The Perjured Nation

[TheGeneral]

Any nation will be blessed to take God's name in their Oaths when done with reverence, honour and solemnity. Similarly, any nation that does not take God's name in their Oaths, or which blasphemes God's name in their Oaths, is cursed and under judgment.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=422

[Will]

Any nation will be blessed to take God's name in their Oaths when done with reverence, honour and solemnity. Similarly, any nation that does not take God's name in their Oaths, or which blasphemes God's name in their Oaths, is cursed and under judgment.

General:

I didn't know that a "nation" could take an oath??? I thought only individual people can do that??? (Semantics)

Great Spirit, Lord of the universe; Please grant us liberty, peace and prosperity for without any of these the other two are meaningless. AMEN!

Will Mattison

[Jeffrey Butler]

General:

I didn't know that a "nation" could take an oath??? I thought only individual people can do that??? (Semantics)

Will Mattison

Please consider reading the article before posting by way of the abstract. As Scott points out, the Official policy of the United States government about the use of God’s name in public is defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1972). Clearly a nation which carries a policy regarding the use of God's name does so "collectively."

So if we are required to take Oaths in God’s Name, and America does in fact do this both officially and by historical precedent, perhaps a review of the duties required in those Oaths is in order to determine whether we have profaned God’s Name.

PS, TheGeneral, as noted below his name, is an automatic posting mechanism, so it's doubtful you'll be able to get his attention. =:]

jeff

[Will]

Clearly a nation which carries a policy regarding the use of God's name does so "collectively"

box:

Sorry, I'm an individualist, and have trouble understand collectivism, things done collectively!!! If a person refutes a policy, is he/she forced to be included against his/her will???

Great Spirit, Lord of the universe; Please grant us liberty, peace and prosperity for without one of these thing the other two are meaningless. AMEN!

Will Mattison

[SWhiteman]

I'm an individualist, and have trouble understand[ing] (sic.) collectivism, things done collectively!!!
Then get some understanding on it. Read R.J. Rushdoony's The One and The Many.

God is not an individualist, and nor should we be. You must come to understand the nature of the One and the Many, that God's ecomony as a community is not diminished by the equality or individuality or the three, nor is God's ecomony as an individual diminished by the community.

There is "corporate" responsiblity for things, otherwise to justify Katrina, 9-11, or other national catastrophies, each individual would have to have merited the destruction. Although we all deserve destruction, God does treat His own differently. Consider Revelation 18:4-5
Come out of her [Babylon], my people, so that you will not share in her [Babylon's] sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes. Emphasis mine
But if we, His People, do not separate from "her sins," i.e. Babylon's, we too will suffer.

So, according to God, a Nation can sin, and a Nation can profane His name.

[risenwithhim]

As a Christian nation, how do we square up this policy of oath-taking with James 5:12 (below)?

Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.

[SWhiteman]

In the article, I cite Deuteronomy 6:13. Additionally, I believe James should be read how James was intended, as a letter relating to personal/private behaviour. He was reciting what Jesus said in a similar context.

However, the Bible does not contradict itself. It cannot say "swear" in one instance and "don't swear" in another. The apparent contradictions must be understood. We are not to lightly swear, as in personal/private behaviour. There our "yes" should be "yes." But in our public behaviour, or when our civil obligations necessitate a heightening of our sense of the severity of our obligations to God and man, swearing is entirely Biblical.

Consider,

CHAPTER XXII.
Of Lawful Oaths and Vows.

I. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.

II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence; therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as, in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament, as well as under the Old, so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters ought to be taken.

III. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.

IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It can not oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt: nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics or infidels.

V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.

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 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.

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 of which he hath no promise or ability from God. In which respects, monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.

[Areopagus]

As a Christian nation, how do we square up this policy of oath-taking with James 5:12 .[/INDENT]

Inaugurals of Presidents of the United States: Some Precedents and Notable Events
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pinotable.html contains some interesting comments on the Presidential Oath of Office.

April 30, 1789 -- George Washington Pronounced the words, "So help me God" after taking the oath; other presidents have followed this example. Set the precedent of kissing the Bible after the oath.

The Bibles and Scripture Passages Used by Presidents
in Taking the Oath of Office http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pibible.html indicates that Proverbs, and Psalms were frequently referenced.

At a minimum, oath of office taking before God acknowledges that an authority above the State exists to which all men are accountable.

God either exists, or dosen't. If there is no Creator, Jefferson's appeal to the "Supreme Judge of the world" in the Declaration of Independence is pure nonsense, and so are our rights! Without a Creator, the highest appeal is to the State, where might has often taken rights. Think about it, next time you hear someone scream separation of Creator and State. Think about what a person means when they emphatically state, "there are no absolute truths" in contradistinction to Jefferson's: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted...."

[risenwithhim]

Thanks for your response.

In the article, I cite Deuteronomy 6:13.

With that verse as your justification, you could have quoted a little farther down the page in response to my question (Deut. 6:20-21):

In the future, when your son asks you, "What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the LORD our God has commanded you?" tell him: "We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand."

Except that that passage confirms that such commands were issued to one unique nation -- the descendants of Jacob. Almost the entire letter to the Galatians is dedicated to warning those Gentiles against seeking justification in Mosaic Law.

Additionally, I believe James should be read how James was intended, as a letter relating to personal/private behaviour. He was reciting what Jesus said in a similar context.

However, the Bible does not contradict itself. It cannot say "swear" in one instance and "don't swear" in another. The apparent contradictions must be understood. We are not to lightly swear, as in personal/private behaviour. There our "yes" should be "yes." But in our public behaviour, or when our civil obligations necessitate a heightening of our sense of the severity of our obligations to God and man, swearing is entirely Biblical.

In the radio programs regarding Supreme Court nominees, Michael and John disparage the segregation of a man's faith between private and public.

The Bible can be understood. The Law was given to the Jew to lead him to Christ by the Jew's failure to keep it. The Gentile's (individual or national) attempt to gain God's favor by taking on the challenge that the Jew failed at is absolute foolishness when Christ has paid it all.

What thoughts or questions does this raise?

[TimV]

The Bible can be understood. The Law was given to the Jew to lead him to Christ by the Jew's failure to keep it.

Like your view of the modern Jewish State your view of the law is simplistic. ONE of the several reasons of the Law was to turn people towards Christ. There are other reasons for the Law, not least of which is to show people how they should live.

[risenwithhim]

What is my view of the modern Jewish state? :confused:

Call me simple, but when I read Romans 6, 7, 8, Galatians 6, Jeremiah 31:34, etc., I conclude that our only true hope for people seeing how they should live is for them to be born again by God the Holy Spirit -- raised to life by His indwelling and awakened to His leading in His laws of love.

As for members of governments, they are God's servants by the nature of their role according to Roman's 13. Sometimes they don't realize or believe it to be thus, and therefore take His name in vain by default, as it was with Herod in Acts 12.

[SWhiteman]

The Law was given to the Jew to lead him to Christ by the Jew's failure to keep it. The Gentile's (individual or national) attempt to gain God's favor by taking on the challenge that the Jew failed at is absolute foolishness when Christ has paid it all.

What thoughts or questions does this raise?
With all due respect, it raises questions or whether I want to be wearied engaging in this conversation. I know you can't read my tone, but I'm not being sarcastic -- it would be exasperating to dispell the multitude of unorthodoxy in your reported Christianity. There are some up to the task, but I don't think I am.

I am Reformed Christian. We do not believe what Evangelicals or Fundamentalists believe about Israel. Galations was not a denial of the Gentile appeal to the Law, rather it, like Jesus, is the confirmation of the Law. Properly Reformed Christians are Theonomists, ie. we believe that the equitable principles of the Old Testament Law are still in full force. The Sacrificial Laws were satisfied on Calvary, in the Tomb and with the Destruction of the Temple, but they are still in effect, in that a vicarious atonement is necessary. The Jews were wrong to seek it in the blood of bulls and goats, and not in the Christ. Reformed Christians do not believe that the Covenant was for the "Jews," rather it was for all of Israel (naturally, the Israelites, and those grafted in, the Gentiles) -- and not for those outside of Israel (natually excluded, Gentiles, or those cut off, unbeleiving Jews). See Romans 11 and or read We are Israel Now by Charles Provan (Reformed) and Whose Land, Whose Promise by Gary Burge (a "Zionist" by the way, but has a lot to offer to the conversation).

Briefly back to Galatians. You show a misunderstanding of the Scripture with your claim that the Jews failed to keep the covenant. The Covenant was never between God and the Jews (through Abraham). The Covenant was between God and Christ -- Abraham did not walk between the pieces of the bulls, Jesus, the SEED, did. Abraham was sleeping, remember? Genesis 15:12. Please see R.J. Rushdoony's Commentary on Galations ad loc in Romans & Galations published by Ross House Books. The Jews didn't fail to keep the covenant, they erred in thinking they were the party to the covenant, and that they were the only party, i.e. no Gentiles, to the covenant.

No man could keep the law from Moses. It was never intended for that purpose, rather it was to serve as a tudor to bring man to Christ. Consider John Calvin commenting on Deuteronomy 28:58:

58. If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law. Inasmuch as even believers, although they are disposed to a willing obedience to the Law, and earnestly apply themselves to it, are still impeded and withheld by the infirmity of their flesh from fulfilling their duty, care and attention is here demanded of them; for “to observe (custodire) to do” is equivalent to giving sedulous and diligent heed. Now, God declares that, unless the Israelites thoroughly devote themselves to the keeping of the Law, vengeance is prepared for their neglect. It is indeed a harsh and severe threat whereby transgression in any respect is without remission; for perfect obedience is required by the words, “to do all the words that are written in the Law.” But it is necessary that we should bear in mind what I have already shewn, that Moses was thus severe in his exactions, in order that the people, being convinced of their condemnation, should betake themselves to the mercy of God; for no one longs after Christ, unless he first abandons all confidence in his works, and rests all his hope of salvation in gratuitous pardon. Harmony of the Law, vol. iii, ad. loc.

[risenwithhim]

...it would be exasperating to dispell the multitude of unorthodoxy in your reported Christianity.

Don't get exasperated. Jesus didn't say that orthodoxy would set me free, so I'm not terribly concerned about it. However, if you can dispell error with truth, don't hold back. Just don't mischaracterize my statements in the process, such as saying that I claimed that the Jews failed to keep the covenant. To bear false witness would be... unlawful. :o

[SWhiteman]

Just don't mischaracterize my statements in the process, such as saying that I claimed that the Jews failed to keep the covenant. To bear false witness would be... unlawful.
Presumably, a false accusation of bearing false witness would also be false witness, no?
The Bible can be understood. The Law was given to the Jew to lead him to Christ by the Jew's failure to keep it. Originally, at post #9 (http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2196&postcount=9). I substituted the word "Covenant" for your word "Law." They mean the same thing.
Jesus didn't say that orthodoxy would set me free, so I'm not terribly concerned about it.No, but the truth will, which is apparently not in you. However, if you can dispell error with truth, don't hold back.
You already glossed over what I wrote, and are asking for me to recite it again? Thusly will I become wearied.

You unorthodox people who have no care for actually being part of the body are hardly ever worth consideration because you come at the Bible "all alone" and won't let "anyone" dictate to you what it means. You are rogues, and shooting stars flitting about like a vapour with the slightest wind of new doctine and novelty. You are bringing up vain and frivilous questions based on a less than elementary understanding of the Gospel.

Now, formally I acknowledge that if 1,000,000 men be liars, God can lead one man to the right conclusion. You are not that man. 6000 years of proper Biblical understanding and the past 2000 of understanding that the Christ is the fulfillment and consumation of the Law/Covenant/Promises of the previous 4000 will not fall to your alien beliefs. But if you persist in them, you will have to do so elsewhere, because TAV will not entertain them.