# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  The Commandments Apply To All Men Without Exception, Including Men In Government

## Sola_Fide

> "The second misconception is that the Ten Commandments, including this one, apply only to private individuals and not to governments. This notion, which has absolutely no foundation in Scripture, illustrates how far we have gone toward deifying government, for it is attributing divine qualities to rulers to say that they in their official (or private) capacities are exempt from the law. 
> 
> The Commandments, as both the Bible and the Westminster Confession say, bind all men without exception. Rulers and governments are commanded not to steal, murder, covet, lie, or do any other act prohibited in the moral law. Zacchaeus the tax collector stole from the people, and upon his regeneration he recognized his subordination to the moral law. King Ahab broke the Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Commandments in desiring and taking Naboth’s vineyard. John the Baptist in Luke 3:14 specifically applied the moral law to an agent of the government. There is not the slightest hint in Scripture that governments are above the moral law."


-John Robbins (Ron Paul's former chief of staff)

See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/jou....Z8rxJjT6.dpuf

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> -John Robbins (Ron Paul's former chief of staff)
> 
> See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/jou....Z8rxJjT6.dpuf


If the 10 Commandments apply to all men, then there can be no 'capital G' government (state).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If the 10 Commandments apply to all men, then there can be no 'capital G' government (state).


I wonder if John Robbins recognizes this.  I know Sola_Fide does, he's told us before that he's completely opposed to the State.  As I am.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If the 10 Commandments apply to all men, then there can be no 'capital G' government (state).


Absolutely agree.  That is why Christianity contains a full orbed argument against coercion...now and until the end of time.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I wonder if John Robbins recognizes this.  I know Sola_Fide does, he's told us before that he's completely opposed to the State.  As I am.


John was more of an extreme minarchist.  He would probably agree with Ron when Ron would say things like "there is a function for government, to provide courts... etc etc etc". (In fact, the more I read John Robbins, I see how Ron may have borrowed some of his language in the 70's and 80's)

But in his better moments, he identified the bedrock principles of anti-statism in Christianity.

----------


## Petar

Charleton Heston is dead.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> John was more of an extreme minarchist.  He would probably agree with Ron when Ron would say things like "there is a function for government, to provide courts... etc etc etc". (In fact, the more I read John Robbins, I see how Ron may have borrowed some of his language in the 70's and 80's)
> 
> But in his better moments, he identified the bedrock principles of anti-statism in Christianity.


OK, close enough I suppose.

My problem is more with people who are actually pro-state than with minarchists who are for all intents and purposes anti-state, even if not perfectly logically consistent.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Absolutely agree.  That is why Christianity contains a full orbed argument against coercion...now and until the end of time.


This is my understanding of Christianity as well, and big part of why I oppose the state.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> OK, close enough I suppose.
> 
> My problem is more with people who are actually pro-state than with minarchists who are for all intents and purposes anti-state, even if not perfectly logically consistent.


That said, does Robbins ever actually address the question of how ANY taxation can be justified?  Or does he imagine a government without any taxes?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> OK, close enough I suppose.
> 
> My problem is more with people who are actually pro-state than with minarchists who are for all intents and purposes anti-state, even if not perfectly logically consistent.


Yeah, but that is going to be about .0037% of the people you come in to contact with.  When I argue against religious statists, I find out that there are other philosophies and theologies that are influencing them, not Christianity.  I try to stick to the foundational principles and not get in to the weeds.

Edit:. Oh I see what you are saying now.  Yes I agree with you.  We think the same thing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, but that is going to be about .0037% of the people you come in to contact with.


That's a very, very specific percentage.  Are you just joking around here or do you have an actual reason for that number?




> When I argue against religious statists, I find out that there are other philosophies and theologies that are influencing them, not Christianity.  I try to stick to the foundational principles and not get in to the weeds.


What do you define as "getting into the weeds"?

I agree with you that religious statists are not really following the Bible, at least on that point.  They wrongly interpret 1 Peter 2 and Romans 13 as being pro-State when they are not. 1 Samuel 8 provides an airtight case against statism of basically any kind.  The 10 commandments are icing on the cake.

----------


## Christian Liberty

BTW: I've never met anyone face to face who was completely opposed to all government.  Ever.  And I've never met a perfect minarchist either (Defined as someone who supports government police and courts for crimes with victims, and a military to defend the country, nothing else).  I've met a couple of broadly "libertarian" people but they've always supported a little bit more government than a minarchist would, and most of them don't agree with my pro-life convictions either, although once I explain it to them they can usually understand it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That said, does Robbins ever actually address the question of how ANY taxation can be justified?  Or does he imagine a government without any taxes?


In his book Freedom and Capitalism, he argued (using 1st Samuel 8) that taxation could exist if it didn't surpass what God required from man (a tenth, or a tithe).

This of course was inconsistent, because tithes are voluntary, taxes are not (taxes are theft).

So, he was inconsistent, but towards the end of his life, you could see him crunching all of the information together and getting more consistent with his anti-statism.  Other contemporaries of him, like Joe Sobran, were getting more anarchistic as well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In his book Freedom and Capitalism, he argued (using 1st Samuel 8) that taxation could exist if it didn't surpass what God required from man (a tenth, or a tithe).


I've heard that argument before.  Its a start, at least it doesn't make government omnipotent.  1 Samuel 8 clearly establishes taxation of 10% as being tyrannical.  Which is why I'm borderline amazed when I see some Christians say "The government shouldn't get more than God" acting as if they should get as much as God.  That makes the State omnipotent.




> This of course was inconsistent, because tithes are voluntary, taxes are not (taxes are theft).


I agree with you.


> So, he was inconsistent, but towards the end of his life, you could see him crunching all of the information together and getting more consistent with his anti-statism.  Other contemporaries of him, like Joe Sobran, were getting more anarchistic as well.


IIRC Sobran eventually became an anarchist.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> IIRC Sobran eventually became an anarchist.





> My arrival (very recently) at philosophical anarchism has disturbed some of my conservative and Christian friends.


http://archive.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran267.html

----------


## Christian Liberty

I've read that article.

I was a little surprised that my mom was more accepting when I "came out" as an ancap than my dad was (It wasn't a real problem for either of them  though.)  My mom probably disagrees with me more on real issues (I think that's mostly because she's naive) but at the same point, she realizes she can't really disagree with me that, like the OP points out, Government violates God's commands by design.  My dad is still stuck in Romans 13 mentality a little bit, although I think he's slowly coming out of it.   I don't think he'll ever be an anarchist, but I could see him becoming a consistent constitutionalist or even a minarchist eventually.

On the other hand... my conversation with my aunt and cousin today was... frustrating.  I asked for advice in the religion subforum.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> When I argue against religious statists, I find out that there are other philosophies and theologies that are influencing them, not Christianity.


What philosophies are these?  How do I identify them and refute them?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I approve of this thread.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran267.html


I just read it again.  MAN that was great.  I can't even believe I got through that article last time and was still a minarchist when I was done... Wow...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I approve of this thread.


It's important.  Do not forget that at one point the Bible was preached to chattel slaves to re-enforce their subjugation.  It is important to spread the truth of the Gospel.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I just read it again.  MAN that was great.  I can't even believe I got through that article last time and was still a minarchist when I was done... Wow...


Yep.  Sobran was a great voice amongst minarchists, and his acceptance of philosophical anarchism is mightily important, in my opinion.

ETA: One of my primary "beefs" with Glenn Beck is his insistence that the constitution was "divinely inspired".  Even a cursory reading of the historical record puts this notion to lie.  It is rather easy to see that the constitution represented a step _away_ from true human liberty, and anyone who claims to have read the record as extensively as Beck claims should readily see this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yep.  Sobran was a great voice amongst minarchists, and his acceptance of philosophical anarchism is mightily important, in my opinion.


The Augustine and Aquinas quotes are interesting as well.  Too many Christians hold to a "the law is the law" approach.  While I doubt Augustine or Aquinas were perfect libertarians, I think they'd be dismayed about the amount of statism in the church today.

Augustine's one error in this regard, I think, is that he believed that there could ever be such thing as a just State, even if he did feel that it was unlikely that such a State would ever exist.  But he's light years ahead of your average American Christian.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ETA: One of my primary "beefs" with Glenn Beck is his insistence that the constitution was "divinely inspired".  Even a cursory reading of the historical record puts this notion to lie.  It is rather easy to see that the constitution represented a step _away_ from true human liberty, and anyone who claims to have read the record as extensively as Beck claims should readily see this.


Yes.  This is a tenant of Mormonism.  Mormons believe that God inspired the Constitution.  This is ridiculous.  Mormons have an un-Christian understanding of inspiration.  

FF, you were wondering about other philosophies of religious statists that contribute to their statism.  Here's one.  Also, you have to look at Roman Catholicism/Reconstructionism.  Those are statist, unbiblical philosophies.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF, you were wondering about other philosophies of religious statists that contribute to their statism. Here's one. Also, you have to look at Roman Catholicism/Reconstructionism. Those are statist, unbiblical philosophies.


I presumed you actually meant "Christians", even if people who aren't exactly all that well versed in the scriptures.  So I really didn't consider the Catholics or the Mormons at all.  Neither is Christian.

That said, Glenn Beck was an absolute moron with those comments of his.  I don't know if you view Todd Friel as a Christian or not, but he absolutely destroyed Glenn Beck regardless.

Reconstructionism... I'm completely opposed to it, and I regularly talk to people on another site who support it.  What's your simplest refutation?

----------


## Sola_Fide

Why was this thread moved to the religion forum? Just curious.  This was a thread about political philosophy, so that is where I started It.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why was this thread moved to the religion forum? Just curious.  This was a thread about political philosophy, so that is where I started It.


Does it actually matter?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes. This is a tenant of Mormonism. Mormons believe that God inspired the Constitution. This is ridiculous. Mormons have an un-Christian understanding of inspiration.


I agree that this is absolutely stupid.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does it actually matter?


It matters because it is discriminatory.  Secularists hypocritically attempt to frame the debate as one where Biblical ideas are off in the "religious" corner of life and secularism is the default universal view.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It matters because it is discriminatory.  Secularists hypocritically attempt to frame the debate as one where Biblical ideas are off in the "religious" corner of life and secularism is the default universal view.


That's true.  The more I see people argue (Both online and IRL) the more I realize that presuppositionalism is ultimately involved in virtually every argument.

For instance, my conversation with my aunt (Who is a Christian BTW, although she's also using another form of presuppositionalism, not just the truth of the Bible, as you'll see in a moment) went like this:

Me_ For a police officer to enforce an immoral law is wrong.

Her_ No its not, they're sworn to uphold the law

Me_ So?

Her_ Its the law, FreedomFanatic!

Me_ And?

Presupposition that enforcing laws isn't wrong.  The conversation didn't go exactly like this.  I did try to respond to her, by bringing up 1st century Rome as a counterpoint (And of course, Romans 13 always gets thrown into these debates, even though half the time they don't even bother to show where its found... maybe making them do that might help me win some arguments) but ultimately there's the presupposition that the law isn't wrong.

And then, of course, there's the secular presupposition you're talking about, that everything happens naturally.  I honestly don't really care how old the earth is, its not really all that relevant to my faith (Although, if you need to  know, I do lean in the YEC direction), an Old Earth wouldn't ruin my faith... But when someone says the earth is 4.6 billion years old because of radiometric dating, I have to ask them how they knew the rocks had all uranium in it (rather than some lead) when they were created.  My oceanography professor could not answer this one.

For better or worse, I'll stick with the Bible, and the non-aggression axiom, although I think I can mostly prove the NAP with the Bible.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I presumed you actually meant "Christians", even if people who aren't exactly all that well versed in the scriptures.  So I really didn't consider the Catholics or the Mormons at all.  Neither is Christian.


I was born and raised a Catholic, FF.  My understanding of Christ is considerably influenced by that upbringing.  I accept that Jesus Christ, the son of God, the Word made flesh, was crucified for my sins, and as a consequence I enjoy everlasting life, because of His sacrifice, dying for my sins.

You are entitled to hold and speak your opinion, but I consider your characterization of Catholics as not "Christian" to be HIGHLY offensive, and a decidedly _un-Christ-like_ comment.  It is not for *you* to decide.

----------


## Carson

I think the rules and lessons of the bible apply whether your in a god believing mood or not. 

I suppose the lessons are universal in religions around the globe.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was born and raised a Catholic, FF.  My understanding of Christ is considerably influenced by that upbringing.  I accept that Jesus Christ, the son of God, the Word made flesh, was crucified for my sins, and as a consequence I enjoy everlasting life, *because of His sacrifice, dying for my sins.*
> 
> You are entitled to hold and speak your opinion, but I consider your characterization of Catholics as not "Christian" to be HIGHLY offensive, and a decidedly _un-Christ-like_ comment.  It is not for *you* to decide.


If you really believe what you say in the bold, I would consider you a Christian.

I don't view Catholics who actually hold to Catholic teaching to be Christians because the Council of Trent directly contradicts the Biblical gospel, and as such, Paul declares those who believe in it to be anathema.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says that Christians are justified by grace, through faith, and not of themselves.  Faith is God-given, and works play no part in being saved.

The Council of Trent, by contrast, declares all  those anathema who claim that works are a fruit of justification, rather than actually causing the increase thereof.  In addition to this, Catholics believe in purgatory, which ultimately means they do not believe Christ's sacrifice was enough to save them.  

I think this damnable heresy is best shown to be damnable by a certain "Protestant", who echoes the disgusting cries loudly enough that any Christian should be able to spot it.

Says C.S. Lewis:




> "Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age, the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to him?
> I believe in Purgatory.
> *Mind you, the Reformers had good reasons for throwing doubt on the 'Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory' as that Romish doctrine had then become.....*
> The right view returns magnificently in Newman's DREAM. There, if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer 'With its darkness to affront that light'. Religion has claimed Purgatory. 
> Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.'
> I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. But I don't think the suffering is the purpose of the purgation. I can well believe that people neither much worse nor much better than I will suffer less than I or more. . . . The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.
> My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am 'coming round',' a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure. But . . . it will [not] be disgusting and unhallowed."
> *  - C.S. Lewis, Letters To Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, chapter 20, paragraphs 7-10, pages 108-109*



C.S. Lewis believed he "Needed to be cleaned up" before he could enter heaven.  He did not trust Christ's sacrifice.  Nor do the Catholics who hold to their Church's doctrine of purgatory.  C.S. Lewis has exposed the hatred of Christ's sacrifice for all to see. 

Disgusting.

Yes, I believe that those who hold to such wicked doctrines are not Christians.  They preach a different gospel, where man can somehow do something to clean himself and make himself worthy of heaven.  They spit upon the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for their sins.  As such, they are anathema according to Galatians 1:8-9.  Any who add works to their salvation are also anathema for the same reason.

I'm not deciding.  How dare I!  I'm simply proclaiming what God has already told us, through Paul.  Those who preach false gospels are anathema and are not Christians.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

You *are* deciding.  You do not have the right to tell me whether I am or am not a Christian, and you don't know a bloody *thing* about C.S. Lewis' soul, FF.  

I pray I don't have to spend a moment before my Judge explaining how in life I sat around making such proclamations about other men.  That is not for me.  My concern is with the state of my own soul, and my own relationship with God.  It is the absolute _pinnacle of arrogance_ to say such things.  Could *anything* be more arrogant than believing I have the capacity to decide who does and does not have an acceptable or adequate relationship with God?  _That_ is disgusting.

----------


## Theocrat

> If the 10 Commandments apply to all men, then there can be no 'capital G' government (state).


Biblically speaking, yes, there can be a civil government (or state) that implements the Ten Commandments for all men to follow. For instance, in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, we're shown that when there was a kingdom established in Israel, that everyone, including the king, himself, was obligated to follow the commandments of the Lord. There was no contradiction in that. There was a state (a kingdom) with God's holy laws embedded therein to maintain righteousness and peace for all of the land.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You *are* deciding.  You do not have the right to tell me whether I am or am not a Christian, and you don't know a bloody *thing* about C.S. Lewis' soul, FF.


I agree.  I have no idea where he is.  What I do know is that he was not a saved man when he made those disgusting statements.  He was preaching another gospel, as do all Catholics who believe their Church on the matter.




> I pray I don't have to spend a moment before my Judge explaining how in life I sat around making such proclamations about other men.  That is not for me.  My concern is with the state of my own soul, and my own relationship with God.  It is the absolute _pinnacle of arrogance_ to say such things.  Could *anything* be more arrogant than believing I have the capacity to decide who does and does not have an acceptable or adequate relationship with God?  _That_ is disgusting.


As I said, if you really believe this you would have to call Paul arrogant when he wrote Galatians 1:8-9.  Are you willing to do this?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Biblically speaking, yes, there can be a civil government (or state) that implements the Ten Commandments for all men to follow. For instance, in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, we're shown that when there was a kingdom established in Israel, that everyone, including the king, himself, was obligated to follow the commandments of the Lord. There was no contradiction in that. There was a state (a kingdom) with God's holy laws embedded therein to maintain righteousness and peace for all of the land.


Deuteronomy simply says "At some point, you're going to set up a King, if you do so, do this."  It was never commanded.  And, as erowe1 points out, no King but Christ can fulfill those  standards.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I agree.  I have no idea where he is.  What I do know is that he was not a saved man when he made those disgusting statements.  He was preaching another gospel, as do all Catholics who believe their Church on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, if you really believe this you would have to call Paul arrogant when he wrote Galatians 1:8-9.  Are you willing to do this?


I don't equate myself with Paul.  

It's called humility.  Give it a try.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't equate myself with Paul.  
> 
> It's called humility.  Give it a try.


I don't equate myself with Paul either.  I'm simply repeating what he already said.

I don't say the things I do out of some kind of sick pride.  If it wasn't for God's grace, and his grace alone, I would be far worse than them.  Jesus Christ saved me for my sins, and he *caused me* to believe his gospel.

I say the things I do out of concern for lost souls, and concern for the Truth.  The Bible says, clearly, that those who preach a false gospel are not saved.  You call quoting the Bible "arrogant" and that's a problem.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You do not have the right to tell me whether I am or am not a Christian


Did you forget the 1st amendment?

----------


## Theocrat

> Deuteronomy simply says "At some point, you're going to set up a King, if you do so, do this."  It was never commanded.  And, as erowe1 points out, no King but Christ can fulfill those  standards.


Actually, it was commanded. God, in His omniscience, knew what was going to happen in Israel's future, and He planned for them to have a king (ultimately, fulfilled by His Son, Jesus Christ). So, in His planning, God told His people, "*Thou shalt* in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose, one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee. Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother [Deuteronomy 17:15 - emphasis mine]." The text clearly shows that God commanded them because it was not that the people initiated the process of having a king; it was God, Himself.

I have to disagree with you and erowe1 that there was no king before Christ who could fulfill those standards, with this one qualification: Jesus Christ, the King of kings, was the only Person Who did it without sin. There were good kings, and there were bad kings in Israel's history. The good kings were the ones who "did that which was right in the sight of God," while the bad kings were the ones who "did that which was evil in the sight of God."

As an example to prove my claim that there were kings who fulfilled those standards in a way that pleased God, let me point you to what the Bible records about King David. In 1 Kings 11:33-34, it states:




> Because that they have forsaken Me and have worshipped Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, and Milcom, the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in My ways, to do that which is right in Mine eyes and *to keep My statutes and My judgments, as did David, his father*.
> 
> Howbeit, I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand, but I will make him prince all the days of his life, *for David, My servant's sake, whom I chose, because he kept My commandments and My statutes*. [emphasis mine]


So, the language of Scripture clearly shows that there were kings who executed their royal ministry rightly, in the ways which God favored. They were not perfect, as Christ was, but they did fulfill the standards of their calling as kings.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't equate myself with Paul either.  I'm simply repeating what he already said.
> 
> I don't say the things I do out of some kind of sick pride.  If it wasn't for God's grace, and his grace alone, I would be far worse than them.  Jesus Christ saved me for my sins, and he *caused me* to believe his gospel.
> 
> I say the things I do out of concern for lost souls, and concern for the Truth.  The Bible says, clearly, that those who preach a false gospel are not saved.  You call quoting the Bible "arrogant" and that's a problem.


You presuming to know whether another soul is saved or not is a problem.  That is well above your pay-grade, and is the very height of arrogance.  You're perfectly free - you were created that way, _as were the rest of us_ - to read and interpret the words of the Bible.  You may or may not agree with how I interpret those words, but you have no right to sit in judgment of me or anyone else (and yes, making statements about the condition of the souls of other people is judgment).  That right is reserved to One alone.  Live the gospel.  Go out and spread the word as you read it.  Be an example of Christ's love.  Pray if you feel that I and/or others are misled, but *if I were you*, I would be extremely cautious about making public proclamations about who does and who does not know God, young man.  You come off like a Pharisee.  You must learn where your responsibilities begin and end.  

You have a lot to learn.

ETA: Borrowing this from torchbearers sig:




> "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." ~ Mark Twain.


Seems apt, to me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@A Son of Liberty- 

So, if I said that Muslims were unsaved, would that be an arrogant statement to make?  Nevermind that the Bible makes very clear that there is no way to heaven but Christ?

Where do you think simply proclaiming what the Bible says about the gospel ends, and "arrogance" begins.

BTW: You're still one of my favorite posters here

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> @A Son of Liberty- 
> 
> So, if I said that Muslims were unsaved, would that be an arrogant statement to make?  Nevermind that the Bible makes very clear that there is no way to heaven but Christ?
> 
> Where do you think simply proclaiming what the Bible says about the gospel ends, and "arrogance" begins.
> 
> BTW: You're still one of my favorite posters here


Thanks kid.

Here's what I think:  I think it's my job to live a Christian life... as in, to the greatest extent possible - and I know in my case well, well, WELL short of - the example set by Jesus Christ.  It's my job to take care of my soul, to pray for my forgiveness for my sins, and for the souls and sins of my fellow man, and to not be afraid to proclaim that I'm a Christian, saved by the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross.  But I have absolutely nothing to say about the state of another man's sould, regardless of what he publicly professes himself.  I do not and cannot know what another man keeps in his heart; so I have nothing to say about it.  I'm a human being, and I'm bound to form an opinion about... just about anything, just like you are, and just like S_F is.  But my relationship with God, just like every man's relationship with God, is my own business, and in the end - and I mean _in the end_, neither you, nor S_F, nor anyone else will be there when I'm required to answer for my life; and I won't be there when you answer for yours.  

That's what I think.  Hope that's clear.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Thanks kid.
> 
> Here's what I think:  I think it's my job to live a Christian life... as in, to the greatest extent possible - and I know in my case well, well, WELL short of - the example set by Jesus Christ.  It's my job to take care of my soul, to pray for my forgiveness for my sins, and for the souls and sins of my fellow man, and to not be afraid to proclaim that I'm a Christian, saved by the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross.  But I have absolutely nothing to say about the state of another man's sould, regardless of what he publicly professes himself.  I do not and cannot know what another man keeps in his heart; so I have nothing to say about it.  I'm a human being, and I'm bound to form an opinion about... just about anything, just like you are, and just like S_F is.  But my relationship with God, just like every man's relationship with God, is my own business, and in the end - and I mean _in the end_, neither you, nor S_F, nor anyone else will be there when I'm required to answer for my life; and I won't be there when you answer for yours.  
> 
> That's what I think.  Hope that's clear.


I agree with you that I won't be there when you answer for your life, or me for mine.

The Bible does make clear, however, that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven (John 14:6) that salvation is by FAITH and not works (Ephesians 2:8-9) and that the preachers of false gospels are anathema (Galatians 1:8-9.)  You're saying that its arrogant for me to say that those people are not saved, even though I'm literally just repeating what the Bible says.  I'm not saying they're going to Hell.  That I cannot know.  I don't know what any person thinks/thought in his final moments.  The only people who I know are in Hell are the people who the Bible specifically teaches are there.  But other than that...  I don't know that even, say, Hitler, is in Hell.  I do know that he was an unregenerate man when he murdered six million people, because those are not the fruits of a Christian who God is working through.  But could Hitler have been saved in his final moments?  Yes.  Its unlikely, but its not impossible.

I don't know if CS Lewis was ever saved or not.  Based on what I see in the Bible, I don't see how he could possibly have made the statements he's made about salvation (Basically saying pagans could be saved by works) or purgatory (Essentially saying he needed to be "cleaned up" before entering heaven and that Christ's sacrifice itself was not sufficient.)  But I have no idea if he accepted the true gospel and was saved before that.  So I'm not saying he's in Hell.

If its arrogant to judge based on the Bible, pray that God shows me so.  I'm not seeing it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> If its arrogant to judge based on the Bible, pray that God shows me so.  I'm not seeing it.


There is only One Judge.  So, yes, it is arrogant for you to judge.  That is not your job.  

Worry less about CS Lewis' soul, and more about your own.  Going around saying who is and who is not saved has lead to millions of dead human beings throughout history.  I'm not saying you're ready to start setting light to blasphemers.  I'm saying you're playing with fire.  

For what it's worth.

----------


## jmdrake

> I agree with you that I won't be there when you answer for your life, or me for mine.
> 
> The Bible does make clear, however, that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven (John 14:6) that salvation is by FAITH and not works (Ephesians 2:8-9) and that the preachers of false gospels are anathema (Galatians 1:8-9.)  You're saying that its arrogant for me to say that those people are not saved, even though I'm literally just repeating what the Bible says.  I'm not saying they're going to Hell.  That I cannot know.  I don't know what any person thinks/thought in his final moments.  The only people who I know are in Hell are the people who the Bible specifically teaches are there.  But other than that...  I don't know that even, say, Hitler, is in Hell.  I do know that he was an unregenerate man when he murdered six million people, because those are not the fruits of a Christian who God is working through.  But could Hitler have been saved in his final moments?  Yes.  Its unlikely, but its not impossible.
> 
> I don't know if CS Lewis was ever saved or not.  Based on what I see in the Bible, I don't see how he could possibly have made the statements he's made about salvation (Basically saying pagans could be saved by works) or purgatory (Essentially saying he needed to be "cleaned up" before entering heaven and that Christ's sacrifice itself was not sufficient.)  But I have no idea if he accepted the true gospel and was saved before that.  So I'm not saying he's in Hell.
> 
> If its arrogant to judge based on the Bible, pray that God shows me so.  I'm not seeing it.


Question 1 for FF: Do you not understand the difference between saying that someone who doesn't believe in Jesus as messiah (like a Muslim) isn't saved, and saying that someone who believes in Jesus as messiah, but who has some other belief that is different from yours, like believing that God has a way to save pagans, is not saved?  Because there is a difference.

Question 2 for FF: What difference to you believe their is in saying "I don't see how someone can be a Christian and God not reveal to him that the pagans are all damned to hell, even those who never had a chance to hear about him" and saying "I don't see how someone can be a Christian and God not reveal to him that Jesus died/did not die for everyone?"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There is only One Judge.  So, yes, it is arrogant for you to judge.  That is not your job.  
> 
> Worry less about CS Lewis' soul, and more about your own.  Going around saying who is and who is not saved has lead to millions of dead human beings throughout history. * I'm not saying you're ready to start setting light to blasphemers.  I'm saying you're playing with fire.  
> *
> For what it's worth.


OK, so you're not saying it, but...

Let's go with something obvious.  Satanists who know what Christianity is, yet still believe in Satanism, are damned.  I *think* we can all agree on this one (Whether "damnation" is defined as ECT or annihilation is not relevant here).

Does this logically lead to lighting stubborn Satanists on fire?  Of  course not!

Only God can regenerate souls.  Threatening to burn someone wouldn't accomplish anything for their salvation.  The Bible teaches that sinners outside the church should be left for God to deal with, while those in the church who stubbornly refuse to repent of serious sins should be excommunicated and treated like an unbeliever [who would then be left for God to judge] see Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5.

I absolutely, categorically reject any kind of violent force.




> Question 1 for FF: Do you not understand the difference between saying that someone who doesn't believe in Jesus as messiah (like a Muslim) isn't saved, and saying that someone who believes in Jesus as messiah, but who has some other belief that is different from yours, like believing that God has a way to save pagans, is not saved?  Because there is a difference.


First of all, this is a false dichotomy because OF COURSE God has a way of saving pagans.  He causes them to believe the gospel

Second of all, of course there's a difference.  If there weren't a difference I'd then have to say that anyone who thought CS Lewis is saved isn't saved, and then that anyone who thinks the person who thinks CS Lewis is saved is saved is not saved, ad infinitum and we're back into Carpenter territory again.

The difference being: a person who knows the gospel will know that Salvation is only through Christ.  That does not mean he will necessarily identify every damnable heresy as damnable on the spot, or that he will necessarily recognize false confessors.  



> Question 2 for FF: What difference to you believe their is in saying "I don't see how someone can be a Christian and God not reveal to him that the pagans are all damned to hell, even those who never had a chance to hear about him" and saying "I don't see how someone can be a Christian and God not reveal to him that Jesus died/did not die for everyone?"


Ooh...  This is a tough one.  This is honestly something I'm still working through.

If you had asked about something else, such as infant baptism or eschatology, this would have been an easy question.  Namely, I would have said that neither infant baptism or eschatology are gospel issues, while the doctrine that Salvation is only by or through Christ is an essential gospel issue.

But... I'm honestly still not sure how this applies to the atonement.  While I'm not comfortable saying that someone who simply hasn't thought about the atonement issue much is not saved, I have a hard time saying that the belief that Christ did the same thing for those in Hell as he did for those who will spend eternity  with Him really believes the same gospel I believe...

I don't know... I don't have the answer to this yet.

----------


## jmdrake

> First of all, this is a false dichotomy because OF COURSE God has a way of saving pagans.  He causes them to believe the gospel


According to Paul, God had a way to reveal Himself to pagans who had not yet heard the gospel.

----------


## Christian Liberty

They still weren't regenerate until Paul preached to them.  Paul used the fact that they had an unknown God to teach them something he didn't know.  God commanded all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30.)  They were not saved until they accepted the gospel.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The Bible teaches that sinners outside the church should be left for God to deal with


And this is all I'm saying.

Making comments about who is and who is not in God's love is not your job, and is rather no way to go about spreading His love.

----------


## jmdrake

> They still weren't regenerate until Paul preached to them.


Not being regenerate != not being saved.




> Paul used the fact that they had an unknown God to teach them something he didn't know.


Yeah.  You used that line (lie) once before.  Paul said they *worshipped the true God* when they worshipped




> God commanded all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30.)


Right.  As soon as God convicts you about a truth you are required to repent and accept it.  That doesn't mean you weren't saved before you accepted it.





> They were not saved until they accepted the gospel.


The Bible doesn't say that.  You did.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not being regenerate != not being saved.


Yes it does.

I knew Arminians believed that belief causes regeneration.  but you actually believe there are unregenerates walking around who are saved?





> Yeah.  You used that line (lie) once before.  Paul said they *worshipped the true God* when they worshipped


Let's look at it:




> *22*So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.*23*For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.*24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,b25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.**26*And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,*27*that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,*28*for
>  “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;c
> as even some of your own poets have said,
>  “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’d
> *29*Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.*30*The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,*31*because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”



The bolded portion shows that Paul cannot possibly mean what you think he means, since those people did not believe that there was one God who created everything, they thought the gods lived in temples, etc.  He's using a rhetorical device to tell them something they don't already know.




> Right.  As soon as God convicts you about a truth you are required to repent and accept it.  That doesn't mean you weren't saved before you accepted it.


Depending on the truth you were talking about I would agree.

But you're literally talking about the GOSPEL here.  You aren't talking about some secondary doctrine.  You're literally saying that people who worship the Greek Pantheon in ignorance are saved.  That completely flies in the face of John 3:18 and John 14:6, where Jesus Christ says that he was the only way and that all who do not believe in him are condemned.

In the light of that, I think the possibility that Paul speaks in error here is actually more likely than that those people were somehow already saved.  More likely, however, is that as I said, Paul was using a rhetorical device to tell them something they didn't know.





> The Bible doesn't say that.  You did.


Yes it does.  John 3:18 says it very, very  clearly.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And this is all I'm saying.
> 
> Making comments about who is and who is not in God's love is not your job, and is rather no way to go about spreading His love.


I'm not saying to go around looking for people to declare saved and not saved.  But the Bible does say that those who confess a false gospel are unsaved.  The Bible also says not to be yoked to an unbeliever, how can you obey that command if you can't judge who is and is not an unbeliever (even if such judgment is, of course, fallible)?

That's a very, very different issue than trying to reconstruct the world into some kind of Christian theocracy (or even what the "religious right" is doing) by force.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes it does.
> 
> I knew Arminians believed that belief causes regeneration.  but you actually believe there are unregenerates walking around who are saved?


Do you believe Peter was saved before he was converted?  Because Jesus said Peter was not converted 2 to 3 years after Peter started following Jesus.  Besides, the word "regenerate" isn't even in the Bible.  So you Calvinists get to make up your own silly words and then define them as you wish?





> Let's look at it:


Yes.  Let's look at the part you ignore as opposed to the part you put in bold.

For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you

Paul was proclaiming to them the God they were already worshipping!

How can you keep glossing over this?




> The bolded portion shows that Paul cannot possibly mean what you think he means


Wrong.  The bolded portion shows that you know how to use bold.  Here is your error.  You think that because Paul was describing to them aspects of God that they may not have known that that meant they didn't worship God.  How about the thief on the cross?  If he didn't know that Jesus was born of a virgin then he was lost?  By your logic the answer is yes.





> Yes it does.  John 3:18 says it very, very  clearly.


I already explained that.  John 3:18 applied to those who did not believe.  It does not apply to those who do not know and it *certainly* doesn't apply to those who worship the true God as best they known.

----------


## erowe1

Through all the societal changes and forms of government or lack thereof in all the settings of the Bible throughout all the centuries it recounts, if there is one grand unifying theme concerning human governance, the title of this thread is it.

It is so essential to any discussion of the biblical theology of the state that to ignore it would be like talking about marriage without alluding to "the two shall become one flesh."

And yet that is exactly what most Christians do when they think about applying biblical ethics to public policy. They totally bypass this principle.

And yes, as stated above, the anti-state corollary to this principle is clear.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I'm not saying to go around looking for people to declare saved and not saved.  But the Bible does say that those who confess a false gospel are unsaved.  The Bible also says not to be yoked to an unbeliever, how can you obey that command if you can't judge who is and is not an unbeliever (even if such judgment is, of course, fallible)?
> 
> That's a very, very different issue than trying to reconstruct the world into some kind of Christian theocracy (or even what the "religious right" is doing) by force.


You and S_F have made a minor hobby of going about this website telling the rest of us who is and who is not saved.  I'm getting tired of telling you that it is well above your ability to make commentary on that.  I've told you a number of times now that you're free as an individual to hold views about the beliefs of other people, but making public declarations about the state of their souls is another thing altogether.  I've explained it to you enough times now.  Do with it as you will.  Just know that you are, in my opinion, doing more harm than good.




> Here's what I think: I think it's my job to live a Christian life... as in, to the greatest extent possible - and I know in my case well, well, WELL short of - the example set by Jesus Christ. It's my job to take care of my soul, to pray for my forgiveness for my sins, and for the souls and sins of my fellow man, and to not be afraid to proclaim that I'm a Christian, saved by the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross. But I have absolutely nothing to say about the state of another man's sould, regardless of what he publicly professes himself. I do not and cannot know what another man keeps in his heart; so I have nothing to say about it. I'm a human being, and I'm bound to form an opinion about... just about anything, just like you are, and just like S_F is. But my relationship with God, just like every man's relationship with God, is my own business, and in the end - and I mean in the end, neither you, nor S_F, nor anyone else will be there when I'm required to answer for my life; and I won't be there when you answer for yours.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Do you believe Peter was saved before he was converted?  Because Jesus said Peter was not converted 2 to 3 years after Peter started following Jesus.  Besides, the word "regenerate" isn't even in the Bible.  So you Calvinists get to make up your own silly words and then define them as you wish?





> How can you keep glossing over this?


Because of what I already pointed out.  

Paul may also have had some supernatural insight into their hearts, he may have known that they would accept the True God upon his revelation.




> Wrong.  The bolded portion shows that you know how to use bold.  Here is your error.  You think that because Paul was describing to them aspects of God that they may not have known that that meant they didn't worship God.  How about the thief on the cross?  If he didn't know that Jesus was born of a virgin then he was lost?  By your logic the answer is yes.


No, I wouldn't say that.






> I already explained that.  John 3:18 applied to those who did not believe.  It does not apply to those who do not know and it *certainly* doesn't apply to those who worship the true God as best they known.


Jesus said he who believes IN ME. 




> Through all the societal changes and forms of government or lack thereof in all the settings of the Bible throughout all the centuries it recounts, if there is one grand unifying theme concerning human governance, the title of this thread is it.
> 
> It is so essential to any discussion of the biblical theology of the state that to ignore it would be like talking about marriage without alluding to "the two shall become one flesh."
> 
> And yet that is exactly what most Christians do when they think about applying biblical ethics to public policy. They totally bypass this principle.
> 
> And yes, as stated above, the anti-state corollary to this principle is clear.

----------


## erowe1

By the way, related to the OP, have you ever noticed how the conversation began when the Pharisees and Herodians asked Jesus about taxes and he told them to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's?

They first said this to him:
"Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any."

In other words, they took as the very premise of their question that Caesar was under the same law as everyone else, so that what is stealing when you or I do it must be stealing when he does it. That's the whole reason for their challenge to Jesus. And in his answer, Jesus never says anything about that premise being wrong.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> By the way, related to the OP, have you ever noticed how the conversation began when the Pharisees and Herodians asked Jesus about taxes and he told them to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's?
> 
> They first said this to him:
> "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any."
> 
> In other words, they took as the very premise of their question that Caesar was under the same law as everyone else, so that what is stealing when you or I do it must be stealing when he does it. That's the whole reason for their challenge to Jesus. And in his answer, Jesus never says anything about that premise being wrong.


Yep, I completely agree.  Christianity is, has to be, anti-state.

----------


## jmdrake

> Because of what I already pointed out.


What you pointed out doesn't change the fact that Paul said he was merely telling them about who they were already worshipping.  Keep saying the same fallacy over and over again may not make it true.




> Paul may also have had some supernatural insight into their hearts, he may have known that they would accept the True God upon his revelation.


Or Paul knew that they would accept the truth about the God the already worshipped.




> No, I wouldn't say that.


I know you wouldn't say that.  But that's the logical conclusion from your reasoning.  Paul told the Athenians aspects of the unknown God that they may or may not have known so by that you assume that they weren't worshipping the God Paul clearly said they were worshipping.




> Jesus said he who believes IN ME.


John 3:18 isn't talking about he who believes in who believes, but about he who doesn't believe.  Go back and read it again.  And by context he was referring to those who had been given knowledge of Him but still did not believe.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's important.  Do not forget that at one point the Bible was preached to chattel slaves to re-enforce their subjugation.  It is important to spread the truth of the Gospel.


I would be careful that the gospel is not anything political.   The gospel is not the non-aggression principle.

The gospel is what Paul describes in 1st Corinthians 15:  Jesus died for the sins of His elect people.  That's it.  That is the good news which has come in to the world.  His sheep will hear His voice, and He will not fail to save who He wills to save.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Sola_Fide- I agree with you, but the fact remains that those teachers who use the Bible to teach subjugation, including to The State, are giving people the image that Christianity is a control mechanism, and are doing the Gospel disservice.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You presuming to know whether another soul is saved or not is a problem.  That is well above your pay-grade, and is the very height of arrogance.  You're perfectly free - you were created that way, _as were the rest of us_ - to read and interpret the words of the Bible.  You may or may not agree with how I interpret those words, but you have no right to sit in judgment of me or anyone else (and yes, making statements about the condition of the souls of other people is judgment).  That right is reserved to One alone.  Live the gospel.  Go out and spread the word as you read it.  Be an example of Christ's love.  Pray if you feel that I and/or others are misled, but *if I were you*, I would be extremely cautious about making public proclamations about who does and who does not know God, young man.  You come off like a Pharisee.  You must learn where your responsibilities begin and end.  
> 
> You have a lot to learn.
> 
> ETA: Borrowing this from torchbearers sig:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems apt, to me.


+ mega rep

----------


## jmdrake

> I would be careful that the gospel is not anything political.   The gospel is not the non-aggression principle.
> 
> The gospel is what Paul describes in 1st Corinthians 15:  Jesus died for the sins of His elect people.  That's it.  That is the good news which has come in to the world.  His sheep will hear His voice, and He will not fail to save who He wills to save.


1 Corinthians 15 is not about limited atonement.  The word "elect" is not used.  Paul does say that "Christ died for our sins" but that is not to say nor imply that Christ only died for the sins of some. 1 John 2:2 makes it clear that Jesus didn't just die for "our" sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

 The main gist of 1 Corinthians 15 is to bring home the fact that the dead will be resurrected.  That's the "good news" Paul wants his readers to get from that chapter.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1 Corinthians 15 is not about limited atonement.  The word "elect" is not used.  Paul does say that "Christ died for our sins" but that is not to say nor imply that Christ only died for the sins of some.


Paul says Jesus died for "our" sins.  Who is his audience?   Who is Paul talking to?  He tells you in the first couple sentences of the letter:




> *1st Corinthians 1:2
> 
> To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christtheir Lord and ours*:


Jesus died for "our" sins, that is, the sins of those "sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be His holy people".









> 1 John 2:2 makes it clear that Jesus didn't just die for "our" sins, but for the sins of the whole world.


Already been answered several times.  That text says Jesus IS the propitiation for our sins. If it means every single man, then every single man would be saved.






> The main gist of 1 Corinthians 15 is to bring home the fact that the dead will be resurrected.  That's the "good news" Paul wants his readers to get from that chapter.


No, I don't think so. The main gist of 1st Corinthians 15 is that Jesus died for the sins of His people according to the Scriptures.  It's what Paul says is "of first importance" in the first sentence.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Thanks kid.
> 
> Here's what I think:  I think it's my job to live a Christian life... as in, to the greatest extent possible - and I know in my case well, well, WELL short of - the example set by Jesus Christ.  It's my job to take care of my soul, to pray for my forgiveness for my sins, and for the souls and sins of my fellow man, and to not be afraid to proclaim that I'm a Christian, saved by the sacrifice made by Christ on the cross.  But I have absolutely nothing to say about the state of another man's sould, regardless of what he publicly professes himself.  I do not and cannot know what another man keeps in his heart; so I have nothing to say about it.  I'm a human being, and I'm bound to form an opinion about... just about anything, just like you are, and just like S_F is.  But my relationship with God, just like every man's relationship with God, is my own business, and in the end - and I mean _in the end_, neither you, nor S_F, nor anyone else will be there when I'm required to answer for my life; and I won't be there when you answer for yours.  
> 
> That's what I think.  Hope that's clear.


Your life is your sermon.

Be careful how you preach it.

(church sign near me at the moment)

----------


## erowe1

I disagree that the Gospel is not political.

"Christ"/"Messiah" is a political term.
"Lord" is a political term.
Crucifixion is a punishment for enemies of the state, and it was for his claim of kingship as a rival of Caesar that Jesus was crucified.
The basis of the Great Commission that "all authority in Heaven and on Earth" has been given to Jesus, is a political basis.
Even the word "Gospel" often had political connotations in the Greco-Roman world, as an announcement of the inauguration of victory of some emperor.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*Do the Ten Commandments Prohibit the Formation of a Government?*One can only hope.

----------


## PierzStyx

> -John Robbins (Ron Paul's former chief of staff)
> 
> See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/jou....Z8rxJjT6.dpuf


So, its not like they can actually choose to keep the commandments anyway, right? After all if individual will doesn't exist, and all good men do only takes place because it is Christ's goodness imputed to them, and all men are by nature wicked and evil, then these people can't _choose_ to keep the Ten Commandments any more than you or I can.They're just carrying out God's ineffable will.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I disagree that the Gospel is not political.
> 
> "Christ"/"Messiah" is a political term.
> "Lord" is a political term.
> Crucifixion is a punishment for enemies of the state, and it was for his claim of kingship as a rival of Caesar that Jesus was crucified.
> The basis of the Great Commission that "all authority in Heaven and on Earth" has been given to Jesus, is a political basis.
> Even the word "Gospel" often had political connotations in the Greco-Roman world, as an announcement of the inauguration of victory of some emperor.



Christ/Messiah is NOT a political term. The Jews made it one, not understanding that Jesus came to be their Savior form sin, not to establish a political kingdom.

Lord is a political term, but its also not. One could call one's guild boss "lord" as a term of respect in the Middle Ages too.

Crucifixion was not reserved solely for the execution of political prisoners. Thieves, murders, and just about anyone else could be crucified. In fact Romans, no matter how wrong their crime, could not be crucified. Even if they tried to kill the Emperor. It was a perk of citizenship and why Paul was beheaded. Also Pilate specifically finds no political fault with Jesus, but allows Him to be crucified because it'll keep the Jews from revolting and keeping another black mark off his record.

Jesus will be King of Kings.

The word gospel only means good news. IN that sense anything could be gospel generically, including but not limited to military victories. It only becomes THE Gospel with the advent of Christianity.

----------


## Terry1

> -John Robbins (Ron Paul's former chief of staff)
> 
> See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/jou....Z8rxJjT6.dpuf


IMO, since the government is representative of the electorate themselves illustrates how far society has strayed from the morality of God.  If the majority of the electorate are unbelievers, then it's only logical to assume that government will be too.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, its not like they can actually choose to keep the commandments anyway, right? After all if individual will doesn't exist, and all good men do only takes place because it is Christ's goodness imputed to them, and all men are by nature wicked and evil, then these people can't _choose_ to keep the Ten Commandments any more than you or I can.They're just carrying out God's ineffable will.


That's right.   People can't choose to obey God.  So to the unregenerate, the law condemns them before God.  This is what Romans chapter 2 and 3 are about.  The law reflects the perfect holiness of God, and we are to be holy as He is holy.

----------


## erowe1

> Christ/Messiah is NOT a political term. The Jews made it one, not understanding that Jesus came to be their Savior form sin, not to establish a political kingdom.


First of all, yes it is. The kings of ancient Israel were anointed, which is what Messiah means. And the concept of Jesus as Messiah comes from God's covenant with David promising him that one of his descendants would reign on his throne as king. Are you going to say that "king" is not a political term?

As for what you said about Jesus not establishing a kingdom, check this out:
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...sort=bookorder




> Crucifixion was not reserved solely for the execution of political prisoners. Thieves, murders, and just about anyone else could be crucified.


It wasn't for just any thieves. It was for those who threatened the established system of power held by the elite, which was intimately wrapped up in the Empire. And besides that, in the case of Jesus, it clearly was used against him for political reasons.




> Jesus will be King of Kings.


That right there is a political claim.

Who are all these other kings? And what right do they have to be kings? Whence comes their power?




> The word gospel only means good news. IN that sense anything could be gospel generically, including but not limited to military victories. It only becomes THE Gospel with the advent of Christianity.


Yes. It was used in many contexts, especially political ones.

Notice that the Gospel Jesus, his disciples, and John the Baptist preached in the first half of the Gospel of Matthew was called "the Gospel of the Kingdom." My understanding is that this was not the same Gospel as that which Christ commissioned the Church to preach. But it does inform us as to the connotations of the word.

----------


## erowe1

> the government is representative of the electorate themselves


Where and when in the world has this ever been true?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I disagree that the Gospel is not political.
> 
> "Christ"/"Messiah" is a political term.
> "Lord" is a political term.
> Crucifixion is a punishment for enemies of the state, and it was for his claim of kingship as a rival of Caesar that Jesus was crucified.
> The basis of the Great Commission that "all authority in Heaven and on Earth" has been given to Jesus, is a political basis.
> Even the word "Gospel" often had political connotations in the Greco-Roman world, as an announcement of the inauguration of victory of some emperor.


Yes. In that sense I agree.  But those things you mention are not a blueprint for man's political action on this earth, which is what I was cautioning against.  The gospel is that Christ died for the sins of His people.  That's it.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes. In that sense I agree.  But those things you mention are not a blueprint for man's political action on this earth, which is what I was cautioning against.  The gospel is that Christ died for the sins of His people.  That's it.


I would look at it from a different angle.

Those things should affect the way we think about what "political action" is. And we should not think that we can disembed our relationship with earthly kings from our conviction that Jesus is Lord and they are not.

One of the expressions that the book of Acts gives for proclaiming the Gospel is "proclaiming the kingdom."

----------


## jmdrake

> Paul says Jesus died for "our" sins.  Who is his audience?   Who is Paul talking to?  He tells you in the first couple sentences of the letter:


Right.  But the inclusion of the one does not dictate the exclusion of the other.  John makes it clear later that Christ not only died for "our sins" but the "sins of the whole world".  1 Corinthians 15 was not written to be a conversation on the doctrine of election.  Rather it was written as a conversation on the doctrine of bodily resurrection.  You've taken one verse out of context and tried to make that what the entire chapter is about.




> Jesus died for "our" sins, that is, the sins of those "sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be His holy people".
> 
> Already been answered several times.  That text says Jesus IS the propitiation for our sins. If it means every single man, then every single man would be saved.


Your "answer" is illogical and based of faulty circular reasoning.  You believe having the price paid for your sins equals ultimate salvation.  I do not because the Bible never teaches that.  In the parable of the unforgiving, Jesus makes the point clear that an unforgiving heart can cause debt already paid for to be reinstated.  

Still, since you "claim" to have answered it, who was the "our" John was talking about in 1 John 2:2?  Answer that question and it will reveal how frail your "answer" is.




> No, I don't think so. The main gist of 1st Corinthians 15 is that Jesus died for the sins of His people according to the Scriptures.  It's what Paul says is "of first importance" in the first sentence.


You can think what you want, but you would be wrong.  1 Corinthians 15:1-8 is one complete thought.  The first sentence doesn't mention Christ's death at all.  The entire passage gives an overview of Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearance to the apostles, including Paul "out of time".  The point Paul is making is that if you stop just with the death of Christ, you have missed the "good news".  Some people were claiming there was no resurrection of the dead.  That is a carryover of the Sadducee belief system.  Paul's point is twofold.  1) Why would someone not believe in the resurrection of the righteous dead if they accepted the resurrection of Jesus?  And 2) what's the point of the Christian walk if there is no resurrection?

_12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain._

If that's how you approach reading comprehension, by picking the third or fourth sentence in a passage, claiming it is the first, then ignoring everything else is the passage and claiming that third or fourth sentence is the gist of the entire passage, no wonder you are so confused.

----------


## Terry1

> Where and when in the world has this ever been true?


Are not those we elect our representatives?

----------


## erowe1

> Are not those we elect our representatives?


Most definitely not.

----------


## Terry1

> Most definitely not.


Could you explain that please.  I'm a little curious as to what you're thinking and why you disagree.

----------


## erowe1

> Could you explain that please.  I'm a little curious as to what you're thinking and why you disagree.


Here's an analogy. You live in a neighborhood that is ruled by a criminal gang. They go around to everybody and extort what they call "taxes" and constantly threaten everyone with violence. One day, because you did something they don't like, they send two of their thugs to your door. And they tell you that one of them is going to beat you to a pulp, but to be nice you get to choose which one.

Would you say that the person you pick represents you?

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Sola_Fide- I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.  I don't think anyone is arguing that the non-aggression principle or libertarianism is the gospel.  Obviously "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved" doesn't have anything to do with the non-aggression principle.  But then, it doesn't have anything to do with the immorality of homosexuality or adultery either.  I'm trying to talk about morals here, not the gospel.  Obviously the gospel has nothing to do with political views _per say
_
I don't think you're actually disagreeing with erowe either.  I think you're using the word "political" differently.

.

----------


## Terry1

> Here's an analogy. You live in a neighborhood that is ruled by a criminal gang. They go around to everybody and extort what they call "taxes" and constantly threaten everyone with violence. One day, because you did something they don't like, they send two of their thugs to your door. And they tell you that one of them is going to beat you to a pulp, but to be nice you get to choose which one.
> 
> Would you say that the person you pick represents you?


Okay, I thought this might be what you were thinking, but I was speaking in general terms of society, the electorate and those elected by the people to represent all as a whole.  I was not speaking in terms of one's personal choices.  Thank you for the reply.

----------


## erowe1

> Okay, I thought this might be what you were thinking, but I was speaking in general terms of society, the electorate and those elected by the people to represent all as a whole.  I was not speaking in terms of one's personal choices.  Thank you for the reply.


But the thing is, you can go around individual by individual to every single individual, and find that the regime that rules over them does all sorts of things that they don't consent to, and in those respects does not represent them. The regime is constantly doing things that we would recognize as moral evils that we do not have any right to do nor to delegate to anyone else to do on our behalf, and often it does these evils without any respect for whether or not the people it claims to represent even want it to do them.

This abstraction of a society that you mention is really nothing more than a whole bunch of individuals who are each in the position I described above with the criminal gang.

----------


## Terry1

> But the thing is, you can go around individual by individual to every single individual, and find that the regime that rules over them does all sorts of things that they don't consent to, and in those respects does not represent them. The regime is constantly doing things that we would recognize as moral evils that we do not have any right to do nor to delegate to anyone else to do on our behalf, and often it does these evils without any respect for whether or not the people it claims to represent even want it to do them.
> 
> This abstraction of a society that you mention is really nothing more than a whole bunch of individuals who are each in the position I described above with the criminal gang.


My point was that as society, people, the electorate move away from the morality and belief in God, then logically so will those as a majority they vote for, which is government.  

Does Obama represent me personally, my political or religious beliefs, of course not, but then he's not who I voted for either personally, but whether I want him as my representative or not, he's what I got because the majority voted for him.

Again, my point is that as society as a whole moves away from God, we can also expect that those elected by that same majority will reflect the views of this nation as a whole and is also why I believe this entire nation is not only in dire straights spiritually speaking, but economically and politically.  When we sneeze the world gets the flu which where we're at currently and globally speaking.

In fact if I gave my most honest sincere opinion of the near future for this country, I believe that there's little hope for any reform, recovery or reversal of what we have now.  That is because of the evidence of not only current events, expert economists, and Bible prophecy, but also because many Christians already feel it coming in their Spirit.  They know something's looming on the near horizon, something terrible and frightening, too chaotic to even imagine, but many along with myself realize that before long, the nightmare will become a reality for many people whether they accept it or not.

----------


## erowe1

> My point was that as society, people, the electorate move away from the morality and belief in God, then logically so will those as a majority they vote for, which is government.


But no matter how moral the people are, the regime will always be evil. The very things that define the state as a state violate God's moral laws. Voting for a government that is to rule over other people and that is moral is an impossibility. So if the electorate is to be moved by genuinely moral sensibilities toward the support of any change in the regime that rules them, whether by voting or any other means, then that change which they advocate will always be in the direction of eliminating the regime.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> By the way, related to the OP, have you ever noticed how the conversation began when the Pharisees and Herodians asked Jesus about taxes and he told them to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's?
> 
> They first said this to him:
> "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any."
> 
> In other words, they took as the very premise of their question that Caesar was under the same law as everyone else, so that what is stealing when you or I do it must be stealing when he does it. That's the whole reason for their challenge to Jesus. And in his answer, Jesus never says anything about that premise being wrong.


Yes.  Excellent point.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> -John Robbins (Ron Paul's former chief of staff):
> 
> Rulers and governments are commanded not to steal, murder, covet, lie, or do any other act prohibited in the moral law. Zacchaeus the tax collector stole from the people, and upon his regeneration he recognized his subordination to the moral law. King Ahab broke the Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Commandments in desiring and taking Naboths vineyard. John the Baptist in Luke 3:14 specifically applied the moral law to an agent of the government. There is not the slightest hint in Scripture that governments are above the moral law.


Does this mean we need to repeal the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment?  After all, it permits people to violate the first two Commandments.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Does this mean we need to repeal the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment?  After all, it permits people to violate the first two Commandments.


The entire point of this thread is that the _personal_ moral obligations of the moral law of God preclude the formation of a coercive state. 

This went completely over your head.

----------


## erowe1

> Does this mean we need to repeal the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment?


Yes. Along with everything else in the Constitution.

----------


## Nang

> Originally Posted by *Sonny Tufts* 
> Does this mean we need to repeal the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment?






> Yes. Along with everything else in the Constitution.


erowe1:

It this the sentiment and political view of Rand Paul and his followers?

----------


## erowe1

> erowe1:
> 
> It this the sentiment and political view of Rand Paul and his followers?


I wasn't aware that Rand Paul had followers. But, no, it's not his publicly held position. Even Ron Paul has never publicly advocated it. Although I think he probably agrees.

----------


## Nang

> I wasn't aware that Rand Paul had followers. But, no, it's not his publicly held position. Even Ron Paul has never publicly advocated it. Although I think he probably agrees.


Are you saying this is a personally held view of the Paul's, and their secret aim or goal?

----------


## erowe1

> Are you saying this is a personally held view of the Paul's, and their secret aim or goal?


No. I would call it an ideal, not an aim or goal. And I don't speak for Rand or Ron Paul.

----------


## erowe1

..

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The entire point of this thread is that the _personal_ moral obligations of the moral law of God preclude the formation of a coercive state. 
> 
> This went completely over your head.


What apparently went over your head was Mr. Robbins's claim that "Rulers and governments are commanded not to steal, murder, covet, lie, or do any other act prohibited in the moral law."  So if the moral law commands that everyone have only one god (i.e., the Judeo-Christian one) and that the Sabbath must be kept holy, and if these commands must be obeyed by government, does it not follow that the government has a duty to make sure no one violates these commands?

Similarly, if government has a duty to follow the purely religious commandments (nos. 1-4), doesn't this violate the Establishment Clause?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What apparently went over your head was Mr. Robbins's claim that "Rulers and governments are commanded not to steal, murder, covet, lie, or do any other act prohibited in the moral law."  So if the moral law commands that everyone have only one god (i.e., the Judeo-Christian one) and that the Sabbath must be kept holy, and if these commands must be obeyed by government, does it not follow that the government has a duty to make sure no one violates these commands?
> 
> Similarly, if government has a duty to follow the purely religious commandments (nos. 1-4), doesn't this violate the Establishment Clause?


John was a minarchist.  This was discussed on the first page.  No, I don't agree with him on that, partly because I think the logic of it forces you to reject coercive statism altogether.

So,  you don't have an argument with me.  I don't believe there should be a state,  so there is no reason to question me on any clauses in the Constitution.

----------


## erowe1

> So if the moral law commands that everyone have only one god (i.e., the Judeo-Christian one) and that the Sabbath must be kept holy, and if these commands must be obeyed by government, does it not follow that the government has a duty to make sure no one violates these commands?


No. Just the opposite. Unless it follows that each and every one of us has a duty to use violence to make sure no one violates those commands.

Because if that duty doesn't belong to you and me, then, according to the point being argued by the OP, it can't belong to the government either.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Unless it follows that each and every one of us has a duty to use violence to make sure no one violates those commands.


If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.  Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God. Deuteronomy 13:6-10.

And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16.

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Exodus 35:2.

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9.

And the man that committeth adultery with another mans wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbours wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10.







more »

----------


## erowe1

> If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.  Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God. Deuteronomy 13:6-10.
> 
> And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16.
> 
> Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Exodus 35:2.
> 
> For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9.
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10.
> ...


Your point?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.  Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God. Deuteronomy 13:6-10.
> 
> And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16.
> 
> Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Exodus 35:2.
> 
> For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9.
> 
> And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10.
> ...


What do the civil laws of Moses have to do with anything, since they applied to an entity that doesn't exist anymore?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Your point?


You questioned whether people had a duty to use force to make sure no one violated the Commandments.  I cited commands from God that people should use lethal force against those who violate certain of the Commandments, which would obviously be a deterrent to others.

But like most believers who cherry pick the Bible, you will likely ignore the passages that are inconvenient and come up with some spurious rationalization (see S-F's post) of their inapplicability.

----------


## erowe1

> You questioned whether people had a duty to use force to make sure no one violated the Commandments.  I cited commands from God that people should use lethal force against those who violate certain of the Commandments, which would obviously be a deterrent to others.


The line of argument you're taking now contradicts the line of argument you were taking before, which was that the government has a special role of enforcing God's laws.

Does this mean that you've given up on that earlier line of argument? If so, that's good, and I'd be happy to move on to this next one. But if not, then let's settle the first one first.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The line of argument you're taking now contradicts the line of argument you were taking before, which was that the government has a special role of enforcing God's laws.


I made no such argument.  But if the people can band together and stone to death someone who works on the Sabbath, then they can certainly delegate that task to the government.  In fact, there's little difference between the government doing it and a self-righteous mob doing it, since both are simply obeying God's command.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I made no such argument.


Yes you did, in post #96.

----------


## erowe1

> I made no such argument.


Then what was your point in the question about the first amendment?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Then what was your point in the question about the first amendment?


To demonstrate the implications of Mr. Robbins's claim that government must follow the 10 Commandments.

----------


## erowe1

> To demonstrate the implications of Mr. Robbins's claim that government must follow the 10 Commandments.


But, then the whole Constitution would be out the window.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> But, then the whole Constitution would be out the window.


Not according to Robbins.  But requiring government to follow the Ten Commandments raises a number of constitutional issues.  It's one thing to say that government officials shouldn't lie, murder, or steal*.  But how does government follow the other Commandments?  For example, must all governmental employees believe in the Judeo-Christian deity? Compare _Torcaso v. Watkins_, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), in which a unanimous Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Maryland state constitutional requirement that all state officials declare a belief in God.  Did Robbins want a theocracy?

*As previously noted in this thread, the Robbins piece implies that nonexorbitant taxes (<10%) are not theft.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not according to Robbins.  But requiring government to follow the Ten Commandments raises a number of constitutional issues.  It's one thing to say that government officials shouldn't lie, murder, or steal*.  But how does government follow the other Commandments?  For example, must all governmental employees believe in the Judeo-Christian deity? Compare _Torcaso v. Watkins_, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), in which a unanimous Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Maryland state constitutional requirement that all state officials declare a belief in God.  Did Robbins want a theocracy?
> 
> *As previously noted in this thread, the Robbins piece implies that nonexorbitant taxes (<10%) are not theft.


Who cares?  I've already said I disagree with his inconsistency at this point.  I disagree with Ron Paul's inconsistency as well.

----------


## erowe1

> But how does government follow the other Commandments?  For example, must all governmental employees believe in the Judeo-Christian deity? Compare _Torcaso v. Watkins_, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), in which a unanimous Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Maryland state constitutional requirement that all state officials declare a belief in God.  Did Robbins want a theocracy?


Once you have a government that follows the 10 Commandments, it's not a state any more. It's a voluntary society.

Church governments do impose religious tests on their leaders. Do you have a problem with that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Once you have a government that follows the 10 Commandments, it's not a state any more. It's a voluntary society.
> 
> * Church governments do impose religious tests on their leaders. Do you have a problem with that*?


Exactly.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Once you have a government that follows the 10 Commandments, it's not a state any more. It's a voluntary society.


How does following the 10 Commandment make everything voluntary? Even a voluntary society is going to punish murderers and thieves.  If, in accordance with the passages I cited earlier, members of the society are going to kill someone for working on the Sabbath or breaking some of the other Commandments, how does that differ from a government?  




> Church governments do impose religious tests on their leaders. Do you have a problem with that?


Of course not, but I have a big one if the government were to impose such a test.  It's called the First Amendment and Article VI.3 of the Constitution.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Of course not, but I have a big one if the government were to impose such a test.  It's called the First Amendment and Article VI.3 of the Constitution.


You don't have an issue even with that.  Several states had religious tests in early America:

*Why Were Roman Catholics Denied Office In Early America?* 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Early-America

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> You don't have an issue even with that.  Several states had religious tests in early America:


Big deal.  Several states had slavery, too.

State-imposed religious tests were eliminated by the incorporation of the First Amendment via the 14th Amendment.  Even if one dosn't accept the incorporation theory, it seems clear that the Equal Protection Clause would invalidate any state classification based on religious beliefs.

----------


## erowe1

> How does following the 10 Commandment make everything voluntary?


Because of the no stealing and no murdering parts.




> Even a voluntary society is going to punish murderers and thieves.


As retaliation for their voluntary initiation of violence against others.




> If, in accordance with the passages I cited earlier, members of the society are going to kill someone for working on the Sabbath or breaking some of the other Commandments


But only for those who voluntarily subject themselves to that law in the first place.




> Of course not, but I have a big one if the government were to impose such a test.


Church governments ARE governments.




> It's called the First Amendment and Article VI.3 of the Constitution.


The Constitution doesn't apply to church governments, as you just said.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts 
> 
> How does following the 10 Commandment make everything voluntary?
> 			
> 		
> 
> Because of the no stealing and no murdering parts.


Non sequitur.  Laws against theft and murder predated the 10 Commandments and would exist in any society.  




> Church governments ARE governments.


You don't see a legal distinction between a church government and, say, the federal government or the State of New York?

----------


## erowe1

> Non sequitur. Laws against theft and murder predated the 10 Commandments and would exist in any society.


It is not a non sequitur. Go ahead and check every single example you can find of laws against theft and murder that predate the 10 commandments. Without exception they are in law codes that have different standards for the rulers than for everybody else. The tyrannies they were designed to support wouldn't exist if they applied prohibitions against theft and murder to themselves. The Law of the Old Testament is unique in that it did not differentiate rulers from common people.




> You don't see a church government and, say, the federal government or the State of New York?


Yes I do. The former is legitimate (as you seemed to agree). The latter is not.

And the reason for this is precisely because of the point made in the OP. A government that submits itself to the same laws as everybody else is not a state, but a voluntary organization, like a church's government.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You don't see a legal distinction between a church government and, say, the federal government or the State of New York?


Legal distinction?   I see a _moral_ distinction.   One is coercive,  the other is not.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The Law of the Old Testament is unique in that it did not differentiate rulers from common people.


The commandment not to murder didn't seem to apply to committing genocide against other nations.   David didn't get the death penalty for adultery and murder (true, God punished David in His own way, but the point is that the punishment required by OT law wasn't applied to David).  Solomon had Adonijah murdered and wasn't punished.

A church's government, like a civil government, is not and cannot (if it is to function) be subject to all of the laws that apply to its members.  One obvious example is that only the church government, and not an individual church member, can decide when the church's rules have been violated and if so, what the punishment shall be.  A member who takes the law into his own hands and attempts to mete out punishment on his own may be guilty of an offense, whereas the same punishment may be legitimate if pronounced by the church government.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Legal distinction?   I see a _moral_ distinction.   One is coercive,  the other is not.


You don't get any more coercive than Exodus 35:2.

----------


## erowe1

> You don't get any more coercive than Exodus 35:2.


Sure you do, if you go around imposing that law on other people without their consent.

----------


## erowe1

> The commandment not to murder didn't seem to apply to committing genocide against other nations.   David didn't get the death penalty for adultery and murder (true, God punished David in His own way, but the point is that the punishment required by OT law wasn't applied to David).  Solomon had Adonijah murdered and wasn't punished.


You're changing your argument again.

Does this mean that you concede the point I made? If so, I'd be happy to move on to your next one. But one at a time please.




> A church's government, like a civil government, is not and cannot (if it is to function) be subject to all of the laws that apply to its members. One obvious example is that only the church government, and not an individual church member, can decide when the church's rules have been violated and if so, what the punishment shall be. A member who takes the law into his own hands and attempts to mete out punishment on his own may be guilty of an offense, whereas the same punishment may be legitimate if pronounced by the church government.


You call that obvious. It isn't at all obvious to me that what you say is the case.

But let's say it is. That situation can only obtain by way of each individual member agreeing to it by joining the church. It would effectively be the result of a contractual agreement, which all parties enter as equals. The same moral law that prohibits one church member from ruling over another by violence applies equally to all of them. The same is true of the Law of the Old Testament, unlike the other ANE law codes that you probably had in mind when you mentioned others prohibiting murder and theft. There is no room for the "It's not illegal when I do it" excuse. And without that double standard, there is no such thing as the state, or rule over people without their consent.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You don't get any more coercive than Exodus 35:2.


Now you're back to your first argument.   Which is it?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> You're changing your argument again.


No, I'm simply pointing out that the OT law didn't always hold rulers and common folk to the same standards.  How a law is enforced and observed is often more telling than how it is written.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Now you're back to your first argument.   Which is it?


It's not my argument; it's the logical consequence of Mr. Robbins's claim that government should follow the 10 Commandments, a claim I do not agree with.

Look, I don't have a particular issue with government personnel not lying, stealing, or murdering.  But Robbins didn't distinguish between the religious commandments and those that make sense outside of a religious context.  He seemed to say that all of them are binding:




> The laws of God that are found in the Old Testament-unless they have been repealed in the New-are still in force.


Government shouldn't mandate what is orthodox in religion or punish people who don't adhere to the taboos of a particular faith, which is what the religious commandments require.  We don't need a theocracy, and since you don't believe in a state you presumably feel the same way.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's not my argument; it's the logical consequence of Mr. Robbins's claim that government should follow the 10 Commandments, a claim I do not agree with.
> 
> Look, I don't have an issue with government personnel not lying, stealing, murdering, or committing perjury.  But Robbins didn't distinguish between the religious commandments and those that make sense outside of a religious context.  He seemed to say that all of them are binding:


Earth to Sonny:  You are not debating John Robbins,  you are debating me. This is the 3rd time you bring this up when it doesn't affect my argument whatsoever.   Go ahead and keep fighting against a strawman that none of us here hold to.  We'll keep laughing at you.





> Government shouldn't mandate what is orthodox in religion or punish people who don't adhere to the taboos of a particular faith, which is what the religious commandments require.  We don't need a theocracy, * and since you don't believe in a state you presumably feel the same way.*



* Bingo* .  I'm not a theocrat.  So what is your argument?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Earth to Sonny:  You are not debating John Robbins,  you are debating me. This is the 3rd time you bring this up when it doesn't affect my argument whatsoever.   Go ahead and keep fighting against a strawman that none of us here hold to.


So what was your point in posting the Robbins excerpt in the first place if not to say that people in government should abide by the 10 commandments?

----------


## erowe1

> No, I'm simply pointing out that the OT law didn't always hold rulers and common folk to the same standards.


Yes it did.




> How a law is enforced and observed is often more telling than how it is written.


Clearly the Torah was never fully enforced as written, neither for rulers, nor for common people. But the claims being made were about what was written.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Bump for highly important thread.

----------

