The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum At what point?

At what point should Christians consider it sinful to defend this nation?

It is sinful to defend this nation when... multiple choice
	When we are forced to worship the president.
	When we cease to protect the God-given right to worship that cursed allah.
	When we stop allowing millions of the unborn to be butchered yearly.
	When quoting the Bible is called
	When the Methodist Church becomes the established church.
	When we're raptured.
	When Christians are being killed by the government.
	Homosexuals are authorized to do what they want to us in our own churches.
	Other (Please specify by posting).
	If, and only if, we discover that Elvis is in fact alive.
Votes accepted starting: Sat May 08, 2004 1:00 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

When quoting the Bible is called "Hate Speech." I must have left that incomplete.

John

Why did you say Methodist ? all churchs have their problems, because we are all sinners, one preacher doing wrong in one church, does not mean all Methodist are bad.

I think GOD's word rules over the word of some court decsion
and my pastor does not like what had happened.

I know we should use discernment, lets not think to small in matters, GOD see's a big picture remember.

neicey

I just pulled out the Methodists as an example. My poll was more of a way to get people to think a little. As for me, I think it is sinful to defend a nation like ours as it is - its established religion is atheism (witness the public schools and our civil courts). I could have put the PCUSA, the liberal anglicans, or any other denomination like that - the Methodists just came to mind.

I'm sorry if you took offense at that.
-John

On the surface, at least, one could conclude that only a "Christian" nation should be defended by Christians; where there is an "established religion" (national and Christian) and the "civil courts" administer justice from Christian law; whatever that might be. Would that be an accurate, albeit simple summation of your view? And directly related, could this be accurately understood to be that of Theonomic Reconstructionism for the most part?

In His Grace,

At what point is it sinful to defend your neighbor from foreign enemies?

Hi Pilgrim,

You wrote,
"On the surface, at least, one could conclude that only a 'Christian' nation should be defended by Christians; where there is an 'established religion' (national and Christian) and the 'civil courts' administer justice from Christian law; whatever that might be. Would that be an accurate, albeit simple summation of your view? And directly related, could this be accurately understood to be that of Theonomic Reconstructionism for the most part?"

Honestly, I don't know a whole lot about Theonomic Reconstructionism and have never found any of the "Theonomist" authors interesting enough to pick up (except Bahnsen on apologetics - never theonomy, though). That being said, it is difficult for me to answer whether or not I could accurately be understood to be holding to a position that could justly be considered Theonomic Reconstructionism (in essence).

Some of the complexities that accompany this whole subject of civil government can be among the most difficult of any in Christian ethics. With that in mind, I'm a simpleton. I believe that God's moral and perpetual commands are not optional for us to obey. They are required of us all. As such, when a man becomes a civil ruler, I don't think hit is at all reasonable to assume that he can permit those over whom he rules to do what God prohibits them to do (not if he is a subject of God). I know, for example, that if I were a legislator, it would be conscious-killing for me to legalize what God has prohibited (i.e., murder - abortion; fornication and lust - pornography; gross idolatry - the practice of Islam; etc.). Furthermore, this concern of mine is only confirmed when I see clearly in the Old Testament that God required those to whom He gave His law (the Jews) to civilly enforce its requirements. Now, if I know anything about Theonomists, they would say that the explicit punishments, etc., must be enforced today as well. I don't agree. Times and circumstances may call for more or less severe punishments in certain cases. Furthermore, I have no problem seeing our government use something other than stones to execute homosexuals (as long as I see them executed).

That being said, an established church does make sense to me, so I support the idea as far as I understand it. My concern, however, is not what can we defend so much as what can we obviously not defend? I think the "right" to abort the unborn, "marry" homo's, "worship" allah (that false god), etc., is beyond defensible, especially in light of the fact that our nation is not unaware of God's word. We aren't Pagan Rome - we're worse: we're Apostate America.

For what its worth, everything that I'm saying here was understood and taught by Westminster Divines and included in various forms in their writings and the Westminster standards (if we include the covenants, and the original chapter on civil magistracy). Accordingly, I highly doubt that I am rightly considered a theonomist - I would more properly be considered a covenanter in my understanding of civil gov't.

Sincerely,
John P.

Hi CovenantInBlood,

You asked,
"At what point is it sinful to defend your neighbor from foreign enemies?"

Good question, point well taken. I didn't actually explain my point very well earlier. I have no problem defending unregenerate people from enemies. In fact, I would likely be one of the first people to take up arms against invading enemies in order to protect my family, home, neighborhood, and loved ones from enemies. I would not, however, join our military, swear an oath to uphold the constitution, and defend our institutions, customs, "rights," "liberties" (many of which are really bondage, i.e., freedom of religion, freedom to slaughter children, freedom to sleep with whoever spreads their legs [or, now, I suppose bends over]...), etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for the genuine liberties that we have: freedom to worship Christ, declare Christ, make a living, own a home, etc., and I have a kind of admiration for the men who have fought and died to allow us to have that. I don't, however, think that means what they did was entirely right, nor ultimately worthy of their blood. To die defending an atheist power that is quickly trending toward persecuting Christians through 'hate-crime' legislation is a sinful waste of blood. I know that is offensive, but, what should I say? God bless our soldiers who defend this perverted, wicked, and apostate nation that has God for an enemy? I can't do that. God abhors this nation, and we better wake up and smell the coffee. His wrath is gradually being unleashed and it won't be long (not fifty years, if I were to guess) and we'll resemble the fallen Soviet Union, if we're not speaking Arabic, Chinese, or tortured like we are perceived to have tortured others.

Listen: our nation is vile. God hates it, and it hates God. Anyone is "free" to worship <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" /> this land and follow it blindly while it slaughters millions of the most innocent people that live, but you won't catch me doing the same, God help me. I can stand before God with a clear conscience knowing that I've actually given this thought and not simply listened to my blind Sunday School teachers that would rather bow to George Washington than Jesus Christ.

Sorry about the apparent invective, it isn't directed to you - I think your question was a good one. In fact, I'm not even sitting here filled with anger right now. I just think it is important that the abominations of America be made abundantly clear. That being said, insofar as this nation is my homeland and the land of my people, I love it and desperately want it to do what is right by repenting. I love the people, appreciate the fact that it is better than almost any other country in the world when it comes to my personal circumstances and opportunities, and desire the best for it. I just can't see how a Christian could defend it and not be censured by their church.

-John

Thanks for the reply! You can consider yourself a non-Theonomist/Reconstructionist if you wish and opt for "covenanter" if it suits you. But from what you express of your beliefs re: goverment, state church, etc., it fits well into the Theonomy-Reconstructionist camp too. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Then I guess they're right after all! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

-John

(Actually, I still don't know if I would agree with them).

John

Of course I agree that in the eyes of God all sin whether it is worshipping false gods, homosexuality etc... is wrong.
However, how can a nation such as America enforce laws like these?

Tom

Hi Tom,

Great to hear from you, and I appreciate your question. I think the answer is three-fold.

You asked, "how can a nation such as America enforce laws like these?"

In and of itself, it is not difficult for a nation to enforce the law of God outwardly. In other words, while it is impossible for a civil gov't to regulate inward thoughts, ideas, desires, etc., it is entirely possible for a civil gov't to enforce God's law when outwardly violated (i.e., *public* or *open* acts of blasphemy, idolatry, homosexuality [or activism], adultery, etc., plus the gov't can entertainment so as to keep it from sexual immorality, keeping stores closed on the Lord's Day, prohibiting outward acts of murder and theft, etc.).

In other words, from a practical standpoint, everyone has to agree that this is possible. For, no matter what one's view of the role of civil gov't is in the New Covenant, it is undeniable that God required it to enforce His laws in the Old (externally). Accordingly, we shouldn't be surprised that it is possible to do it externally.

I hope that helps.
John

Well, not everyone has to agree, for I surely do not and I know a host of others who likewise would take issue with you on this matter. May I offer a counter remark and say that it would be nearly impossible for the government of the U.S. to enforce laws prohibiting idolatry, homosexuality, adultery, blaspheme, etc., etc., ad nauseam, when the fact is that the vast, overwhelming majority of those in power, including but not restricted to those in the legislative, judicial and enforcement departments are those who violate these same laws. Secondly, if the police are unable to control protesters, attendees of rock concerts who get out of hand, etc., how would it be possible to arrest 10's of millions of "law breakers"? Thirdly, even if this were possible theoretically, how would the judgments be enforced? There certainly are not enough jails now to house current criminals, never mind 10's of millions of people.

Lastly, the difference which seems to be constantly ignored by Theonomist/Reconstructionists is that Israel was a THEOCRACY, which was a temporal arrangement. Having served its purpose, it was cast off never again to return. To impose theocratic laws, etc., upon the new covenant administration of the gospel is simply indefensible. What we await with unfeigned hope is the New Heaven and New Earth, not some anti-climatic earthly replica. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim

I agree with you, it would be impossible to enforce all those things. In a democracy, you would have rioting in the streets.
I will say however, that if I ever ran as a politician, I would do my best to stand up for biblical principles.
However, I doubt I or anyone else could actually get in running with those as their platform, unless they compromised these things.
That is one of the very reasons why I can't even fathom myself as a politician. That doesn't mean I am not thankful for those who do run, in fact I have a friend who happens to be the mayor in the city I live in.

Tom

The morality of defending one's country is not dependent on how godly one's country is. Even in the context of pagan Rome, Paul taught that the government (including military/law enforcement) is established by God, and its keeping of order is a carrying out of its God-given function (Rom. 13). Moreover, when Roman soldiers asked John the Baptist what their repentance should involve, he did not say to dissociate themselves from their task of defending the Roman empire, but not to abuse their positions (Luke 3:14). We also read nothing of Cornelius the centurion leaving military service after his conversion.

As for the state of this country, we have fallen far as a culture. But like most nations in the Christian tradition, there is a faithful remnant living among a mostly non-Christian people. I cannot say God is pleased with America, but God has loved and continues to love the American people just as He loves every tribe, nation, and tongue. And if nothing else, the freedom of conscience found in this country is something worth defending, and would be one of the first things to go if this nation ever bit the dust.