Right or Wrong if I Join the Military?

[SolaScriptura]

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

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

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

[Edited on 4-16-2005 by SolaScriptura]

 

[SolaScriptura]

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

Originally posted by twogunfighter
The military is a great gig for all the reasons outlined quite well by Ben.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bladestunner316]

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

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

Blade

 

[Dan....]

I have enjoyed reading through and pondering this discussion.

I have a couple of questions for Andrew and Peter :


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

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

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

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by Dan....
I have enjoyed reading through and pondering this discussion.

I have a couple of questions for Andrew and Peter :


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

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

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

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

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

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

Reformed Presbyterian Testimony 1911

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

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


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

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

etc.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Dan....
I have enjoyed reading through and pondering this discussion.

I have a couple of questions for Andrew and Peter :


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter XXX
Of the Right of Dissent from a Constitution of Civil Government

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

Jer. 29.4-7; Ps. 137; Acts 4.19; Matt. 6.10; Heb. 12.26; Micah 4.8, 13

3. Virtuous persons, who, in their private capacity, are endeavoring to further the true end of civil government, the maintenance of peace and quietness in all godliness and honesty, although they dissent from the constitution of civil government of the nation in which they reside, have a right to protection of their lives, liberties and property, they contributing their proportion of the common taxation; but they are not to act inconsistently with their declared dissent, and it would be tyranny to constrain them to such measures.

Rom. 13.3; I Tim. 2.2; Num. 15.16; Ex. 22.21; Rom. 2.3; Jer. 21.12; Est. 3.8-9

4. Christians testifying against national evils, and striving in the use of moral means to effect a reformation, should relinquish temporal privileges rather than do any thing which may appear to contradict their testimony, or lay a stumbling-block before their weaker brethren.

1 Kings 19.9; Heb. 11.24, 26, 36; Num. 23.9; Rom. 14.21

We therefore condemn the following errors, and testify against all who maintain them:

1. That it is lawful to profess or swear allegiance to an immoral constitution of Civil Government.

2. That Christians, under pretence of bearing an active testimony, are bound to effect a change in the moral state of nations with the sword.

3. That the enjoyment of no temporal privilege may be reliquinshed for the sake of peace, or for fear of making a Christian brother to offend.

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

William Symington's Messiah the Prince

 

[ChristianasJourney]

Jonathan,

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

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

 

[Jonathan]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[ChristianasJourney]

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 4-16-2005 by ChristianasJourney]

 

[kevin.carroll]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[kevin.carroll]

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

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

 

[kevin.carroll]

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

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

 

[Bladestunner316]

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

 

[kevin.carroll]

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

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

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

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

Sounds evil...

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

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

Thanks for the good discussion.

 

[kevin.carroll]

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

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

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Doesn anybody who adheres to the constitution as a biblical document have any proof of Christ being honored in the constitution? Dont take this as sarcasm I couldnt think of another way to say this as im quite tired.

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

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Thank the Lord for liberty of conscience!

 

[Peter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will start a separate thread on the Constitution.

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by Peter]

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Thank the Lord for liberty of conscience!

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

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Peter
Kevin, I was completely disgusted by your last posts.

Allow me to suggest the following remedies:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Thank the Lord for liberty of conscience!

 

[SolaScriptura]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 4-17-2005 by SolaScriptura]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Thank the Lord for liberty of conscience!

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

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

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



[Edited on 4-17-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

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

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

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

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

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

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Bladestunner316
Arnt we told by Jesus to not swear by anything? or take oaths etc.... ??

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

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

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

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

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

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

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