America, Behold thy gods!

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully more to come...

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

"This begs the question: Did the early Christians see their religion as having political implications, by virtue of this principle of resurrection, or did they see it as merely a private spiritual experience to be kept out of the public realm?

When one thoroughly examines the New Testament, it is readily apparent that not only was Christianity intended to be politically revolutionary, but also that Jesus of Nazareth was to be the head of this movement throughout history."
Martini, Gabriel, There is Another King, Jesus, p. 12

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Hopefully more to come...

Let's hear it, brother!

 

[Pilgrim]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully more to come...

 

[Romans922]

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Romans922
Instead of complaining about it, why don't you do something about it like write history books or running for office to change such things?

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

Shall I go on?

 

[Peter]

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Romans922
Instead of complaining about it, why don't you do something about it like write history books or running for office to change such things?

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

Btw, I agree with you.

 

[Michael Butterfield]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
. . . .

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield

Originally posted by Draught Horse
. . . .

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

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

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

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Michael Butterfield

Originally posted by Draught Horse
. . . .

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

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

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

 

[Puritanhead]

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

I will post the Mecklenberg Declaration.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

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

So you wish to return to "Theocratic Puritanism"?

 

[SolaScriptura]

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by puritansailor

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

So you wish to return to "Theocratic Puritanism"?

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

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

 

[Romans922]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by Romans922
Instead of complaining about it, why don't you do something about it like write history books or running for office to change such things?

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

Btw, I agree with you.

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Romans922

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by Romans922
Instead of complaining about it, why don't you do something about it like write history books or running for office to change such things?

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

Btw, I agree with you.

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

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

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

I was teasing you about the postmillennial statement.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Richard King]

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



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

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

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by puritansailor

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

So you wish to return to "Theocratic Puritanism"?

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

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

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by puritansailor

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

So you wish to return to "Theocratic Puritanism"?

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

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

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

I'd volunteer!

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by puritansailor

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

So you wish to return to "Theocratic Puritanism"?

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

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

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

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

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by puritansailor

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

So you wish to return to "Theocratic Puritanism"?

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

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

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

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

 

[Robin]

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

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

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

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

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

Here I stand.



Robin

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Originally posted by Draught Horse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doug Kelly again:

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

Further evidence

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

Here I stand.



Robin

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

 

[crhoades]

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

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

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

Insert word "Trinity". The concept is biblical.

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

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

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

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

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

Here I stand.



Robin

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

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by crhoades]

 

[RamistThomist]

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

 

[Robin]

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

Paul's letter speaks for itself.

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

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

I must stand with Paul.

Courteously,

Robin

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

Inquiring minds want to know....