state one will eventually overrun the other to the detriment of one or the other. I see the wisdom in keeping them separate.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



I don't see it that way. And here we are again, arguing about our application of our interpretation of the Standards (which is an application of an interpretation of the Scriptures). That bothers me deeply.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 18, 2005)

Traci,

Historically, there have been five major views of church-state relations. 

1) Popish -- The Pope claims to have supreme temporal power over the kings and princes of the earth. The Spanish Inquisition is a good example of the result of this sort of tyranny. 

2) Erastian -- The king claims to be head of the church. This is the case with respect to the Church of England.

3) Anabaptist -- Anabaptists believed that government was sinful and so rejected the institution. 

4) Voluntaryism/Pluralism -- The view that some on this thread espouse has its origins in the Enlightenment. It is an over-reaction to the religious wars in Europe and the abuse of church-state relations by Rome and London, among others. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Voltaire, these are the principal historical advocates of this understanding that the state must avoid any "partiality" towards Christianity or religion and must treat all religions equally. It may be "workable" in the short-term when Christianity is the majority religion of the nation, but tolerance of false religions breeds false religions. Toleration of sin is not a virtue in the civil magistrate.

5) Presbyterian -- The church and the state are both ministers of God, accountable to him who created both institutions, required to serve him in their official capacities, not "blending," but working together to advance the kingdom of God in their proper spheres. The Westminster Assembly, indeed most major church councils in history starting with Nicea, was the product of this view. The Reformers and Puritans were well aware of the abuses of power in church history. Their view was quite different from the Popish or Erastian views. Christ is Head over both church and state, and both must conform to his Word. God's law is higher than the state and higher than the church. It was on this basis that the Puritans, Huguenots, Covenanters, etc. all claimed that the chief civil magistrate was accountable to God's Word and not a law unto himself. When they objected to the state's intervention in the church or tyranny over the people, their goal was not to create a state neutral towards religion but one that promoted the true religion. That is easily discerned by reading the Scottish National Covenant, the original Westminster Confession, the writings of Knox, Calvin, Rutherford, and any other Reformed theologian in the 16th or 17th centuries who wrote about civil government. None advocated neutrality towards the true religion, but rather that the state must uphold God's law, ie., the Ten Commandments. Failure to do so constituted tyranny and abuse of power. The sword is given to the magistrate to execute justice. There is no justice if the magistrate's standard of morality is amoral. There is literally no reason at all why murder should be outlawed if we don't look to God's Word to tell us that civil government must uphold the Sixth Commandment. Thus, abortion and euthanasia are legal in America and the slide down the slippery slope of amorality continues.


----------



## crhoades (Apr 18, 2005)

Quotes from John Murray, Collected Works Vol. 1, pg. 253-259

The Relation of Church and State

Both church and state are divine institutions. The state no more than the church owes its origin and authority to human expedient or contract...

The civil magistrate is the minister of God and he is the minister of God for good. [Chris: who has heard of a minister of God that will not acknowledge God or His Word? Who gets to define "good"? Man or God?]

Since the civil magistrate is invested with this authority by God and is obliged by divine ordinance to discharge these functions, he is responsible to God, the one living and true God who alone has ordained him. pg. 254. The magistrate is, therefore, under obligation to discharge the office devolving upon him in accordance with the revealed will of God. The Bible is the supreme and infallible revelation of God's will and it is, therefore, the supreme and infallible rule in all departments of life. The civil magistrate is under obligation to recognize it as the infallible rule for the exercise of civil magistracy.
It must be recognized, however, that it is only within his own restricted sphere of authority that the civil magistrate, in his capacity as civil magistrate, is to apply the revelation of God's will as provided in Scripture. It is only to the extent to which the revelation of Scripture bears upon the functions discharged by the state and upon the performance of the office of the civil magistrate, that he, in the discharge of these functions, is bound to fulfil the demands of Scripture. If the civil magistrate should attempt, in his capacity as magistrate, to carry into effect the demands of Scripture which bear upon him in other capacities, or the demands of Scripture upon other institutions, he would immediately be guilty of violating his prerogatives and of contravening the requirements of Scripture.

The sphere of the church is distinct from that of the civil magistrate.  Its sphere of operation has been defined in the first section of this report. *What needs to be appreciated now is that its sphere is co-ordinate with that of the state. The church is not subordinate to the state, nor is the state subordinate to the church.* *The are both subordinate to God, and to Christ in his mediatorial dominion as head over all things to his body the church. Both church and state are under obligation to recognize this subordination, and the corresponding co-ordination of their respective spheres of operation in the divine institution.* Each must maintain and assert its autonomy in reference to the other and preserve its freedom from intrusion on the part of the other. But while this diversity of function and of sphere must be recognized, guarded and maintained, the larger unity within which this diveristy exists must not be overlooked. *The principle that defines this unity is the sovereignty of God, and the obligation emanating from it is the requirement that both church and state must promote the interests of the kingdom of God. It is only on the basis of such principles that any Christian conception of the relation of church and state can be developed.*

...End...

This quote could be found in most reformed thinkers that Andrew has pointed out. And for the sake of argument, Bahnsen, Rushdoony, North, Demar, Gentry, Morecraft et.al. holds to the same statement above. 

They are however a little harsher on pluralism probably. The have the audacity of calling it Political Polytheism or idolatry.


----------



## crhoades (Apr 18, 2005)

From Van Prinsterer's and Kuyper's legacy in the Netherlands:

*Statement of the Principles and General Political Program of the Anti-Revolutionary Party in the Netherlands, 1961*

Drawn up by the Meeting of Deputies, June 10, 1961, in Utrecht, the Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

The Anti-Revolutionary Party is the oldest of the existing political parties in the Netherlands. One can speak of an Anti-Revolutionary Christian political movement already by the middle of the nineteenth century, when Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801-1876) began to exert an evangelical influence in Dutch public life against the dominant forces of liberalism. This movement was given the structure of an organized political party in 1879, mainly under the guidance of Abraharn Kuyper (1837-1920), one of the greatest figures of Dutch Protestantism in modern times.

The aim of Groen van Prinsterer and Kuyper centered in the application of Scriptural norms to political life. This aim explains the name of the Anti-Revolutionary Party, since its efforts concerned the rejection of the "revolutionary" principles of political action which largely governed the Western nations since the great French Revolution of 1789, These principles implied a denial of the relevance of Scriptural revelation for the social order. The Anti-Revolutionary Party asserts this relevance in its Statement of Principles and in the guidelines for practical political action.

This Statement also has a long history. Its first formulation goes back to 1878. Revisions were made in 1916, 1934 and 1961. The following pages present an English translation of the last version, which was the outcome of extensive study and careful formulation by a number of leaders in the A.R. Party. Between 1949 and 1961 various drafts were presented to the members of the party whose suggestions and amendments were often incorporated into the final revision. In this way this Statement has become an expression of Christian political commitment on the part of a great body of Dutch evangelical Protestants. In this form it can be of assistance to Christians in other nations in the execution of their responsibility in the political realm.



*PREAMBLE*

The anti-revolutionary or christian-historical movement represents that element of our national character which was formed under the influence of the Reformation and the leadership of William of Orange and which acquired its identity in the second half of the sixteenth century.

Its point of departure is the confession that God is the absolute Sovereign and that He has given to Jesus Christ all power in heaven and on earth. Both the Government and the people are to acknowledge this power and are therefore obliged to keep the commandments of God for the life of the state.

In conjunction with the above, the Anti-Revolutionary Party (A.R.P.) accepts the following Statement of its Principles and General Political Program.



*PART 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES*

*Article 1*

The A.R.P. considers as its calling to strive and struggle for the preservation and strengthening of the hold of the Word of God on public life.

*Article 2*

While recognizing the Church's calling to proclaim the message of the Word of God as it applies to all of life, the A.R.P. believes that Government and people must learn to understand on their own, in the light of Holy Scripture, what this message means for the political life of every age.

*Article 3*

Not the will of the people but the sovereign power of God is the foundation of the authority of Government. While opposed to specifying any single form of government as the only acceptable one, the A.R.P., grateful for the blessing given by God in the House of Orange, judges that for the Netherlands the most suitable form of government is the constitutional monarchy by members of this royal house as it has gradually developed from the Republic of the sixteenth century.

*Article 4*

The A.R.P. acknowledges that the Government is the minister of God invested with the power of the sword, called to maintain justice and to rule the nation for the benefit of the people.

In fulfilling this calling, the Government is to respect the limits determined both by the nature of its office and by the particular calling and responsibility of other societal relationships and of private individuals.

*Article 5*

The Government as the servant of God, by Whose grace it reigns, has as its calling

a. to acknowledge God's Name in all of its public activity;

b. to take care that God's Word can have free course among the people;

c. to extend equal treatment to all churches and all citizens, whatever their religious beliefs may be;

d. to abstain, in view of its incompetence in these matters, from all measures intended to coerce the religious development of the nation in a particular direction;

e. to uphold law and' order and to insist on sound moral conduct in public life;

f. to honor conscientious objections that any of its subjects may have against a governmentally imposed obligation, provided these objections derive from religious convictions and are not incompatible with a proper execution of the Government's task;

g. to respect the Sunday as a day of rest as far as governmental functions are concerned, and to promote such maintenance everywhere within the bounds of its authority;

h. to use its right to demand the oath whenever necessary to confirm fidelity and truth;

i. to promulgate days of prayer and thanksgiving for special times or occasions in order that the people may be encouraged to invoke the Name of the Lord;

j. and further, in general to do all it possibly can within the bounds of its authority that the people live according to the demands of the law of God.

continued at:

For other books about Kuyper's politics or in the Kuyperian/Dooyeweerdian tradition:

The Practice of Political Spirituality by McKendree R. Langley
The Christian Philosophy of Law Politics and the State by Hebden Taylor
Reformation or Revolution by Hebden Taylor


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 18, 2005)

From Calvin's _Institutes_, Book IV, Chap. 20, sec. 9:



> 9. The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here indicate in passing. That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers; for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. Seeing then that among philosophers religion holds the first place, and that the same thing has always been observed with the universal consent of nations, Christian princes and magistrates may be ashamed of their heartlessness if they make it not their care. We have already shown that this office is specially assigned them by God, and indeed it is right that they exert themselves in asserting and defending the honour of him whose vicegerents they are, and by whose favour they rule. Hence in Scripture holy kings are especially praised for restoring the worship of God when corrupted or overthrown, or for taking care that religion flourished under them in purity and safety. On the other hand, the sacred history sets down anarchy among the vices, when it states that there was no king in Israel, and, therefore, every one did as he pleased (Judges 21:25). This rebukes the folly of those who would neglect the care of divine things, and devote themselves merely to the administration of justice among men; as if God had appointed rulers in his own name to decide earthly controversies, and omitted what was of far greater moment, his own pure worship as prescribed by his law. Such views are adopted by turbulent men, who, in their eagerness to make all kinds of innovations with impunity, would fain get rid of all the vindicators of violated piety. In regard to the second table of the law, Jeremiah addresses rulers, "Thus saith the Lord, Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood" (Jer. 22:3). To the same effect is the exhortation in the Psalm, "Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; rid them out of the hand of the wicked" (Psalm 82:3, 4). Moses also declared to the princes whom he had substituted for himself, "Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great: ye shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgment is God's" (Deut. 1:16). I say nothing as to such passages as these, "He shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt;" "neither shall he multiply wives to himself; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold;" "he shall write him a copy of this law in a book;" "and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God;" "that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren" (Deut. 17:16Ã±20). In here explaining the duties of magistrates, my exposition is intended not so much for the instruction of magistrates themselves, as to teach others why there are magistrates, and to what end they have been appointed by God. We say, therefore, that they are the ordained guardians and vindicators of public innocence, modesty, honour, and tranquillity, so that it should be their only study to provide for the common peace and safety. Of these things David declares that he will set an example when he shall have ascended the throne. "A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person. Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me" (Psalm 101:4Ã±6). But as rulers cannot do this unless they protect the good against the injuries of the bad, and give aid and protection to the oppressed, they are armed with power to curb manifest evil-doers and criminals, by whose misconduct the public tranquillity is disturbed or harassed. For we have full experience of the truth of Solon's saying, that all public matters depend on reward and punishment; that where these are wanting, the whole discipline of states totters and falls to pieces. For in the minds of many the love of equity and justice grows cold, if due honour be not paid to virtue, and the licentiousness of the wicked cannot be restrained, without strict discipline and the infliction of punishment. The two things are comprehended by the prophet when he enjoins kings and other rulers to execute "judgment and righteousness" (Jer. 21:12; 22:3). It is righteousness (justice) to take charge of the innocent, to defend and avenge them, and set them free: it is judgment to withstand the audacity of the wicked, to repress their violence, and punish their faults.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 18, 2005)

> The Westminster Confession on the Relation between Church and State
> 
> William Young
> 
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 18, 2005)

_A Body of Practical Divinity_, John Gill, Chap. 4:



> 2. Secondly, to consider the duties both of magistrates and subjects. And,
> 
> 2a. First, of magistrates; for though the duties of subjection and obedience are incompetent to them; yet there are duties incumbent on them, arising from their relation to their people, and covenant with them. And,
> 
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 18, 2005)

In contrast to the US Constitution's prohibition of religious tests for public office, see William Einwechter's article on Biblical Standards for Choosing Civil Magistrates.

[Edited on 4-18-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 18, 2005)

Andrew,
Where can I find God and Politics: 4 Views?


----------



## Augusta (Apr 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Traci,
> 
> Historically, there have been five major views of church-state relations.
> ...



Thank you Andrew this helps. I am still studying the issue. I still have trouble with it on a completely different level. We are called to love our neighbor, abide with Christ and wait for him, we have instructions for church practice, etc. We are called to do all to the glory of God, serve and stay where we were when we were called etc. 

God is sovereign over all. Even our calling and election. Our purposes and will are nothing. He brings all things together for our good. So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 

Then God tells us that he also is sovereign in ordaining and raising up our leaders and we should obey them. Do you see the paradigm shift here from the OT where he showed that all the striving and trying to fulfill the law was futile, then we get to the NT where he is supreme and we just rest and follow him. We don't even strive, he brings about the sufferings and tests to sanctify us. 

Yet we are supposed to try to raise up Godly leaders ourselves? Do you see how this just doesn't compute? For us to strive after that and try to create on earth what is clearly outlined as God's purview? 

I was truly blessed to have been shown by God his doctrines of grace. I take the reformers seriously in this area. I believe the reformation was a work of God but I am not going to buy into every single reformational idea without a lot of thought. I was burned once by arminianism. The reformers were fallible men. They were not inspired apostles. I wish the NT was more explicit on this subject. As it is I think in a collective whole counsel of God way it supports my position better at this time than it does the historical Presbyterian, covenanter etc. position. The whole tares among the wheat, live where you are called, obey your masters and magistrates but sin not. Be in the world but not of it. All of these themes along with our inability to even be righteous ourselves here on earth but we are to expect our government to be? 

Thanks again for all your reference stuff. I get it that it was the historical reformed position but I think it is pie in the sky still and not our purview.

[Edited on 4-18-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Andrew,
> Where can I find God and Politics: 4 Views?



Jacob, 

I checked just now and saw copies of this book available through Addall.com/used and Abebooks.com. However, I was shocked at the prices (around $75). It was published by P&R, but they don't seem to have it in print, nor did I see it available through Amazon.com. It's a helpful book, but I wouldn't want to pay that much for it personally. I corresponded with Bill Edgar after it was published in the early 90's. I don't actually agree with everything he says in the book though he the chief person articulating the National Confession position. Hope this helps a little.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 18, 2005)

Andrew, I wish you could find a book called Battle for the Church. It is a book found in the UK. A friend from Scotland sent it to me. It would challenge your thoughts as it did mine about Church and State. It is written by a guy named David Gay. He is a Reformed Baptist I believe. I am reading it at this time. If you can't find a copy I will mail you mine so that you can read it. I would be very interested in your critique of it. 

Randy

I was discipled by someone who did his doctorate thesis on William Symington many years ago. So I am quite familiar with Messiah the Prince. 

[Edited on 4-18-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 18, 2005)

Okay, is this Ecclesiology or Politics?

Here is a link to the book Andrew
Battle for the Church

[Edited on 4-18-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 18, 2005)

Thanks, Randy.


----------



## twogunfighter (Apr 19, 2005)

Andrew

In theory the following is true in the US system of republican government: Constitution=king

According to you:

A. The Constitution is a less than God-glorifying document.

B. There is no neutrality for the Christian.

C. Ergo - my synopsis of what must follow according to your ideas- The Christian must work to destroy the Constitution (not simply ammend it). 


Yet:

A. Artexerxes was a less than God glorifying king.

B. The Covenant people could not be neutral

C. Yet Mordecai saved the king's life.


A. The Roman government was a less than God glorifying government.

B. The Covenant people were not to be neutral.

C. Did the Christian Centurion not continue to support and defend Rome?


A. Darius was a less than God glorifying king.

B. Daniel was called to not be neutral.

C. Did he not support and defend Darius? 


2 Chronicles 36:11-21
11 Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. 12 He did evil in the sight of the Lord his God, and did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet, who spoke from the mouth of the Lord. 13 And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear an oath by God; but he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the Lord God of Israel. 

Jeremiah 40:7-16
7 And when all the captains of the armies who were in the fields, they and their men, heard that the king of Babylon had made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam governor in the land, and had committed to him men, women, children, and the poorest of the land who had not been carried away captive to Babylon, 8 then they came to Gedaliah at Mizpah--Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah, Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth, the sons of Ephai the Netophathite, and Jezaniah F41 the son of a Maachathite, they and their men. 9 And Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, took an oath before them and their men, saying, "Do not be afraid to serve the Chaldeans. Dwell in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it shall be well with you. 10 As for me, I will indeed dwell at Mizpah and serve the Chaldeans who come to us. But you, gather wine and summer fruit and oil, put them in your vessels, and dwell in your cities that you have taken."

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Comment...plete/mhc-com.cgi?book=jer&chapter=40#Jer40_9

Ezekiel 17 :11 Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 12 "Say now to the rebellious house: 'Do you not know what these things mean?' Tell them, 'Indeed the king of Babylon went to Jerusalem and took its king and princes, and led them with him to Babylon. 13 And he took the king's offspring, made a covenant with him, and put him under oath. He also took away the mighty of the land, 14 that the kingdom might be brought low and not lift itself up, but that by keeping his covenant it might stand. 15 But he rebelled against him by sending his ambassadors to Egypt, that they might give him horses and many people. Will he prosper? Will he who does such things escape? Can he break a covenant and still be delivered? 16 As I live,' says the Lord God, 'surely in the place where the king dwells who made him king, whose oath he despised and whose covenant he broke--with him in the midst of Babylon he shall die. 17 Nor will Pharaoh with his mighty army and great company do anything in the war, when they heap up a siege mound and build a wall to cut off many persons. 18 Since he despised the oath by breaking the covenant, and in fact gave his hand and still did all these things, he shall not escape.' " 19 Therefore thus says the Lord God: "As I live, surely My oath which he despised, and My covenant which he broke, I will recompense on his own head. 20 I will spread My net over him, and he shall be taken in My snare. I will bring him to Babylon and try him there for the treason which he committed against Me. 21 All his fugitives F20 with all his troops shall fall by the sword, and those who remain shall be scattered to every wind; and you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken." 

Gedaliah is seen as unsinful despite taking an oath to support and work for the Chaldeans. Zedekiah is seen as sinful for breaking his oath that was sworn to Nebukednezzar. Gedaliah had to swear allegiance to a government that had no chance to reform and scripture does not describe what he does as sin yet the modern enlistee's oath has at least some chance that our document flawed as it is can be changed to reflect an acknowledgement of God (if you don't think that it already does). BTW (and I know that Scripture is silent on this but it defies reason to be otherwise) I am sure that Ezra and Nehemiah had to swear fealty to their governments as well before they took off to re-patriate the promised land. 

If I or any other enlistee/commissionee takes the oath to support and defend the Constitution are we not suggesting that we will do just what you do, attempt to reform a less than Godly document into a more Godly document? If you pay taxes you support some form of incrementalism. If you are not actively attempting to destroy the constitution completely (not just ammend it) then you must be supporting it (if there is no neutrality). If you would simply ammend it more radically than I or others would then you and I have the same fundamental position. 

I am probably mistaking your position and generally not understanding what you are saying but these are the questions that come to my (rather dull) mind. I really think that you are too smart and have somehow out-thought yourself.

Chuck


----------



## twogunfighter (Apr 19, 2005)

BTW I aggree that the constitution should acknowledge the triune God as the ordainer and sustainer of the US government and that individual politicians and government functionaries etc should also acknowledge it.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 19, 2005)

moved response to US constitution thread.

Blade

[Edited on 4-20-2005 by Bladestunner316]


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_If the Constitution is not sinful, then the oath is not sinful. Oath-taking is a serious business. If at any point, the Constitution requires sin on the part of one who swears before God to uphold it, then one has broken the Third Commandment. I have shown repeatedly how the Constitution does require such sin. Ergo, the oath is sinful and voluntarily taking it to serve the government is also sinful.



I know you feel you have made your case, but I don't see it that way. Frankly I remain unimpressed by yout appeal to the Covenanters for a variety of reasons. First, this isn't Scotland. It's the USA. Second, we do not have a state church so the paradigm is vastly different. Third, history has shown from the Edict of Nantes down to Plymouth Colony that state/church marriages do not work. Even if they could work, all the state can do is compell outward compliance but they cannot change hearts. One can observe blue laws and go to hell. But you know this. Fourth, no one is disagreeing with you about what a government should do. But what they should do and actually do are not necessarily the same. Fifth, I haven't seen one shred of clear bliblical evidence (without having to play hermeneutical acrobat) to suggest that the Constitution is the sinful document you claim it to be. It is outwardly secular, to be sure, but a careful inspection of the document will find it to be firmly, if implicitly, rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage. Finally, our forefathers (American that is) wisely recognized the model you espouse as being unworkable. It relies on outward compliance but fails to touch the heart. Of course, the real problem with the Constitution is that the seeds of its own demise does lie in the pluralism it allows.

I'm afraid that I am going to have to see this as an issue of Christian liberty, of freedom of conscience. Swearing an oath to the Constitution would be a sin for you. But it isn't for me, and I have proudly (and sinlessly) done it three times.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree...but my did I learn a lot in the process!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 19, 2005)

Chuck, 

I've never argued for the _destruction_ of the US Constitution. I would advocate _reforming_ or _amending_ it to bring it into _conformity_ with God's Law. If it cannot be amended, then let it be replaced by a national charter that does confess Christ. I'm really not sure what you mean by _destroy_. As I have said before, the Constitution has much that is good in it (procedurally). But in terms of specific provisions that contradict God's Law, I would like to see those amended. 

I have also said repeatedly that service to an ungodly government is not sinful per se. I have cited the examples of Joseph and Daniel numerous times. However, at no point did they continue to blindly serve an ungodly government when required to take an unlawful oath or otherwise sin. 

The term "less than glorifying" is not very helpful. That category applies to everyone at all times. Magistrates sin specifically, however, when they fail to "kiss the Son" (Ps. 2.12). 

Subjects are commanded to obey magistrates in things lawful. Revolution is a last resort, not the first item on the checklist of a Christian citizen. Tyrants may be called to account, but great deference is to be given even to tyrants because of the honor vested in the office of magistracy. 

It is important to clarify when we are speaking about the duties of subjects versus the duties of magistrates. I think your post confounds the two. Taxes are to be paid by subjects, but magistrates sin when they tax unjustly. Subjects are to swear to lawful oaths when required to do so by the magistrate, but magistrates may not lawfully require unlawful oaths. The distinction between subjects and magistrates is important. 

Proper reformation in the state must come from both subjects (grass roots) and magistrates (those in authority), all of which begins in the church and by the power of the Holy Spirit.

[Edited on 4-20-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> Guess we will have to agree to disagree...but my did I learn a lot in the process!


----------



## Augusta (Apr 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> I know you feel you have made your case, but I don't see it that way. Frankly I remain unimpressed by yout appeal to the Covenanters for a variety of reasons. First, this isn't Scotland. It's the USA. Second, we do not have a state church so the paradigm is vastly different. Third, history has shown from the Edict of Nantes down to Plymouth Colony that state/church marriages do not work. Even if they could work, all the state can do is compell outward compliance but they cannot change hearts. One can observe blue laws and go to hell. But you know this. Fourth, no one is disagreeing with you about what a government should do. But what they should do and actually do are not necessarily the same. Fifth, I haven't seen one shred of clear bliblical evidence (without having to play hermeneutical acrobat) to suggest that the Constitution is the sinful document you claim it to be. It is outwardly secular, to be sure, but a careful inspection of the document will find it to be firmly, if implicitly, rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage. Finally, our forefathers (American that is) wisely recognized the model you espouse as being unworkable. It relies on outward compliance but fails to touch the heart. Of course, the real problem with the Constitution is that the seeds of its own demise does lie in the pluralism it allows.
> 
> I'm afraid that I am going to have to see this as an issue of Christian liberty, of freedom of conscience. Swearing an oath to the Constitution would be a sin for you. But it isn't for me, and I have proudly (and sinlessly) done it three times.
> ...



 Well put Kevin.


----------



## D. Paul (Apr 19, 2005)

*For the Newlywed?*

My daughter was married last Sept and her husband has expressed interest in joining the National Guard after contemplating the Reserves. They are expecting a child and my daughter is quite dismayed at the idea in light of the almost-certainty of his going to Iraq. 

He has mentioned the Deut 24:5 passage but is looking to the long-term rewards also. 

This is not a surprise proposal. He expressed interest before the wedding. But what ought to be his primary interest?


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> > Guess we will have to agree to disagree...but my did I learn a lot in the process!



By the way, you either have an ENORMOUS electronic library or the fastest fingers east of the Mississippi!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D. Paul_
> My daughter was married last Sept and her husband has expressed interest in joining the National Guard after contemplating the Reserves. They are expecting a child and my daughter is quite dismayed at the idea in light of the almost-certainty of his going to Iraq.
> 
> He has mentioned the Deut 24:5 passage but is looking to the long-term rewards also.
> ...



There was a reason God forbade soldiers to serve in the first year...I'd advise him to wait long enough to see the birth of his child. As grim as it may sound, if he goes to war, it might be the only chance he ever gets.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 20, 2005)

He should spend the time with his wife in the end thats all he will have(minus God,family, and taxes):bigsmile:


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D. Paul_
> My daughter was married last Sept and her husband has expressed interest in joining the National Guard after contemplating the Reserves. They are expecting a child and my daughter is quite dismayed at the idea in light of the almost-certainty of his going to Iraq.
> 
> He has mentioned the Deut 24:5 passage but is looking to the long-term rewards also.
> ...



I too think it would be advisable to wait until the birth of the baby.
Also, I do think that a wise person will consider the opinion of their spouse before beginning a career. When he brought this matter up _before_ the wedding what was her response? Is she opposed to him joining in general or is she upset because at this particular time he may be sent off to war?

That said, I agree with what Kevin just wrote about this may be the only chance he gets... there is glory to be won and there are lots of great medals to be earned! His dress uniform will look most impressive! 

[Edited on 4-20-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## twogunfighter (Apr 20, 2005)

Andrew 

"I would advocate reforming or amending it to bring it into conformity with God's Law."

Then you and I are both in the same position about the Constitution. We only vary on the lawfulness of taking oaths. 

The problem is that you did not interact with my scripture quotes. Namely that Gedaliah and Zedekiah do not appear from the text to have sinned by swearing fealty to governments much more evil than our constitution. 

Chuck


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by twogunfighter_
> Andrew
> 
> "I would advocate reforming or amending it to bring it into conformity with God's Law."
> ...







> We only vary on the lawfulness of taking oaths.
> 
> The problem is that you did not interact with my scripture quotes. Namely that Gedaliah and Zedekiah do not appear from the text to have sinned by swearing fealty to governments much more evil than our constitution.
> 
> Chuck



My apologies for the oversight. I will give consideration to these passages and get back to you. They are very relevant to the issue at hand and I want to thank you for citing them. I have some time constraints at present but I will respond as soon as possible.


----------



## D. Paul (Apr 20, 2005)

How does the Deut 24:5 have significance for us today? I understand the securing and strengthening of the home first, but can we say dogmatically that this applies? AND (this is the big concern) is it truly a certainty in light of our current situation that he would be active duty immediately? What could ease his wife's (my daughter's) mind regarding the decision?

(Ben Duncan, I suppose I ask for your opinion. I want to be helpful to them but...)

[Edited on 4-21-2005 by D. Paul]


----------



## pastorway (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D. Paul_
> My daughter was married last Sept and her husband has expressed interest in joining the National Guard after contemplating the Reserves. They are expecting a child and my daughter is quite dismayed at the idea in light of the almost-certainty of his going to Iraq.
> 
> He has mentioned the Deut 24:5 passage but is looking to the long-term rewards also.
> ...



I would council any married couple, newlywed or married for years and years, that to make a change like this in the husbands job situation (which is what this boils down to) is a matter that they should agree on before he acts!

If she is not for it then he should not do it. If he goes against her wishes he is putting himself before his wife.

They need to communicate about this, perhaps with a pastor, and they need to agree on what he will do before he does anything.

Phillip


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by D. Paul_
> How does the Deut 24:5 have significance for us today? I understand the securing and strengthening of the home first, but can we say dogmatically that this applies? AND (this is the big concern) is it truly a certainty in light of our current situation that he would be active duty immediately? What could ease his wife's (my daughter's) mind regarding the decision?
> 
> (Ben Duncan, I suppose I ask for your opinion. I want to be helpful to them but...)
> ...



Of course there is no _certainty_ that he would be activated right away... or even at all. Also, depending on the job he would want to do would have great bearing on when/if/to what extent he gets in harms way.
I do think that at the end of the day he needs to consider his wife's opinion. If he really wants to serve, but if she is opposed to the Army, then perhaps they could compromise and join the Air National Guard. (Yuck... as a Ranger, just saying that makes me feel wimpy.)
But seriously... the pay is the same and it would be a good way to serve. 
On the one hand, it would be bad for him to totally give up on something he really wants to do because when he is old and gray he will regret and wonder about "what could have been." At the same time, it would be bad for him to pursue his own interests at the expense of his family because he may very well lose them (if not literally, then quite possibly emotionally), and even if he doesn't he might do substantial damage to his marraige. If either is unwilling to budge then there is a great possibility that one will end up resenting the other for it.
Thus, perhaps someone can recommend the Air National Guard or the Naval Reserve as an acceptable compromise. 
Just a thought.


----------



## D. Paul (Apr 20, 2005)

Thank you again, Pastor Way, for your insight and advise. I have suggested that they see our Pastor _soon_ in order to resolve this. 

I also gave them a part of John Gills commentary regarding the husband "setting his affection" upon his wife in the year provided for. And I offered them the advise that this particular issue is secondary to their contentious attitudes toward one another and THAT is to be repented of before any resolution of this, or any subsequent issue.

Please pray for them!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 21, 2005)




----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by twogunfighter_
> 2 Chronicles 36:11-21
> 11 Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. 12 He did evil in the sight of the Lord his God, and did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet, who spoke from the mouth of the Lord. 13 And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear an oath by God; but he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the Lord God of Israel.
> 
> ...



I have read a variety of commentaries on the passages you cited, Chuck, and at first glance I admit it seems that oaths of allegiance were sworn and in one case God conveyed his great displeasure at the breaking of such an oath. 

I think it must be inquired 1) what kind of oath are we talking about in the cases of Zedekiah and Gedaliah? and 2) is there anything about their circumstances that is normative or not normative for us today?

Calvin refers to Zedekiah's oath as a _treaty_. Zedekiah himself of course was a king, but having been conquered Nebachanezzer the babylonian king required tribute and submission. There is no mention of a requirement to compromise Zedekiah's religious beliefs.

Regarding oaths, the WCF says:



> CHAPTER XXII
> Of Lawful Oaths and Vows
> 
> I. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship,[443] wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.[444]
> ...



Zedekiah's breaking of his oath, an oath that did not bind his conscience in matters religious, was a violation of the third commandment and as such incurred God's wrath.

Matthew Henry says in the link that you provided regarding Gedaliah's situation: "Though the divine law had forbidden them to make leagues with the heathen, yet the divine sentence had obliged them to yield to the king of Babylon." Much like Pontius Pilate's authority over Christ, which was given to him for a specific redemptive purpose, God who had before prohibited his people from entering into leagues and associations with the heathen, now made clear that his people were to serve the babylonians for a time. Thus, there is in this situation a non-normative aspect to Gedaliah's oath of allegiance. And again, there is no requirement in the oath that I can see to contradict God's law. The same could be said of Ezra or Nehemiah if indeed oaths of allegiance were required of them. Indeed, in their case, permission was given to re-establish the temple worship. 

George Gillespie has written well on the subject of God's commandments which forbid his people to enter into leagues, associations or covenants with the heathen in matters religious or civil. This is a principle that is consistently upheld in the OT, and has not been revoked in the NT. Gillespie allows for peace treaties with heathen nations, but not if there is compromise with the true faith. 

The US Constitution, as I see it, requires of government officials and the like to uphold the doctrine of religious pluralism, a doctrine which denies the kingship of Christ over the state. Despite the much good that can be found in the document, and regardless of the other evils which I have listed separately, this alone disqualifies the oath of loyalty to the Constitution as lawful in my view, based on the Scriptural teaching of the Confession above, and taking into account the particular examples of Zedekiah and Gedaliah, as well as others which I have studied and addressed.


----------



## twogunfighter (Apr 25, 2005)

Andrew

I appreciate your explaining your position. I do not agree but the horse has been whipped quite throroughly; no need for me to keep restating the already argued points.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by twogunfighter_
> Andrew
> 
> I appreciate your explaining your position. I do not agree but the horse has been whipped quite throroughly; no need for me to keep restating the already argued points.



Thanks, brother.


----------



## Jonathan (Apr 25, 2005)

Very interesting conversation, thanks for all your feedback and positions, very helpful. 
As for my joining the military; I feel right now that it is not the wisest decision. Being a very young Christian, I do not see it to be wise to throw myself into such a situation, with the likelyhood of being away from good solid teaching and Christian influence. I believe that I must put the kingdom of God as my primary focus and strive for that first. Where it will lead me I don't know (whether ministry, desk-job, etc), whatever the case, I trust God to guide me. I would appreciate your prayers in this rather hard time. All the decisions  very intimidating sometimes to take that next step. Feels like my life just switched lanes to the high-speed lane. Thanks again.


----------

