Commenting on "Secular" things from a Reformed Point of View

[SWhiteman]

This morning, I received the following request by private message:

Please explain what you mean by this -
"...commenting on "secular" things from a Reformed point of view..."

First, I admit the quote as accurate. I wrote that.

Second, "Secular" has meaning that we ought not be afraid of. "Sacred" vs. "Secular" basically means "Church" vs. "State." As a Christian, I believe that Christ is Lord, both over the King and the Priest. There is, properly, a separation between Church and State, but there is no possible separation of the king from the Christ without the king being in rebellion to his Lord.

Jesus is Lord with two crowns on His Head, King of kings and King of priests. We perceive the ability and duty of this forum and website to help equip those who would advise the kings of the world of the Crown Rights of our King over their petty jurisdictions.

Just like there are no Priests today in the Church, there are ad-Ministers, so too there are no Kings today in the State except as adMinisters of God's Law. Rom. 13. I'm told Luther called the State, "God's hangman." The State must recognise its proper rule as administrator of God's Law.

So we comment on "secular" things, things political, or civil-governmental in nature, from a Biblical perspective. This forum was not designed to comment on baptism, communion, denominationalism, etc., as those things properly under the jurisdiction of the Church. I obviously have opinions on those things -- stated better -- I have theological conclusions on those things. But since those things are conversations about the proper constructing of the Church (recognising their "administrative" role under the King), they run afoul of the purpose for which we instituted this website.

[J. Glenn Ferrell]

This is a good and necessary distinction and appreciated Scott.

Certainly,

“The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven...” (WCF XXIII:3);

but, if the magistrate “hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed,” (WCF XXIII:3) matters of ecclesiology (even denominations and church establishment), polity, doctrine, sacraments, discipline, and worship are relevant to the role of the ‘secular’ power, and possibly should be discussed here.

[SWhiteman]

Well now that's the big "if" no? I believe what many would deny, that indeed the Civil Magistrate does have the duty to suppress heresy and blasphemy, and to stop the corruption of worship, etc. from c. 23 of the confession. So if we must (perhaps we must) discuss, I want it to be in terms of what the Civil Government MUST DO to prosecute the Arminians who maintain heresies against God, or the Charasmatics who have admitted corruption and abuses into worship.

So, before we get into particulars, I believe the better conversation, the conclusion of which has already been established by the Word of God, and expressed correctly in c. 23 of the Confession, is, "Ought the civil government suppress the expression of religions contrary to Christ?"

[Relient J]

Scott, I have very much enjoyed hearing The American View podcast over the course of the last year and a half or so, and I've very much enjoyed reading and occasionally posting on the forum. However, based on your statements in this thread I have two questions I must ask that will tell me whether or not I can continue posting here, or if I must retreat to being a mere forum lurker: When you say that the purpose of the forum is to comment on secular items from a Reformed perspective, do you specifically mean a Calvinist perspective? If so, are non-Calvinist Christians welcome to weigh in on the discussions held here? Thank you for your time and consideration!

[jbrett14]

WOW! I guess I had the American View ALL wrong.

I did not know it was that legalistic and closed minded to hearing the letters of Paul and the prayers of Christ. WOW! What a sad day for this forum. I guess sooner or later, the "patriot act" was going to kick in here as well. Thanks George.

"If you are not with us, you are against us" comes to mind.

Shame on me for my ignorance of thinking this was a place to sharpen each others swords. Shame on me for assuming this forum (A public meeting or assembly for open discussion) was in FACT, a FORUM.

This marks a sad day for EVERYONE, including those it aims to please. For when we hush a few brothers and tell them they are not allowed to speak about issues within the Body, using Scripture alone, it is only a matter of time before ALL conversation is fruitless and of NO value to the strengthening of the Body.

Brother David has a unique gift of strengthening in ways not found in the "traditional" man. Not all men are strengthened the same way, but David had MUCH to offer, and when an opportunity came to address one of the most critical issues of our day in America - the DIVISION of Christ's Church, we STOP IT? Indeed a sad day, as I never would have dreamed, coming from THIS website.

It is not difficult to see why the "liberal left" calls Christians a bunch of hypocrites. For goodness sakes, we are afraid of examining the ONE and ONLY book that WE say we ALL believe in to be 100% truth. And don't give me the garbage about "it is causing division". If examining the Scriptures is causing division within ANY part of the Body. I would say someone has a much more serious problem than merely division.

I get a kick out of men who take One portion of Scripture and try to use it to justify their "righteousness", all while completely ignoring the words of rebuking by Paul, and the prayers of Christ.

Then they reverse the sin of division and blame those who want nothing more than what Christ wanted, as the one's causing division. Get real, you guys don't want unity, you merely want men to agree with YOU. You want a bunch of "yes" men who are unread and men who will praise you for your "righteousness".

I can just see the new "forum" rules: Everything said in these "forums" must be in line with what WE believe or you will be, chastised, condemned, rebuked, and called a heretic for even suggesting we use SCRIPTURE ALONE to examine our ways. Also, if you don't change your mind, you will be cast out of our club.

So much for an OPEN forum. Kind of like our American "freedoms", eh!:) You are free to do what you wish within the boundaries of the law, unless WE say otherwise.

Jonathan Brett

[wmgreene]

Hi Scott!

I tried searching “Arminians who maintain heresies against God” and “Charasmatics who have admitted corruption and abuses in to worship.”

And, as far as the subject of the Arminian heresies goes, although I believe that by-and-of-himself man is incapable of doing anything which would contribute to his salvation, I do believe that Jesus taught that anything is possible for those who abide in Him:

18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

As such, I think role of the Civil Government to control anything is dependent upon the actual presence of Jesus. My problem is that when I talk about the fact that I actually see Jesus binding what I know to be Satan when groups of people come together in prayer where they actually display the Spiritual Gifts, even those who are displaying the Spiritual Gifts are attributing positive outcomes to the Spirit rather than Jesus.

The search on the subject area of “Charasmatics who have admitted corruption and abuses in to worship” did not produce any results, so independent of your direction on the subject I am left with my own perception whereby any abuses in worship would be attributed to the failure to recognize Jesus over and apart from the Spirit. And, I’m sure that is not at all what you meant, but independent of resources that’s where I’m at.

Blessings,
Bill

[SWhiteman]

I did not know it was that legalistic and closed minded to hearing the letters of Paul and the prayers of Christ. WOW! What a sad day for this forum. I guess sooner or later, the "patriot act" was going to kick in here as well. Thanks George.

"If you are not with us, you are against us" comes to mind.

Shame on me for my ignorance of thinking this was a place to sharpen each others swords. Shame on me for assuming this forum (A public meeting or assembly for open discussion) was in FACT, a FORUM. ...
What are you talking about? Perhaps I was not clear, but the infusion of "Christianity" in this forum is welcome, and frankly, necessary to a good conversation. But the injection of baptism, denominationalism, etc. is not. Insert a Psalm, for example Ps. 149:6-9,
Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two edged sword in their hand, to execute vengeance on the nations, and punishments on the peoples; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron, to execute upon them the written judgement --- this honour have the saints.

Insert Calvin, Knox, the Puritans, etc. as they wrote on civil government, but frankly, I don't much care (even though I agree) that William Bradford and the Puritans thought ecclesiastical discipline should be public, not private like the French Reformed Church practised.

[SWhiteman]

When you say that the purpose of the forum is to comment on secular items from a Reformed perspective, do you specifically mean a Calvinist perspective? If so, are non-Calvinist Christians welcome to weigh in on the discussions held here?

To be clear, it is my assertion that Calvinism is Orthodoxy. Everything else, by implication, is not Orthodox Christianity. Therefore, I believe that all non-Calvinist religions are not Christianity.

Does that mean I believe that all non-Calvinists are therefore not Christians? Of course not. For one, how do I know whether a person is a Christian? Certainly it is not by his theology -- I've known of great Reformed Theologians who were in fact perjurers and criminally convicted sexual perverts. Certainly, I cannot know, but I can inspect the fruit, and see if it is good or bad.

Further, 1.) I don't determine or grant salvation, God does; 2.) I don't know hearts, or whether Christ is working in you; 3.) I doubt the thief on the cross, in the two hours between his effectual calling and his death comprehended the full Christian religion.

You are welcome. With God's help, we will treat you like Christians ought to treat each other. Most of the people on this forum, especially those who serve its purpose best, are conscientiously Reformed. Does that mean we always agree? Of course not ... but we do believe that the Bible is the standard to adjudicate controversies of this sort.

Please stay, and contribute. If a controversy breaks out, we will attempt to adjudicate it harmoniously with the Christian faith.

[SWhiteman]

... And, I’m sure that is not at all what you meant, but independent of resources that’s where I’m at.
We're not at the point yet of discussing the particular implications of WCF 23, i.e. the suppression of heresy and restraining of corrupt worship. When we get to that point, we'll discuss the particulars of the two simple examples (Arminianism and Charasmatics) that I offered.

[jmarinara]

Scott,

Far be it from me to come into your "house" and tell you how to run things. I feel like a houseguest that has no respect for those being hospitable to him. I have certainly started plenty of threads that were outside of the boundries of civil government and whatnot. (My: "I need Godly advice" post comes to mind.)

However, if I may so humbly, raise a point for our point of view. (An outsiders point of view). If you take a jaunt around the internet looking for "Christian" forums, you'll soon find yourself mired in attitudes and doctrines that many of us here at "The American View" would not like to be involved with. Most "Christian" forums, like most "Christian" churches are products of the emergant church with their man first approach to Christ. It is rare that you find such a collection of believers who are, at least somewhat, likeminded and interested in talking with you about things that most "emergant's" could care less about. (That sounds harsh, but sometimes that's the way truth is)

I personally, was giddy when I discovered what type of people were here.

If you'd like us to keep this to individual discussions on Civil Government, it is indeed your property, and I think we should all respect that. However, perhaps you would be willing to support starting a second forum where we could discuss more matters like denominatiionalism, babtism, etc. I think you ought to get some support for that, and if you contact me privately (jason@yaygod.org) I can help.

Lastly, I'd like to thank you for all you guys do. God Bless.

[SWhiteman]

I personally, was giddy when I discovered what type of people were here.
Let me tell you the problem, and you help me figure out how to solve it. You have already offered one suggestion (start a "third" forum, in addition to the Article Forum and the General Forum), which we might be able to work with or modify.

PROBLEM: "Doctrine divides." I know what you are thinking -- "Scott, you are as divisive as they come, and seem to revel in the fights." Stipulated. However, we have seen our purpose as dividing the real Christian claims on civil government with the nominal Christian claims on civil government. Romans 2:24 has really been a "personal verse" in my life, the Name of God is blasphemed among the heathen because of you. Truly (truly, even), I hate with a holy hatred those "Christians" who parade around like they are God's mouth piece when in fact they hate His Son, because they hate what Authority His Son clearly states that He has. Mt. 28; Ps. 2, etc. All of these faith-based-traditional-values-religious-right-breakfast-eating groups are worse that the Jews of Romans 2 which were ultimately dispossessed by God because they murdered and rejected His Son. I Thes 2:14-15. Thus, I seek to ensure that people know TAV is not accidentally considered to be them -- I don't want the heathen to have any valid ground, by my action, to blaspheme the Lord of Lords.

But what I don't seek to divide over, if only because I'm unfit for the task, is ecclesiastical issues, as previously stated. In my opinion, God's Sovereignty is a general doctrine, for both Church and State. Whether a state flag should fly above a Christian flag (arguendo let's assume they are valid), is proper fodder for this forum. Whether the communion table should be clothed in purple, white, red or not at all is not.

You, jmarinara, have not "violated" the policy of this forum. To my memory, I have not admonished you for posting any of your posts, though I disagree with the content of some of them. While "I need Godly advice" was off topic, so to speak, we permitted it because 1.) you seemingly needed/wanted/welcomed the advise; 2.) we could decide whether or not to comment; 3.) it did lead to a conversation about "secular things from a Christian point of view," didn't it?

In summary, I'm not at the point yet where I think we need a "third" forum, if we can all treat the "General Forum" with some general respect. No ecclesiastical issues, denominationalism, baptism, circumcision, pado-communion, etc. Certainly Christian issues, God in government, God in business, God in education, God in society, and all the various rabbit trails that might entail.

I'm thinking, chatterbox, we might want to consider "saving" this thread as a continual fleshing out of the purposes of this forum.

Thanks jmarinara.

[jbrett14]

Scott,

Far be it from me to come into your "house" and tell you how to run things. I feel like a houseguest that has no respect for those being hospitable to him. I have certainly started plenty of threads that were outside of the boundries of civil government and whatnot. (My: "I need Godly advice" post comes to mind.)

However, if I may so humbly, raise a point for our point of view. (An outsiders point of view). If you take a jaunt around the internet looking for "Christian" forums, you'll soon find yourself mired in attitudes and doctrines that many of us here at "The American View" would not like to be involved with. Most "Christian" forums, like most "Christian" churches are products of the emergant church with their man first approach to Christ. It is rare that you find such a collection of believers who are, at least somewhat, likeminded and interested in talking with you about things that most "emergant's" could care less about. (That sounds harsh, but sometimes that's the way truth is)

I personally, was giddy when I discovered what type of people were here.

If you'd like us to keep this to individual discussions on Civil Government, it is indeed your property, and I think we should all respect that. However, perhaps you would be willing to support starting a second forum where we could discuss more matters like denominatiionalism, babtism, etc. I think you ought to get some support for that, and if you contact me privately (jason@yaygod.org) I can help.

Lastly, I'd like to thank you for all you guys do. God Bless.

Brother Jason, well said. Much better than I.

I too was in great error NOT knowing that this Forum (A public meeting or assembly for open discussion) was limited to civil government type talk. I made the mistake of believing that "General Discussions" actually meant "General Discussions".

Brothers and sisters, if you ARE interested in a deeper search into the Scriptues and learning from one another, perhaps you could rally behind Jason, and request a forum for ANY Scriptural discussion. I believe it would be well worth it, as I know of MANY Christians confused on many of today's issues, including myself. I can learn from you guys, as every member seems to have a particular subject within the Scriptures, that they have spent a good amount of time, studying.

I have probably been wrongfully judged based on a couple threads that I started, yet you can be assured that I am very much involved in some of the other threads. The difference is that I do not engage, with my own posts, on topics that I have little knowledge, unless I am simply asking questions. I usually just read the other posts and learn, from the other members of the Body. But where I am studied, I will speak out, as I hope all of you do.

E.g. You will never hear me arguing about how to write music, because quite frankly, I still have NO IDEA how to read music. :confused: Been singing those hymnals all my life, and have NO CLUE :confused: :) BUT, there are a few topics that I have done a tremendous amount of research, and those are where I WILL engage, armed and prepared.

I believe the key to our unity will NOT be just agreeing on things, but on realizing the subjects that we have studied the Scriptures vs. those we have not. WE ALL have something to offer the Body. We ALL have certain areas that we have studied deeply. If we are ignorant of a topic, then we should listen and ask questions. And where we are well-read, share what we know.

This is why I appreciated David Zuniga so much. Not that I "agree" with him on all issues. But that I can learn from him in areas that I have done very little research, such as taxation, etc. Likewise, others have thanked me in areas that I may have helped them. Not because I am better than them, but because I just happened to have researched something that they hadn't.

We are all equal members of His Body - The Body of Believers. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody in here is more valuable than any other. Nobody in here has a corner on knowledge, and we ALL have something to offer.

The other key to unity is to be careful with our opinions. And I am talking to myself as well. Opinions can be hurtful, and inaccurate, and therefore should be limited, unless asked for. I have seen people divide over some foolish opinion, who would otherwise have been the best of friends. The older I get the more I realize the fragile line between a friend and an "enemy". Ironically this is found in war as well. I have no doubts, that many men who kill each other, given another time and another place, without the influences of sinful man, would be good friends. Yes, our spiritual war is tough, but we must seek to be peacemakers.

I too need to practice what I preach. This just made me think of my children. In my house, when daddy (me) just says the word "BLESSED", all my kids scream "are the peacemakers". Of course I don't think my 3 year old daughter get's it, as she will just as quickly turn to her 5 year old brother and slug him. :) :D She is our handful, no doubt. But I have learned, by the grace of God, that my words are not really what is teaching them, it is my ACTIONS. Peace will mean NOTHING to them, unless they see mommy and daddy living it out in front of them. Indeed, children are a wonderful blessing from the Lord, as they have taught me to be accountable for what is otherwise just cheap talk. Sadly, many Christians today view their children as the lost world does - an inconvenience.

Sorry for getting a little side-tracked. :)

Jonathan

[jbrett14]

In summary, I'm not at the point yet where I think we need a "third" forum, if we can all treat the "General Forum" with some general respect. No ecclesiastical issues, denominationalism, baptism, circumcision, pado-communion, etc. Certainly Christian issues, God in government, God in business, God in education, God in society, and all the various rabbit trails that might entail.



With all due respect, brother. I cannot see AT ALL, how discussing "ecclesiastical issues, denominationalism, baptism, circumcision, pado-communion" is disrespectful. On the contrary, it is vital, to keep the Body from adopting the ways of man vs. the way of Christ.

Suggestion: Leave the discussions open, but intervene and correct those, even myself, who are being disrespectful. And use Scripture as your basis for correction. That way, when someone calls someone else a "wuss" or other insult, you can put a stop to it immediately. Hold each INDIVIDUAL accountable as they are out of line. That way the majority can do what they came in to do - Learn.

Jonathan Brett

[SWhiteman]

Suggestion: Leave the discussions open, but intervene and correct those, even myself, who are being disrespectful. And use Scripture as your basis for correction. That way, when someone calls someone else a "wuss" or other insult, you can put a stop to it immediately. Hold each INDIVIDUAL accountable as they are out of line. That way the majority can do what they came in to do - Learn.
The issue, and point of difficulty, is this. There is no final ecclesiastical authority here to adjudicate ecclesiastical issues. You, and I, are but mere men. We are but laity. We may be educated laity, but we are laity. Our opinions ought to direct our congregations as far as our opinions are Biblical, but if you are in a hierarchical church, your opinion will be squashed. If you are in a democratic church, it will be weighed by the majority. If you are in an independent church, it will be only as widely recognized as your congregation, or others that independently determine to concur. If you are in a proper Presbyterian Church, your Biblically correct opinions can be enjoined upon the other churches, at the cost for affiliation for refusal to concur on Orthodox doctrinal points.

But here, my opinion about baptism is my opinion because I cannot bring you up on charges of scandal or doctrinal schism for your refusal to believe about it the way that I do. There are two opinions on baptism, and TAV is insufficient to the task to flesh out those opinions without it also having the right of ecclesiastical discipline. Do you really want me disciplining people on this forum for their opinions on baptism, or communion? But if I "admonish," even with the scriptures, there is no right of review for you in this forum, so ultimately, what I say goes -- and that is a power I am unwilling to take on vis a vis ecclesiastical affairs.

Let me suggest one last point on the "general"ness of our General Forum. My wife used to go on a pregnancy forum. It was a "general forum," but the people who participated were pregnant. Conversations were pregnancy or child-rearing related or derived. Obviously opinions about cribs vs. co-sleeping erupted from time to time, but that was all in their bailiwick.

We've gotten two major complaints by users. First, not your objection, but others have said, "You never told me this was a religious forum." And they leave in a huff, feeling that their right to comment from an anti-Christian point of view has been suppressed. :( (That is a sarcastic :( if I've ever written one).

Your general objection, if I read it correctly, is "You never told me this wasn't a forum for discussion Christianity." For the most part (I'm glad), such who have this objection remain, but you too feel that we've pre-censored your opinions, or as you previously suggested,
I did not know it was that legalistic and closed minded to hearing the letters of Paul and the prayers of Christ. WOW! What a sad day for this forum. I guess sooner or later, the "patriot act" was going to kick in here as well. Thanks George.

Both objections are wrong. TAV is 1.) A forum for Christians to 2.) comment on secular things. In every comment, both conditions should be satisfied. Not either condition, both conditions.

[J. Glenn Ferrell]

So if we must (perhaps we must) discuss, I want it to be in terms of what the Civil Government MUST DO to prosecute the Arminians who maintain heresies against God, or the Charasmatics who have admitted corruption and abuses into worship.
Scott:

The issue ‘must’ be important (to you at least) or you would not include the quote from Calvin on each of your posts:

Let us also learn that nothing is less consistent than to punish heavily the crimes whereby mortals are injured, whilst we connive at the impious errors or sacrilegious modes of worship whereby the majesty of God is violated.

Reform of false doctrine, worship and church government are essential to national and political reform, as seen in the books of 1st and 2nd Kings.

Before the civil magistrate can “prosecute” heresies and abuses in worship, the civil magistrate must recognize a covenant with God through Jesus Christ, the unique authority of the Scriptures, a confession of faith, and the boundaries of the Christ’s one church. Discussion of denominationalism, connectionalism, church officers, etc. may be pertinent to all this.

Scott, I believe you are unclear yourself as to the boundaries of such discussions. At least, you have not clearly articulated those boundaries here. That leaves the rest of us a little confused.

Jonathan: I invite you to ask your questions about denominationalism at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crownrights/?yguid=210813400

[wmgreene]

Hi Scott!

Thank you for your response.

The reason I asked in the first place is that, given my background in having been trained by the Friars of Atonement to view “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” as a step-by-step process involving psychoanalysis leading-up-to-and-including the experience of “our daily bread” or that of being in union with God, and an advanced degree as a Community Psychologist (with an orientation towards both clinical and geo-political levels of intervention) in which I was also trained to think of “purely instinctual behaviors, as being based upon childhood traumas” when those behaviors lead the individual into a lifestyle whereby the individual finds justification in attacking the person rather than the idea under consideration, then the very idea some people are given to find justification in character assassination, slander and liable, etc, based upon a perverse reading of biblical text, or that similarly, “Civil Government MUST DO [anything other than seeking the intervention by experience of Christ] to prosecute the Arminians who maintain heresies against God, or the Charasmatics who have admitted corruption and abuses into worship,” seems objectionable in terms of it being a suppression of expression of religions, which by-and-of-itself is contrary to the teachings of Christ (http://www.jesus-institute.org/jesus-parables-teachings/jesus-commands/jesus-loveoneanother.shtml) when applied to the personage rather than the ideal, excepting that I do not believe the establishment of the Kingdom of God is to be expected without first meeting the requirement whereby the greater numbers of people born only of the flesh are reborn into the water and Spirit:

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit(b) ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=3&version=31#fen-NIV-26117b) gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You(c) ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=3&version=31#fen-NIV-26118c) must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Blessings,
Bill

[SWhiteman]

Scott, I believe you are unclear yourself as to the boundaries of such discussions. At least, you have not clearly articulated those boundaries here. That leaves the rest of us a little confused.
Have I ever disagreed with you before? I don't recall, and I'm not about to start now.

I think you are right. If the civil government is to suppress heresy, prosecute blasphemy and prevent false worship, then a discussion of what they are is important -- but I'm not prepared to do that, nor do I feel competent to the task.

IF TAV were to take on working through WCF 23, who's in?

[J. Glenn Ferrell]

IF TAV were to take on working through WCF 23, who's in?

I'm in; but let me say, you make a very valid point above:

The issue, and point of difficulty, is this. There is no final ecclesiastical authority here to adjudicate ecclesiastical issues.

As the magistrate does not possess the keys to the kingdom, neither do private citizens. Ultimately, the church through her elders must establish a confession of faith, biblical worship, government and discipline. It is for the magistrate to recognize the legitimacy of these.

I agree, the pooling of ignorance, flinging of insults, and quoting of scripture without exegesis among those with no or opposing ecclesiastical authority is useless. There were valid issues raised in the denomination discussion-- the divisions of Christ's Church, connectionalism, regulative principle, qualifications of church officers, etc. As American Evangelicals are often ignorant of these issues, a general and respectful discussion would be helpful to educate them on how to recognize valid issues, scriptural principles and how to initiate genuine reform in their local congregations. Without the latter, political reform is not going to happen.

[jbrett14]

Do you really want me disciplining people on this forum for their opinions on baptism, or communion?

Absolutely NOT!!! That is my entire point that you seem to be missing. I suggested to deal with each individual as they become DISRESPECTFUL, NOT for having an opinion.

You made this WAY to complicated, brother. Generally the person who starts a thread sets guidelines for their purpose. If someone asks for opinions on what they should do with a particular situation in life, then we should do exactly that - give him our opinions. But if someone asks for Scripture to defend a belief - then we should also do that as well and provide them with Scripture.

This is NOT about people giving opinions, it is about people disrespecting the requests by the original person who began a thread. It could just as easily been an argument within a "political thread". If that happens are you going to shut down that thread as well, and say we can no longer talk about THAT subject.

I suspect that you already know this, and your inclination to shut me down was not REALLY because of the "arguing" but because you didn't like what the Bible was revealing to be true - that denominationalism, something YOU support without being supported by Scripture, was NEVER created by Christ and therefore is nothing but a man-made creation that separates, or divides, HIS Church.

You see, this is not that tuff to work out. If someone is being disrespectful, made obvious by name-calling or using foul language etc. then you, as the controller, should correct them. Case closed. Of course, you already knew this, and COULD have done this, but as I said, I think you were just wating for an excuse to stop a thread that WOULD have proven YOUR beliefs to be wrong. There is no need to STOP an entire thread, especially when there are a lot of folks interested in the thread, indicated by it's number of "viewers".

But I will hold you accountable, brother. I will expect that you shut down ALL threads that have this same type of arguing.

Yes, you may be in "control" of this forum, but you are NOT above reproach.

Silence me if you wish, but the truth of this matter will not change. And I think the truth of the matter of denominationalism is eating at you. You CAN set yourself FREE from the constricting traditions of man. Legalistic churchianity is no way to live, brother. Trust me, I have been there. There is NO comparison to being able to joyfully fellowship with ALL Christians everywhere, without concern for their membership club. Yes, the truth does hurt.

:)

Jonathan

[J. Glenn Ferrell]

IF TAV were to take on working through WCF 23, who's in?I’m up for such a discussion.

You raise a very valid issue:

The issue, and point of difficulty, is this. There is no final ecclesiastical authority here to adjudicate ecclesiastical issues.

Obviously we get nowhere by a pooling of ignorance, flinging of insults, quoting of scripture without exposition by those with no or opposing ecclesiastical authority. However, some of the issues raised in the ‘Denominations’ discussion are valid concerns- divisions within Christ’s Church, connectionalism, the authority of Scripture, the Regulative Principle, the Establishment Principle, validity of confessions, etc. About these matters many American Evangelicals are confused or ignorant. If reform of the church in doctrine, worship, government and discipline are indeed necessary for reclaiming godly civil government, such matters need to be respectfully discussed (for educational purposes) among those who say they believe in biblical civil government, even if they are part of opposing theological and ecclesiastical camps.

[jmarinara]

Ok, three things:

1. I'm considering opening up a forum of my own on my currently dead www.yaygod.org domain name. I have been thinking of re-opening the page for general ministry purposes, but now am thinking about doing a forum there where the discussion topics can be a bit more open than what is permitted here.

Don't get me wrong here Scott, I don't at all blame you for your stance. I totally understand it and even think it's a good idea in some aspects. But clearly the "market" (for lack of a better term) is demanding a more open format and I think it might be useful to provide it. As I said earlier, I think we have the potential (recent unpleasantness aside) to have a close knit gathering. People like us are few and far between. It would be a shame to see the gathering scattered a bit just because a certain forum had certain rules.

If anyone is interested, I'll probably need some help. Scott, would you mind if I posted something about this on the General Forum section, just to see if there really is the interest I suspect?

Rest assured, I'll be happy to link and promote TAV.

2. Chatterbox once told me that prayer requests are welcome on this forum. How does that relate to Christians commenting on secular things? (honest question, I'm genuinly curious)

3. Do you, (Specifically Scott), think it's useful for us to try and make peace between those who recently were screaming and yelling at one another? I personally think it is worth it, but would care to hear other ideas on the matter. I fear setting myself up to be some sort of prideful leader thinking I can fix everything, but on the other hand, hate to lose Angela and David, two people I respect and admire. Next thing you know, Dale and John will be leaving me, uh, I mean us. :)

[Relient J]

Scott, I'd like to thank you very much for answering my questions and addressing my concerns. While I disagree with a lot of what you said in your reply, I'm very much appreciative of the fact that I am welcome to post here. Thank you again, and God bless!

[Centurion]

What a disappointment to observe needless wrangling or preoccupation with the trite old saw, "secular v. sacred," regarding state and church distinctives.

Are we headed toward the Lutheran Left and Right-hand Kingdom dichotomy which, in my view, struggles for Biblical credibility? Isn't there but one Kingdom, one King, with his ordained and gifted representatives in each sphere, to reconcile all things to Himself?

Don't these questions involve the Greek/Hebrew conflict which has plagued the church for ages, and the American republic for over two centuries? In the latter case, isn't the absence of Jesus Christ in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution a likely cause of our dilemma, in other words, its secularization?

How men by their language seem to want to complicate, diminish or blur the absolute sovereignty of God over all creation, over every institution, their functional differences notwithstanding. And not only the lawyer men, either. :)

And what of the consequences?

Doesn't secularization in any sphere mean rule by Christ haters, i.e., humanism?

No neutrality; agreed?

Why would this forum, which I enjoy so much, want to endorse, at least implicitly, the secularization of the state? The Greek philosophers did, but not Moses or Jesus. How then do we disciple the nations?

You staunch Reformed brothers of mine, covenant sons of the same King, are paddling in some murky, shallow water, in my view -- a futile detour in a semantical swamp.

Didn't the apostle Paul warn the Corinthians about their Platonic persuasions, i.e., secularism/gnosticism (2 Cor. 10:4-6) versus the clarity of God's Word, in Christ? Is the state to be based on the covenant of man, of Caesar; or is it Christ who saves all (Acts 4:12), who reconciles even the state to Himself?

Let's deal simply with sin, as our Lawgiver, Judge and King does (Is. 33:22), rather than trying to parse nebulous jargon like "secularism."

If I am ambiguous or off the mark, please correct me. Maybe I am not sufficiently Reformed to be posting here. (God, I hate that capitalization; it reminds one of a college fraternity handshake or a lodge degree -- sorry) :)

[wmgreene]

…I think you are right. If the civil government is to suppress heresy, prosecute blasphemy and prevent false worship, then a discussion of what they are is important -- but I'm not prepared to do that, nor do I feel competent to the task.

IF TAV were to take on working through WCF 23, who's in?

Hi Scott!

Although I do not hold a degree in theology and do not claim to be a biblical scholar, I don’t think there is anything in the original Gospels that would affirm the opinion that Jesus had any great respect for the civil government/secular authorities. In fact, keeping with the belief systems of many of the first Christians, I believe that Jesus was the first born of the dead (Revelation 1:7), where-in-by He became the Second Person of God at His baptism, and it seems to me that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls not only validates the link between the monastic order of Pharisees known as the Essenes and Jesus, but offers a great deal of critical information about the nature of the belief systems of the first Christians and easily supports the claim that Jesus viewed the governments of this world as being empowered by Satan, a word I recently offered some clarification on in this post (http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12845&postcount=32):

… given that the word Devil is Greek, and Satan is Hebrew, and Greek only by adoption, it is important to understand that as a Hebrew word, Satan is a mere Hebrew word, signifying “adversary," “enemy,” or “accuser.” Obviously, it does not in itself import the evil being which many seek to represent it to mean, but rather the word Satan must be viewed in terms of how translators have either used the word or translated the word to that of “adversary” in the Hebrew Bible

Additionally, a simple review of the writings of those who have very closely investigated the 1st through 4th century events of the church in Rome, suggests that in order to make Christianity compatible with the philosophy of the Greek philosopher, Plato, and secular environment of Rome, numerous events took place, including the outright destruction of biblical text not found to be in compliance with the philosophy of Plato, and with its focus on the control of the masses, many essential elements of the spiritual essence of the scriptures were modified through additions to the remaining scriptures to bring the more radical anti-secular elements of the religion under control by the use of biblical edicts to obey the government.

As such, given that the very idea of a civil government is one which is to be associated with the Hebrew word, signifying “adversary," “enemy,” or “accuser”, that might otherwise also be designed to suppress heresy, prosecute blasphemy and prevent false worship seems like a paradoxical idea at best, but clearly a discussion that should be very important to every Christian.

Certainly, in my case, and given this perspective, I was drawn to take an interest in the Constitutional Party by the words of Michael Peroutka with respect to his statement that if he were elected he would undo the New Deal of 1934 and thereby the particular issues presented within American View. My primary interest remains that of Michael’s promise to undo the New Deal of 1934, which as I understand it is a very holy mission associated with the subject of overcoming the Biblical Beast (http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194) to set in motion the process whereby just like Christ (Revelation 1:7) and in the context of the First Redemption the dead in Christ (John 3:5-8) will arise in a great display of the Spiritual Gifts (John 4:22-24), but getting back to the subject of overcoming the Biblical Beast I Quote:

Anyway, under the Constitution, the people get their sanction from God whereas persons under the law are contracted with the state for privileges of existence relative to the system of the Number of Man(i.e., 666). And, as I'm sure your aware, Yeshu's mission involved the process of overcoming that ancient system of novation which is set forth in the Book of Genesis (41:1-4; 41:17-21) as Pharaoh's dream of the beasts of the field which ate up everything and left the people without their money (Genesis 47:13-15), without the rights to their lands, and in a state of slavery (Genesis 47:18-22). Under that ancient system of novation (the Biblical Beast) even the church which has contracted with the state for privileges of existence is in fact a creature of the state (Genesis 47:23-27). All of which means, we are looking at a very impressive system whereby each and every member of that system would by an abstract "social" necessity view any-and-all adversaries to such a system of slavery as indeed very dangerous and monstrous, such that the danger and monstrosity would not be "only in the eyes of those who would want the model of `powers-that-be' perpetrated ad infinitum."

In the course of reading and posting on this forum I also very recently offered in this post (http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12060&postcount=6), and the way I see it Michael has to run for if he doesn’t America will never have the opportunity to become one of the Two Witnesses of Revelations 11, and Redemption itself depends upon that. In that same post I also indicated the current form of the Right to Life actions on behalf of the preborn are Un-Constitutional and Un-Biblical in their orientation to the subject and therefore needs clarification that it might in fact be reinstated as a Constitutional and Biblical argument, and my point is that if Michael is to run and win it he can not do so as an “adversary" or “enemy” to the Constitution by using the methods of mind control whereby those who speak for him are repetitively stating/claiming a right to life wherein the same is absent by constitutional definition. (See Note)

To these ends, I have reason to believe that if civil government is ever to evolve into one that might ultimately suppress heresy, prosecute blasphemy and prevent false worship, then a discussion of what they are is not only very important, but is a subject that each and every one of us needs to consider in the same in the context of what the Spirit has already said to the Seven Churches:

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God (Revelation 2:7).
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death (Revelation 2:11).
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it (Revelation 2:17).
To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations— 'He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery'— just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give him the morning star. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches (Revelation 2:26-29).
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches (Revelation 3:5-6).
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches (Revelation 3:12-13).
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches (Revelation 3:21-22).

Blessings,
Bill

Note: The reason I know that the current Right to Life actions on behalf of the preborn are Un-Constitutional is that I was trained in Constitutional Law and Pro Se Litigation by several members of the Patriot Movement who are known to Larry Reandeau who is credited as being the founder of the property rights movement here in America (http://www.freedom.org/prc/prc-digest/?i=volume03/109) and Bob Schulz, who during the 90's, was the top property rights lawyer (http://www.prfamerica.org/Stats-PRFA.html) for the part of the country in which I lived and is currently the Chairman of We The People Foundation (http://www.givemeliberty.org/), and I have spoken of this history on the forum in this post (http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4377&postcount=2), and this post ( http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4148&postcount=30).

[SWhiteman]

Isn't there but one Kingdom, one King, with his ordained and gifted representatives in each sphere, to reconcile all things to Himself?
That assertion is almost the point. There is not but one Kingdom -- there are two. Christ has two crowns on His Head, one over Church and one over State. They are different governments for different administrations, the Church the ministry of grace, and the State the ministry of Justice. Their decisions should agree, as co-vassels to a common Sovereign, but at times they will disagree, and it is the duty of the other to bring the other back under the King. They are to both minister to eachother, as they administrate the Gospel of the King.

TAV believes in the Scotch Two Kingdoms or Two Swords of government.

[SWhiteman]

I suspect that you already know this, and your inclination to shut me down was not REALLY because of the "arguing" but because you didn't like what the Bible was revealing to be true - that denominationalism, something YOU support without being supported by Scripture, was NEVER created by Christ and therefore is nothing but a man-made creation that separates, or divides, HIS Church.
Define what you mean by "denomination" then prove that I believe it. Don't assert it. I believe that there is one Church, "catholic or universal." I deny that there are denominations. But I definitely believe that the one True Church has doctrinal standards that must be agreed to, or you are not part of her.

[gregory]

Scott

I'm a simple man coming from a Catholic/Public School "gnostic" background. When I was born again, regenerated, quickened or another term used is aquired my "saving faith in JESUS" I was reading my BIBLE. The simple reading of scripture pointed to YHWH, (Father-SON-Holy Spirit) the trinitarian godhead. Especially the GODMAN - JESUS, the SON of GOD, the Christ who's blood was shed for me(the popitiation). I started to abide in that truth. At any time I could of rejected and walked away because the Awesome Creator is a gentleman He does not force Himself on (rape) someone spiritually like satan does.

Tyndale's 1534 NT says in John 15 v 4

"Bide in me and Let Me bide in you"

Kinda blows out Wycliff, Geneva, and KJV 1611-1769 translations.

with all that said it matters what "your" religion is, it will determine how you govern yourself, then your family, then your congregation which in turn governs the nation.

We can package this as a nice theology and make a complicated process or we can simply fall in love with the JESUS of the BIBLE ..ie "Bide in ME" and by HIS dunamis power be able to obey...ie "Let ME bide in you"

This was a gentle comment.....please raise the banner of JESUS of the BIBLE......and lower the banner of Calvin and place him back on the commentary shelf.