-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Theonomy & the Constitution Party?
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
I will look forward to hearing from you on this. Thanks.Originally posted by NetPublicist:
There are many Constitution Party members and leaders in this group. I am waiting to see the response I get.
Conservative Christian
New Member
I believe your assumption is correct, Mr. Vaughn.Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Mr. Johnston's position is probably just a rare occurrence in the party, for it certainly doesn't seem to fit in the party platform anywhere. His prominence in the Ohio state party and his strong activity had me wondering though.
Conservative Christian
New Member
Doesn't sound to me like they're promoting a theocracy at the CP of Pennsylvania:
""We want the people who attend the conference to understand two things," Rhine said. "First, we want them to understand that the American system of law was heavily influence by the Judeo-Christian tradition at the behest of our Founding Fathers.
"That's not to say that they established an American theocracy but that the nature of our laws is naturally intended to incline our hearts and minds to principles and ideals that do have an origin that is religious," he said.
The second thing the conference is to instill upon attendees is an understanding of the limited powers that the federal Constitution granted to the federal courts, and that those same courts are accountable to Congress for their actions and behavior."
Constitution Party of Pennsylvania Official Website
http://www.constitutionpartypa.com/upcoming.cfm
""We want the people who attend the conference to understand two things," Rhine said. "First, we want them to understand that the American system of law was heavily influence by the Judeo-Christian tradition at the behest of our Founding Fathers.
"That's not to say that they established an American theocracy but that the nature of our laws is naturally intended to incline our hearts and minds to principles and ideals that do have an origin that is religious," he said.
The second thing the conference is to instill upon attendees is an understanding of the limited powers that the federal Constitution granted to the federal courts, and that those same courts are accountable to Congress for their actions and behavior."
Constitution Party of Pennsylvania Official Website
http://www.constitutionpartypa.com/upcoming.cfm
Conservative Christian
New Member
The following statement, from the chairman of the Texas CP, clearly rejects the idea of a theocracy:
"However, when a fellow Christian wishes to erect a crucifix and other citizens in the area, even if they are a minority should disagree with this, the crucifix cannot be erected. The same holds true for posting a copy of the 10 Commandments in the courthouse or erecting a statue of Jesus in the town square. Although all of these are symbols that make my heart sing with joy, the same 1st Amendment which protects my public park from being used to sponsor the display of an image that I find to be highly offensive or obscene also forbids me from using that land for my special interests as well.
Many of my brothers and sisters will disagree with me by citing that America was founded as a Christian nation and I agree, but it was not founded as a theocracy. Nowhere in the US Constitution do we find for instance find the mention of the name Jesus, nor do we find the Holy Scriptures quoted or referenced by chapter and verse. While our laws were based in fact upon the Holy Scriptures in many instances, the Founding Fathers were not seeking to establish a Theocracy for the same reasons Jesus (whom most of them adhered to and followed) did not come to us as a King but rather as an atonement and sacrifice for our sins."
http://www.cptexas.org/articles/al61902.shtml
"However, when a fellow Christian wishes to erect a crucifix and other citizens in the area, even if they are a minority should disagree with this, the crucifix cannot be erected. The same holds true for posting a copy of the 10 Commandments in the courthouse or erecting a statue of Jesus in the town square. Although all of these are symbols that make my heart sing with joy, the same 1st Amendment which protects my public park from being used to sponsor the display of an image that I find to be highly offensive or obscene also forbids me from using that land for my special interests as well.
Many of my brothers and sisters will disagree with me by citing that America was founded as a Christian nation and I agree, but it was not founded as a theocracy. Nowhere in the US Constitution do we find for instance find the mention of the name Jesus, nor do we find the Holy Scriptures quoted or referenced by chapter and verse. While our laws were based in fact upon the Holy Scriptures in many instances, the Founding Fathers were not seeking to establish a Theocracy for the same reasons Jesus (whom most of them adhered to and followed) did not come to us as a King but rather as an atonement and sacrifice for our sins."
http://www.cptexas.org/articles/al61902.shtml
From the responses I have gotten back from the list so far I am led to believe that there are Christian Reconstructionist in the Constitution Party, including the party's founder Howard Phillips, but they acknowledge the fact that not everyone in the party is a Christian Reconstructionist. One could, for example, vote for their candidates because of agreement on abortion, trade, etc. without having thought through the theological implications much, if at all.Originally posted by rlvaughn:
I will look forward to hearing from you on this. Thanks.
According to "The Creed of Christian Reconstructionism":
A Christian Reconstructionist is a Calvinist
A Christian Reconstructionist is a Theonomist
A Christian Reconstructionist is a Presuppositionalist
A Christian Reconstructionist is a Postmillennialist
A Christian Reconstructionist is a Dominionist
http://www.dabney.com/charles/Sandlin-CR.html
I think a good way to describe the Constitution Party's objectives that might satisfy both Christian Reconstructionists and Christians who disagree with Reconstructionism are words I have heard Howard Phillips use: "to restore America to its constitutional limitations AND biblical presuppositions."
Howard Phillips, the founder of the Constitution Party is on the Bord of Directors of the National Reform Association (NRA).
Here is some information from their site to address the "falsehoods and inaccuracies" about their beliefs and goals:
Lara Jakes Jordan's Associated Press article, Pitts cancels speech in front of radical religious group, that appeared in the November 14, 2002 Intelligencer Journal, is filled with falsehoods and inaccuracies concerning the National Reform Association (NRA) and what it believes and promotes. First, the National Reform Association, which was founded in 1864, states that our purpose is to "maintain and promote in our national life the Christian principles of civil government." These principles include the lordship of Jesus Christ over civil government, the fact that the civil ruler is to be a servant of God, and that the principles of biblical law as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments provide the standards and "values" to which citizens and their civil leaders ought to conform their laws, institutions, and practices.
The NRA does not support "imposing biblical law over the United States' laws." We repudiate any sort of agenda that seeks to force the principles of law and justice revealed in Scripture upon any community, state, or our nation. The American system of government is, rightly, not totalitarian, it is a republic. In a republic, laws are formed or change comes through the proper processes of discussion, debate, and persuasion in the public arena and in the halls of government through our elected officials. We fully support the procedures of government that are established in the U. S. Constitution. We are an association of American citizens from various Christian churches and denominations who love our fellow citizens and our country. We seek to raise our voice (which right is guaranteed to us in the Constitution, and which we have been doing since 1864) in the public debate over what is the cause of our nation's woes and what are the solutions. We strive for liberty, justice, and peace under Christ and His revealed Word (the Bible).
Second, our annual conference in Ephrata, "Restoring our Republic," had nothing to do with "executing homosexuals and abortion providers and stoning disobedient children." These are gross and dishonest mischaracterizations (disseminated by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) of the National Reform Association, its members, and the speakers we invited. The purpose of the conference was to teach God's sovereignty over the nations, how to establish Christian leadership, how Christians can help restore our American republic to its Christian foundations, and to explore American history with two of the finest Christian historians and teachers of our day. Gary DeMar has written extensively on American history and Christian principles of government, and his work has been well-received and used by conservatives and Christians throughout the country. Mr. DeMar has appeared on national television and radio, and his books have been promoted by prominent Christian and conservative booksellers. Stephen McDowell has spoken in the Lancaster area before and is well-respected here. His book on America's Providential History is highly regarded and widely used.
Third, the National Reform Association does not advocate "executing homosexuals." This is a terrible slander of our organization. The National Reform Association has never taken this position on the homosexual issue. There are different views on the matter in the Association, but, generally, the NRA would see homosexual behavior as being contrary to God's moral law. But I do not know of a single member who would advocate "executing homosexuals." (As Christians we desire to bring the forgiveness, mercy, and deliverance of Christ to them, as we do to all sinners--and all of us are sinners in need of Christ's salvation). There are no "status" crimes at all. For example, no one is guilty of a crime by being a "thief." You are only guilty of a crime if you are properly convicted of an actual act of stealing. Homosexuality is not a crime (it may be a sin, but it is not a crime). Throughout our nation's history, acts of sodomy have been considered by the various states as a civil crime (many states have removed these laws from their books in recent years).
The consensus of our members would probably be that acts of sodomy constitute a crime and these should be restrained by civil sanctions. What the nature of those civil sanctions should be is a matter of debate. But we condemn, in the strongest terms, all acts of violence against homosexuals. It is evil and anarchistic for any citizen or group of citizens to preach or practice violence against their fellow citizens. We do not believe, however, that it is an expression of hate or encouragement to violence to appeal to the Bible in an honest discussion of the issue of homosexual acts in the context of what a civil society should permit and/or punish.
http://natreformassn.org/statesman/02/aprspns.html
Here is some information from their site to address the "falsehoods and inaccuracies" about their beliefs and goals:
Lara Jakes Jordan's Associated Press article, Pitts cancels speech in front of radical religious group, that appeared in the November 14, 2002 Intelligencer Journal, is filled with falsehoods and inaccuracies concerning the National Reform Association (NRA) and what it believes and promotes. First, the National Reform Association, which was founded in 1864, states that our purpose is to "maintain and promote in our national life the Christian principles of civil government." These principles include the lordship of Jesus Christ over civil government, the fact that the civil ruler is to be a servant of God, and that the principles of biblical law as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments provide the standards and "values" to which citizens and their civil leaders ought to conform their laws, institutions, and practices.
The NRA does not support "imposing biblical law over the United States' laws." We repudiate any sort of agenda that seeks to force the principles of law and justice revealed in Scripture upon any community, state, or our nation. The American system of government is, rightly, not totalitarian, it is a republic. In a republic, laws are formed or change comes through the proper processes of discussion, debate, and persuasion in the public arena and in the halls of government through our elected officials. We fully support the procedures of government that are established in the U. S. Constitution. We are an association of American citizens from various Christian churches and denominations who love our fellow citizens and our country. We seek to raise our voice (which right is guaranteed to us in the Constitution, and which we have been doing since 1864) in the public debate over what is the cause of our nation's woes and what are the solutions. We strive for liberty, justice, and peace under Christ and His revealed Word (the Bible).
Second, our annual conference in Ephrata, "Restoring our Republic," had nothing to do with "executing homosexuals and abortion providers and stoning disobedient children." These are gross and dishonest mischaracterizations (disseminated by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) of the National Reform Association, its members, and the speakers we invited. The purpose of the conference was to teach God's sovereignty over the nations, how to establish Christian leadership, how Christians can help restore our American republic to its Christian foundations, and to explore American history with two of the finest Christian historians and teachers of our day. Gary DeMar has written extensively on American history and Christian principles of government, and his work has been well-received and used by conservatives and Christians throughout the country. Mr. DeMar has appeared on national television and radio, and his books have been promoted by prominent Christian and conservative booksellers. Stephen McDowell has spoken in the Lancaster area before and is well-respected here. His book on America's Providential History is highly regarded and widely used.
Third, the National Reform Association does not advocate "executing homosexuals." This is a terrible slander of our organization. The National Reform Association has never taken this position on the homosexual issue. There are different views on the matter in the Association, but, generally, the NRA would see homosexual behavior as being contrary to God's moral law. But I do not know of a single member who would advocate "executing homosexuals." (As Christians we desire to bring the forgiveness, mercy, and deliverance of Christ to them, as we do to all sinners--and all of us are sinners in need of Christ's salvation). There are no "status" crimes at all. For example, no one is guilty of a crime by being a "thief." You are only guilty of a crime if you are properly convicted of an actual act of stealing. Homosexuality is not a crime (it may be a sin, but it is not a crime). Throughout our nation's history, acts of sodomy have been considered by the various states as a civil crime (many states have removed these laws from their books in recent years).
The consensus of our members would probably be that acts of sodomy constitute a crime and these should be restrained by civil sanctions. What the nature of those civil sanctions should be is a matter of debate. But we condemn, in the strongest terms, all acts of violence against homosexuals. It is evil and anarchistic for any citizen or group of citizens to preach or practice violence against their fellow citizens. We do not believe, however, that it is an expression of hate or encouragement to violence to appeal to the Bible in an honest discussion of the issue of homosexual acts in the context of what a civil society should permit and/or punish.
http://natreformassn.org/statesman/02/aprspns.html
Conservative Christian
New Member
Italics in the following are mine--CC
The following statement is from Michael Peroutka, CP candidate for the Presidency. He clear rejects the idea of a theocracy:
"Properly understood, it is clear that the prevailing view of the Founders which underscored the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was that God’s revealed law, along with a proper understanding of natural law, were given absolute priority--to insure that municipal law was in harmony with the first two. This philosophical foundation would eliminate the acceptability in our government and culture of two of the biggest moral blights and cancers of our time–abortion-on-demand and the gay rights movement. Constitutionally speaking, there is no Federal or State court in the land, including the State Supreme Court of Massachusetts, that can make moral or legal what the revealed and natural law of God have made immoral and illegal. This is the bottom line, without equivocation or apology. And [emphasis] I’m not talking about a theocracy. Recognition of the doctrine of the existence of the Creator God and His role in the bequeathing of inalienable rights to the people has no inherent connection to the notion of theocracy as some charge. Freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and the avoidance of a Congressionally declared State Religion of America are all a part of the package of what I believe, and what the American Constitution teaches, foundationally. The charge that either I or the Constitution Party stand on the premises of governmentally induced notions of theocracy is absolutely false–a complete canard."
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1680700.php
The following statement is from Michael Peroutka, CP candidate for the Presidency. He clear rejects the idea of a theocracy:
"Properly understood, it is clear that the prevailing view of the Founders which underscored the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was that God’s revealed law, along with a proper understanding of natural law, were given absolute priority--to insure that municipal law was in harmony with the first two. This philosophical foundation would eliminate the acceptability in our government and culture of two of the biggest moral blights and cancers of our time–abortion-on-demand and the gay rights movement. Constitutionally speaking, there is no Federal or State court in the land, including the State Supreme Court of Massachusetts, that can make moral or legal what the revealed and natural law of God have made immoral and illegal. This is the bottom line, without equivocation or apology. And [emphasis] I’m not talking about a theocracy. Recognition of the doctrine of the existence of the Creator God and His role in the bequeathing of inalienable rights to the people has no inherent connection to the notion of theocracy as some charge. Freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and the avoidance of a Congressionally declared State Religion of America are all a part of the package of what I believe, and what the American Constitution teaches, foundationally. The charge that either I or the Constitution Party stand on the premises of governmentally induced notions of theocracy is absolutely false–a complete canard."
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1680700.php
Conservative Christian
New Member
This says it all:
"The charge that either I or the Constitution Party stand on the premises of governmentally induced notions of theocracy is absolutely false–a complete canard."
Michael Peroutka, Constitution Party candidate for President
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1680700.php
"The charge that either I or the Constitution Party stand on the premises of governmentally induced notions of theocracy is absolutely false–a complete canard."
Michael Peroutka, Constitution Party candidate for President
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1680700.php
rlvaughn,
Thank you for bringing this issue up, I have enjoyed the research I have done on this topic this evening.
From the quotes that Conservative Christian has posted along with the information I got from the National Reform Association, I would say that it is safe to say that while there are some in the Constitution Party that would call themselves Christian Reconstructionist or Theonomist, that not everyone in the party would consider themselves to be, and that the Constitution Party as a whole does not include Theonomy as part of their party platform.
Thank you for bringing this issue up, I have enjoyed the research I have done on this topic this evening.
From the quotes that Conservative Christian has posted along with the information I got from the National Reform Association, I would say that it is safe to say that while there are some in the Constitution Party that would call themselves Christian Reconstructionist or Theonomist, that not everyone in the party would consider themselves to be, and that the Constitution Party as a whole does not include Theonomy as part of their party platform.
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
Good summary, NetPublicist, and very accurate I think. I would only add that it should be understood that "theonomy" and "theocracy" are two very different terms. Someone who is a "Theonomist" does not necessarily (and in most cases does not) advocate "theocracy".
The Galatian
Active Member
The funny thing is, theocracies always end up being the very least able (or willing) to do God's will.
In fact, they quickly become horrors of oppression, corruption.
This is why the founders made it very clear in the Constitution that they wanted no Government involvement in religion to help or hinder.
And it's why the US Senate ratified a treaty negotiated by John Adams, declaring that America was not founded on the Christian religion.
They wanted no part of that.
If I believed Peroutka wanted that, I'd not vote for him.
In fact, they quickly become horrors of oppression, corruption.
This is why the founders made it very clear in the Constitution that they wanted no Government involvement in religion to help or hinder.
And it's why the US Senate ratified a treaty negotiated by John Adams, declaring that America was not founded on the Christian religion.
They wanted no part of that.
If I believed Peroutka wanted that, I'd not vote for him.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Do you have scripture to back up that statement? Or, is that just your political opinion?Originally posted by The Galatian:
The funny thing is, theocracies always end up being the very least able (or willing) to do God's will.
Joseph Botwinick
The Galatian
Active Member
It's an observation. That's why the Founders made very sure that it wouldn't happen here. Think of Calvin in Geneva, or Torquemada in Spain.
All theocrats have good intentions at the start. But you know what they say about good intentions.
All theocrats have good intentions at the start. But you know what they say about good intentions.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
So, you have no scriptural support for your view?
What kind of government seems to be endorsed by the Bible? Does the Bible even matter when talking about politics (this is a general question open to everyone from Galatian to the Biblical Constitution Party)?
Joseph Botwinick
[ March 20, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]
What kind of government seems to be endorsed by the Bible? Does the Bible even matter when talking about politics (this is a general question open to everyone from Galatian to the Biblical Constitution Party)?
Joseph Botwinick
[ March 20, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]
Jim, how would you define the terms, or how do you think they are generally defined? I didn't feel Mr. Johnston really clearly defined the term "theonomy" in his article.Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
I would only add that it should be understood that "theonomy" and "theocracy" are two very different terms. Someone who is a "Theonomist" does not necessarily (and in most cases does not) advocate "theocracy".
The Galatian
Active Member
(Joseph Botwinick)
So, you have no scriptural support for your view?
I have direct observation of theocracies. They are horrors of evil and corruption, even with the best of intentions.
Check out Iran. That's a theocracy.
Acts 4:22
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.
Sounds like socialism to me. I don't think it would work in America. Sorry.
[ March 20, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]
So, you have no scriptural support for your view?
I have direct observation of theocracies. They are horrors of evil and corruption, even with the best of intentions.
Check out Iran. That's a theocracy.
Let's see...What kind of government seems to be endorsed by the Bible?
Acts 4:22
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.
Sounds like socialism to me. I don't think it would work in America. Sorry.
[ March 20, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
rlvaughn,
From "Ethics and God's Law, an Introduction to Theonomy" by William O. Einwechter:
From "Ethics and God's Law, an Introduction to Theonomy" by William O. Einwechter:
Theonomists typically believe in separation of church and state, from a biblical perspective, in that God established Ecclesiastical powers and civil powers as separate institutions. This is clear from the OT. At the same time, as can be inferred from the quotation above, Theonomists certainly and correctly believe that the only legitimate way to govern is by applying the truth of God's word to the issues of government, as did the Founders. Theocracy is not the logical conclusion of this line of thinking.Theonomy is that view of Christian ethics which believes that God's law as revealed in Scripture is the only proper rule and the only acceptable for judging the rightness or wrongness of any and all human behaviour. God's law aloone determines what man ought to do and why he ought to do it. Theonomic ethics, therefore, sets forth God's law as the supreme standard of truth and righteousness, and seeks to apply the precepts of God's holy law to every action of man and to every sphere of life. Theonomy is simply the extension of the doctrine of sola scriptura into the realm of ethics.
Footnote: "Theonomy is often equated with Christian Reconstruction. It is true that all reconstructionists adhere to Theonomy, but it is also true that one could hold to Theonomy without embracing all the theology of Christian Reconstruction. Theonomy is a view of ethics."
True Blue Tuna
New Member
Hmm.Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
What scriptural support do you use to support your oppostion to a theonomy / theocracy?
Joseph Botwinick
Did Jesus try to set up a theocracy?
Nope.
"My kingdom is not of this world".
Did the apostles try to set up a theocracy?
Nope.
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers."
I guess that theocracy doesn't apply to modern-day Christians.
True Blue Tuna
New Member
So was Cromwell.Originally posted by The Galatian:
I have direct observation of theocracies. They are horrors of evil and corruption, even with the best of intentions.
Check out Iran. That's a theocracy.
And so was the Plymouth Plantation.
Both were oppressive and corrupt.