Constitutional Party Candidate: Michael Peroutka '04

God has given principles and laws by which man is to live. They affect individuals, churches, and civil governments. There are two choices:

1) We can govern by God's guidelines

or

2) We can govern by someone else's

If we choose 2), we can have pretty much whatever results, including violence, immmorality, and starvation. If we choose 1), we can enjoy God's blessings.

Pretty easy choice for me. You can label it anything you choose. I do respect Dr. Kennedy, but Robertson is just a buffoon, and Falwell tends that way also.

I prefer not to argue over Theonomy, Reconstruction, etc., but if you want to see what they stand for please don't judge by guys like Robertson. Instead check some credible individuals: http://www.chalcedon.edu

 

Your original premise, that what we make our decisions upon, is just. Laws must be based upon righteousness, truth & justice. The only source of that is Scripture.
However, you missed my point entirely. Theonomists/reconstructionsts (I know them well, having intimate knowledge of their beliefs first hand) expect that if they rule, everyone will have to tow their line. They will put on everyone Old Testament law, in the areas they say.
"Hooray!" Someone may say. "There goes homosexuality out the door." Ah, yes, but so does freedom to go to any church you please. So does mercy in the New Testament sense. Anyone recall the Old Testament ordinance that required parents to take their rebellious teenagers out and have the town stone them to death??! That can happen, when you have the Old Testament as the Law of the land.
People were burned at the stake at the hands of theonomists.
Baptists were hunted down and murdered at the hands of the theonomy-loving Reformed!
That is how dangerous theonomy and reconstruction can be, when it is taken to its logical end. And history shows us that it has been taken that way before: from the Reformation up until around 1800.

 

Following the limited government principles of the federal constitution is not theonomic. I don't think Jefferson, et al, can be considered theonomists.

 

Lil sister,

Although I wouldn't exactly classify myself as a Theonomist, I have good friends who are actually leaders in the movement. I don't know who you have been talking to, and don't doubt that you have heard what you have heard, but it is entirely contrary to what I have found.

No offense, but the fact that you lumped Robertson and Falwell in with them tells me that either A) you don't understand them or B) you "have an axe to grind", as they say. Those who I know would have nothing to do with either Falwell or Robertson.

Again, please check out the link that I posted, and this one which addresses New England Puritanism: http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/98/nepure.html

 

Jim, I've been member of churches that have been reconstructionist (many years ago), and churches that have been theonomist (within the past few years). We are currently seeing some friends come joyfully out of the covenant/theonomist error & they are marvelling in their liberty in Christ!
It is obvious you ardently believe in theonomy, so I will not change your mind. But I can pray that God will do so; and that you will come to realize that believers are not under the Law, we are under Grace.
The whole fight Paul fought on behalf of the Galatians was over that very understanding. Judaizers wanted to take the church back to the Old Covenant--Paul called them those of Hagar (the flesh). Paul promoted the spiritual children of Sarah (those born of and living in the Spirit); and boldly called the believers of Galatia away from the Law into the glorious liberty of Christ and His New Covenant Law.
There can be no reconciling the two, nor mixing the two together. Jesus warned you cannot patch the old wineskin (life in the Old Covenant)& then pour in the new wine of the Spirit of God. Jesus said those who taste the old wine first (the Old Covenant system) prefer it. He said you must get a new wineskin (the New Covenant) to have the new wine (life in the Spirit).
He also said in Luke 16:16 that the Law & the Prophets were until John. Now everyone is pressing into the Kingdom of God. Jesus continually preached that the era of the Old Covenant ended in Himself! Being completely fulfilled in Christ, it is obsolete according to Hebrews.
Thus, to put it back on the people of God, and upon the general population of a nation is nothing short of going back to Rome, enslaving the people in a false theocracy!

 

PS: I enjoy the writings of many of the Puritans. I recognize many of them as true brothers & sisters in Christ. Many of them had a deep, solid relationship with Jesus Christ, and yet lived under a system they felt unable to change. So they wrote about & emphasized the personal relationship with Christ, which helped to soften the taste of metal they experienced every day under that manmade system. While not all Puritan writers expressed that kind of warmth in Christ, numerous ones did. But they were still under a Galatianist system that kept them wrongly under the Old Covenant.

 

And I know some who are going the other direction.

Lil Sister, please read more carefully. In an above post I said that I do NOT consider myself a Theonomist. I am simply saying that I think you are mis-understanding their position. Or, maybe it depends on who you talk to, since you obviously have at least as much first-hand experience as I. But, let's not let "in-house" theological discussions keep us back from re-taking our nation's institutions and turning them back to the Christ-honoring condition that they once enjoyed (only better this time )

-PA Jim

 

That is something that all conservative Christians, regardless of theological differences, should be in favor of.

 

I wish I did misunderstand their position, Jim. I've read theonomists, been with them, and in their churches; as well as have these friends who are now enjoying their liberty from this harsh belief system. This is the major strain of theonomy, per the teaching of Greg Bahnson (who dubbed it that), and as history bears record of the reformed & Puritans who acted out their theological convictions.
You cannot and must not deny the horrific 200 year history for the life of Baptists (and others) under theonomic government!! To be so willfully ignorant of this is to be unfaithful to Christ & His truth. Have you read Martyr's Mirrors ? Have you read The Price of Soul Liberty ? You must, before you make an ignorant stand on behalf of theonomic government.
Clearly the Anabaptists understood Biblical truth about a Christian's place in society:
We are pilgrims and strangers on the earth. We are not here to "take over the world for Christ" by fleshly (ie: political) means.
Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world, else His servants would fight! The weapons of our warfare are spiritual , not carnal , we are told in Corinthians.
Our task is to proclaim the Gospel , intercede for our leaders and the lost, and do good works which glorify God in the eyes of the lost (such as ministering food & medical supplies in Jesus' name as opportunities to bring the Gospel to people). It is also to raise godly children in a crooked and perverse world, and show the world what a family is, according to Scripture. As the Church of Jesus Christ, our love is to be a testimony to the world that we are His. But that love is not namby-pamby, with a mindless-sheep mentality. In love we are to provoke one another to love & good works (Heb. 10:24,25), and to keep sharp doctrinally (Jude 3).
This worlds' political systems are just that--this worlds! If a Christian feels compelled to run for office, then he should. But not in the sense to "take back the United States." Rather, it should be as "salt and light."
It is true that the US was established by many true, Bible-believing Christians. But it was established also by deists, and upon Greek principles (the "Classic Education" so many seek after today; which has a large amount of Greek pagan thought included). Those Greek principles affected the Christianity of the founding fathers; allowing them to freely imprison and even put to death Baptists & others, until the Bill of Rights enabled us to live freely in the US. Do your homework--too many believers in this country believe Americanized Christianity. Our faith should be a Biblical faith, not a culturalized one. Christians should be children of God through Christ first, citizens second; not the other way around. Our faith should be the same as brethren who are in 3rd world countries; where they have no freedoms, yet are that country's best citizens because they faithfully follow Christ. They make the difference in their country because they are true examples of Christ & His Word. They are not hated because they are trying to grab political power--but because they stand for Christ! (Read the Voice of the Martyrs magazine for a few months, to see the difference.)
Am I saying Baptists/Christians shouldn't vote or hold public office? I'm not saying we shouldn't, but if we do, it should be with integrity, for men of Biblically Christian standing, if possible, and men who will best enable us (as it says in 1 Tim. 2) to live peaceable lives.
We are not here to establish a kingdom for ourselves. The kingdom of God is within you, Jesus taught! Someday when He returns & establishes His physical kingdom on earth, every knee will bow & tongue confess He is Lord. Until then we are in a battle--to be fought by the Word of God, and prayer, and loving good works.

 

Does anyone have a site where you can read the latest on Peroutka?
Gina

 

Lil Sister, I won't drag this discussion out any longer unless you want to. I will just finish my party by commenting that you seem to be saying that Christians should be concerned about almost all areas of life except leadership in politics and government. I can't slice my life apart like that.

 

No, Jim; I don't believe that. I just believe that Christians aren't called to take over the world in a political way, because we're "pilgrims and strangers" as Peter said.
When we try to do things the world's way (like the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition and other modern reconstructionist/theonomic movements, as well as what the historical record shows) then we mess everything up, and dishonor the name of Christ! Why? Because we aren't doing what we are here for, which is the Father's business--being Ambassadors for Christ.
Our goals here on earth are to worship the Lord Jesus Christ (through life, through the Word, through prayer, etc.) & evangelize the lost...political strong-arming doesn't do either job.
Recent & older history shows that when the Church gets sidetracked from the essentials, she loses her edge, grows lukewarm and goes into chastisement. This is not what I want, is it what you want?
This is where the Church is today, and we desperately need a revival and reformation. That won't come through politics, either!

 

PS: Jim, how come you wont be honest enough to address what I've said? I've made strong (but not unloving or ungodly) statements in my stand against theonomy and reconstructionism. (My concern is valid, because I don't know enough about this Peroutka person to vote for him.) Instead of honestly looking at the presentation of both Scripture and historic facts I've given you, you continually side-step the issues and whine, accuse and fuss. "If you don't like the heat, get out the kitchen!"
Rather, I challenge you to get into the "heat" of the Scripture,and the testimony of history (which tells the truth about theonomy) and allow your convictions to be formed by them on this subject, instead of your preferences.

 

Lil Sister,

Looking over my posts on this thread, I cannot find any place whare I "whined" or "fussed".

As to "being honest enough to address what you've said"...I did say that I prefer not to get into a long discussion over Theonomy or Reconstructionism. That's because 1) I don't have ten hours a day to spend on the BB and 2) as Ken has pointed out, it's not really the issue if we simply realize that our government (or ANY government) should follow the principles given by God. The alternative is to say that they SHOULDN'T follow them...you wouldn't support that, I hope.

Since you seemed to be willing to spend more time on the issue that I had, I posted a few links for you to check out. Did you study them? I don't agree with everything on them, but I think you will find things there that are counter to the accusations that you have made against certain groups. I don't know and cannot be concerned about the particular church in which you had your experience, I'm just PA Jim here in PA.

I don't like to make real long posts, but since you seem interested in a VERY complex topic I assume that you don't mind spending a little time. So, I hope that IQ4truth doesn't mind if I paste from a very excellent post that he made elsewhere on the BB:

From: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=001188;p=3

-PA Jim

 

I do not argue that Christians can be involved in their government. I argue that it is not through theonomy! You consistently ignore what I truly say, because I hit the subject right on the head.
I rejoce that George Washington was a believer. I look forward to meeting him in heaven. I've known of his faith since I researched the man some 20 years ago in college.
Nevertheless, his faulty understanding of government (both church & state) included the oppression of blacks, women, and all who were not of his ecclesiastic ilk. Therefore, he felt free to keep from them the same rights accorded to Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and land-holding white men.
As far as the Old Testament Scriptures, yea and Amen! But those were commands under the Old Covenant ; a covenant Jesus said is obsolete and passed away! The commands for war and rulership to the people of God were for the land of Israel-- not the Church of Jesus Christ! This is a huge difference you do not care to see.
Study the New Covenant--Matthew 5-7; Romans 2-4; Galatians 2-5; 1 Cor. 13; Hebrews 8-10; 1 Peter 2 and so on defines it well. These Scriptures clearly explain that we are pilgrims and strangers on this earth. We are here under a New Covenant--not to be the American Israel--but to be Ambassadors for Christ from every tribe and nation.
You see, American theonomy is Americanized Christianity. It insists that America is the new Israel, the new chosen people of God. The Scriptures teach otherwise.
History, as I've repeatedly shown, and you have repeatedly ignored, gives proof that a country under theonomic government is oppressive to all who do not hail it's regime! Countless Baptists died at the hands of Zwingli, the Puritans, and others who embraced theonomy.
Please consider the implications of the New Covenant upon spiritual citizenship; as opposed to earthly citizenship. If the separation is mantained, then there is proper understanding of our place in society.

 

Lil Sister,

I have tried to tell you that you don't understand what the Theonomists teach. You have proved it by your statement that they believe that Americal is the new Israel. Of course you will find indivieuals wearing any given label who belieev practically anything, but as a whole, Theonomists believe that the Church, not America, is the "new Israel. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, as I have repeatedly stated, but you can't seem to let it rest. Disagree if you want, I'm not saying that I agree either; but don't mis-represent what they teach.

You can't throw out the entire Old Testament. Based on what you are saying, the Ten Commandments are obsolete. Is murder or adultery wrong just based on your opinion or mine? Or, are they wrong because God says so, and therefore God's Word should inform our laws and institutions?

 

Bump (to avoid pruning)