Obey ALL laws of the land?

[Truthseeker]

Thanks for the link.

My thought is that since we are a government for, of and by the PEOPLE, then God's PEOPLE must learn to hold these judges accountable through due process of law.

This can be done by electing Christians who have a biblical worldview who will in turn appoint judges who have that proper view of the constitution and God's rules for right and wrong.

The inconsistency you point out between those courts show that one court has lost its way and the other has not. We must pray and work for God's "consistency" in these matters.

Christians must realize this is a battle we are in the midst of, and get engaged in the fight. There are plenty of petitions to sign, candidates in our own pews to identify, campaign for, and elect, and Christian legal and other organizations to donate to and pray for their leaders and grass roots workers, etc.

To keep to the subject, we must ask ourselves, "Which laws of the land must we (as the body of Christ in America) obey, which must we change through the constitutional process, and which could we never obey although they be called "law"?

[disciple]

Originally posted by Truthseeker
Thanks for the link.

My thought is that since we are a government for, of and by the PEOPLE, then God's PEOPLE must learn to hold these judges accountable through due process of law.

This can be done by electing Christians who have a biblical worldview who will in turn appoint judges who have that proper view of the constitution and God's rules for right and wrong.

The inconsistency you point out between those courts show that one court has lost its way and the other has not. We must pray and work for God's "consistency" in these matters.

Christians must realize this is a battle we are in the midst of, and get engaged in the fight. There are plenty of petitions to sign, candidates in our own pews to identify, campaign for, and elect, and Christian legal and other organizations to donate to and pray for their leaders and grass roots workers, etc.

To keep to the subject, we must ask ourselves, "Which laws of the land must we (as the body of Christ in America) obey, which must we change through the constitutional process, and which could we never obey although they be called "law"?

personally, i don't have any problem with Christians getting involved in the government. when i think it becomes a problem, is when we think that is our job as the church or when we think that is the solution to all problems (rather than the gospel of Christ). it annoys me when Christians spend all of their time and energy trying to christianize the country by due process rather than preach the gospel to affect the nation by changed lives. but we must realize that the purpose is not to change the nation, but to be used of God to bring the elect into the church.

[wildboar]

truthseeker:

Since the government is by of and for the people though, it is only natural that the government is heathen, since the people as a whole are heathen. Putting the 10 commandments outside of a court building are not going to change that.

To keep to the subject, we must ask ourselves, "Which laws of the land must we (as the body of Christ in America) obey, which must we change through the constitutional process, and which could we never obey although they be called "law"?

We certainly should take an active part in electing those who we believe will make things easier for the church. We must obey the law in all things, so long as it does not command us to disobey God. The time will certainly come when this will be the case, that the government will forbid the spread of the gospel. But in the US at the present time, I don't believe there are any laws commanding us to disobey God. There are a whole plethora of laws that allow people to disobey God, but none that command them to.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Truthseeker]

Disciple and Wildboar,

Thanks for your posts. I have been thinking about this.

Somehow we need as Christians to be able to "connect the dots" from our duty to preach the gospel to our duty as American citizens who live in a country founded by Christians.

James Madison said, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of the government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity for each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

I believe that the Ten Commandments in the public square was and will have a great effect for the gospel because of Isaiah 55:11, and Galatians 3:24.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

In the book of Exodus 18:19-23, Moses is advised by his father-in-law to be "the people's representative before God" and was also advised to "select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them, as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties of tens...If you do this thing and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure..."

Most of the men who founded our country had a clear handle on the gospel message, and also applied the Bible's examples for civil law and reperesentative government.

They set it up as much as possible that the ruling power be put into the hands of the people.

I think that many of us rank-and-file Christians have lost our way from seeing that our God-given civil responsibilities are just as much a part of advancing God's kingdom on earth as the core message of the gospel. It's a "both-and".

Just think of how many unbelieving "politicians" are having the gospel shared to them now by godly elected officials, and how many more would be if those who were called to serve in civil government were encouraged by their pastors and local churches as an opportunity to advance God's kingdom.

We live in a country that was not founded to oppress religious expression, but has begun it in the last 30 years or so.

Wildboar, I hope Christians wake up and get involved in our God-given roles and civil responsibilties before what you said happens! --->"The time will certainly come when this will be the case, that the government will forbid the spread of the gospel."

My thought is, yes, that the freedom to publicly change lives for Christ will be taken away, unless we as American Christians understand and get involved in the bigger picture to elect godly men to office as well as working together to bring the gospel message to all.

[disciple]

Originally posted by Truthseeker
Somehow we need as Christians to be able to "connect the dots" from our duty to preach the gospel to our duty as American citizens who live in a country founded by Christians.
...I think that many of us rank-and-file Christians have lost our way from seeing that our God-given civil responsibilities are just as much a part of advancing God's kingdom on earth as the core message of the gospel. It's a "both-and".

TS-
thank you very much for your comments. you have some good thoughts. i can see that you have really thought this one through.

my point though has been that it is not wrong for a Christian to get involved in government but that this is not our hope or our focus as a people. in fact, i think that on-lookers will have more opportunity to see the light when it is contrasted with the utter darkness that surrounds us.

Phil 2:14 Do all things without grumbling or disputing; 15 so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, 16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.

not that we should pray for a persecuted environment but that this culture in which we live may leave much more potential for white-washed tombstones to utilize religion to get what they want (while the gospel is altogether absent from their lips). perhaps this is the skeptical perspective, but i don't want to spend all of my time and effort trying to "christianize" the soceity. instead i think our time is better spent in serving in the body and preaching the gospel to those we come into contact with. if you have time to expend your efforts on both, then i think that's a good thing. but what i see more and more of lately is Christians putting all of their hope and efforts into sanctifying the world around them (making things nice and religious looking) while their personal walk with the Lord is nil. i think they have a form of godliness but have denied its power.

all that to say that you have some very good points. but i think i'm approaching it from a different angle or perspective and just cautioning the extreme that many in the religious right have gone to. a lot of it is a romantic idea of the way things could be if... or when we reminisce about the old days when everyone was Christian when the reality probably is that many of the founding fathers were not true Christians (in fact, many of them were godless Deists). anyway, i've rambled enough...

[Brandan Kraft]

I've attached a very neat article that I think is relevant to this conversation. I LOVED IT....

[Truthseeker]

Dr Gill,

Thanks for that article. It was great!

Yes, I believe John Robbins proves the case well that the gospel of Jesus Christ brings liberty, salvation, law and order, productivity, peace and blessing to those nations whose God is the LORD.

[Truthseeker]

quote from disciple...

....i think i'm approaching it from a different angle or perspective and just cautioning the extreme that many in the religious right have gone to. a lot of it is a romantic idea of the way things could be if... or when we reminisce about the old days when everyone was Christian when the reality probably is that many of the founding fathers were not true Christians (in fact, many of them were godless Deists). anyway, i've rambled enough..."


=============================================

Disciple,

I have to disagree with your comments on the founding fathers.
Please read the attached article by David Barton concerning the founding father's religious views.

Further, in viewing your earlier posts, I want to be sure of your view of the validity or invalidity of old covenant law today. I agree the ceremonial laws are no longer needed because of Christ, but for example certainly murder is still wrong, so we want that on our American lawbooks punishable as a crime, and to unashamedly say God thought of it first.

Jesus said Matt 5:17-19

17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Please comment.

What I am saying is we need to present the Ten Commandments to people to properly preach the gospel (Galatians 3:24)

Judge Moore WAS being denied his rights to preach, and of course state laws of freedom of religion were ignored to be able to take the monument down and remove him from office.

Anyone please comment on my thoughts above and the founding fathers article.

In Christ,

Truthseeker

[disciple]

quote from disciple...

....i think i'm approaching it from a different angle or perspective and just cautioning the extreme that many in the religious right have gone to. a lot of it is a romantic idea of the way things could be if... or when we reminisce about the old days when everyone was Christian when the reality probably is that many of the founding fathers were not true Christians (in fact, many of them were godless Deists). anyway, i've rambled enough..."


=============================================

Disciple,

I have to disagree with your comments on the founding fathers.
Please read the attached article by David Barton concerning the founding father's religious views.

from what i understand, david barton and other organizations like "the light and the glory" are somewhat revisionistic in their portrayal of history. i don't doubt that many of the founding fathers were "religious"...but whether they were evangelical Christians is another story (though many probably were). just do a search on david barton and revisionist history and you'll find a number of interesting sites to research. i just think we should be careful either way and be as even handed and honest as possible with our handling of history. the "religious right" has erred much in this respect. i don't think we should believe everything they tell us but neither should we reject everything they say just because they say it. all of us, if we are truthseekers, should be willing to listen to and understand both sides of the issues and accept what may not be acceptable to our systems if it is the truth.

Further, in viewing your earlier posts, I want to be sure of your view of the validity or invalidity of old covenant law today. I agree the ceremonial laws are no longer needed because of Christ, but for example certainly murder is still wrong, so we want that on our American lawbooks punishable as a crime, and to unashamedly say God thought of it first.

first of all, Scripture does not split the law up like you seem to be doing (i.e., it doesn't give three categories of law--moral, ceremonial, and civil). perhaps this may be helpful in distinguishing some of the specific laws, but all the laws are moral laws since disobedience to any of the OC Law (Mosaic Law or the Law given at Sinai which included the 10 commandments but was not only the 10 commandments) would be a moral transgression and therefore a violation of God's law and punishable by death or whatever else the law called for. Paul calls all of this a ministry of death, a ministry of condemnation, a ministry that is fading away, and a law to which he is no longer under (Ro 7; 1 Co 9:20-21; 2 Co 3; Gal 3:19-25).

out of curiosity, what do you think this has to do with a nation? are you mixing the church with the government? are they identical or should they be distinguished? do they have different domains or different areas of jurisdiction? what do you do with a nation like Canada whose laws aren't based on the 10 commandments or on the OT? and do you see the US as like Israel of the OT?

Jesus said Matt 5:17-19

17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Please comment.

Christ came to fulfill all that was in the OT, including all that the OC Law required. i assume you're wondering how i read v. 19. perhaps in order for me to know where you're coming from, you would like to describe how you are reading it? do you think it means that we are still under the OC (Mosaic) Law?

What I am saying is we need to present the Ten Commandments to people to properly preach the gospel (Galatians 3:24)

Judge Moore WAS being denied his rights to preach, and of course state laws of freedom of religion were ignored to be able to take the monument down and remove him from office.

so you believe that Gal 3:24 means that what is required to properly give the gospel is a presentation of the 10 commandments (and perhaps how the person is a violator of them)? i must confess that i used to think this, and i also think it has some logical appeal. many reformers (and lutherans especially) believe that a person must be destroyed first before they can be healed with the gospel (i think it was chantry who said something like, "the law must wound before the balm of the gospel can be applied"). in other words, they must have a sense of their guilt before they can understand the gospel and repent. they describe three uses of the law (first, second, third) and i think i remember that this is the second referring to it as the evangelical use of the law (the other two are law for use of government to punish wrongdoers and for the Christian in his sanctification).

but in my opinion this is a very anachronistic view of the OC law. i think you would be hard pressed to find a OC or first century jew using the OC law in this way (these ways) for the law was one and it applied to every area of the life and when we come to the NT, the writers (esp. Paul) see the OC law as something which is somewhat antithetical to grace. the Law was added to make sin utterly sinful and to pave the way for the gospel of the NC (faith, grace, etc.).

furthermore, i'm not sure where you find the 10 commandments in Gal 3. if this is what you are proposing, i'd like to know your justification for this exegesis because i do not see that there (where are even one of the 10 commandments mentioned?). also, if the gospel preached in Acts is a model for us at all, i am not aware of any gospel presentation where the apostles used the 10 commandments. in your estimation, it seems, the apostles in Acts did not properly preach the gospel. in addition, where is the 10 commandments mentioned in paul's description of the gospel in 1 Co 15:1ff?

i really think this is where the analogy of faith must come into play. i know of no other Scripture that says what you're saying (and what I once believed) about the OC law and the gospel and we find no example of it in the apostles. if we are reading Gal 3:24 in this way (that the OC law is required to properly preach the gospel) and it is explained nowhere else, then it may be that we are simply wrong on our exegesis of Gal 3:24.

here is a good quote for this by da carson at the ACE website:

Be cautious about absolutizing what is said or commanded only once.

The reason is not that God must say things more than once for them to be true or binding. The reason, rather, is that if something is said only once it is easily misunderstood or misapplied. When something is repeated on several occasions and in slightly different contexts, readers will enjoy a better grasp of what is meant and what is at stake.

[Truthseeker]

Disciple,

The basic thing I am saying here is that the founding fathers were pretty much agreed on how the Bible could be used as the source for United States laws and our "constitutional republic" form of government, and set up the three branches to give limited and balanced power to sinful men.

They knew and warned that this self-governed people should have "No King but King Jesus", and needed to be a "moral and religious people". These same laws, sourced from the Ten Commandments, were and still are used to bring internal conviction and external control to our citizens, believer or unbeliever.

As far as preaching the gospel, sin is the transgression of the law. Pre-Christians need to see that they have done something wrong, otherwise, why repent? "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law, rather, through the law we became conscious of sin." - Romans 3:20 ---This can be that they either have prior knowledge of their sin, and/or during the gospel presentation they become aware of their sins, even specifically by name.

As far as the Lutherans and reformers "destroying" someone, they can't do that to someone who is already destroyed by sin. "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever is not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." John 3:18. Then our preaching of the law as part of the saving gospel of faith in Christ is a loving and merciful act indeed, not a condemnation unto death, but rather a conviction and redemption unto life, no matter how uncomfortable the process.

In the gospels, when Jesus said, "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand", He is talking primarily to the Jews, who knew very well what all God's laws were and if they were humble enough to admit it, they would say they had not kept them all, and needed Jesus as Lord and Savior.

As far as the founding fathers being deists, and David Barton and others being revisionists, ("The Light and the Glory" is a book by Peter Marshall and not an organization) please cite specifically from their writings how they were such. These men have spent their lives getting the facts straight from original writings.

Please name one founding father that was a deist and why, and one item from Barton's article that he revised from original writings.

I agree that we should be careful in the handling of history, but as far as the religious right "erring much", please explain which member of the religious right has erred and how?

What does this discussion have to do with a nation? ---"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people" - Proverbs 14:34 --- "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." - Proverbs 29:2

The church and government get mixed as soon as we have Christians in government (as soon as we vote, run for office, etc.), but they also as institutions each have limited delegated power under God. Yes, they have different domains and jurisdictions, although they should both use and uphold the Ten Commmandments.

The US is not a theocracy like Israel of old, if that's what you mean.

As far as other nations like Canada, they will still have to answer to God, regardless of where they sourced their laws from...."Every knee shall bow..."

Jesus will judge every nation by His laws.

James 3:10-11 is a little more overt in the description of the commandments in relation to the gospel than Galatians is, but it is implied in Galatians also when it talks about law.

Please read the attached position paper on law and grace. This is pretty much what I believe, and I hope you can see that we as Christians need to obey the current laws of the land that line up with scripture and oppose those that don't.

Thanks for your challenging thoughts. God bless you.

[disciple]

As far as preaching the gospel, sin is the transgression of the law. Pre-Christians need to see that they have done something wrong, otherwise, why repent? "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law, rather, through the law we became conscious of sin." - Romans 3:20 ---This can be that they either have prior knowledge of their sin, and/or during the gospel presentation they become aware of their sins, even specifically by name.

As far as the Lutherans and reformers "destroying" someone, they can't do that to someone who is already destroyed by sin. "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever is not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." John 3:18. Then our preaching of the law as part of the saving gospel of faith in Christ is a loving and merciful act indeed, not a condemnation unto death, but rather a conviction and redemption unto life, no matter how uncomfortable the process.

perhaps you missed what i said above:

so you believe that Gal 3:24 means that what is required to properly give the gospel is a presentation of the 10 commandments (and perhaps how the person is a violator of them)? i must confess that i used to think this, and i also think it has some logical appeal. many reformers (and lutherans especially) believe that a person must be destroyed first before they can be healed with the gospel (i think it was chantry who said something like, "the law must wound before the balm of the gospel can be applied"). in other words, they must have a sense of their guilt before they can understand the gospel and repent. they describe three uses of the law (first, second, third) and i think i remember that this is the second referring to it as the evangelical use of the law (the other two are law for use of government to punish wrongdoers and for the Christian in his sanctification).

furthermore, i'm not sure where you find the 10 commandments in Gal 3. if this is what you are proposing, i'd like to know your justification for this exegesis because i do not see that there (where are even one of the 10 commandments mentioned?). also, if the gospel preached in Acts is a model for us at all, i am not aware of any gospel presentation where the apostles used the 10 commandments. in your estimation, it seems, the apostles in Acts did not properly preach the gospel. in addition, where is the 10 commandments mentioned in paul's description of the gospel in 1 Co 15:1ff?

i really think this is where the analogy of faith must come into play. i know of no other Scripture that says what you're saying (and what I once believed) about the OC law and the gospel and we find no example of it in the apostles. if we are reading Gal 3:24 in this way (that the OC law is required to properly preach the gospel) and it is explained nowhere else, then it may be that we are simply wrong on our exegesis of Gal 3:24.

also perhaps you missed this:

Christ came to fulfill all that was in the OT, including all that the OC Law required. i assume you're wondering how i read v. 19 [of Mt 5:17-19]. perhaps in order for me to know where you're coming from, you would like to describe how you are reading it? do you think it means that we are still under the OC (Mosaic) Law?

As far as the founding fathers being deists, and David Barton and others being revisionists, ("The Light and the Glory" is a book by Peter Marshall and not an organization) please cite specifically from their writings how they were such. These men have spent their lives getting the facts straight from original writings.

i meant the homeschool curriculum by marshall. i understood from my wife that it was an organization that put out a homeschool history curriculum. she researched it and said that it was highly revisionistic and this was well known within many homeschooling circles. as far as taking this thread on a tangent to prove to you that these men are historical revisionists, all you need to do as i said before is do a search on historical revisionism and their names. you'll find plenty of stuff to keep you busy.

Please name one founding father that was a deist and why, and one item from Barton's article that he revised from original writings.

from what i understand (based on my recollection of reading), both jefferson and franklin were deists. and yes i am aware that barton tries to contradict this, but have not seen his tapes nor read his books. my opinion is that barton and many other of the religious right have an agenda and they'll color the data any way that they can to find support for their agenda. perhaps the following links will provide you with some reading pleasure:

http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b44ab97110d.htm
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march96/morris.html
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm
http://monotheism.us/index.html
http://religion.aynrand.org/quotes.html
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html
http://www.herbertwarmstrong.com/chr...ng_fathers.htm
http://one.promoguy.net/archives/001316.php
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/..._founders.html
http://www.gospelcom.net/watkins/foundingfathers.htm

[disciple]

from what i understand (based on my recollection of reading), both jefferson and franklin were deists. and yes i am aware that barton tries to contradict this, but have not seen his tapes nor read his books. my opinion is that barton and many other of the religious right have an agenda and they'll color the data any way that they can to find support for their agenda. perhaps the following links will provide you with some reading pleasure:

http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b44ab97110d.htm
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march96/morris.html
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm
http://monotheism.us/index.html
http://religion.aynrand.org/quotes.html
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html
http://www.herbertwarmstrong.com/chr...ng_fathers.htm
http://one.promoguy.net/archives/001316.php
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/..._founders.html
http://www.gospelcom.net/watkins/foundingfathers.htm

the most even-handed link IMHO of the above is the following:

http://www.gospelcom.net/watkins/foundingfathers.htm

here is a quote:

True or False: The Founding Fathers of The United States were Christians who formed a government based on godly principles.

• That's a more complex answer. The "revisionist left" would like to make them secular and the "religious right" would like to make them saintly. Let's take a look at some of the more prominent Founding Father's beliefs . . . in their own words.
  

...So, were the Founding Fathers Christians?

They were certainly godly men who believed in a supreme being, but not everyone would subscribe to the Apostles' Creed.

Three things do seem clear to me:

First, we must always check our sources before making any claim--or passing one on.

Both revisionists and the religious right have tried to make the Founding Fathers fit their ideology. It gives neither side of the debate any credibility when quotes are found to be ficticious or grossly out of context.

For instance, I've seen articles proclaiming that Jefferson claimed to be "a real Christian" while conveniently avoiding his opinion that belief in Christ's divinity was "dung" (see contexts above).

Second, we must be careful with labels, especially "Christian."

One author claims that 51 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held a "Christian worldview." He doesn't go on, however, to define what he means by Christian worldview. Would Jefferson and Franklin, who admired Christ's teachings, be included in the 51?

And third, we should be grateful that the Founding Fathers--whatever they believed--were so intent on making religious liberty a right for those of us who do subscribe to the Apostles' Creed and those who don't.

• Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
  
  James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, June 20, 1785.

[disciple]

here's other interesting reads:

http://www.searchingtogether.org/art...mericanism.htm
http://www.searchingtogether.org/art...er-society.htm

[disciple]

here is an FAQ on ids.org that specifically addresses this issue (it is the first question):

http://www.newcovenant.ws/steve/FAQ1.html

[PILGRIM313]

Disciple, great links! thanks
Pilgrim

[Truthseeker]

Hello Disciple,

Thank you very much for all those links. That sure made me think and pray this through more, and discuss it with fellow Christians. As far as the hotly contested beliefs of the founding fathers, and whether America being founded as a Christian or secular nation, and the issues of biblical Law, apparently these debates will continue even in the body of Christ until Jesus returns!

It seems the same founder, John Adams, who struggled (at one point at least) with the deity of Christ, wrote clearly ...

"The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity..."

Full text here:

http://personal.pitnet.net/primaryso...rinciples.html

I agree we would take this 'law" link on a tangent to discuss who allegedly is revising what, and the beliefs of the founders.

So as regards the topic of laws, biblical and otherwise, I will say I agree with much of Zens and Bjork's "God and Country" or Christ's kingdom? article where they use many scriptural references to caution believers to keep the focus on the spiritual battle.

They have clearly brought out many truths, and I really appreciated it whe they admonished the church via George Barna's polling that the American church does not read, study and apply our bibles enough or in many cases at all, and that we should be Berean believers, to search the scriptures to see if these things are so.

The area I would differ with Zens and Bjork is in their worldview, which distorts the way they interpret the "mission field". They polarize the Old Testament and New and Church and State so much it it is no wonder that the church has largely left the "politicians" to wallow in the dark.

My contention is that there are Christians called to bring the word of God to politicians as a "people group", as there are pastors called to the pulpits. And salvations are occuring and discipleship is happening on places like Capitol Hill with greater effect than some are willing to admit.

Since Jesus told us to "go and make disciples" and "teach them to obey whatsoever I have commanded you" a couple of thoughts to ponder are:

Do we really only disciple individuals or can we ultimately influence nations by discipling those in authority over nations? (2 Timothy 2:2)

Is it just as important to disciple an unchurched mayor through a friendship as it would be to teach and disciple someone who walks into our Sunday School class?

How about discipling fellow employees by applying biblical principles and faith in the workplace?

Is a disciple of Christ responsible to live out the law from his heart, so it lines up with the Ten Commandments as well as to follow the NT verses about loving God and our neighbor?

This all goes back to the discussion of the Lordship of Christ and law.

Even common sense would tell us that if someone is a robber, and they go to jail, and I visit them in jail, and preach to them that they have transgressed one of God's laws through the Ten Commandments, and they need Christ as their Lord and savior that this is a viable approach.

The New Covenant theology article you posted said it is "more biblical" to point them to the New Testament. I think this splits hairs erroneously, because the NT verses quoted also say to stop stealing and lying our neighbors. Sounds like 2 of the 10 to me.

So I simply follow that God's Commandments were and are as useful in making civil law as they are in the public square in front of Judge Roy Moore's courtroom as they are to convict an individual sinner, as they are to be checkups for us as we walk with Christ and He helps us live them from our hearts.

His Word does not return void.

Thanks for your challenges in these matters.

TS