# What rock on which to stand?



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 20, 2007)

> Where is there a solid rock on which we may take our stand -- as did Samson -- against the hordes assailing our Scriptures?



Thomas,

This is continued from the thread, “Is bible corrupted?” (IBC), so as not to hijack it.

In your post #23 of IBC you bring up _Reynolds v. United States_ in an attempt to show that this case grounded American jurisprudence in English Common Law which in turn was based upon what you call “the Common Law Bible”. You put it like this:

The Court went straight back to the "Common Law of England of King James I" and the Christian meaning of marriage to dispell that notion. Marriage means in the American Commonwealth what it means to Protestant Christianity, _interpreted from the Common Law Bible by Protestantism into English Common Law_, and from there into American jurisprudence. [emphasis yours]​
This to support the contention, if I understand correctly, that the “Common Law Bible” – the AV – *is* the actual law of both America and Britain, although it has been set aside – disestablished – by some. 

To look at the _Reynolds v. United States_ (1878) case a little more closely: The Supreme Court averred that the state did have the right to interfere in certain “religious” activities (such as human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, incest, concubinage, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality), notwithstanding the First Amendment’s prohibition of interference with religious expressions, on the basis of the maintenance of moral and social order. After re-publishing Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (which assured the Baptists the government would not support a particular denomination – the famous “wall of separation between Church and State” – and persecute other denominations), the Court opined concerning the state’s right to interfere thusly,

Coming as it does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson’s letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. *Congress* was deprived of all *legislative power* over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to *reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.* (_Reynolds v. U.S._; 98 U.S. 164 (1878) at 164.) [emphasis added]​
The Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson’s intent for “separation of church and state”:

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is]…is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the state. (_Reynolds_ at 163)​
In another case concerning blasphemy (PEOPLE v. RUGGLES, 1811) the basis of government interference was made clear:

“Jesus Christ was a bast__d, and his mother a whore”….such words…were an offense at common law…[It] tends to corrupt the morals of people, and to destroy good order. Such offenses…are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society. (_People v. Ruggles_; 8 Johns 545, 546 (Sup. Ct. NY 1811))​
[These examples cited from David Barton’s, _Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion_ (Wallbuilder Press, 1996), pp. 37, 236)]

So it seems the Courts’ own views of this are quite other than a Theonomic or Christian Reconstructionist view. Granted that English law was indeed greatly derived from the English Bible, it is still a far cry to say that the English Bible “_is_ the Law” _of society_. It is the law in the spiritual kingdom of God; and it used to inform the civil law so as to protect the church and order the domestic health and peace of the nation, although this is decreasing rapidly.

Yes, the Universal Text of Scripture in the English-speaking world (and throughout the world via translations based on it) has been under attack since the Reformation, and increasingly in the last century and a quarter. In the Church of England, in the 1881 Revision Committee’s Jerusalem Chamber (where they met) an enemy infiltrated the inner precincts of the stronghold of God’s Word and boldly impugned its integrity, leaving in his wake a counterfeit jewel. A _flawed_ gem. This untrustworthy standard of excellence now gleaming in the crown of the Church – visible to all – has caused great devastation, for the glory has departed, the purity sullied *in the minds of great multitudes* – but the true gem retained in honor among a small school of disciples.

It seems this has much to do with a great weakening and falling away of many – an uncertain Word from the headquarters in Heaven – and the devastation has only begun. What this has to do with your view of the AV and its having

'...Juridical Authority by way of the Supremacy Act of King Henry VIII and sits in the Highest Office as "Head of the Church", in the name of the "most holy Trinity," established by the King of England in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, and recognized by the subsequent voluntary compact of the several States'​
I don’t know. What has the spiritual kingdom of Messiah to do with the politics of men, their councils and acts? What has the First Amendment to do with establishing or disestablishing the true Word of the King of Heaven and earth? Did our Lord really say, “My kingdom is not of this world”? Why do we keep letting the world try to creep in?

Do we – the church – think to bring society – the world – into “submission to God and His Law”? Is it not the role and duty of civil government to keep external order in the nation? Did the Lord Jesus really say, “I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” (Jn 17:9)

The textual issue a political issue? It may have political ramifications, for as (what appears to be) the church goes down into the abyss, society will more rapidly disintegrate, and the remnant true church upholding the standard of holiness unto the Lord – while keeping His Word intact in all its power and authority – will suffer at the hands of an increasingly demonized culture.

The true church is victorious, vibrant, and healthy. There are coming days of threshing, when the chaff will be separated from the grain. Multitudes of born again Christians will scramble to find sound churches as one after another slowly apostatizes. 



> “when the church without temporal support is able to do her great works upon the unforced obedience of men, it argues a divinity about her. But when she thinks to credit and better her spiritual efficacy, and to win herself respect and dread by strutting in the false vizard of worldly authority, it is evident that God is not there, but that her apostolic virtue is departed from her”
> 
> [source of citation], –John Milton


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 20, 2007)

Hello Brother Rafalsky,

Thank you for your post, there is much to explain and discuss.

Presently, my family is preparing to travel for the Thanksgiving holiday tomorrow, I'm not capable with the limited time this evening to explore the matter at the depth required. I would like to address a couple of small point and ask for clarification. I'm not a novice, though, nor have I dreamt up a wild eyed theory, this is where the evidence led me, over many years of study and research.

Barton and other's that you are appealing, or may appeal to, have done some good research, I would caution you though, as the scope their presentation is within their apologetic. Hence, they will often appeal to obiter dicta, and occasionally skew things in a way that is misleading.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you. If I have misinterpreted the evidence, then I certainly welcome your admonition and correction. Frankly, the subject matter makes me tremble in the fear of God, it is very serious.

Immediately, there are a couple of points that need to be clarified.

1. I don't see where your quotation of US v Reynolds is contradictory to my argument, it rather supports it. However, please realize it is a free exercise case, not an establishment case.

2. I don't see where I made a theonomic argument, I simply gave an informed presentation of the issue, from my understanding of the evidence. Remember, my presentation was within the context of your question.

3. I don't think I said the English Bible "is the Law" of society,...did I? I think I said something like, it sits at bottom of the Common Law and forms, frames and informs the meaning of the morality of the law. If I said it "is the Law," that is self evidently incorrect, as we have both State and Federal Constitutions, but it is certainly a part of it. Can you point me to where I said this, so that I may make necessary corrections to my dicta?

4. Your point on the sullied purity of Scripture "in the minds of great multitudes" is very good. And this is the issue, because Authority is not established by men, it is merely recognized. The Lord, however, has blessed us allowing us to receive a legal heritage where His enscripturated word sits in a lofty estate, protecting the peace and good order of His children without precedent.

5. Your Milton quote is excellent, that is the whole problem, as the Church today is completely entangled in the temporal world, instead of simply receiving the Scriptures in the lofty estate Providence provided and maintaining her independence.



> This to support the contention, if I understand correctly, that the “Common Law Bible” – the AV – is the actual law of both America and Britain, although it has been set aside – disestablished – by some.



6. The Bible and Christianity are part of the Common Law. It would, however, be all English versions from Henry VIII to King James I. However, it is not established in the sense that it is a political document, but the fountainhead of the moral force and meaning of the Common Law. It's still established in the Common Law, it's only been disestablished by the Church.

7. The textual issue a political issue? Yes, I believe it is a primarily an attack upon the political foundations of Protestantism, at least in the United States, because we have an established Faith, an established Bible and a disestablished Church. I'll have to flesh that out for you more next week.

Finally, I'll have to address all of your conclusions and questions next week, most of which you've went the wrong direction with it.

Cordially in Christ our Lord,

Thomas


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 21, 2007)

Thomas,

Thanks for your response. The impression I have gotten – possibly wrongly – is that you have sought to base the authority and relevance of the Universal Text for both church and society on governmental validation and establishment of it as such. When you have said,



> Only it has Juridical Authority by way of the Supremacy Act of King Henry VIII and sits in the Highest Office as "Head of the Church", in the name of the "most holy Trinity," established by the King of England in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, and recognized by the subsequent voluntary compact of the several States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an absolute bar against its disestablishment, but who would have thought that so great a Liberty would entice Christ's Church to start a Revolution against her King?



I have so understood it.

My quoting from the High Court’s ruling on _Reynolds v. U.S._ was simply to show that this ruling did not warrant the view of governmental application of Scripture as its law – which is a Theonomic or Reconstructionist view – but, in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, just the opposite, the drawing a distinct line between the roles of church and state respectively, per the Scriptures _and_ the Court. I only cited Barton to show my sources. Nor did I think the citations _obiter dicta_ but central to the case.

Perhaps I have erred in saying your view is that Scripture “is the law” (or meant to be) in England and the U.S. But this is what I have understood. _This_ is why, early on, I asked you if you would paint in broad strokes the basic principles of your paradigm, so that I might rightly apprehend the particulars you bring in.

I think I can depict the principles of my paradigm as I have requested of you to depict yours: It derives essentially from a Reformed Amillennial hermeneutic. The Kingdom of Christ is a spiritual kingdom that has its life and authority completely apart from the kingdoms of this world. While the kingdoms of the world (“the higher powers…the powers that be” –Romans 13:1) are indeed “God’s ministers” (13:6), they are often so against their will, as in the case of Imperial Rome under the Caesars, and their “ministry” is to order the external domestic life of the state and protect its citizens from violence and injury. God uses evil governments which persecute the church to purify His beloved through sufferings.

I defend the Scripture solely within the precincts of the Kingdom of God, apart from the politics and edicts of the world. I use history, especially the history of the transmission of the text, textual studies, the attestations of Scripture to itself, and the history of the Church. In these matters, what have I to do with the world, and what has the world to do with me, and the Word of my God?

The government of the church (which is the kingdom of Christ, or the part of it yet in the world) has no connection with the kingdoms of the world as pertains to its internal governance, and internal matters, such as the Holy Scripture, and its status.

This is why I have questioned your saying the textual issue is political, that is, in relation to the world’s politics. Of course the textual issue will _impact_ the politics of the world, as the core issues of a powerful and significant government – God’s nation (1 Peter 2:9; Matthew 21:43) – will impact a neighboring government; but in itself I do not see the textual issue as involving politics.

Thomas, I see your view is somewhat complex. In such cases a preliminary synopsis is of great help in giving understanding. The failure to do just this – with patience introducing a new and complex topic – was what led Ted Letis’ debate with James White (the “Theonomy L” fiasco) to fail. He wanted Dr. White to simply know what he was talking about – bringing in disciplines unfamiliar to White – and disdaining White for not knowing. A good teacher introduces his subjects so they can be understood by those unfamiliar with them.

When the “mystery of iniquity” (_anomia_, from _anomos_: *lawlessness*) 2 Thess 2:7, increasingly pervades society, that English common law based upon the English Bible will be effectively negated, as we see happening today, both in Britain and here in the U.S.

----------

May you and yours have a good Thanksgiving, Thomas (and all you other American PBers as well!). Here in Cyprus turkeys are hard to come by, and we are in the minority here anyway, so my wife and I and her twin sister will have a KFC chicken Thanksgiving dinner (with southern biscuits!), delivered to our home. We have much to be thankful for.

Steve


----------



## BJClark (Nov 21, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade;



> Multitudes of born again Christians will scramble to find sound churches as one after another slowly apostatizes.



I see this happening now...though I'm sure not the the extent it will get..


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 4, 2007)

Hello Brother Rafalsky,

I apologize for the delay, I'm struggling trying to get caught up at work. So, I'll only be able to briefly respond on these things until I can arrange more productive time. I wish I had the time available that you apparently do, but I can only work with what I have.

Also, it will probably behoove me to re-frame my position, at some point, in a more proper framework. Nevertheless, at present I'm at a loss precisely how to go about doing that, so I'll continue for the moment to see if I can explain some of my basic presuppositions.

You said:



> Thanks for your response. The impression I have gotten – possibly wrongly – is that you have sought to base the authority and relevance of the Universal Text for both church and society on governmental validation and establishment of it as such.



I'm not an Erastian. Thus, I'm not arguing that civil government authorizes Scripture, but Scripture authorizes civil government and it has recognized that in its establishment. This is consistent with the meaning of the Magisterial Reformation. That has real meaning that can't flippantly be dismissed or not even considered in the scope of the debate. Hence, in the American Commonwealth the Family, the Church and the State all coexist simultaneously upon a foundation of the historic Reformed Orthodox meaning of Sola Scriptura. Not upon a fuzzy principle of a hypothetical unknown text. I am arguing that no one of those institutions has the authority to pull the rug out from under the other two when they have jointly covenanted together upon that foundation.

Hence, the Reformed Church's displacement of the Confessional meaning of Sola Scriptura with a heretical doctrine is the foundational rebellion of every other sphere. Once the Church gave up its established Apostolic witness denying that it was the word of God then it licensed the rejection of God's Law in all of life.

You must understand that in terms of the Magisterial Reformation the American Commonwealth is an aberration having an established Faith, and an established Bible but a disestablished Church. The juridical meaning of the Bible at law is absolutely critical for the Church to maintain its independence.



> My quoting from the High Court’s ruling on Reynolds v. U.S. was simply to show that this ruling did not warrant the view of governmental application of Scripture as its law – which is a Theonomic or Reconstructionist view – but, in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, just the opposite, the drawing a distinct line between the roles of church and state respectively, per the Scriptures and the Court. I only cited Barton to show my sources. Nor did I think the citations obiter dicta but central to the case.



Quite the contrary, because the meaning of bigamy and polygamy is derived from orthodox Christianity's interpretation of the meaning of the marriage covenant which is derived directly from Scripture and established at Common Law. While the Court correctly recognized the distinct jurisdictions of both Church and State and it's limited authority, it did also recognize that the family, and thus the marriage covenant, was the foundation of all society because it exists simultaneously subject to both institutions and both of them are ordained for the government of the family in their respective spheres, hence the general government has jurisdiction to crimanlize bigamy and polygamy. 

In doing that it is recognizing Christian orthodoxy as the defining standard of American civilization and rejecting Mormonism and principally every opposing doctrine as being fundamentally opposed to the entirely of the social order.

You have to remember this is in the Utah Territory, not a State. In Marbury v Madison Chief Justice John Marshall, the author of judicial review, rightly declared: *"[t]he framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts as well as of the Legislature."*[1] This "free exercise" case of Reynolds v US rightly does that.

Both State and Federal Constitutions are Common Law documents embracing and incorporating the Common Law within their meanings. Justice Joseph Story, described as perhaps the greatest scholar to ever sit on the Supreme Court stated, *"There never has been a period of history in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation."*[2] Hence, in US v Smith, 18 US 153, 160 (1820) the Court held that when terms defined at Common Law are included in the Constitution the definitions *"are necessarily included..as if they stood in the text."* Story added, *"the Common Law is the law of liberty, and the watchful and inflexible guardian of private property and public rights."* [3]

James Madison, the Chief Architect of the Constitution, plainly stated: *"It is readily admitted that particular parts of the Common Law may have a sanction from the Constitution, so far as they are necessarily comprehended in the technical phrases which express the powers delegated to the government.*" [4]

Without the Common Law, Chancellor James Kent said, *"the courts would be left to a dangerous discretion to roam at large in the trackless field of their own imaginations."* [5]

The very term "Common Law" is derived from the _ius commune_ of the canonists of the Roman Catholic Church.

When the Church denied that the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture was the word of God and abandoned it for a hypothetical text, it then explicitly denied its existence in the American Commonwealth as being governed by the Common Law and thereby negated its independence and became a servant of the world subjugating itself under the world and a hypothetical law derived from the "trackless field of [the Courts] own imagination".

As a result we now suffer under an upside down mirror image of Biblical Law created at whim and no longer derived from historic "customs and usages, and maxims, deriving their authority from immemorial practice." [6]

As a disestablished Church it simply cannot have existence outside of an established Bible, it's just not possible brother. It may exist for a time, as it does now, but without some type of establishment that protects its legal right to exist, that is consistent with Scripture, then best we can do is meet in secret in homes as the world progressively outlaws our faith and conforms society to its basis of life. We certainly cannot proclaim, "Thus saith the Lord..." because that will be and is being progressively criminalized.

Once something is criminalized there is no longer any "free exercise of religion," afforded that practice. Today, with the very foundational institution of marriage being attacked, the best the Christian Church can do to defend itself is to attempt to amend Constitutions and thereby establishing that the family itself is derived from the State. When all that is necessary is to return to her established Bible as the fountainhead of the law in which the Supreme Court is required at law to receive.

Herein we see a truth in Scripture:

_"My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace. All that found them have devoured them: and their adversaries said, *We offend not, because they have sinned against the LORD, the habitation of justice, even the LORD, the hope of their fathers.*"_ Jeremiah 50:6-7

And there is the truth of it, as it applies to us, with all of the whining about the injustices in our society and its hostility toward Christianity it is the Church that has went from the mountain of the Lord to the hill of the world and they can and rightly do proclaim: *We offend not, because they have sinned against the LORD, the habitation of justice, even the LORD, the hope of their fathers.*

They would rather have their preferrence than God's Justice ruling them because they covenant with the world and imagine a vain thing, and like Israel of old, refuse to be governed under God as King and want a king like the nations around them.

Again, I ask, where is the controversy of religion if the critical text fundamentally alters no essential doctrine that the Church has universally rejected the established Bible?



> I defend the Scripture solely within the precincts of the Kingdom of God, apart from the politics and edicts of the world. I use history, especially the history of the transmission of the text, textual studies, the attestations of Scripture to itself, and the history of the Church. In these matters, what have I to do with the world, and what has the world to do with me, and the Word of my God?



This is a truncated view that defines the Kingdom of God in an antinomian sense as if Christians are somehow prohibited from exercising the Great Commission. It's not consistent with history or our mandate. In history, I find a unity of principle in the Magisterial Reformation with an intent to live under God in all of life, they had a word to give the civil magistrate for the proper government of men.

Ultimately, I don't understand this point of view as the Westminster Confession of Faith appealed to Parliamentary authority for its purpose of drafting the Confession.

My question is why does the Church want to live under the world, why does it no longer want Christ as its head, why does it want to be disenfranchised and have no Apostolic witness, and simply be a "head religion" defining Christ is Kantian terms?




> The government of the church (which is the kingdom of Christ, or the part of it yet in the world) has no connection with the kingdoms of the world as pertains to its internal governance, and internal matters, such as the Holy Scripture, and its status.



Well, that is my point.

When the disestablished Church abandons its established Bible, as the fountainhead of its government wherein the civil authority has recognized it has no jurisdiction, and no longer provides an infallible word whereby that civil government is required at law to receive, it thereby abandons its ministry entirely and becomes an instrumentality of the world.



> This is why I have questioned your saying the textual issue is political, that is, in relation to the world’s politics. Of course the textual issue will impact the politics of the world, as the core issues of a powerful and significant government – God’s nation (1 Peter 2:9; Matthew 21:43) – will impact a neighboring government; but in itself I do not see the textual issue as involving politics.



I think you are reading your interpretation into my statements when I say it is a "political issue." As you well know the textual issue exists for one purpose, to dislodge the estate of the Authorized Version and the Received Text. For the American Church it is a political issue because she derives all of her independence from that Bible's establishment at Common Law.



> Thomas, I see your view is somewhat complex. In such cases a preliminary synopsis is of great help in giving understanding. The failure to do just this – with patience introducing a new and complex topic – was what led Ted Letis’ debate with James White (the “Theonomy L” fiasco) to fail. He wanted Dr. White to simply know what he was talking about – bringing in disciplines unfamiliar to White – and disdaining White for not knowing. A good teacher introduces his subjects so they can be understood by those unfamiliar with them.



Yes, it is voluminous, but no difficult to understand. It's actually quite basic to the principles of self government in our Constitutional Republic, it's just that their is a great learned ignorance today and a perversion of history and the meaning of it in favor of new and novel doctrines. I'm sorry if I'm not very good at explaining it, I'm really just now working through precisely how to do that.

I hope you don't think I'm disdaining you, I just don't know where to begin without writing a book, and I don't have the capability to produce the lengthy commentary that you do to support my thesis due to lack of productive time to devote to such things.

I think these issues are important, and the story must be told, I've had it on my heart for several years to write on this subject as people need to understand that the Scriptures don't exist as some isolated construct only having meaning to the Church and one's salvation, they have established meaning to your marriage, to your children, to your property and your very public rights to gather together and worship God unmolested with liberty of conscience. All of these things that cost blood of untold thousands to win for us are just dismissed from the mere opinion of men who are not subject to such scrutiny and simply no longer believe that the Scriptures are reliable.




> When the “mystery of iniquity” (anomia, from anomos: lawlessness) 2 Thess 2:7, increasingly pervades society, that English common law based upon the English Bible will be effectively negated, as we see happening today, both in Britain and here in the U.S.



Yes, but this mystery of iniquity began in the Church and Judgment comes first to the house of God. 1 Peter 4:17



Footnotes:

1 5 US 137,179 (1803)
2 John Whitehead, The Second American Revolution (Elgin, IL: David C Cook Pub. 1982), p. 365
3 Ibid
4 Berger, Government by Judiciary, p 195
5 Kent, Commentaries on American Law (9th Edition) p 373, 1858
6 Justice Joseph Story, Misc. Writings, p 442


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 5, 2007)

Hello Thomas,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

When you say,



> You must understand that in terms of the Magisterial Reformation the American Commonwealth is an aberration having an established Faith, and an established Bible but a disestablished Church.



Are you referring to the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment, *“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”*?

You have said,



> As a disestablished Church it simply cannot have existence outside of an established Bible, it's just not possible brother. It may exist for a time, as it does now, but without some type of establishment that protects its legal right to exist, that is consistent with Scripture, then best we can do is meet in secret in homes as the world progressively outlaws our faith and conforms society to its basis of life. We certainly cannot proclaim, "Thus saith the Lord..." because that will be and is being progressively criminalized.



What would you say about the church _before_ the “Magisterial Reformation”? The church in the Roman Empire triumphed over its political adversaries even though neither its Bible nor its church were “established” in the Reformation sense. And did they not for a time “meet in secret in homes as the world progressively outlaw[ed their] faith and conform[ed] society to its basis of life[?]” “[They] certainly [could] not proclaim, ‘Thus saith the Lord...’ because that [was] criminalized.” And yet they overcame the Roman Empire – that is, the Faith overcame the world.

Let me ask you this: What do you think should be done that would reverse the dire situation we are in today?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 5, 2007)

Hello Brother Rafalsky,

You asked:



> Are you referring to the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?



I was referring more to the hierarchy of law of American Jurisprudence and also the 1788 alterations to the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 20 § 4, chapter 23 § 3, and chapter 31 §§ 1-2 which were made in accordance therewith. Are you familiar with this hierarchal structure of American jurisprudence?

The First Amendment wasn't added until 1791, although it's meaning was commonly accepted and understood since the United States Constitution was one of express powers, so it's certainly part of my reference, as it is an expression of the people's desire to maintain the liberty of the Church in a truer purity before unknown with an absolute bar against usurpation of her liberty. 

The First Amendment, properly interpreted, protects the Christian Faith from disestablishment whereby the civil government cannot claim the Divine Right of Kings, since the United States Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" Article VI § 2 in accordance with the hierarchy of law. Hence, the Common Law is where the Church finds her legal independence and religious liberty defining what is properly her jurisdiction and the meaning of the law.

But once she casts that off, then she no longer has a word or the definition of meaning that the civil government is required to receive, and they progressively dismantle Christendom enlarging the State's jurisdiction over areas they do not have lawful jurisdiction.



> What would you say about the church before the “Magisterial Reformation”? The church in the Roman Empire triumphed over its political adversaries even though neither its Bible nor its church were “established” in the Reformation sense.



The early Church existed as a sect of Judaism until she began outworking the implications of the Faith and applying them wherein Christ alone was recognized as King and High Priest, then she came into a more direct conflict with Rome.

They also had the Apostle's as a visible legible authority, we have the Scripture representing that same word given through the Apostle's, wherein the Lord said they would be taken before kings and rulers:



> "And it shall turn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist." Luke 21:13-15



Just as you believe that Providence so ordered things wherein the translators of the Authorized Version selected the textual base for that translation, I believe Providence has ordered history, for the glory of Jesus Christ, wherein that same word speaks to our adversaries whereby they "shall not be able to gainsay nor resist."



> And did they not for a time “meet in secret in homes as the world progressively outlaw[ed their] faith and conform[ed] society to its basis of life[?]” “[They] certainly [could] not proclaim, ‘Thus saith the Lord...’ because that [was] criminalized.” And yet they overcame the Roman Empire – that is, the Faith overcame the world.



Yes, and to the Glory of God. But what they didn't do was subordinate Christ to Caesar wherein their persecution arose and it became obvious to Rome that this perceived sect of Judaism was something quite different whereby...."they have turned the world upside down...and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus." Acts 17:6-7

Are we supposed to live in terms of Christ as a Vietnam type of faith and give back to the enemy ground we have won by the blood of our brethern? Are we supposed to take that which was upside down and turned right side up, back upside down?

Yet this is precisely what the modern Church demands in the critical text. She uproots herself and casts off the landmark of Protestantism and the progress of the Christian faith, and seems to cast aspersions upon the Biblical mandate that we live quite and peaceable lives, despising government and not being afraid to speak evil of dignities.



> Let me ask you this: What do you think should be done that would reverse the dire situation we are in today?



Well, I don't think it can be reversed - we have to go forward. I think this means we have to utilize the peaceful and legal means we can to restore the independence of the Church and stop "burning incense to Caesar and the genius of Rome."

I think probably one of the most important things that needs to be done is the Church needs to stop intermeddling in civil affairs and taking its membership before the law of unbelievers in violation of 1 Corinthians 6 and subordinating the sacraments to the rule of the civl magistrate as they presently do in Church licensure under Internal Revenue Code.

She has to begin exercising her rights to be a free and independent jurisdiction with Christ alone as her Head, that includes a return to the established Bible as the law of her King.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 6, 2007)

Thomas,

I suppose the “hierarchical structure of American jurisprudence” is on this wise: The Constitution in American jurisprudence constrains – circumscribes the authority and the structure – of those laws which are subordinate to it. Over the Constitution would be [what J.J. Whitehead terms] “the fundamental law”, which is witnessed to by what the Declaration of Independence calls “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, that being the revelation of God as known in the Bible. (_The Second American Revolution_, by John Whitehead, Crossway edition, 1982, p. 75)

Thomas, what is your occupation? Are you an attorney? Do you know if my edition of Whitehead’s book is the same as your Cook edition?

Perhaps a good way to introduce your view of things would be to urge your readers to go over the first two chapters of _The Second American Revolution_! Now I begin to understand what you are saying.

Let me restate my question (the topic of this thread) which I raised in post #12 of the “Is bible corrupted” thread: *Where is there a solid rock on which we may take our stand -- as did Samson -- against the hordes assailing our Scriptures?*

I happen to agree that we – a church, that is – should be independent of the IRS and the U.S. government, meaning I would pay whatever taxes are due and not seek exempt status….this is if I should ever pastor a church in the U.S.

Now I appreciate – I think – what you have been saying about the Magisterial Reformation, and U.S. jurisprudence being founded upon Common Law which in turn is founded on God’s Law in the Bible. Assuming for the moment that Whitehead’s take on things is correct, where does that leave us now – in terms of how to proceed from here?

You assert, I think, that this evil political situation has befallen us because the church has departed from its source of authority and power – the sure Word of God – and holds instead to a theoretical Scripture fabricated by, initially, at least, unbelieving textual experts who were allowed to infiltrate the precincts of the holy. As a result the church has abdicated its unshakeable status as the vessel through which God speaks because it has exchanged its unshakeable Divine Witness for an uncertain and widely controverted witness.

If the understanding of the Scripture known as Amillennialism is true – and I hold it is – then it is by the Providence of God these things have come upon us. And not only that, but they will get worse. And if this is true, what is to be our course?

I would say this: remove our churches from all government control and legal oversight; take no advantage of tax exemptions, either as bodies or individuals. Exist below the radar of government scrutiny, at least as far as financial accountability is concerned.

Perhaps I am wrong – though I do not think so – the encroaching darkness thickens, and the foundations of our secure status in America and Europe are rapidly being undermined, so that, as you put it, we will continue to be “progressively criminalized.” The Bible and the people of God are _hated_ by many, and perhaps the incoming government (I include the 2008 elections) will be their representatives.

Endeavor to maintain doctrinal purity and godly practice in our communions; hold to the sure standard of Scripture, that being the Authorized Version.

Now as for my question concerning the solid rock, it is the Scripture itself. It has the power to attest to itself. Not all will hear, nor will all heed the argument I posit. I seek to do it because I believe the Lord has put it on my heart so to do.

I am not an original thinker. I use the work of those excellent scholars the Lord has raised up, and compile it for popular use.

What this is all about is presenting the case that the voice of the Shepherd is sure, not only in the main, but in the minutiae, that His sheep may with confidence follow Him, never to perish. He has kept His promise:

*Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.* (Matt 24:35)​
------

It has been quite edifying, discussing this with you. I am open to hearing your views.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 7, 2007)

Hello Brother Rafalsky,

You said:



> I suppose the “hierarchical structure of American jurisprudence” is on this wise: The Constitution in American jurisprudence constrains – circumscribes the authority and the structure – of those laws which are subordinate to it. Over the Constitution would be [what J.J. Whitehead terms] “the fundamental law”, which is witnessed to by what the Declaration of Independence calls “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, that being the revelation of God as known in the Bible. (The Second American Revolution, by John Whitehead, Crossway edition, 1982, p. 75)



Let me expand this a little more. You are exactly correct in your reference to the "Law of Nature and of Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence. 

First, lets look at the situation, because there are some issues here that many people don't seem to understand. The King of England was the feudal head of the American colonies, each with a separate charter and legislature - or house of burgesses. As a result of the 1688 Glorius Revolution the English Parliament began exercising Divine Rights, Vox Populi Vox Dei, equal to those claimed by the King.

When Parliament started legislating against the Colonies, the American's called it the "King in Parliament." The legal relationship of the American Colonies was no different than that of Scotland under King James, the same King but separate governments. The concept of "no taxation without representation" wasn't that they were excluded from having a voice in the English Parliament, but that it had no jurisdiction to tax them, they didn't want a voice in the English Parliament - this is the "unwarranted jurisdiction" of the Declaration of Independence. It was a negation of their Charters under the King which he was responsible to maintain for free English men as their feudal head.

In legal contemplation the Declaration of Independence was not a revolution but simply the exercise of their legal rights under Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, so they were rejecting the Divine Right of Kings consistent with the teaching of the Reformers such as Theodore Beza in Rights of Magistrates, Vindicae Contra Tyrannos, Samuel Rutherford in Lex Rex, and John Eliot in The Christian Commonwealth.

On July 4th 1776 they acted to preserve their English Liberties which necessitated a separation from the King as their feudal head because he had "unkinged" himself. On August 2nd, 1776 Samuel Adams, the Father of the Revolution, presented the Declaration to Philadelphia in which he explains the meaning of it saying...

"Our forefathers threw off the yoke of Popery in religion; for you is reserved the honor of leveling the popery of politics. They opened the Bible to all, and maintained the capacity of every man to judge for himself in religion. Are we sufficient for the comprehension of the sublimest spiritual truths, and unequal to material and temporal ones? Heaven hath trusted us with the management of things for eternity, and man denies us ability to judge of the present, or to know from our feelings the experience that will make us happy. "You can discern," they say, "objects distant and remote, but cannot perceive those within your grasp. Let us have the distribution of present goods, and cut out and manage as you please the interests of futurity." This day, I trust, the reign of political protestantism will commence. We have explored the temple of royalty, and found that the idol we have bowed down to has eyes which see not, ears that hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone. *We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought and dignity of self-direction which he bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, may his kingdom come!*"

The source of the definitions of the Law of Nature and of Nature's God is William Blackstone's Commentaries of the Laws of England, Vol 1, Section 2, "On the Nature of Laws in General:"

"MAN, confidered as a creature, muft neceffarily be fubject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being....And confequently as man depends abfolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is neceffary that he fhould in all points conform to his maker's will.

THIS will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, eftablifhed certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; fo, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himfelf in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in fome degree regulated and reftrained, and gave him alfo the faculty of reafon to difcover the purport of thofe laws....

...THIS law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himfelf, is of courfe fuperior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and fuch of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

BUT in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is ftill neceffary to have recourfe to reafon; whofe office it is to difcover, as was before obferved, what the law of nature directs in every circumftance of life; by confidering, what method will tend the moft effectually to our own fubftantial happinefs. And if our reafon were always, as in our firft anceftor before his tranfgreffion, clear and perfect, unruffled by paffions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by difeafe or intemperance, the tafk would be pleafant and eafy; we fhould need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reafon is corrupt, and his underftanding full of ignorance and error.

THIS has given manifold occafion for the benign interpofition of divine providence; which, in compaffion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindnefs of human reafon, hath been pleafed, at fundry times and in divers manners, to difcover and enforce it's laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy fcriptures. Thefe precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparifon to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their confequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowlege of thefe truths was attainable by reafon, in it's prefent corrupted ftate; fince we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wifdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the fame original with thofe of the law of nature, fo their intrinfic obligation is of equal ftrength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is (humanly fpeaking) of infinitely more authority than what we generally call the natural law. Becaufe one is the law of nature, expreffly declared fo to be by God himfelf; the other is only what, by the affiftance of human reafon, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.

UPON thefe two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to fay, no human laws fhould be fuffered to contradict thefe."

The Founding Fathers declared that the Law of Nature could not contradict Scripture and civil laws or even Kings could contradict neither. But this isn't an abstract concept of Scripture, existing in a multiplicity of manuscripts in the Greek and Hebrew languages, this is the Scripture that the English King has recognized as being the Authoritative Word of God for the rule of his Kingdom.

American Constitutionalism that arises out of this is "_the reign of political protestantism_," that is to say a sociology of Justification by Faith. It is a Christian Commonwealth derived out of and resting upon the meaning of the Magisterial Reformation and simply a continuation of the Reformation.

Both the Federal Government and the State's have a hierarchy of law, since the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over religion, it's more prudent to examine the hierarchy of the several States, since I live in Indiana mine is:

IC 1-1-2-1
Hierarchy of law
Sec. 1. The law governing this state is declared to be:
First. The Constitution of the United States and of this state.
Second. All statutes of the general assembly of the state in force, and not inconsistent with such constitutions.
Third. All statutes of the United States in force, and relating to subjects over which congress has power to legislate for the states, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
Fourth. The common law of England, and statutes of the British Parliament made in aid thereof prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First (except the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry the Eighth,) and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, and not inconsistent with the first, second and third specifications of this section.

Now, what does this mean? The Federal Government is limited to express powers, there is no power for it over religion or life, liberty and property of man defined inconsistent with Protestant Christianity. The State's have also excluded from its jurisdiction the Church, but it may regulate religion to the extent it is contrary to the public peace and good order (e.g., Reynolds v US).

The States as Christian establishments all plug directly into an Authority higher than Constitution. What this means in legal contemplation for the Church is that the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture is sitting in the office of King James I as the visible head of the Church under the Supremacy Act of King Henry the VIII and Queen Elizabeth the I as the "Supreme Governor of the Church". It is truly an amazing and incredibly beautiful thing that Providence has so ordered History that He has honored the truth of the meaning of Sola Scriptura and *established it for His Church* to the Glory of Jesus Christ! This is consistent with all of Reformed Theology and consistent with Chalcedonian Orthodoxy whereby Christ reigns in Heaven as King and High Priest and has given us a visible legible Apostolic witness with Juridical Authority of His Prophetic Office through which the Holy Spirit bears manifold witness to the ministry of the Word. It is an irresistible word unto the civil magistrate, at law, because the First Amendment, properly interpreted, prohibits the Federal Government from disestablishment of Christianity as the established Faith of this Christian Commonwealth.

I'm not saying anything that John Eliot didn't say or Samuel Adams or even Thomas Jefferson, by implication, didn't say: "Jesus Christ is the only right Heir of the Crown of England," [1] "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought and dignity of self-direction which he bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, may his kingdom come!" [Samuel Adams, Ibid], "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." [2]

Many years after the War for Independence John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were discussing their opinions as the foundation of the Revolution, Adam's stated:

"“I think, with you, that it is difficult to say at what moment the Revolution began. In my opinion, it began as early as the first plantation of the country. Independence of Church and Parliament was a fixed principle of our predecessors in 1620, as it was of Samuel Adams and Christopher Gadsden, in 1776.” [2]

Understanding the independence of Church and State in the American Commonwealth is absolutely critical to Christians today and the unique place that Scripture sits in its structure. If you look at the organic foundation of the American Commonwealth you won't find legal Sovereignty in the Constitutions, the Declaration of Independence or "the people," but rather in the Trinity. The Treaty of Paris of 1783 in which the King of England recognized the Independence of the American Colonies begins, "In the name of the most holy Trinity..." All of these things fit together into the hierarchy of law in American Jurisprudence. 



> I happen to agree that we – a church, that is – should be independent of the IRS and the U.S. government, meaning I would pay whatever taxes are due and not seek exempt status….this is if I should ever pastor a church in the U.S.




The Church in the United States, when properly organized, owes no taxes because it is not taxable, not "tax exempt". Neither are donations taxable to members and there is no problem or harassment on these issues, one simply has to obey the law and exercise your rights. The IRS has fully recognized, and the code fully recognizes, the truth of this.

The Church today, in federal licensure, is like Abram going down into Egypt and looking at his loving bride, but being afraid of Pharoah, has her tell him she is his sister when she is the wife of another man. It is spiritual adultery and something they do out of both ignorance of the law and fear of man. God doesn't excuse that though:

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6

The Church is outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and there are a lot of free Churches in the United States, it is a growing movement. If you've sinned you just have to accept responsibility of your sin and repent of it, instead of trying to blame the government for your sins. The early Church suffered death instead of taking license from Caesar, if they would have, they could have built Churches right next to the Temple for Diana, and avoided all of that persecution. It's not hard to form a Free Church in the United States, it's just inconvenient, American Christians won't be inconvenienced.

Income taxes only apply to the "internal revenue" of the United States, that is why we have an "Internal Revenue Service". That which is external is not subject to the Internal Revenue Service, that should be self evident, and the Federal government has no problem with that.

When the Church becomes a "tax exempt" non-profit religious organization it explicitly establishes itself as a taxable entity, it voluntarily waives it's rights to be a free and independent jurisdiction under penalty of perjury and accepts a cheap substitute of privileges. Furthermore, it trades its mission under the Great Commission for the Great Society and its primary responsibility is to promote the policies of the Federal government. And this is right, that which is funded by the Federal government should promote Federal policies, I don't disagree that. 

Our civil government is built upon contract law, the Constitution doesn't prohibit one from waiving your rights in contract with the civil government, it prohibits the civil government from usurping and infringing your rights. If the Church wants Federal benefits, then it must apply for them, which it does. It is important to understand that "tax exemption" is 100% funding of the organization by the Federal government, it is applying for federal benefits. In other words, the Church wants to advertise that donations are "tax exempt" and not enjoy being "non-taxable," which it can't advertise. The term "indulgence" means exemption, the Church has returned to selling indulgences. The Free Church cannot act as a publican.

I did a study on this called the Economics of Justification by Faith a couple of years ago where I traced the origin of the American dollar all the way back to Martin Luther. The dollar is a unit of weight, not value, the American dollar is the exact same unit of weight of the "thaller," which the Dutch called the "daller," and the Spanish called the "dolero," and the English called the "dollar," which was developed in response to the 95 Thesis. If you'd like to have a copy, I'll send it to you, it's quite interesting.

What is worse though is what it does to the sacraments and the government of the Church. When a Church enters into federal licensure, it becomes a federalized body politick, and the "First Amendment by way of the Fourteenth" is then applied to the State of its organization. This severs item 4 in the hierarchy of the State's law in which the Church is organized, and also any Christian public confession of faith in the State's Constitution, which would otherwise be legally imputed unto the Church. (e.g., WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government - legally strike "to ALMIGHTY GOD.")

The visible Church then becomes "institutionally Anglican" and becomes subject to the Federal hierarchy of law as a "negative pregnant" because it has agreed, again under *penalty of perjury*, that the civil government has jurisdiction over the Church. What that means, then, is that Church has resurrected the Divine Right of Kings of King James the I at Common Law flowing into the Federal Government and the United States is now visible head of the Church under the Supremacy Act of King Henry the VIII and the Supreme Governor of the Church under the Supremacy Act of Queen Elizabeth the I.

Instead of enjoying having Christianity as the established Faith, and the Juridical Authority of an established Bible, with the religious liberty of a disestablished Church; it then becomes an established Church with a disestablished Faith, and easier to read, but merely "religious" Bible that is "spiritual" only.

It may make a little more sense now, why Christians, especially Reformed Christians, despise the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture so much. 

*For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also*. Matthew 6:21

The modern Christian Church wants a "New King James," a "New American Standard," and a "New International Version" of government. Yes, brother, the textual issue is *entirely political in nature*, because it is completely about disestablishment of the Holy Scripture as it exists in English Common Law.

I'm proudly a King James Onlyist, I am really fond of the old dead and buried King James because I want to live under the living King of Kings, the Lord Jesus Christ. I want to be His servant and obey 1 Corinthians 6:20 and "glorify God in [my] body, and in [my] spirit, which are God's...."for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." Ephesians 5:30

Oh, silly me, I forgot that the "oldest and most reliable manuscripts" don't have "of his flesh, and of his bones." I guess I should know better, after all, it's business, it's not personal, right? I would suggest you read 1 Corinthians 6 in it's entirety right about now, it may be illuminating in a way that is quite enlightening.

Again, I ask, where is the controversy of religion if the critical text fundamentally alters no essential doctrine that the Church has universally rejected the established Bible? What is the heresy in which the Church is universally crying "Ad Fontes" at this point in time?

Brother, I've thought about this a lot, I think it is a political revolution, the Church is saying: "And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." Isn't that what they are saying, that God's Prophetic Word is "archaic" and their children have departed from the faith, give us a king like all the nations?

The motto of the War for Independence was "No King but King Jesus," the Founding Father's meant that literally and legally and they acted whereby Legal Sovereignty was recognized in the Holy Scripture. All they did was cast off their King, and then turned around and said "Lex Rex."



> Now as for my question concerning the solid rock, it is the Scripture itself. It has the power to attest to itself. Not all will hear, nor will all heed the argument I posit. I seek to do it because I believe the Lord has put it on my heart so to do



There are some of your questions that I simply cannot answer in public. From reading your works here, I agree you have a calling to defend the Faith once delivered to the Saints. I believe I also have that same calling. We need to pray, we need to pray for God's mercy, we need to pray for repentance.

In Christ's Bonds,

Thomas



Footnotes:

1 John Eliot, The Christian Commonwealth, pg. vi, 1659
2 Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists
3 The Works of John Adams, Vol X P 313


----------

