Re: Church-State -- some history

From: Innovatia <dennis@innovatia.com>
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 15:25:24 EDT

From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@sbcglobal.net>

> As I have already indicated, I am just as much opposed to a government
that
> thinks of itself as specially sanctioned by the God of the Judeo-Christian
> Bible as to a government that thinks itself as specially sanctioned by the
> God of the Koran. Do you not see the parallel temptations to justify
almost
> any action by appeal to divine approval or privileged divine blessing (God
> is on our side, not yours)? Are not the Crusades of the past or the
Islamic
> Fundamentalist states of the present sufficient evidence of how the power
of
> the state is likely to be corrupted by appeal to special divinely
sanctioned
> privileges and rights?

I'm in complete agreement with your point, Howard, in that the critical
issue is not whether a State thinks it is God's approved regent on earth but
whether it submits itself to biblical law, for in doing the latter it simply
cannot behave like the former have and will do. Britain and the American
colonies (mainly the latter) have been most consistent in operating from
this viewpoint in the last 500 years. In doing so, God's law informed them,
not "we the people" as such. Much of central Asia around 500-1000 AD, under
the Church of the East, also seemed to function in this manner, as did the
non-papal remnant of European Christians during the papal empire, such as
the Vaudois of southern France and the Piedmont in northern Italy.

> > No nation-state on earth really does today. All are in rebellion against
> > Christ. Consequently, the Enlightenment ideals of fraternity, equality,
etc.
> > have no stable social base, as is quickly becoming evident in N.
America.
> > The kingdom to which we belong, though not visibly established yet on
earth,
> > is our norm for good government and is the standard gainst which the
> > existing ones are measured and fall short.
>
> Let me change just a few words: "All nation-states but ours are in
> rebellion against Allah. Consequently, the Western ideals of fraternity,
> equality, democracy and capitalism have no stable social base, as is
quickly
> becoming evident in Satanic America. Allah's kingdom to which we belong,
> though not visibly established yet on earth, is our norm for good
government
> and is the true standard against which the existing ones are measured and
> fall short." This doesn't sound nearly as convincing when it comes from
> another mouth, does it?

I would expect Muslims to say something like that, and if Allah were the
true God, then they would be correct in affirming that position. But as
Christians, we are convinced that Christ is Lord, though the implications of
that simple creed are often in need of being made explicit.

Actually, Islam comes much closer in some ways to true biblical govt than
consistently pagan (as in generic mystery Babylon) based govt.

> I expect less abuse of power than I see in states that exploit their
"right"
> to do almost anything in the name of a privileged status relative to God
or
> Allah.

Again, agreed. Only states that submit themselves (reasonably consistently)
to biblical law govern a free people. Except for Tamerlane, the most
destructive institution in A.D. history operated boastfully from 538 AD to
1798 AD (1260 years) in Europe on just that presumption.

Saludos,

Dennis Feucht
Received on Fri May 28 16:30:39 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 28 2004 - 16:30:40 EDT