America, Behold thy gods!

[crhoades]

Robin,

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

How do you define theocracy/theocrat?

How do you view separation of church and state?

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

Should abortion be illegal and if so why?

How do you interpret WCF 19.4?

 

[RamistThomist]

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

Paul's letter speaks for itself.

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

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

I must stand with Paul.

Courteously,

Robin

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

Inquiring minds want to know....

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

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

 

[Puritanhead]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Puritanhead

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

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

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

 

[Puritanhead]

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

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by crhoades We want the laws of America to reflect just laws. I want abortion ended. I want rapists punished. I want murderers executed.

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

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

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by crhoades]

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by crhoades]

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by crhoades

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

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

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

That's in the Old Testament, though.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by crhoades We want the laws of America to reflect just laws. I want abortion ended. I want rapists punished. I want murderers executed.

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

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

That's in the Old Testament, though.

Creation ordinance - pre-Mosaic cult/cultus thingy.

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by crhoades]

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Originally posted by Draught Horse

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

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

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

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

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.

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Pilgrim

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Originally posted by Draught Horse

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

 

[Puritanhead]

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

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by crhoades
Robin,

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

How do you define theocracy/theocrat?

How do you view separation of church and state?

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

Should abortion be illegal and if so why?

How do you interpret WCF 19.4?

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

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

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

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

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

Scripture is clear.

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

r.

 

[RamistThomist]

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

Here is what your argumetn looks like:

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin

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

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

 

[Richard King]

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

 

[Puritanhead]

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

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by Robin

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

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

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

 

[Robin]

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

Here is what your argument looks like:

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

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

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

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

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

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



r.

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Robin]

 

[Robin]

A Mighty Fortress is our God

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


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


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


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

 

[pastorway]

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

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

 

[Bladestunner316]

Pat robertson

Sorry had too

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by pastorway
So who decides whether or not the laws are contrary to the Word of God???

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

 

[Bladestunner316]

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

 

[Puritanhead]

You can't have women on the Supreme Court!

 

[Bladestunner316]

you intolerant commie!!!

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin

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

Here is what your argument looks like:

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

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

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

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

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

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



r.

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Robin]

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by pastorway

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

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

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

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

God's word forbids homosexuality. Ergo...

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

Only the Church is given positive sanctions.

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