Christianity or Pluralism

[Joe Liberty]

You shall have no other gods before Me. (Exodus 20:3)
By Me kings reign, and rulers decree justice. (Proverbs 8:15)

The Church is at a crossroads philosophically. To be determined is whether we believe that the Lordship of Christ is comprehensive, extending to all spheres and jurisdictions of life, or whether Jesus is Lord over our private lives but does not even want His people to declare His Lordship over this nation. We must determine whether it is our goal to acknowledge the God of the Bible, or just to join hands with the many gods of the world in common cause against “secular liberalism.”

We must determine whether He wants Christians to shelve the Bible in their public discourse and argue for general principles based on the consensus morality of the many gods of the world’s religions, be they satanic or occult, or whether we may boldly mention the name of Jesus Christ in the public square and proclaim the God of Christianity as the only true foundation of our laws and the only true God to be honored in our national landmarks.

We must decide if Messiah is THE King upon whose shoulders the government will be established, or if we are resigned to the ancient Roman notion that all gods are acceptable as long as none demand exclusivity.

One well-known writer has recently suggested that America has no claim to a distinctively Christian law system. In his view, we are a land of many gods. From his perspective, God actually wants there to be many gods running this country. He has even suggested that pluralism is “providential.”

As to the issue of what God has allowed, there is a sense in which this man is absolutely right. God has providentially allowed different influences to arise in our nation. This is providence. Providence refers to the Lord Jesus’ sovereign direction and control over His creation and man. God providentially directs all events. He is Lord over every detail of time, space, matter, and reality. He literally upholds the universe by the power of His word.

In another sense, this brother has made several key mistakes: First, he has wrongly concluded that, because God has providentially allowed evil to prosper, that therefore we are to work to maintain the status quo. Second, he has confused the claims of the many gods with the rights of Jesus Christ over our land. If every man in America was a raging Zoroastrian, Christians would still have to declare that our government is required by the higher law, as revealed in Scripture, to “kiss the son.” Furthermore, the fact that fewer Americans are Christian in the twenty-first century than in the nineteenth century does not mean that our distinctively Christian charters, common law, law systems, and covenants are null, void, or unenforceable.

Providence — there is a great mystery here that we may never fully understand. Though God is not the author of sin, yet he allows for sin and directs every sin and act of evil for His own glory. He is sovereign! So when somebody says that pluralism is providential, we may respond: “In one sense, yes. But only in the sense that the rise of the Nazi Third Reich, the death of Able, the boils of Job, the presidency of Bill Clinton, and the horror of 9/11 were also providential events.”

The fact that God allows and providentially directs even Satan himself does not mean that He approves of or will tolerate the behavior of Satan. Similarly, the fact that, providentially, many gods have emerged as “pretenders” seeking to displace the One True God from His throne as Lord over this nation certainly does not mean that we should declare the defeat of Christianity in America, and theologically, philosophically, and practically cop-out, capitulating to the claims of these false gods. Truth is not determined by majorities. Covenants, charters, and law systems are not rendered invalid by the fiat claim of the invading worshippers of false gods.

God has providentially allowed America to suffer for our sins. An evidence of this providential judgment is the surrender by Evangelical leaders of the rights of Messiah the King, in favor of their desire to sit at the table with the petty potentates who think they are running the show, and to give obeisance to the many gods of popular culture. These Evangelical pluralists claim that they can privately worship Jesus Christ, but that it would be wrong to mention His name in the public square or declare His exclusive Lordship over the nation, unless such references are merely historical that in no way, shape, or form are meant to imply exclusivity.

We must pray that God will providentially wake up our brothers in the Church so that they will no longer be ashamed of the Gospel when it comes to the history, leadership, and the laws of this land. We must pray that, instead of sounding retreat or making common cause with philosophies utterly foreign to Christianity, these men will once again earnestly call for our nation to acknowledge the God of our charters and our covenants and honor the faith of our fathers.

Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me. And who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; yes, let him recount it to Me in order, from the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming and the events that are going to take place.' (Isaiah 44:6,7)

by Doug Phillips
http://www.visionforum.com/corner/blog/

[seer]

The question for me is. Does the NT teach that we should seek to create a Christian nation?

[Joe Liberty]

Yes. It teaches that Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life and that He is therefore the Ruler of Nations.

Why do you limit yourself to the NT only?

[Rahab]

Today @ 03:56 PM post located here
seer:

The question for me is. Does the NT teach that we should seek to create a Christian nation?

Bonjour Seer..... hope you are feeling better.

"create" might be the key word here. Is the Holy Spirit in control of the human heart and the main convictor who will draw that heart to a sincere conversion in Christ or are we to declare a christian government which in turns will apply biblical laws over folks who are not converted and feel suddenly oppressed by the same government?
Do we respect "free will" or do we dismiss it by promoting a political regime which gives no choice to each individual.
One has to assume that a christian nation deserves that title because all individuals part of that nation have converted and embrace christian faith and never under cohersion, oppression or repression.
Once you place a religious authority in charge of a nation, it implies legislature inspired by the religious morality, legislature which will direct and govern the lives of millions. No matter if some of those millions do not believe in that religious representation of morality. Some Americans live by the "Golden Rule". They follow no religious morality. They focus on not harming others. Or the universal motto " do not do onto others what you do not wish to be done onto you". However, our religious morality has proven to contradict that motto at times.

What is Christ's message in the Gospels as He denounces the dogmatic influence of the Pharisees on believers? Does He promote the application of biblical laws as a motivation to conversion? or does He enhance that application as a result of conversion? How does He promote our faith?
I lean to believe that creating a christian nation is not of human order. No political system can motivate mankind to accept Christ as their Savior. It can actualy engender a repelling effect.

If you seek to establish a religious political system, it is religion you establish..... not necessarly faith.

Take Italy for example largely influenced politicaly by the presence of the Vatican. Do not be decieved in thinking that every Italian has a faith founded relationship with God. Many hang on to a traditionalist practise of catholicism but have no relationship whatsoever with the Lord. And it is not due to catholicism in itself, it is due to religion being exhorted over faith.
Even my close friend Rosa whom I define as a faithful to God woman, prayerful, enduring, kind, giving, honest,forgiving etc...could not explain to me how God's Word defines divorce to be a heartbreaking experience for God Himself. It is as if there is no emotional connection with God..... just a subdued response to religious dogma.
Do we want that in America? or do we wish for people to be emotionaly connected to Christ....do we want a transforming faith or a paralizing religion?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 11:14 AM post located here
Joe Liberty:

Yes. It teaches that Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life and that He is therefore the Ruler of Nations.

Why do you limit yourself to the NT only?

Joe are you theonomic? Have you read DeMar's Ruler of the Nations? I found it a fascinating read.

[James]

Well-said, Rahab.

[Joe Liberty]

Rahab,

You are assuming some attributes of explicitly Christian government that ain't necessarily so.

Do you believe that the civil ruler is to be a servant of God?

[Joe Liberty]

I have not read that book but I am familiar with DeMar. I recently started a meeting with a video presentation of his "True Meaning of Liberty" which was well-received.

I am not up on all the labels, but I suppose I am theonomic if that means that I believe that Jesus Christ is Ruler of Nations, and that civil rulers are duty-bound to govern according to the express will of God. That just seems like pretty elementary Christianity to me.

BTW, I found this site because of your recent essay on RazorMouth. I posted a question (sort of) for you on the theo 101 board.

[seer]

Yes. It teaches that Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life and that He is therefore the Ruler of Nations.

Why do you limit yourself to the NT only?

As far as I know there are only two God given theocrices in human history. Israel and the world wide one Christ will institute on His return. I see no NT call for this kind of action. And yes I do limit myself to the NT in this case.

[Joe Liberty]

Rahab,

By what NT scripture do you limit yourself to the NT in this, or any, case? And you didn't answer the question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life or not?

From the Apostle Paul on the preeminence of Jesus Christ: "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him." (Col. 1: 16)

Like it or not, that comprehensive truth (for those who accept the infallibility of God's Word in Holy Scripture) is as THEOCRATIC as one can imagine. Note that it includes civil rule; i.e., God's rule, the simple meaning of theocracy.

Also from Paul, in his treatise on the specific and limited role of the civil magistrate: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" (Rom. 13:1);
obviously, again, a theocratic equation. Then, verses 2 through 4 complete the job description, the basis of Articles I, II and III of the U.S. Constituiton.

Thus, the preamble of the Constitution Party, which names Jesus Christ as our mentor and King, the chief cornerstone of our political activism -- in His theocracy. Again, see Psalm 2, for a not-so-subtle reminder of what this is all about.

We submit, therefore, to Him. Meanwhile, if we have problems with his "appointed authorities" (e.g., Clinton, Bush), we must then look to ourselves to determine why we may be under judgement. I suggest that our "independence" or our compromise to please men is routinely the cause, as it has been throughout HIStory. Clearly, it is the covenant principle of blessing (obedience) and cursing (disobedience). We can count on it!

Blessings to you , Rahab, in His grace and peace

[Rahab]

Today @ 05:19 PM post located here
Joe Liberty:

Rahab,

You are assuming some attributes of explicitly Christian government that ain't necessarily so.

Do you believe that the civil ruler is to be a servant of God?

I believe a civil ruler is to serve the people who elected him. That is the principle of democracy. Considering that in the US any civil ruler deals with a pluralistic population, he or she is to be representative of the will of all people. I do not see how a man or woman who abides to any particular religion can uphold democratic principles if they focus on imposing their religious morals on other non religious or different religious individuals.

There is uncompatibility between democracy and theocracy.

Do not water down the consequences of what a christian government's attributes would be for the entire population of the United States. I guarantee you that religious ethics would overtake the democratic process of legislatures to be applied to all citizens.
Would you consider that you are fairly represented by a servant of God if a majority JW government were to push for an anti vaccination legislature? which branch of christianity would represent all christians? how do you define a servant of God? according to which interpretation of the Word of God?

[Joe Liberty]

Democracy and theocracy may well be incompatible. But Christians should not put rule of man before God.

I do believe that theocracy is compatible with republicanism. I agree that religious ethics would overtake legislatures (on Earth as it is in Heaven!)

You ask about vaccine legislation, which branch of christianity would represent all christians, how we would define a servant of God and which interpretation of the Word of God would be used. I have my own ideas about some of these and am unsure of others. But that is why we need separation of powers, checks and balances, a Bill of Rights and all the rest. If there was unanimity on these things we would not need any government at all. But if we can't at least agree that the purpose of government is to allign civil law with Biblical Law, we are never going to get anywhere; at least not anywhere worth going.

[Rahab]

Today @ 06:14 PM post located here
Joe Liberty:

Rahab,

By what NT scripture do you limit yourself to the NT in this, or any, case? And you didn't answer the question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life or not?

MY ANWER : I thought you were asking the question to Seer....as a reply to his comment focusing on the NT. Christ is Lord of my life. But I will not claim Him to be Lord of my neighbor's life who has yet to even aknowledge Him. I respect their free will access. But maybe you do not believe in free will.......

From the Apostle Paul on the preeminence of Jesus Christ: "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him." (Col. 1: 16)

Like it or not, that comprehensive truth (for those who accept the infallibility of God's Word in Holy Scripture) is as THEOCRATIC as one can imagine. Note that it includes civil rule; i.e., God's rule, the simple meaning of theocracy.

MY ANSWER : to my knowledge that applied to monarchies.....not to a democracy. But maybe you have biblical examples of theocratic democracies specificaly presented as a democratic republic with equal representation of all people. Feel free to submit your evidence.

Also from Paul, in his treatise on the specific and limited role of the civil magistrate: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" (Rom. 13:1);
obviously, again, a theocratic equation. Then, verses 2 through 4 complete the job description, the basis of Articles I, II and III of the U.S. Constituiton.

Thus, the preamble of the Constitution Party, which names Jesus Christ as our mentor and King, the chief cornerstone of our political activism -- in His theocracy. Again, see Psalm 2, for a not-so-subtle reminder of what this is all about.

ANSWER : I see no quote from Christ Himself. Any reason why you hesitate to politicize Christ's focus (by His own words) on ministering to mankind rather than attempting to install a theocratic system where He would have undermined the Roman government. Note that He was evaluated by Ponce Pilate as having commited no crimes against Ceasar.......in other words..... no political statements or ideology from Christ. Strictly a focus on promoting faith by ministering to mankind.

We submit, therefore, to Him. Meanwhile, if we have problems with his "appointed authorities" (e.g., Clinton, Bush), we must then look to ourselves to determine why we may be under judgement. I suggest that our "independence" or our compromise to please men is routinely the cause, as it has been throughout HIStory. Clearly, it is the covenant principle of blessing (obedience) and cursing (disobedience). We can count on it!

My ANSWER : IMO the only christlike response to a ruler who seems to not satisfy our expectations is to pray for him or her. He or she is under no dispensation of not being transformed by God. Again we either entrust the Holy Spirit to work in the human heart or we become control freaks and make it our duty to make folks conformed to our expectations.
The only covenant I cherish is the last one....Grace dispensed without any merit thru the blood of Christ.

Blessings to you , Rahab, in His grace and peace

[rmwilliamsjr]

Christianity or Pluralism

You shall have no other gods before Me. (Exodus 20:3)
By Me kings reign, and rulers decree justice. (Proverbs 8:15)

The Church is at a crossroads philosophically. To be determined is whether we believe that the Lordship of Christ is comprehensive, extending to all spheres and jurisdictions of life, or whether Jesus is Lord over our private lives but does not even want His people to declare His Lordship over this nation. We must determine whether it is our goal to acknowledge the God of the Bible, or just to join hands with the many gods of the world in common cause against “secular liberalism.”

it appears from your posting that you would be interested in reading on where your ideas come from.

First is the constantinian synthesis, the best studies seem to come out of the magisterial reformation versus the anabaptists:

The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, by Leonard Verduin.
(this personally is on my top 100 books)

The Radical Reformation
by George Huntston Williams

Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals
by Willem Balke, Adolf Harnack

The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America
by Richard John Neuhaus
(this too is one of my favorite all time books, i actually gave it as a present to all my seminary friends one Christmas)


second is the alignment of Christianity and American republicism that occurred in the early 19thC.

America's God
Mark Noll

Theology in America
E. Brooks Holifield

I think what you will find is the principles you are outlining in your post are not Christian but rather syncretistic political additions.

[Rahab]

Today @ 06:41 PM post located here
Joe Liberty:

Democracy and theocracy may well be incompatible. But Christians should not put rule of man before God.

I do believe that theocracy is compatible with republicanism. I agree that religious ethics would overtake legislatures (on Earth as it is in Heaven!)

You ask about vaccine legislation, which branch of christianity would represent all christians, how we would define a servant of God and which interpretation of the Word of God would be used. I have my own ideas about some of these and am unsure of others. But that is why we need separation of powers, checks and balances, a Bill of Rights and all the rest. If there was unanimity on these things we would not need any government at all. But if we can't at least agree that the purpose of government is to allign civil law with Biblical Law, we are never going to get anywhere; at least not anywhere worth going.

Did Christ attempt to aligne the law of the land with God's Laws? nop..... on the contrary. He challenged the sabbath by motivating folks to reflect on how it is to be applied so that it does not result in letting your sheep drown in a well.....He challenged the laws of stoning to death an adulteress.....motivating folks to reflect on the unfairness of human judgement and condemnation. And at no time did He attempt to modify the established laws of the land under the Roman government of Galilee by pushing for biblical laws to over take them. He made sure to not interfere.

So which Biblical Laws would you select as an alignement to our civil laws? you cannot cherry pick....or if you do, then you deny the sovereignty of God's Inspiration over any written biblical law.
Would the rebellious child be put to death? adulterers stoned in public and by the public? women who experience menstruation declared off limit to their own husbands..... maybe setting up a red tent for all of us. Forgive my sarcasm but you need to face the reality that biblical laws which result in harming other individuals are not going to fly in a society where the government intends to protect its citizens from barbaric practises.
So which biblical laws do you evaluate to be contributing to the betterment of American society as a whole?

Give me a biblical law which will render medical care available to those whose economical condition bans them from contracting medical insurance.

Give me a biblical law which will protect all citizens from racial exploitation and discrimination.

Give me a biblical law which will keep men, women, families from the streets and restore them into the work force so that they may have a home and the dignity they deserve.

Give me a biblical law where hate crimes against homosexuals, ethnic groups, non conformed to our ethics any individuals will be prevented.

There could be a long list......