There are at least two large problems with the 3 points listed above. The first is that if the Bible is to be held as the highest law of the land that it is inevitably follows that the ministers of the gospel will be its principle interpreters and thus vested with an enormous amount of power. It was very true when it was spoken (was it by Lord Acton?) that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I shudder to think what would happen is the clergy in today's church were given POLITICAL power. It would be disastrous, and I speak as one who has been a believer for over 50 years, and a serious Bible student most of those years.
Secondly, the very bible that is held forth to be the highest law of the land specifically states in Matt. 5:33-37 (spoken by the Lord Jesus) and in James 5:12 that we are not to swear at all. The context makes it very clear that this is the ?profanity? swearing that many have thought it to mean, but rather specifically the taking of oaths.
Only recently as I have come to understand the great perversion of justice occurring today in American courts of law have I also come to understand that when the witness is called upon to "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" the CHRISTIAN'S firm answer is NO.
The reason for this is twofold: first, that the true believer ALWAYS tells the truth, and does not need a special occasion to make him continue, and the second, far more sinister, is that a great many courts DO NOT WANT THE TRUTH, and the believer, whose only Lord is the Lord Jesus, is not to bind himself to treat the court as his lord, i.e. he must do as the court says.
There is an alternative, which nearly all courts recognize, and it is simply to affirm. ?I affirm that whatever I say will be the truth.? In so doing, however, the Christian witness retains the power to say or not to say anything, and cannot be made by the court to say things that he feels by the witness of the Spirit of God should not be said.
Jan 15, 2009 Rating
An Argument For Oaths by: NTiminskas
Modern politics speaks for itself: moral relativism and liberalism are a direct result of a postmodern presupposition, that Absolute truth does not exist. This is nearly the first time in our collective human history when such a worldview has been so ubiquitously pushed.
Add to this an overpowering Political Correctness, the cost of a modern campaign which requires unbelievable sums of third-party money, and secular humanism which teaches its adherents that ?life? is more valuable than the quality and achievements thereof, and you have effectively turned our nation?s leaders into spineless guppies.
A religious test oath for public office is the only sure means for countering this ridiculous state. A true Christian, regardless of denomination, believes himself to be a bond servant of Christ, and even secular studies have shown that servants make the best masters.
Jan 18, 2009 Rating
Through Placing Faith In Man and Written Law Instead of God and His Law by: James Bartlett
I understand that some tact and flexibility are needed when working with people of many different backgrounds, but our founding father should have appealed to Biblical law and Biblical faith and written those ideas into the US Constitution explicitly. For any Christian who looks to the Word of God as the ultimate authority, would have thought it appropriate to acknowledge God in the most important document of the US. So, somewhere before the Constitutional Convention, our Founders decided (learned) that it wasn't necessary to speak of the Word of God in the public square or use it in public documents like the US Constitution.
That was the fatal error, to stop thinking and speaking the Word of God in public. This idea of thinking Biblically and speaking secularly was the fatal flaw, if they were thinking Biblically, and the same ideas are promoted today.
The satanic, politically correct pressures of 2009 are the same. Speaking the word of God in political circles or in legislative chambers is shunned as "unproductive" and "devisive."
We need bold Christian leaders who fear God more than man and speak the truth in love without compromise. To not do so is to repeat the fatal error of our founding fathers. Time Changers was a Christian movie that made this point too.
Jan 18, 2009 Rating
To Swear Or Not To Swear? by: dwoods
That is the question raised by the foregoing posts. Jesus said, "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God." (Mt. 5:34).
Yet Deuteronomy 6:13 says, "You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him, and swear by His name." Any thoughts on how to reconcile passages like these?
Jan 19, 2009 Rating
Enormous Power? by: Jim Harrison
Some questions come to mind as I read D. Gregory's comments in "An Argument Against Oaths" above. To begin with, I do not understand his concern with what he calls "an enormous amount of power" in the hands of ministers of the gospel. Would he prefer that this enormous power remain in the hands of humanists?
In a biblical society, a minister would wield no more power than any other citizen. His influence would register, but final decisions would be in the hands of elected officials in the civil government, which would be limited in its power.
If any culture is discipled as it should be, the fear of the Lord with its wisdom would prevail among the populace, the clergy, the statesmen, heads of households, etc. Would Mr. Gregory prefer what we now have, powerful politicians who leave their religion out of their politics? (so they say) as they make ungodly decisions?
In the light of all this, can we be fearful that influential ministers of the gospel would bring corruption? Is man's law superior to God's law?
Abraham Kuyper brought reformation to the church in Holland. He was also influential in the media, in education, and in politics. He held many institutional positions. Centuries earlier,
John Calvin rattled the Sword of the Spirit in Geneva and eventually rattled the world. He was respected in Geneva (on his second sojourn), but not always heeded. The battle continues to rage as we speak and will continue until the knowledge of the glory of the Lord shall fill the earth as the waters cover the sea.
Has the church abused its power in history? Does anybody have any other thoughts on the role of the clergy in culture?
Mar 22, 2009 Rating
We Are Deceived Into Covenant With False Gods by: Anonymous
Most American's are deceived by feigned word usage -- entering agreements with other gods, through voluntary consent/application, or acquiesence. Thus, bringing man's statutes binding on them -- the sin of idolatry...the punishment -- captivity. We have become the tail,instead of the head.
Not to say believer's are not saved by grace through faith, obedient from the heart. Only most have not separated from the world's ways to serve Christ as Lord.
Patrick Henry was not deceived into entering agreement with other gods. When Virginia entered into the Compact the States were already confederated, but sought a more perfect Union. Henry stated that he was no longer a Virginian, but an American. He would give no allegiance subjecting himself to any authority but Jesus. He was free to choose. So are we.
Choose you this day whom you will serve. The Constitution is not for/of America the nation, but instead for/of the "United States", defined as a political organization(Blacks 6th ed.)and the States entered compact with it. The people are not a party to it except as associated members by voluntary submission /participation.
No man in civil government forces us to beg by application to enter agreements that place us subservient to a foreign master. We do so by consent, being deceived by "words". We have been conned. Henry was correct -- it is "a rat". ("Know ye not that to whomever ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom you obey..." Romans 6:16)
PS: I love this site!
May 18, 2009 Rating
Agreeing, But Not Fully by: Ted
While I understand that the correct civil authority is covenant "theology". The US Constitution does not bar individuals or States for that matter from having a covenant form of civil government.
I never once thought that the US Constitution was keeping me from living as a Christian should concerning civil affairs. Obviously it allowed States to choose their own form of government, or i.e., the individual.
If the masses wanted to be Christian and wanted covenant civil law, then they were allowed to under the US Constitution.
For me "We The People" is not a pluralistic concept because I am a Christian. This statement meant to me and most other individuals that we are insured the chance to choose our form of government without the "Church" or the Legislators dictating to us how to.
When Israel choose to have a king they were using their free will to choose in their hearts their form of civil government, while to me and many others we hold the view that we should choose to govern ourselves according to covenant civil law.
Yes the US Constitution is fallible because we should be living according to covenant law, those who believe as such are a small minority and the masses will not accept covenant law until Christ return. The US Constitution is far better than communism, fascism, and allows individuals to choose covenant civil government. If I am wrong please reveal how to me.
May 18, 2009 Rating
Patrick Henry's Reaction to "We The People" by: Dennis
Ted, please check out Patrick Henry's understanding of the philosophy behind the phrase, "we the people." You'll find it in the Patrick Henry section of this site at http://www.america-betrayed-1787.com/antifederalists.html.
Of the major "founding fathers," Patrick Henry was probably the closest to what we would today describe as an "Evangelical Christian". He regarded use of the phrase "we the people" as an attack on the sovereignty of the states and was quite agitated about it.
For Henry the phrase captured the intent of the founders to abandon the decentralized, confederate form of government. This was a loose union of independent states that had defeated a great empire. It was similar to the free government of Switzerland and that established by God under the twelve tribes of Israel.
Henry charged the founders with setting up a centralized, national government. This powerful, Federal government was being established under the auspices of the entire mass of the people -- "We The People".
This was the same vainglorious impulse that animated the Children of Israel to reject God as their King in I Samuel 8. In both cases, the bitter fruit would be slavery under the taxing power of an energetic king. The evil genius of the U.S. Constitution is its power to charm its victims with the mirage of liberty in the very act of destroying that liberty.
May 19, 2009 Rating
States Surrendered Sovereignty & Religious Test by: Jim Harrison
Ted presents an interesting observation of covenantal freedom we enjoy under the U.S. Constitution. Although the Constitution itself is not a covenantal document, He says it “does not bar individuals or States for that matter from having a covenant form of civil government.”
Although state governments for the most part remained intact under the original Constitution prior to later amendments and Federal Court tampering, there is one thing Ted has ignored. Every state gave up a tiny portion of its sovereignty (be it ever so small) to a central entity, which claimed religious neutrality.
Ted’s language seems to indicate that he understands covenant theology well enough to know that there is no neutrality. If neutrality is a myth, then what right under God does any state have to ratify and submit one tiny bit of its authority to another god named “neutrality”?
Furthermore, “We the people” is the highest authority in this new entity to which the states submit in order to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” That is asking more of a neutral, no-religious-test, non-covenantal entity than it could righteously deliver since its officers do not have to meet the covenantal requirements as required by Scripture (Deut. 17:18-20).
Many of the states did require a religious-test oath in their charters and constitutions. But they signed on to a social contract that gave lip service to our Lord as a Cosmic Time Keeper instead of Lord over all.
God is not mocked. The natural law theory that undergirds the thinking of the framers was no match for the social Darwinism that eventually followed on its heals, bringing with it the very horrors of “communism” and “fascism” rightly renounced by Ted.
In addition, it is rather presumptuous to assume that “the masses will not accept covenant law until Christ returns” or that those who believe will always be “a small minority.” Was there any good thing in Ted or me that commended itself toward God? I think not, but God had mercy on us anyway.
Could He not do the same for our nation? You bet He could and will. The knowledge of His glory will fill the earth as the waters cover the sea through the power of the gospel. The Lord will vindicate His name in history as well as in eternity.
Jim Harrison
May 20, 2009 Rating
Same Words, Different Content by: Dennis
Thanks for your input, Ted. One thing we all tend to lose sight of is that the content of words may vary.
For example, when an Evangelical Christian hears the words "sacrificial death of Christ" he immediately thinks "I am a sinful person and Christ died in my place." When a Neo-Orthodox "Christian" hears those words he thinks "I am a basically good person and must imitate Christ by living sacrificially." Same words, different content.
It's not hard for any of us to slip into the "neo-orthodox mindset." For example, "For me 'We The People' is not a pluralistic concept because I am a Christian." The danger is, we may be assigning the words a content that they did not have had in their original Enlightenment context.
We are saying that words may mean one thing to you, but something completely different for me. So inadvertently we affirm that truth is relative.
Thus, we assert what the words mean to us, without regard to what they meant to their original author or his listeners. We are on safer ground to trust the analysis of a contemporary Christian like Patrick Henry who was experiencing the event in the context of his times.
