Oaths 3 – Examples of Good Oaths from Early America
So, where do we find some good examples of a good oath to which civil leaders should swear? The early States. Continue reading “Oaths 3 – Examples of Good Oaths from Early America”
Oaths 2 – Early American Oaths
Early American Oaths
Oaths, lack of respect for them, and failure to understand their importance point toward our country’s problems and perhaps their solution. But first, who is the sovereign of this United States? I don’t mean in the absolute biblical sense; that’s clearly God. I mean in the publicly acknowledged by the people sense and as evidenced by our founding documents.
First question: Does God care? If He rules the world and if He cares about the world that He created, then yes is the obvious answer. He cares about the type of government you erect over your society. He showed that when He lead the Israelites out of Egypt and went about assisting Moses in setting up . . . what? Continue reading “Oaths 2 – Early American Oaths”
Oaths 1 – A Discounted Power
Oaths 1 – A Discounted Power
Jesus said, “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” Matthew 5:33-7.
But this warning on how to speak the truth in your personal life, if taken to the extreme and applied to all contexts, even courtrooms and the covenantal contexts, of course, would deny oaths altogether. Jesus was speaking to the misuse of oaths, like “I swear on a stack of bibles that I’m telling you the truth!” Continue reading “Oaths 1 – A Discounted Power”
The Judicial System & Liberty
The Judicial System & Liberty
What does the judicial system have to do with liberty? Much in every way. A judicial system is a microcosm of the society. In the courtroom, parties are at odds, and a judge determines how to resolve the dispute. The judge does more than that. The judge determines punishment, exercising the power of the sword to take property, liberty, and even life from another human being. Therefore, the court can oppress the life of an individual human being, even if the society seeks freedom for its citizens. And how can a society be free if the governmental authorities seek to use the judicial system for its own purposes, to advance its power, to take authority from the individual or groups in society?
But how do you keep it within bounds? How do you keep it from overflowing Continue reading “The Judicial System & Liberty”
Justice – not favoritism for the poor, nor favoritism for the powerful
Justice – not favoritism for the poor, nor favoritism for the powerful
“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.” Leviticus 19:15. No, the law, the courts are not supposed to help poor people, unless those poor people have been injured by someone. It should be no different for the rich person. If the rich person went to court, they should win if they sue a poor person that injured them. The rich person should not worry about the judge being sympathetic or some type of communist who thinks rich people got wealthy on the backs of the poor and should pay it back. Likewise, the poor person should be able to sue a rich person without worrying that someone politically powerful or a friend of the judge or just the judge’s own prejudice creates a road block to the poor person getting justice.
Continue reading “Justice – not favoritism for the poor, nor favoritism for the powerful”
The Myth of Secular Judicial Independence – post 2
The Myth of Secular Judicial Independence
But the problem of free-for-all judicial independence versus biblical judicial independence is worse than the typical judge catering to his favored political masters and rendering “judicial independence” opposite to its original meaning. Today’s judicial independence is an out-of-control religious, philosophical, political, jurisprudential anarchy that, if continued, will result in the spiraling out of control of the American experiment in representative democracy. Why?
1. If every appointed or elected judge can interpret the law as he sees fit, then the law is as malleable as clay. Any objective can be reached, given enough time (as the secular evolutionists say of astrophysical, geological, and biological evolution), by the determined progressive jurists, so-called.
Continue reading “The Myth of Secular Judicial Independence – post 2”
The Myth of Secular Judicial Independence – post 1
The Myth of Secular Judicial Independence
In principle, the concept of judicial independence is a Christian concept. Without a God to whom the judge is answerable and in whose place the judge rules, there is nothing to stop the judge from simply following the ruling elite’s direction. You could argue that in a secular system popular election would provide the potential for some independence. However, notice how the ruling elite complains about all the “problems” surrounding popular election – the people are ignorant, campaign contributions corrupt the judges, it’s “unseemly.” These are the ostensible reasons for prohibiting the people from choosing their own judges, but the real reason is that when the people choose their own judges, the unions of legal professionals (bar associations) and the ruling judges and politicians have little or no control over who becomes a judge, and this they cannot tolerate.
Continue reading “The Myth of Secular Judicial Independence – post 1”
“Ministers of God” – Romans 13
“Ministers of God” – Romans 13
Romans 13 calls those in political office “ordained of God” and “ministers of God.” Romans 13:1,4. What kind of minister? How are they different from pastors and preachers in the Church? Is there a difference between church ministers and political ministers?
First, there must be a difference biblically. In Israel, the priesthood was separate from the political, at least, in governmental function. The king who tried to offer incense as if he was a priest suffered immediate judgment from God, in the form of leprosy. “And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, ‘It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out Continue reading ““Ministers of God” – Romans 13″
What Was Meant by “A Unique System of Laws?”
Moses Gave Israel a Unique System of Laws
Israel’s system of government, including its judiciary, was unique in the ancient world, purposely so. It was meant to cause God’s chosen people to stand out. It was the ideal system, meant to demonstrate how wise God’s people were, not in themselves, but in the law they had. “Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” Deuteronomy 4:6. However, more importantly, it was also the society and system of government into which the Messiah was to be born and live. How much more should it have been the ideal and model for the world of what God wants?
Continue reading “What Was Meant by “A Unique System of Laws?””
Romans 13 – Submit or Rebuke? Submit Might Mean You’re Falling Down Before the Wicked
History as Your Context for Judging
In the case of the U.S., Secularism or Humanism or Progressivism or Liberalism – pick your term – is attempting to woo the Christian West, to reverse that order, and they do so by arguing a lie. First, they assert that the U.S. governmental structure and legal system are Humanist, that the Founders rejected all biblical law and influence when they founded this country. Second, they jettison the means of changing the law, which the Founders themselves established in the U.S. Constitution – by amendment, which requires the consent of the people. Third, they then say that once that change has occurred, it can never be reversed without violating “the law.”
In other words, unlike the Christians who altered the Roman Empire over time by being forthright and honest about their religious faith in Christ and not Continue reading “Romans 13 – Submit or Rebuke? Submit Might Mean You’re Falling Down Before the Wicked”