The Pledge of Allegiance

[Grant]

@Timotheos

The RPCNA took a pretty hard & clear stance I think in 1908-ish for Christian involvement in USA politics.

https://puritanboard.com/threads/taking-an-oath-of-office-u-s-a-context.98817/

 

[Solparvus]

So you are against taking oaths even though WCF has a chapter on taking oaths?

So long as the oath requires nothing sinful in itself. As Ch 22 par VII says, VII. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise or ability from God.

Swearing as an American magistrate to never countenance the church is against Isaiah 49:23, Psalm 2, violates the title of Minister of God in Romans 13, causes the government to fail to reward the very highest of all goods, prevents the most effective terrors to evil, and runs the purpose of the magistracy in the first place.

In essence, I would be swearing to do things for which I may not then turn around and ask God to allow the church to live a peacable and quiet life in all godliness and humility according to 1 Timothy 2. I would be an enemy to that prayer.

 

[Solparvus]

@Timotheos

Might I add...

VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want; whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties, or to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.

An oath is made before God, so He must approve of it. So it may not run contrary to Hus Word. The purpose must be to better fit me to do the thingd I am commanded to do. I may expect nothing for an oath which I can't expect Him to bless. A good parallel is a vow of singleness or poverty. Vows are good, but not then.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

One thing that the disinterested reader will notice about these discussions is that nothing or no one is ever pure enough for some of our brethren.

The United States' Constitution is deemed beyond the pale because it does not recognise God. But then the Pledge is judged to be a bad thing, even though it does recognise God because it does not mention the Trinity. If the Pledge were amended to explicitly mention God the Holy Trinity, that amendment would still not be good enough because Romanists could agree to it. If the Pledge were further amended, so that it recognised God the Holy Trinity and the Protestant religion, then that change would not be good enough because people who are not Presbyterians good agree to it. If the Pledge recognised the divine right of Presbyterianism, it would still not be acceptable because it does not recognise the Lordship of Christ. If it did acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, it would still not be good enough for them because it did not recognise the mediatorial kingship of Christ over the state. And on and on it goes.

 

[Grant]

I will just that I do resonate with the RPCNA position and it is something that is likely on my mind more than non-federal employees. However, I have yet to get all the way in the RP camp on this matter. I already took the Oath in 2016 and it cannot be amended (I checked).

Like the RPCNA brothers here, my biggest hang-up is the constitutions freedom of religion. However, I wonder if that was originally meant to be theistic (Baal Included) or was it meant to be within the God of scripture, in other words giving freedom to protestant denominations. That seems plausible considering the religious context of that day. Of course today "religous freedom" is troublesome (ex. Satanism protected), but what was it originally meant to be that?

 

[Afterthought]

Just dropping by to add a couple of thoughts (I don't take the Pledge for similar reasons as Vic)...

1) Sins of omission are different from sins of commission. Swearing to uphold the Constitution of a body that sins by omission is different from swearing to uphold a constitution that sins by comission.

2) The U.S. Constitution allows for an ammendment process. Swearing to uphold it is therefore not an absolute commitment to the Constitution in its current form.

3) The establishment principle is only operative in a Christian country, which the U.S. is not. It is a super-added duty on the Christian civil magistrate. The establishment of a church occurs after a period of sowing the gospel and growth of a Christian populace. If a Christian came into power in the U.S. right now, it would seem to me then--that given the current progress of the gospel in the U.S.--that he has done his duty for the church if he advocates for changes to promote the church's well-being and uses current powers (e.g., tax exemption) to also do so and resist powers (e.g., the LGBT lobby) that seek to persecute the church.

Edit: These lectures on the Pledge by Vaughn Hamilton are also interesting: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/usa-residents-only-pledge-of-allegiance.90419/#post-1110789

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

While I am not necessarily apologising for taking oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution, part of the confusion in these discussions seems to stem from people assuming that an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution is analogous to an oath to own the Westminster Confession as the confession of your faith.

From what I recall from a previous conversation I had on this board with Dr Strange,[1] an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution does not imply approbation of all of its contents (or else one taking such an oath could never seek to amend it) but merely that it is the legitimate system of government under which one lives.

[1] My conversations with Dr Normal, by way of contrast, are not so profound.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

1) Sins of omission are different from sins of commission. Swearing to uphold the Constitution of a body that sins by omission is different from swearing to uphold a constitution that sins by commission.

One point that should be kept in mind in relation to the American RPs critique of the Constitution, which, for the most part I still agree with, is that it originally required the swearers to uphold and enforce laws concerning slavery, which the RPs judged to be sinful.

 

[Grant]

To be clear I am fine with abstaining from the pledge but I don't abstain on the mere fact that it would lead me to say "one Nation under God". I like that phrase.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

If you hold that the U.S. Constitution is illegitimate, then keep in mind that you run afoul of Westminster Confession 23.4, which recognises that non-Christian governments are legitimate even though they obviously do not uphold the first table of the law. As Ramón notes, the establishment principle is something to be pressed on Christian magistrates professing the gospel of Christ. The legitimacy of a civil government depends neither on the state having a Christian constitution nor on the magistrate himself being a Christian.

 

[Grant]

Besides don't we need Christians in the new US Space Force so we can get a reformed Church on the Moon

P.S. Just an attempt at mood lightening.

 

[RamistThomist]

From what I recall from a previous conversation I had on this board with Dr Strange,[1] an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution does not imply approbation of all of its contents (or else one taking such an oath could never seek to amend it) but merely that it is the legitimate system of government under which one lives.

Correct, otherwise we would have to affirm the 16th amendment as wise and good, which it isn't. It is Marxism.

 

[Solparvus]

How can you pray for God to put them there but condemn those that do at the same time (strictly speaking for US context)?

Pray that God ordains they get in by lawful means.

So I still do have genuine questions on the above. If the mods feel it is too off topic then feel free to delete.

1. Were there any Christians on the City Council?

2. Are you saying that Christians in the USA can break local neutral ordinance laws (noise control) to promote their cause? I assume he could have preached the gospel near the clinic without a microphone.



3. The amplification Law? Is that the law that was changed or was it the legalizing of abortion law that changed?

From my perspective the microphone law was a cloak for evil. And GR law did not forbid the use of amp (maybe I wasnt clear). It was unclear as to the standard... which the ordinance revision changed.

Hearing in that location is quite difficult because of where you are legally permitted to stand in relationship to the entrance.

In any case, obey God rather than man.

Sadly, they did not do away with abortion at the meeting. However, the clarification of the noise ordinance was a result of the suit.

Were any Christians on the council? Dont know. This is a city that, this past summer, added sodomites to the list of protected classes. It is now in force.

One thing that the disinterested reader will notice about these discussions is that nothing or no one is ever pure enough for some of our brethren.

The United States' Constitution is deemed beyond the pale because it does not recognise God. But then the Pledge is judged to be a bad thing, even though it does recognise God because it does not mention the Trinity. If the Pledge were amended to explicitly mention God the Holy Trinity, that amendment would still not be good enough because Romanists could agree to it. If the Pledge were further amended, so that it recognised God the Holy Trinity and the Protestant religion, then that change would not be good enough because people who are not Presbyterians good agree to it. If the Pledge recognised the divine right of Presbyterianism, it would still not be acceptable because it does not recognise the Lordship of Christ. If it did acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, it would still not be good enough for them because it did not recognise the mediatorial kingship of Christ over the state. And on and on it goes.

So do you think I should be able to participate in the same prayer meeting as Hindus, Buddhists, liberal Congregationalists and non-Messianic Jews? Or recite the same pledge at the same time, all to this god referenced in the pledge?

Or is it lawful for me to swear that I will not countenance the church in any way? Can I do that so I may get in office in order to countenance? Lying under oath is a bad start to such an endeavor.

And does God accept prayers directed to Him as the "unknown God"--which, far as the Pledge (as others in this discussion agree to) and the First Amendment are concerned, is the god intended, as no particular religion may be established, favored, countenanced or supported?

I think you are forced to say that God abominates such things.

You mentioned in another place Dr. Strange's words that taking the oath doesnt mean agreement. Nonetheless, it's a sure bet that were an US civil leader to attempt open countenance of the church with funds or anything else that he will be opposed on 1) grounds of the First Amendment, and 2) he swore as a condition of his office to uphold the First Amendment. That just seems to be plain reality.

 

[Grant]

In any case, obey God rather than man.

This is only true if the magistrates law requires you to break God's law. It is sinful to fail to submit to the magistrates law where it does not require you to break God's law. The magistrate passing a law on ALL citizens to reduce electrically amplified noise is not sinful in itself.

Were any Christians on the council? Dont know.

Okay, but this is an important question. We need Christians on both ends in the USA. I would suspect their were likely some Christians on the council.

You mentioned in another place Dr. Strange's words that taking the oath doesnt mean agreement. Nonetheless, it's a sure bet that were an US civil leader to attempt open countenance of the church with funds or anything else that he will be opposed on 1) grounds of the First Amendment, and 2) he swore as a condition of his office to uphold the First Amendment. That just seems to be plain reality.

Ironically, would not the RPCNA and the RPCGA condemn a church for taking advantage of government tax breaks or government funding? This is what I keep wrestling with...the practical out-workings just seem impossible.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

So do you think I should be able to participate in the same prayer meeting as Hindus, Buddhists, liberal Congregationalists and non-Messianic Jews? Or recite the same pledge at the same time, all to this god referenced in the pledge?

Or is it lawful for me to swear that I will not countenance the church in any way? Can I do that so I may get in office in order to countenance? Lying under oath is a bad start to such an endeavor.

And does God accept prayers directed to Him as the "unknown God"--which, far as the Pledge (as others in this discussion agree to) and the First Amendment are concerned, is the god intended, as no particular religion may be established, favored, countenanced or supported?

I think you are forced to say that God abominates such things.

I said nothing about prayers. All I am saying is that you cannot complain about God not being in the Constitution while complaining about him being mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance. I notice that you have not addressed the central point of my post: namely, where does this purity spiralling end? At what point would the U.S. Constitution or the Pledge of Allegiance ever be acceptable to you?

If you are going to maintain that it is a sin to use the words "under God" in the context of the Pledge, you are going to need to prove it. Thus far, no one has done so. Remember, that the Larger Catechism lists as a breach of the first commandment the "denying or not having a God" (105). Hence, when a nation's constitution or other expressions of patriotism recognise that there is a God, we can hardly complain about that specific point. We can, of course, encourage them to do more and recognise the Lordship of Christ over the nation. But the recognition of God's rule over them is legitimate as far as it goes.

You mentioned in another place Dr. Strange's words that taking the oath doesnt mean agreement. Nonetheless, it's a sure bet that were an US civil leader to attempt open countenance of the church with funds or anything else that he will be opposed on 1) grounds of the First Amendment, and 2) he swore as a condition of his office to uphold the First Amendment. That just seems to be plain reality.

If he were to attempt to countenance the church, the orderly way to do so with respect for the existing constitution is to seek the amendment of the existing constitution. The establishment principle does not mean that you completely disregard the existing legal procedures under which one lives.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

@RPEphesian - Jake, you may find it useful on some of these issues to read Matthew Winzer's article on theonomy in the CPJ. While I disagree with Rev. Winzer on mediatorial kingship and a few other things (I am still a Diet Theonomist), his discussion of Christian constitutionalism is worthy of consideration.

 

[Grant]

@RPEphesian - Jake, you may find it useful on some of these issues to read Matthew Winzer's article on theonomy in the CPJ. While I disagree with Rev. Winzer on mediatorial kingship and a few other things (I am still a Diet Theonomist), his discussion of Christian constitutionalism is worthy of consideration.

Links?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Links?

You have to purchase the 2009 edition of the Confessional Presbyterian Journal to read it, you cheap-skate. Lay off the burgers for a few days, and you will be able to afford it.

 

[Grant]

you cheap-skate. Lay off the burgers for a few days, and you will be able to afford it.

Hey I resemble that statement

P.S. Give me a purchasing link.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

And to further clarify, I am not even arguing at present for taking oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution or even to take the Pledge of Allegiance, all I am doing is pushing back against arguments made against doing so that run contrary to the original intent of Westminster Confession 23.4.

The Confession makes it abundantly clear that a civil government neither has to be Christian, nor uphold the first table of the law, nor have an established church, nor submit to the Lordship of Christ in order to be a valid government. That being the case, from a confessional standpoint there can be no sin in recognising that such a government, notwithstanding these deficiencies is the ordinance of God nor in giving your allegiance to the nation over which it rules.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

P.S. Give me a purchasing link.

Hast thou never heard of Google? What else do you want me to do? Make your dinner for you?

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

And to further clarify, I am not even arguing at present for taking oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution or even to take the Pledge of Allegiance, all I am doing is pushing back against arguments made against doing so that run contrary to the original intent of Westminster Confession 23.4.

The Confession makes it abundantly clear that a civil government neither has to be Christian, nor uphold the first table of the law, nor have an established church, nor submit to the Lordship of Christ in order to be a valid government. That being the case, from a confessional standpoint there can be no sin in recognising that such a government, notwithstanding these deficiencies is the ordinance of God nor in giving your allegiance to the nation over which it rules.

Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, here is an extreme example. According to the standards it would not be a sin to recognize the legitimacy of the Third Reich?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, here is an extreme example. According to the standards it would not be a sin to recognize the legitimacy of the Third Reich?

There is a difference between a non-Christian government which is deficient and a tyrannical and terroristic regime. Civil government was made for man, man was not made for civil government. I would not recognise the Nazis for the same reasons that I do not recognise SINn Fein's legitimacy in Northern Ireland. Remember, though, that the Westminster Confession still recognises the "just and legal" authority of a non-Christian government.

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

There is a difference between a non-Christian government which is deficient and a tyrannical and terroristic regime. Civil government was made for man, man was not made for civil government. I would not recognise the Nazis for the same reasons that I do not recognise SINn Fein's legitimacy in Northern Ireland.

Right. And a nation that openly celebrates sodomy, the blaspheming of the marriage covenant and the genocide of the unborn? All justified by its own constitution?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Right. And a nation that openly celebrates sodomy, the blaspheming of the marriage covenant and the genocide of the unborn? All justified by its own constitution?

The U.S. Constitution does not authorise any of these things. Even if it did, that would not absolve you from all allegiance to the nation as opposed to the government. Prior to and during the Civil War, the RPCNA still supported the nation of the United States even though they dissented from the Constitution's toleration of black slavery.

 

[Seeking_Thy_Kingdom]

The U.S. Constitution does not authorise any of these things.

And yet the supreme court ruled all these evils to be constitutional.

that would not absolve you from all allegiance to the nation as opposed to the government.

Correct, which is why I oppose the constitution and government because my allegiance is to the nation and it’s people. Clearly the constitution and government failed us and amendments should be made to correct the wrongs and return to godly sanity.

 

[VictorBravo]

Hey I resemble that statement

P.S. Give me a purchasing link.

Because I want to support Chris any way I can:

http://www.cpjournal.com/store/products-list/the-confessional-presbyterian-5-2009/

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

And yet the supreme court ruled all these evils to be constitutional.

Indeed. Sadly, I think that the Supreme Court has proved itself to be a major weakness in the American Constitutional system.

 

[Solparvus]

I said nothing about prayers. All I am saying is that you cannot complain about God not being in the Constitution while complaining about him being mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance. I notice that you have not addressed the central point of my post: namely, where does this purity spiralling end? At what point would the U.S. Constitution or the Pledge of Allegiance ever be acceptable to you?

If you are going to maintain that it is a sin to use the words "under God" in the context of the Pledge, you are going to need to prove it. Thus far, no one has done so. Remember, that the Larger Catechism lists as a breach of the first commandment the "denying or not having a God" (105). Hence, when a nation's constitution or other expressions of patriotism recognise that there is a God, we can hardly complain about that specific point. We can, of course, encourage them to do more and recognise the Lordship of Christ over the nation. But the recognition of God's rule over them is legitimate as far as it goes.



If he were to attempt to countenance the church, the orderly way to do so with respect for the existing constitution is to seek the amendment of the existing constitution. The establishment principle does not mean that you completely disregard the existing legal procedures under which one lives.

And to further clarify, I am not even arguing at present for taking oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution or even to take the Pledge of Allegiance, all I am doing is pushing back against arguments made against doing so that run contrary to the original intent of Westminster Confession 23.4.

The Confession makes it abundantly clear that a civil government neither has to be Christian, nor uphold the first table of the law, nor have an established church, nor submit to the Lordship of Christ in order to be a valid government. That being the case, from a confessional standpoint there can be no sin in recognising that such a government, notwithstanding these deficiencies is the ordinance of God nor in giving your allegiance to the nation over which it rules.

Ah, now I understand. I was trying to figure out just what we were disagreeing on. But to be abundantly clear, I agree with every statement in your second quote. Every one.

To be clear too, despite my strong opinions in other places, Donald Trump is my President, and by no stretch am I a Never-Trumper. And I hold the United States government to be a legitimate government, and I feel it my duty under God to obey all the US just and legal authority in their just and legal commands, and do it for conscience sake before God.

The law is the law, to be obeyed so far as I violate none of God's laws, as Daniel and his friends obeyed Nebuchadnezzar. But in nothing do we obey man over God.

I hope that helps. I'll touch on your other thoughts later if possible.

 

[Solparvus]

This is only true if the magistrates law requires you to break God's law. It is sinful to fail to submit to the magistrates law where it does not require you to break God's law. The magistrate passing a law on ALL citizens to reduce electrically amplified noise is not sinful in itself.


Okay, but this is an important question. We need Christians on both ends in the USA. I would suspect their were likely some Christians on the council.


Ironically, would not the RPCNA and the RPCGA condemn a church for taking advantage of government tax breaks or government funding? This is what I keep wrestling with...the practical out-workings just seem impossible.

Will give thought on amplification and answer on other thread you started.

May answer more another time if available.