Son Of Liberty

Re: VP Palin

WesleySonofCornelius — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:26:20 GMT

See the combined post. I think it would be wise to continue the conversation there!

Re: VP Palin

Joe Napalm — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:54:59 GMT

First, I clicked on the link and noted that it was written by Greg Bahnsen. I then clicked the little "x" on the tab and disregarded. The Christian Reconstructionism movement began in 1973. And, just like the Dispensationalism movement that began in the 1800s, I reject both as new inventions of men. Thank you for trying to force the subject, but I care very little about it.

Second, concerning our conversation with Justin (JT400), we talked about the definition of Christianity at the dinner table on Sunday. I'm not sure of your age, but I wanted to know if my 12-year old son could define "Christianity". He said he'd think about it and get back to me. About 10 minutes into the discussion, without any prompting at all and without leaving the table to go find an answer, he said he was ready. He said, "Christians are people who believe Jesus Christ is Lord and obey his commandments." To this we all answered, "Bingo!"

So, would you agree with the statement? While your statement about the truthfulness of the Bible and whether or not it is from God is good, I believe that definining Christians as followers of Jesus Christ -- the Son of God, the agent of creation and with equality to God the Father and the Holy Spirit -- is better because there are many groups that will tell you that the Bible is God's Word, but will deny the deity and Lordship of Jesus (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International [link - see "Nature of Jesus Christ"], Christadelphians [link] and Unitarians).

Again, do you agree?

Re: VP Palin

jt400 — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 04:21:41 GMT

Well, I've read almost half of it so far, it is pretty long. You mean that you think theonomy is defunct, or what?

I'm sorry to hear that. We have just finished a DVD series called Financial Freedom by Jim Sammons. I would HIGHLY recommend it! (emphasis added)... LOL! I thought it was really good. I've heard a lot of things about finances, but nothing quite like he had to say.

Re: VP Palin

WesleySonofCornelius — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 02:28:02 GMT

No, you don't have to show me (again). I know your wrong!

B8, my circles are humbler by far. Do we need the vocabulary or unction? I was visited this evening by a family at church who life has given them some terrible blows. More than likely they are filing bankrupcy on Monday. Joe and I have sat down with them and worked on budgeting, priorities, and the like. However, they have just become new Christians, and the decisions they have made in the past are now catching up to them. And lifestyle changes are sometimes the hardest. He is a union ironworker and she cleans houses (occassionally offices). Then I get online after they leave and see your post. I chuckled. Epistemological ... my goodness. Can you say endocrinologist? (that last comment is an inside joke for Joe)

Would you not agree that the academics in the Bible had more trouble with Jesus compared to the everyday man?

Re: VP Palin

Bahnsen8 — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:44:57 GMT

We should drop the labels. If you would like to have a point by point discussion, I can show you (again) from the Word of God, that the sovereignty of God is true in all of life, that the Word of God is the only standard for all of life in every sphere of existence and that Jesus Christ will not lose in history before His return. Meredith Kline's weak, fallacious and ugly treatment of the entire issue is well-summarized and aptly cast aside as mostly epistemological fodder in the following articles that most American Christians will not have the time, vocabulary or unction to read: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe043.htm http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe041.htm Respectfully, B8

Re: VP Palin

WesleySonofCornelius — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:46:39 GMT

Time to put on the thinking hat. Christian Reconstructionism is built on three primary views: Calvinism, theonomy, and post-millennialism. Even if a Christian does not share all three primary views, he will find himself agreeing with many of the conclusions of the Christian Reconstructionalist (CR). The reason for the agreement comes from the fact that Calvinism, theonomy, as well as post-millennialism are all theories built on substantial passages within the Bible. Yet, I find myself uneasy with many of the conclusions drawn from the Christian Reconstructionalists views. Actually, I find large disagreements in all three of the primary views. Therefore, in my mind the view is built on weak pillars. Nevertheless ...

Before proceeding and for the readers’ further investigation, the names that stick out in this movement are not really that well known but are central to this view: R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, and Kenneth Gentry.

While many Christians do not agree with all three primary views of the (CR), many times the Christian community finds themselves influenced by the thoughts of this movement. Take for example the common view that the church has replaced the nation of Israel. If we add this in with the view that the United States was primarily a Christian nation at its unification, we can then take the thought that the US, which was/is a Christian nation, now takes on the role as the “city on the hill,” “God’s People,” or the like. Therefore, we as the church should reclaim the US. And while all the CRs may not believe the US needs reclaiming since it may not truly have been claimed at its construction, they are glad to stand beside these individuals because with them they can now claim the US. And by putting the US under the Law of God (which in itself is definitely not a bad idea), they fulfill the need to have a theonomy and usher in their post-millennial view. Yet in the end, they are trying to revitalize the Massachusetts Bay Colony model for the whole US. This model did have an impact on the United States (good attributes as well as bad). But in the end this model failed as well.

But what if the US is not really a Christian nation? What if our view on the 'People of God' is skewed?

So, as a Christian community should we encourage this line of thought? Well Dr. Meredith Kline, who came from Westminster Theological Seminary and a little too reformed for me does make some good points in his paper: http://www.covopc.org/Kline/Kline_on_Theonomy.html. If you don’t have time to read it, the overall thought is that Reconstructionalist makes the mistake of failing to understand the special prophetic role of Biblical Israel, including the laws and sanctions, therefore, Kline calling the view ‘a delusive and grotesque perversion of the teachings of scripture.’

It appears his rogue student, Lee Irons makes an interesting comment as well: “According to the Reformed theocrats apparently … the only satisfactory goal is that America become a Christian nation. Ironically ... it is the wholesale rejection (not revival) of theocratic principles that is desperately needed today if the church is to be faithful to the task of gospel witness entrusted to her in the present age … It is only as the church … puts aside the lust for worldly influence and power - that she will be a positive presence in society.”Now let us quickly look at the passages B8 points out. First, I am guessing the major point alluding to by B8 in Isaiah 3:12 is the fact the women rule over them. The question is who are God’s people and in what respect can we apply this to the United States? Is this verse really a dictate verse or more descriptive? Concerning the other passages, Paul and Timothy were leaders of God’s People, the assembly of God, the church. Can we really apply these passages to civil law?

Re: VP Palin

Bahnsen8 — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:42:29 GMT

Isaiah 3:12 I Timothy 2:11-15 I Corinthians 11:1-3 Ephesians 5:22-24 B8

Re: VP Palin

WesleySonofCornelius — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 03:52:21 GMT

At one point in time I had quoted Francis Schaeffer concerning this topic. I would like to give the whole passage from which I pulled my quote. If you don't know who Francis Schaeffer was, wikipedia says he was "an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor."

This is what he wrote. Good stuff:

"Not all the individual men who laid down the foundation for the United States Constitution were Christians; many, in fact, were deists. But we should realize that the word Christian can legitimately be used two ways. The primary meaning is: an individual who has come to God through the work of Christ. The second meaning must be kept distinct but also has validity. It is possible for an individual to live within the circle of that which a Christian consensus brings forth, even though he himself is not a Christian in the first sense. This may be true in many areas--for example, in the arts or political thought. Many of the men who laid the foundation of the United States Constitution were not Christians in the first sense, and yet they built upon the basis of the Reformation either directly through the Lex Rex [Law is King] tradition or indirectly through Locke. To whatever degree a society allows the teaching of the Bible to bring forth its natural conclusions, it is able to have form and freedom in society and government." (Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?)

Re: VP Palin

jt400 — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:44:15 GMT

Joe Napalm:
A handful of quotes does not prove that this is a "Christian" nation [Note: Nations are not Christians. People are Christians.] Although it is evident that the nation was built on Christian morals and God's laws, why was it done so? Right now I don't have the answer, but I think it can be found in Enlightenment, Deism and John Locke so I'll start there.
But I do know that George Washington never proclaimed to be a Christian -- ever.
John Adams was a Unitarian who denied the divinity of Christ. So, it's clear he wasn't a Christian.
In 1813 Jefferson rejected the deity of Jesus. So, he wasn't a Christian.
It is unclear if James Madison was a Christian. He never said, so I'm led to believe he wasn't.
Why is it that a supposed "Christian" nation elected people who denied the deity of Christ, the one pillar on which true Christianity stands? It isn't until maybe Andrew Jackson, the seventh POTUS, (you could possibly argue John Q. Adams) that you find someone who at least acknowledged Jesus but it wasn't until after his term as president.

Informative article: [link].

You are right, a few quotes doesn't prove anything. However, there was a study done (I think it may have been the University of Maryland...), that discovered, after spending years going through quotes and first-hand documents, that the founders quoted the Bible more than anything else. Right, but Christian people make a Christian nation. Christian v. Deists by Joe Morecraft is a good resource.

At the moment I don't have the time to refute that. However, I still have to say that I'm not convinced...

IF that was the case, that is too bad. I still feel that we should vote based on Biblical principles, and leave the results up to God.

Re: VP Palin

WesleySonofCornelius — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:39:45 GMT

B8, good to see you in the forums again.

[comments removed]

I removed my comment because I was not satisfied with it. I need to think on it some more!

Re: VP Palin

Bahnsen8 — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:25:21 GMT

Here is a novel approach: What does the Bible say about 1) the qualifications for civil leaders? 2) whether a nation can be righteous? and if so, how? 3) pragmatism v principle in our decision-making (ie- faith v sight)? May I suggest some starting spots? Genesis 1-3 Exodus 18 I Corinthians 11 I Timothy 3 Ephesians 5 Isaiah 26 Isaiah 58 John 11:45-52 Acts 7:7 Revelation 2:26 Revelation 15:3 - "King of the nations" And, Thomas, welcome to the discussions. If you are still about, here are a few things to ponder: 1) Please show me the primary resources that prove that Lincoln was a wise leader. The primary resources I have seen show him to be a bigot who was greatly deceived on the meaning and purpose of our constitutionally confederated union, which he single-handedly destroyed. 2) Your statement that the Bible is a part of deciding how to vote is an example of the humanistic and pluralistic approach to God's Word so prevalent in our world today. It is not a part of the decision. It is the WHOLE of the decision. Respectfully, B8

Re: VP Palin

Joe Napalm — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:47:24 GMT

A handful of quotes does not prove that this is a "Christian" nation [Note: Nations are not Christians. People are Christians.] Although it is evident that the nation was built on Christian morals and God's laws, why was it done so? Right now I don't have the answer, but I think it can be found in Enlightenment, Deism and John Locke so I'll start there.

But I do know that George Washington never proclaimed to be a Christian -- ever.

John Adams was a Unitarian who denied the divinity of Christ. So, it's clear he wasn't a Christian.

In 1813 Jefferson rejected the deity of Jesus. So, he wasn't a Christian.

It is unclear if James Madison was a Christian. He never said, so I'm led to believe he wasn't.

Why is it that a supposed "Christian" nation elected people who denied the deity of Christ, the one pillar on which true Christianity stands? It isn't until maybe Andrew Jackson, the seventh POTUS, (you could possibly argue John Q. Adams) that you find someone who at least acknowledged Jesus but it wasn't until after his term as president.

Informative article: [link].

Re: VP Palin

jt400 — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:27:27 GMT

Ok guys, I really don't have much time to spend on this. I generally try not to post when I don't have time to deal with it, but we're busy working on a website, and I really wanted to see what everybody else thought about this.

Personally, I support Chuck Baldwin. I don't think we should compromise on God's standards. We should vote only for those that we feel are Biblically qualified, and then leave the results to God. If everybody weren't afraid to vote outside of a party, and were as willing to stand on principle when they vote, as much as they want politicians to, I believe our Country would be a lot better off.

Wesley-
I really didn't have time to look anybody up. But George Washington did come to mind... (Read George Washington's Sacred Fire).

I personally think that the culture was such, at the time of the founders, that it was unnecessary to go any further. However:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were... the general principles of Christianity... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. -John Adams

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty - as well as the privilege and interest - of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. -John Jay

As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. -George Mason

No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people... This is a Christian nation. -Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States 1892 Quoted 87 precedents

I realize that I posted these before. However, I think it shows pretty clearly that this was, and has been for some time, a Christian nation.

TheWilli-
I agree that politics really is basically a marketing game. And it was good marketing... Although the Liberals are busy digging up trash, as usual.

Wesley-
I think that Voddie made that point as well. It seems to me that politics is a lot like the military (active duty). I don't really call it noble for a family man.

I will try to read this thread, but I won't have time to post much. I do appreciate hearing all of your opinions though!

Re: VP Palin

Zach — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:53:58 GMT

Just so you know, in my post today I included a Poll about Palin Check it out here [link]

Re: VP Palin

WesleySonofCornelius — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:38:21 GMT

And I've heard she can field-dress a moose. That's hot!