tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post5564425516236184742..comments2014-07-25T02:24:27.322-04:00Comments on Frisbee Man: What If?Jayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12310737716495519168noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-23002803129241327972011-02-22T14:22:35.720-05:002011-02-22T14:22:35.720-05:00If we use the wisdom of God, we can make wise deci...If we use the wisdom of God, we can make wise decisions. If we are merely looking for loopholes of ambiguity with which to find excuses for pragmatism and worldly principles which are inconsistent with piety of mind, we have already resigned ourselves to foolishness. And if we are unwilling to make the unpopular decision which the principles of God's word would inevitably lead us to, we have sacrificed the obedience of God for the approval of men.<br /><br />That said, I think after all responses and counter responses regarding this comment have been made, I might like to go on to the next "What If," if Justus, being the administrator of this blog, is willing?<br /><br />Buaidh no Bas, <br /><br />Andrew R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-11063199785284275642011-02-22T14:22:18.054-05:002011-02-22T14:22:18.054-05:00In regards to governmental elected officials, I wo...In regards to governmental elected officials, I would still hold that the line I have drawn is not arbitrary.<br /><br />If you vote for a man, you vote for his platform. If a man comes out and supports something evil, and you did all of the research that was available to you and voted for him, not knowing that he supported this particular evil, then you are not responsible. However, if you knew about it and voted for him anyway, the fact is that by virtue of supporting him for office you are responsible. No amount of pragmatic evasion can remove that fact. Which means that in 2008 I supported a man who supported the murder of unborn children for the presidency of the United States. I sinned. I had to repent. And I did.<br /><br />Do I have everything figured out about voting? No. But here are some basic principles which I can hold to with absolute conviction that they are right principles. These are principles founded upon the word of God and the law of the land.<br /><br />1. I must not vote for any man who has willingly pursued dishonest gain and is not openly repentant of such actions. (Ex. 18:21)<br /><br />2. I must not vote for any man who has supported flagrantly unconstitutional policies and actions and has not openly denounced and turned from such support. This is because the law of the land is the highest authority, and therefore any ruler in rebellion to that authority would be naturally illegitimate.<br /><br />3. I must not vote for any man for whom you cannot say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he fears God. "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. " 2 Samuel 23:3<br /><br />4. Something came to my attention recently that I would add to my previous statements. Moses says in Deuteronomy 1:13, "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you." A man must be publicly known to be fit for office.<br /><br />5. I must not vote for any man who has willingly perverted justice in the civil sphere and is unrepentant of such actions. (Prov. 31:5) <br /><br />6. I must not vote for an oppressor of widows and orphans, one who impements such policies. (I could give you a dozen verses for this one.)<br /><br />7. I must not vote for a man who is in obstinate, open rebellion to the law commands of God. As civil authority comes from God and is singularly instituted for the upholding of God's law, a civil authority which disrespects God's law has no authority. (i.e. adulterer, thief, fornicator, murderer, covetous, liar, etc.) David committed adultery-but David repented when confronted the first time. (Matthew 18 is important to remember here.) <br /><br />This is different from the case of parental authority, which is not merely instituted for the upholding of God's law. While civil magisterial authority was instituted because of sin, for the punishment of evildoers and the upholding of God's law, parental authority was a creation order institute and extends beyond that purpose. Parental authority is not derived from the consent of the governed, as is civil authority.<br /><br />And by the way, I could probably come up with a dozen more biblical principles in regards to voting. I'm not trying to lay out every specific principle right now. I'm trying to make the point that the principles are there in God's word, and we need to seek the wisdom of God's word, rather than the wisdom and "oh-so-obvious" common sense of the world.<br /><br />I believe in the absolute, complete, total sovereignty of God and the sufficiency of Scripture. Therefore, I don't need to make all kinds of excuses to allow myself to be pragmatic and vote for a dubious candidate. I don't need to vote based on some man-made standard of "electability." Such a standard is never considered in the Scripture. What does the Scripture hold to be righteous standards for candidates for public office? As I have shown: Righteousness. Honesty. Fear of God.<br /><br />(next comment)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-20375955419446190182011-02-22T14:20:43.147-05:002011-02-22T14:20:43.147-05:00Mrs. T,
Thanks for your questions-critique is rea...Mrs. T,<br /><br />Thanks for your questions-critique is really helpful because it forces me to think harder...<br /><br />The scripture does not appear to draw a hard line on how much education MUST be done by the parents. Lots of issues are like this. The question is this: who is getting the heart of your child? Who is discipling? Who is teaching? <br /><br />The question that really gets to the heart of the matter is this: Is a parent willing to take responsibility for every word of instruction that enters a child's mind and heart, as though it were the parent's word of instruction? Before God, parents are responsible. Can they comfortably do so? I don't mean that parents are required to give every word of instruction that enters a child's mind and heart; but they must be willing to take responsibility for every word of educational instruction given to their children, and be wiling to accept any consequences that come a as result of that instruction, as though they themselves had given the instruction, because parents, having been given authority over and responsibility for children, will answer to God for every word of instruction given to their children as though it were their own.<br /><br />The solution to parents shirking their educational responsibilities is not to draw up some standard with a nice, clean list of forty-seven rules, and then say that "this is what all parents are supposed to do." The solution is to turn the hearts of the parents back to their children.<br /><br />However, I think we can safely say that general home education is the only educational method which can hold itself up Biblically, and without any question the only wise method. God gave children to parents; Therefore, parents should educate children. God commands parents again and again to teach their children wisdom consistently, regularly, in the manner of "when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up" (Deut. 6); it is double-minded to separate knowledge from wisdom, because all things are to be done with wisdom to the glory of God; so why should anyone but parents be responsible for the great majority of their education? Does this mean that every moment of education has to be given specifically by parents? No, such a line cannot be drawn from the scripture. But this is not a legitimate excuse to parents who would shirk their educational responsibility-God has given the principle. A parent should take the spirit of answering to God rather than man, and think, can I honestly answer to God that I did take responsibility for the primary education of my children?<br /><br />It's also important to note that it's very possible to "homeschool" your child and yet not disciple him much at all-this is one of the big problems in the homeschooling movement. We get so stuck on "homeschooling" that we forget the teaching of wisdom and discipleship. It's often caused by wrong educational priorities.<br /><br />As far as my exceptions-It's a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, parents will answer to God for the particular decisions they make which are not spelled out by scripture. They won't answer to me; nonetheless I do hope and pray to be a parent some day, and I must form personal convictions. Some things are obvious, and some are not. I don't want to try and make everything more cut and dried than it is; But I want to point out some problems in society. What is lawful is not always wise. I'm not just trying to throw out a bunch of rules for people to follow. Some of the things I have mentioned are indeed legit biblical principles. Others are admittedly opinions, but opinions which I believe are very strongly rooted in a biblical worldview.<br /><br />(next comment)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-58047863296965991892011-02-16T11:31:35.624-05:002011-02-16T11:31:35.624-05:00Nice! Keep me posted!Nice! Keep me posted!Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12310737716495519168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-16025281576494738412011-02-15T13:38:59.805-05:002011-02-15T13:38:59.805-05:00Last night Dan and I finished an article on why Am...Last night Dan and I finished an article on why American Christians are turning back to or tolerating the ancient symbols of pagan idolatry-tattoos, scarification, mutilation-for Vision Forum's Into The Amazon adventure (if you haven't heard about it, visit www.intotheamazon.org). If the article gets posted I'll send you a link.<br /><br />Andrew R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-23526604098912146432011-02-14T08:55:06.301-05:002011-02-14T08:55:06.301-05:00Frisbee?! :D I would be setting up a game for th...Frisbee?! :D I would be setting up a game for that right now, except for the fact that I'm busy for the next couple Saturdays... :( Maybe I'll let dad host it, because I know a lot of people who want to play soon! (And the forecast for Saturday is - 66*, partly cloudy with 0% chance of rain! ...Perfect for Frisbee)<br /><br />Same here as to the comment on why you don't comment as much. ;)<br /><br />~FrisbeemanJayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12310737716495519168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-61620048815883898212011-02-13T00:42:12.189-05:002011-02-13T00:42:12.189-05:00I've been a casual observer so far. Andy, me a...I've been a casual observer so far. Andy, me and Dan tend to agree with each other on these points, so I don't usually restate what Andy expounds on (and he gets to it way before I do!).<br /><br />On government and the topic of impeachment/removal; <br />Without the main defense of the right to bear arms, we have very limited control over the government's actions.<br />Also, when the majority of the government is consistently evil, there is no future hope except for revolution. Impeachment fails since there is no majority moral standard.<br /><br />A note on our country;<br />Though the Communists originally thought that America would be a tough nut, to crack the modern America seems like a pincushion. The main reason is relative morality, and living for comfort/pleasure.<br /><br />Our timeline of demise is impressive.<br />We:<br />-lost our government in the 1840-1850s.<br />-grew our federal army in the 1850-1860s.<br />-used it to suppress the right to bear arms in the 1860s (and the right to remove corrupt government, and secede/nullify/just about everything else).<br />-destroyed local/state government in the 1870-1900s.<br />-got involved in a nationalistic slugfest(WWI) and then tried to set up a world coalition.<br />-decided to live for pleasure in the 1920s; and floated most of the economy on debt due to unwise expenditures.<br />-became mass employed by the government in the 1930-1940s.<br />-returned from WW2 valiant but sedated, and then our families fell apart in the 1960-1970s.<br />-avoided bothering the USSR so that China could become a world power.<br />-let government run its "due course" in the 1980s-present day.<br />-plus, do just about everything in our power to wreck our economy.<br /><br /><br />However, there is "life in the old land yet" (as Andy likes to sing) since the dominionist Christians are the only ones growing their numbers (if you don't count the imported muslims and hispanics). Our future fight will be against these two groups primarily, since the atheists' destructive policies will eventually kill themselves off. <br />Finally, we trust God, who runs the affairs of men (America included). <br /><br />On a lighter note...<br /><br />Frisbee is coming, Hallelujah!!! (don't hyperventilate, Jay :) )<br /><br />Caleb RomanowitzAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-10143908755152492832011-02-12T01:35:38.059-05:002011-02-12T01:35:38.059-05:00I love Charlie Zahm and his music because he sings...I love Charlie Zahm and his music because he sings in a manly manner (a fantastic contrast to modern fleshy breathy singers), because he sings songs that have purpose and meaning and are well written, not the typical, careless, arbitrary, feel-good sorta-spiritual stuff, and because his songs are identified with God-fearing cultures of the past. His music is just wonderfully inspiring. <br /><br />Andrew R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-33299485591718576822011-02-12T01:16:42.101-05:002011-02-12T01:16:42.101-05:00CHARLIE ZAHM!!!!
HOORAH!!!
Andrew R.CHARLIE ZAHM!!!! <br /><br />HOORAH!!!<br /><br />Andrew R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-52788068128933985222011-02-11T17:48:36.902-05:002011-02-11T17:48:36.902-05:00Yep, I listened to them... I've already heard...Yep, I listened to them... I've already heard Charlie Zahm (we have a couple of his CDs). But yep, I like that type of music!<br /><br />I'm kinda busy right now too... I'm a senior in HS this year and I'm working a lot at CFA right now (more than usual). But I've been watching the discussion and throwing in a few words every now and then, when I have time. ;)<br /><br />~JayJayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12310737716495519168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-86213543203248148752011-02-11T14:45:06.250-05:002011-02-11T14:45:06.250-05:00Oh, Caleb loves these kinds of discussions, but he...Oh, Caleb loves these kinds of discussions, but he's kinda busy right about now-college and all that.<br /><br />Andrew R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-64872759668573507682011-02-11T13:42:08.496-05:002011-02-11T13:42:08.496-05:00More comments coming soon-just hit a busy spot.
T...More comments coming soon-just hit a busy spot.<br /><br />Trying to get that email out on the film project- working on some articles, poetry, etc...Planning important discussions with friends...Organizing a Folk music band...Reading Calvin's Institutes...life can be busy. I want you to know I didn't forget though.<br /><br />Justus, did you get the chance to listen to any of those music links I gave you?<br /><br />Andrew R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-90255239660661879462011-02-08T08:20:14.323-05:002011-02-08T08:20:14.323-05:00Andrew,
First, those parents would tell you that ...Andrew,<br /><br />First, those parents would tell you that they *are* being responsible for their child's direct primary education. So what distinguishes the occasional college class, the apprenticeship, the tutor, or the music instructor from whatever you would define as the appropriate oversight/involvement of parents in the training of their child? Is it just a matter of percentages? Is it subject matter? Why are your exceptions acceptable?<br /><br />Second, you've drawn your line (voting for someone who would be unable to take the office rather than voting for someone you deemed unfit for office), but it's an arbitrary line--not delineated in Scripture. Another man may not vote at all knowing it's the same effect you just had. Still another may vote for the one he believes would do the least damage--at least he's *doing* something to prevent the tide of evil from overwhelming. And each of these men did so after very careful research. Which is wrong and why? <br /><br />Luke 7: 31-35 John would have been wrong to come feasting and Jesus would have been wrong [blasphemous statement] to come as John did. We must each answer individually. We, as strongly opinionated and Biblically educated Christians, must be very careful to only define as sin that which God defines as sin. There's a lot out there that is unwise, but that does not make it sin.<br /><br />To berate someone publicly...Even John is said to have stated his opposition to Herod's immorality with his sister-in-law to Herod himself. It may have occurred publicly or privately, but it was done personally. Jesus and John both had some very harsh and even ugly words for the Pharisees, but again, personally even if publicly. Most preachers/pastors today do not even attempt to approach the candidates or elected officials personally. This, I believe, is a clear violation of Scripture falling into the realms of gossip [and I admit I've been guilty]. (I agree wholeheartedly with you about the distance and corruption of the media.) I'm inclined to believe that, in this day and age of google, blogging about a candidate's particular offense might be acceptable, but...One should really stick to instruction of the principles of Scripture and confront when and where possible. <br /><br />I believe if more Godly men personally confronted these men and women, we'd have less of a problem than we do. That's part of the problem. We confine our *responsibility* to anonymous ballots; we hold them accountable with our votes alone, and they've learned to manipulate them. God's ways are always best and they are personal. <br /><br />I have the time to participate in this discussion during this brief season, and I'm grateful for it. Really enjoy talking with you, Andrew. Where did Caleb go? I told him I'd be much more careful in my responses to him, but I didn't say I wouldn't respond. ;o)<br /><br />Mrs. TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-27639750665149834012011-02-07T21:59:40.406-05:002011-02-07T21:59:40.406-05:00One of the big, big problems with the educational ...One of the big, big problems with the educational establishment is that when you throw thirty kids in a room, you've got to keep them in order. Therefore, it's necessary that discipline be thirty times as strenuous as in a family-based environment in order for the teacher to keep his head screwed on straight.<br /><br />The inevitable result-structure, structure, structure. This is how the educational establishment creates good little state-worshipping conformist automatons. By the time a child becomes a man, he's already been shoved around in a school for thousands of hours, in a never ending schedule of "Do this. Now do that. Now stuff these facts in your head. Now go here. What? You don't what to go here? Discipline, discipline, discipline. Now go here. Eat now. Play now. Now go over here. Stuff THESE facts in your head." and so on, and so on, and so on. Day after day after day. If you don't comply and become a good little automaton, you wind up in big, big trouble.<br /><br />This is exactly what the Statists want-get the children to being moved around and programmed like robots, so that when they get older they'll be ready to do the same thing in a socialist state.<br /><br />Moreover, it teaches children to do everything they do based upon fear. Fear of rejection, fear of censure, fear of discipline. Do what everybody wants you to do and you'll be fine. If not, there ain't no way you're gonna make it.<br />You're at this stage here, this stage here, this stage here. If you're behind a grade in this subject, your teachers will censure you, the kids will tease you...<br /><br />Sometimes people ask me if I've ever been in school. I usually answer, "No, I never 'did time'." Perfect smart-alecky homeschooler answer, but it's very true.<br /><br />Proverbs has quite a different perspective. "My son, give me your heart, and let your eyes observe my ways." Prov. 23:26. How's THAT for a Scriptural counter to your modern highly advanced behavioristic robotic educational establishment?<br /><br />Moreover, didn't God give the duty of instruction and correction to the family? So how do you do that when your little children are stuck in a school all day? Who's instructing and correcting them? Taking the biblical understanding of those words, nobody. But the only moral training and correction they're getting is manipulative punishment (not a biblical concept in discipling children) to the end of behavioristic conformism. Because wonder of wonders, not many teachers care much about discipling the hearts of the kids in the classroom!<br /><br />I say that punishment is not a biblical concept in regards to the discipleship of children because punishment is always one of two things: 1. Just retribution for crimes committed. 2. penalty with the end of reforming behavior.<br /><br />Biblically, all correction should be directed at the heart, not outward conformism. Should a child bey his parents? Absolutely. Nobody's denying that. But whence should that obedience come? Fear of penalty-or honor and love from the heart!?<br /><br />This is the object of correction. "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."-Proverbs 22:15.<br /><br />"My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee."-Proverbs 7:1. <br /><br />And this is how the schools wreck children-by teaching them that all that they are supposed to do is go along in life, live for comfort, avoid all the trouble. Rather than discipling their hearts, the schools have coerced their behavior. This is why I say that the public schools never made a courageous man. Courageous men have come out of the public school system, but that's been in spite of it, not because of it.<br /><br />The tragic thing is when home-educating parents carry the same ideas into their home education, because after all, the schools are the establishment, so they must know the right way to educate!<br /><br />Buaidh no Bas,<br /><br />Andrew RomanowitzAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-82236957449374179342011-02-07T21:28:59.424-05:002011-02-07T21:28:59.424-05:00My point with Psalm 90:4 is that questions of just...My point with Psalm 90:4 is that questions of justice don't go away after hundreds of years-not in the sight of God, anyway.<br /><br />I realize I'm bouncing around from topic to topic at a rapid rate, but I can't help it. I love these kinds of discussions. :) :) :)<br /><br />One of the big problems today is that parents delegate their authority of education elsewhere. I know lots of good Christian men have done this-but it's absolutely absurd. <br /><br />Essentially what we've done is this: 1. Tried to split education into two parts, one religious, the other some strange definition which varies from person to person, but usually including grammar, scientific disciplines, mathematics, and most strangely, history. We usually call that second part "secular" or "scholastic."<br /><br />We then say that the first is the duty of parents, and the second is the duty of whomever the parents give it to, or maybe the state. I ask: where is such an idea found in the Scripture? The answer is nowhere. You need both knowledge and wisdom. And you can't separate them. Whenever you teach knowledge, wisdom comes out with it. Whenever you teach wisdom, knowledge comes out with it. You can't separate them.<br /><br />But we have tried to anyway. In effect we say to God, "We know you gave children to parents, but we think our educational institutions can do a better job of teaching children knowledge." We know better than God-or so we think.<br /><br />You reap what you sow. We sowed with an educational system that was outside of the commands of God, and we've reaped Godlessness. <br /><br />There's only one educational institution which is blessed by the Scripture-it's called the family. <br /><br />I'm not saying that you can't take an apprenticeship, take a college class here and there, etc. I am saying that parents are responsible for the direct primary education of children.<br /><br />And when they shirk it, what is the product? By the grace of God, there are exceptions. But let's face it. We have a society of cowardly, insecure, conformist automatons. Do you want to know why society is a moral wreck? Because we did not follow God's plan for education; we thought we knew better. <br /><br />Buaidh no Bas,<br />Andrew R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-4317232078394141282011-02-07T21:04:49.471-05:002011-02-07T21:04:49.471-05:00Please pray for Dr. Fraley-on Sunday morning he fe...Please pray for Dr. Fraley-on Sunday morning he fell and broke his arm.<br /> <br />Andrew R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-86989745803631117032011-02-07T14:13:11.817-05:002011-02-07T14:13:11.817-05:00BTW, I know I'm going to sound like a really o...BTW, I know I'm going to sound like a really off the wall neo-confederate nutcase ( :0 )for saying this, but I read a great book this week-Jesse James, My Father by Jesse James, Jr. Look it up on www.archive.org.<br /><br />Also, a verse which I find very applicable to a proper perspective on the War Between the States: Psalm 90:4.<br /><br />Ever listened to any sermons by John Weaver? Look him up on SermonAudio.<br /><br />Andrew R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-78484923871731163132011-02-07T14:09:58.893-05:002011-02-07T14:09:58.893-05:00Because the founders realized that there is a high...Because the founders realized that there is a higher standard of authority to which that definition must be left. They also understood that if the people could not make up their minds what that authority was, and hold the government to it, it would mean the devolution of American society.<br /><br />High crimes are high crimes against God's law. <br /><br />By the way, if bribery of any sort is a high crime, then 1. every single senator and representative who has supported earmarks ought to be immediately impeached, and 2. According to God's law, there are crimes out there worse than bribery. Like murder, adultery, sodomy, etc. Men guilty of these crimes are guilty of high crimes and ought to be impeached.<br /><br />If they try to use governmental force to hold their positions, then they ought to be removed by force. This is the Christian understanding of revolution-when a civil authority obstinately offends God's law, and uses his illegitimate authority to try to restrict those who would peaceably remove him from office, the people should resort to force, because the civil authority's authority is from God<br /><br />If he offends God obstinately, yet still claims authority, he is making himself a false deity.<br /><br />If they tolerate him, follow him, recognize him, or subject themselves to him, the people are commiting idolatry.<br /><br />However, when most of the nation is committing idolatry in this way, it does complicate things a bit...<br /><br />Buaidh no Bas,<br /><br />Andrew RomanowitzAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-44189818964388267442011-02-07T14:08:21.648-05:002011-02-07T14:08:21.648-05:00Samuel Rutherford was a Scottish reformer and Cove...Samuel Rutherford was a Scottish reformer and Covenanter (essentially a Scottish Puritan.) He wrote a fantastic book called Lex Rex on the covenantal understanding of civil government. It's tougher reading, but I would recommend it-it's one of my favorite books. I'd also recommend, however, that you do a little bit of study on what was going on in Scotland at that time before reading the book. But if you take the time to understand it, it will give you a very solid understanding of these things.<br /><br />He essentially stated that a civil authority, when assuming power, by default makes a covenant with God and the people that he will only support God's law. (Of course, some civil authorities do not do this, but in order to be fully legitimate they are assumed to have done it by default and to be held as having done so.)<br /><br />The people also make a covenant with the civil authority that they will obey him insomuch as he does so.<br /><br />However, if you're dealing with, say tax cuts, it would follow that if a man promises tax cuts and then breaks his promise, he was either presumptuous or he is a liar, neither of which are desirable qualities in a civil leader. It would be best to have him sign a public declaration as a condition of his going into office that he do the desired thing rather than going on spoken words...That way you could actually hold him to what he said. <br /><br />Should there be a constitutional stipulation? It depends on the subject matter. Some of those things should be dealt with in state constitutions. <br /><br />If a candidate supports the murder of unborn children, for example, I think that he in justice ought to be thrown out of office whether it's in the Constitution or not, because God's law is higher than the Constitution. It wouldn't really matter if he'd promised to do otherwise or not. I genuinely believe that every single liberal in the Senate could and should be justly impeached for their actions. (The Tolerance Police are probably tracking www.frisbeeman-jay.blogspot.com by now... Who knows. Maybe we'll see this comment on www.theocracywatch.org??) Why? This is GOD'S world. His is the ultimate authority. Obstinate offenders against that authority are absolutely illegitimate.<br /><br />I had a discussion about civil government with a friend recently. One of the points I made was this. If a civil authority breaks God's law, who do we obey-God or the civil leader?<br /><br />As the civil leader is God's representative, if the representative is in defiance of the one who is supposed to be represented, then why should I count the authority of the representative as anything? <br /><br />If the governor sent me a representative, and yet the representative told me something completely different than what I know the Governor told him to tell me, who am I going to listen to?<br /><br />It's that simple.<br /><br />BTW, the clause on impeachment reads thus: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed<br />from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high<br />Crimes and Misdemeanors." <br /><br />Treason is defined thus:<br /><br />"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in<br />adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of<br />Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on<br />Confession in open Court."<br /><br />The question then, is what high crimes are. Does the Constitution define high crimes? No. Nothing else is referenced. Why? <br /><br />(next comment)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-86203986006032484912011-02-05T21:22:38.616-05:002011-02-05T21:22:38.616-05:00Andy,
I might add that there should be something ...Andy,<br /><br />I might add that there should be something in the Constitution (I don't think it's there, [except for impeachment, and that's not really strong], but I haven't studied it too deeply) that says that elected leaders should be thrown out of office if they indeed stand for something, and start making laws in favor of that, other than what they told their constituents they believe.<br /><br />~FrisbeemanJayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12310737716495519168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-33892508563471118682011-02-05T19:47:47.923-05:002011-02-05T19:47:47.923-05:00Yep, it does make sense.
I would agree with most ...Yep, it does make sense.<br /><br />I would agree with most of your assessments in the area of medicine.<br /><br />I want to make it clear that a pastor can flatly denounce an ungodly civil ruler or candidate. <br /><br />How do we determine whether a man is fearing God or not? <br /><br />So often we want to draw a line somewhere, as an absolute standard, and then try to get as close to that line we've drawn as possible.<br /><br />Again, how do we determine whether a man fears God?<br /><br />We do it all of the time. Fathers evaluate suitors to their daughters. We examine men to be leaders in our churches. The nation, and it's government, is not secular. It's no less Christian than the family or even the church. <br /><br />No, one should not feel guilt if he finds that the man he voted for is actually very immoral, as long has he has done a serious amount of research, as long as he voted in good conscience.<br /><br />This is one of the big problems-the men are so distant, and the media is totally corrupt. There's one thing that needs big reformation. Unfortunately, now the FCC's got their hands in everything, and they can carefully shut out opposition to their interests.<br /><br />This is going to sound really extremist and radical, but if there's no God-fearing man up for election (whether he has "a chance of winning" or not), it's better to write in the name of someone who is not running but who would be capable for the situation than to support an unqualified man. <br /><br />First of all, I would have voted for neither Carter or Reagan, because both had a fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution, where the government gets its power, etc.<br /><br />There are usually more than two men; third party candidates usually do exist in national elections. If they don't, then as I said-better to vote for a man who is not running than to be capable of being counted responsible for electing an ungodly man.<br /><br />Yes, every man should be fully convinced in his own mind, but they ought to be convinced standing upon the authority of scripture. What I mean is, we can only be convinced if we genuinely believe that our positions are derived from the Scripture. If not, we have no reason to be convinced.<br /><br />Absolutely true. The nation has recieved the leaders they want. When the people commit immorality and pervert justice, they get immoral and unjust leaders.<br /><br />What I am trying to get at with the churhc is, that the church should be more than the group of people who meet on Sundays, and maybe on Wednesdays.<br /><br />Buaidh no Bas, <br /><br />Andrew Romanowitz <br /><br />PS-I will be rounding up a few guys from church to join in on this discussion-I know a few guys who would probably love it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-40949850345958749322011-02-04T23:25:35.854-05:002011-02-04T23:25:35.854-05:00Sure! You can let a few guys know about my Blog/t...Sure! You can let a few guys know about my Blog/this discussion! :) I don't mind at all.<br /><br />~Frisbeeman *getting into the pregame zone*Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12310737716495519168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-87957577743767209012011-02-04T23:03:23.536-05:002011-02-04T23:03:23.536-05:00Absolutely correct, Andrew, that the eldership is ...Absolutely correct, Andrew, that the eldership is not the church, but they are the representatives of the church and as such must be bound at all times by the limits placed on the church specifically. Does that make sense? This is one reason teachers will be judged more harshly. <br /><br />I would agree that the people of the church could organize and tackle a hospital project, but at that point it is no longer a "church" project although the commonality amongst them is their church. They've merely begun to minister together outside the church in the realms of their families. <br /><br />Or are you suggesting that church funds should be used for this project? Is that a specific act delegated to the rule of the church (taking care of the sick and infirm)? Or to the individuals? <br /><br />In the example you gave of Dr. Morecraft's more general sermon, this is exactly the correct method the church should follow. I didn't hear the sermon myself, but (based on your description) applaud it.<br /><br />Which actions disqualify a man? Who should one vote for if there are no known repentant, Godly Christian men running? Should one then abstain? Should one feel guilt when he finds that the man who appeared to be a Godly repentant Christian man comes out of the closet after the election? What if there are two men who appear to be Godly repentant Christian men, but one is given to gossip and the other is given to lust? Which do you choose? Would Reagan have beaten Carter by those standards? Looks can be very deceptive and our distance from the men only complicates the matter. Each man should be "fully convinced in his own mind" regarding these decisions. <br /><br />The Lord is sovereign and His will is done regardless of who we vote for. But He will hold us accountable for seeking after and following Him in these things. He gives a nation the leaders His people deserve. [2 Chronicles 7: 14 for one--J said I had to give you a reference.]<br /><br />Anyway, am off for a bit. Am enjoying the discussion. You are a very thoughtful young man. Your parents should be very proud. :o)<br /><br />Mrs. TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-57256189515372658572011-02-04T18:03:07.311-05:002011-02-04T18:03:07.311-05:00150 years ago today...
Deo Vindice.
Andrew R.150 years ago today...<br /><br />Deo Vindice.<br /><br />Andrew R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1094434028184462599.post-46467995993170573202011-02-03T13:29:32.787-05:002011-02-03T13:29:32.787-05:00Mrs T,
Thanks so much for taking the time to carr...Mrs T,<br /><br />Thanks so much for taking the time to carry on this discussion.<br /><br />I agree that youth groups and sunday schools do overstep their jurisdiction-bigtime.<br /><br />However, voting is not merely a matter of conscience-it involves God's law as well. Exodus 18:21 is an example of that. So I do not believe that it would be outside the jurisdiction of the Church to denounce a particular candidate for open repudiation of God's law, or the creation order (particularly if that candidate is a she.) Sometimes it is better to deal with generalities when preaching. (For example, in 2008 Dr. Joseph Morecraft preached a sermon against female civil magistrates, but the point of the sermon was not specifically to discourage church members from voting for the McCain/Palin ticket.)<br /><br />Your assessment of the church's responsibilities is correct-although to it I would add the purification of biblical doctrine, by study and persuasion, not by force except in cases of gross and deliberate error. I would also add that those are the duties of the Church government. We ought never to confuse the government of an institution with the institution. The patriarch is not the family, the eldership is not the church, and the government is not the nation. Those institutions comprise of their members-not simply their God-ordained authorities.<br /><br />An IC could take on a hospital-building project, but it should be by the vote of the congregation (who are hoping to be of one mind), not the top-down order of the eldership.<br /><br />Church leaders can decry candidates just as they can decry sensual pop-stars, false prophets, or anyone else who is having a bad influence in society. But they must do so on the standard of God's law, not preference. The purpose of my last several comments was to show that God has a standard for voting. It's not wholly a matter of preference. Certainly, a church leader should not be comparing two scripturally acceptable candidates-but if one candidate is supporting something like embryonic stem-cell research, there would be no fault whatsoever in a church elder denouncing that man. Could a church elder bring discipline on a person who voted for him? My own faults in doing so require me to be humble and prove my convictions by consistent action before I comment on this matter; but is it sinful to vote for an unqualified candidate? To do so pragmatically is certainly not of faith, and "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).<br /><br />Again, while no candidate is perfect, there are biblical minimum-level requirements. To vote for a candidate IS to endorse his actions. I am not saying that we should vote for only sinless men; I am saying that we should vote only for God-fearing, repentant Christian men. We cannot compromise. We've been bought with a price. Why must we sell our honor and God's principles for a percieved victory in our eyes, which is ultimately no more than a taking of God's responsibility into our own hands, instituting rulers who by God's standards are utterly unacceptable-murderers of the weakest members of society, oppressors, lovers of dishonest gain, and so on? <br /><br />We do sometimes fail to understand, in our desire to put biblical distinctions between institutions, that there are overlapping jurisdictions in God's institutions. The church government, and the state government after, can bring discipline upon an abusive parent; The state government CAN biblically put a false prophet to death (Deuteronomy 13), and so on.<br /><br />All other things you said I wholeheartedly agree with.<br /> <br />Thanks again.<br /><br />Justus, what do you think about trying to get some more people in on the conversation?<br /><br />Buaidh no Bas, <br /><br />Andrew RomanowitzAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com