Via Email:

All cultures with advanced intellect will have attraction to some authority and the only questions that need be ask are: What will be it’s religious authority?—-and/or—-What will be its Philosophy and Worldview?
These types of questions are not being ask today—-as if the Constitution of old and this era of time did not hinge on any consideration of—or—formulation by a fixed thought process with a “Worldview” that guided the individual citizens and it’s culture.

Was the United States formed with it’s “Constitution” as a Christian nation or was it designed to be a Secular non-religious nation? The liberals and left-wingers are generally in agreement—–declaring the United States to have been Non-Christian from the beginning and dedicated to a separation of church and State. Today it has become common place and the rule fixed that “Yes” Church and State was and is separated from each other.

This idea of separation of church and state never entered into the thinking of the founding fathers at the Constitutional Convention—-therefore was not in consideration—nor was any action needed to accomplish the deed of Separation. Separation of church and state within the convention was understood and only accepted as an idea that was something new—–coming out of the enlightenment thinking of that time—— and was not understood as something historically coming from or out of—–government and/or states of the past.

America—-a small nation to be—-was made up of individual colonies that were made up of Christian Republics and there was no thought of separation between the State and the Church as it is being used today. The church was part of the citizens make-up—-teaching “Biblical Theology” and therefore forming the “Worldview” of the citizens and true believers making up a large percentage of the culture and it’s thinking. Today the church has lost its impact on the citizenship—-with Biblical Law having no affect on or having no cause of proper judgment within the culture.

The Political Correctness (PC) along with Secular thinking has succeed in changing the direction of thinking from one of a Biblical thought process hinging on God’s word—-to one of evicting God from every aspect of governmental function—-to include having God thrown out of the educational process and/or system.

Correcting anything is no longer a simple matter of electing another person to take the place of some left wing Progressive—-for the infection and corruption has gone to deep—-so as to destroy the worldview of the culture—-who have little understanding of what has gone wrong—nor understanding of—-how we are——as a culture—–going to make basic correction.

R. J. Rushdoony writes in his short booklet “The United State a Christian Republic”

“ In ‘Liberal’ Pennsylvania atheism is called subversion in a grand jury charge 1800, and in 1831 a judge in ‘Liberal’ New York met his first atheist! These two facts alone give us a glimpse of a very different United States…”

There is a radical difference in what made up the culture of the 1700’s and what we have today. In the 1700’s and the early 1800’s we had the social fabric of Christianity forcing the political process through and mixing with “Biblical Law” with no thought of anything less for government. God’s law was understood to be the higher authority and to be the law of the the land—and was accepted as the guiding light for the Constitution.

Today we have none of that past Biblical teaching or thinking but rather a false-ness in direction—-on a path going away from God and toward destruction—-with most lost to understand any of what is going on—with a Why? If God does not have mercy on this country and the people——there will be no chance of revival or correction of the problems within the culture—-and—-We Shall See—-shortly——- what is to happen.

Randy

What did Happen?

“Where there is no Justice there is no State” St. Augustine Bishop of Hippo “City of God”

With no justice—no state—and I say—there can be no social compact without that—–nor is there social justice within the culture. And because of none of the above we have no “liberty” but rather a self rule with little respect for anything or anybody. There is nothing but “Might” makes right—–through some kind of government and with a deception of what should be and is called “Liberty”. So what did happen to Liberty and the Constitution we once knew. Are we not heading in the wrong direction on the wrong path.

It has been shown and proven that Christendom (Western Civilization) for centuries has relied on a Theological Doctrine hinging on Christ—the Bible—-and God as the creator—–these beliefs within the culture were tied directly to civil government forcing a civil responsibility into the government—–whatever type of government they happen to have. You then have and/or had a continued understanding of man’s duty to himself—–his family—-his civil duty with duty to some government.

This understanding and what this meant—-as far as liberty for the individual has had a radical change in both meaning of the word and its meaning for man in a social setting—–and with obligations to a government. So what has liberty come to mean? Man’s liberty has come to mean liberty to do anything one wants to do—-a frightful thought.   Man has become a man without a soul and he understands that the State—-with its government—-has come to be a State without God and without a “Soul”—This combination Heathenism of man and his country—has become deadly to himself and his country. Thus man accepts the fact the state is without a moral compass (corruption everywhere)—-only accepting it because he too has lost his soul—he is unable to fix the problem or give back to the “State” it’s direction and/or find a righteous path for the state and it’s Soul to travel on.

What is it that has happen that possibly forced a change to the definition to the word “Liberty”

Let me give a couple of points regarding this problem and what I think happen.
1/ There has been an emancipation of the body politic from responsibility to a church authority—the church does not inject ethics and/or moral behavior into the body politic. This church authority is no longer in place nor is the body politics under the care of the church via through it’s elected citizens. Therefore a Theological order of things carries no weight nor does the God of the Bible.

2/ This separation of Church and State does away with Biblical Law and will cause a deterioration in and how natural law can be and should be used. It affects a pecuniary injury that interferes with property rights—public peace and with the individual’s pursuit of happiness. All coming from a separation of Church and State—–this state of evil operation forces things into a slow state of collapsing.

3/ The corresponding loosening or abandonment of traditional legal injunctions prohibiting adultery, divorce, contraception, abortion, sodomy, obscenity, libel, and slander, prostitution, usury, commerce on the Sabbath,public blasphemy and profanity, idolatry, heresy, and other offenses whose traditional legal proscription was rooted in what Western man once recognized as the law of the Gospel—-all of these things are now permitted opening—and/or tolerated without so much as a peep of protest.

4/ The “Emancipation” of the individual,with his “Individual rights,” from all but the minimal legal restraints, leaving him “Free” to do, say or claim to be whatever he pleases (even purporting to switch sexes) without regard to the moral, spiritual and social consequences to himself or others—including spouse, children and neighbors—-so long as he avoids violence or harm to the property or other purely temporal interests of his fellow citizens and allows them the same “Freedom” he demands for himself.

This so called “Liberty” having evolved these past 50 years is nothing more then a complete rejection of God—His Christ and the law of the Bible—the social fabric wants none of that——not knowing a smaller government will not correct the condition—nor following the Constitution help the condition—–nor will changing “Parties” at election time help—-none of this—–will cause renewed “Liberty”. The direction and path we are on will do nothing but give us a complete disintegration of the social fabric and the country—as we lose the last of the “Liberty” we think we still have.

The church’s are ignorant or are not—–willing to do what they must do—not wanting to upset the Hypocrite sitting in the front row of the church—the guy giving the big bucks to the church collection plate.

So we drift ever closer to the edge. WE SHALL SEE—–Don’t you think????

Randy

Will Reason Work?

Have we reached a point in governing were “Reason” or the art of reasoning in guiding the government process is not working. If that is true we must ask—–Why is that? Reasonable men have differ in the past—-yet governed—-what is making these times so different that I can ask—-Is the reasoning process working? Has it never been that men have ask—–What reason is? Has reason and the use of it drifted past the simplicity of being able to solve problems—-will the art of reasoning be restored to its proper place?

I do not believe the saying of——one side or the other is being unreasonable for that is the simple answer—–but the problem goes much deeper. Today with the Progressive and Conservative positions being taken why are they not able to rectify their positions in compromise——making them seem reasonable to one another—-can they not reaching a compromise that both sides can live with. Again, have we come to a point were reasoning is not working and no one seems to realize it——-all the while thinking things are working yet knowing something is wrong with the coming together process—the reasoning process is not working.

These solutions become a problem and reasoning fails when men no longer agree on the definition of the word “Reason”. This simplest of definitional alinement in what reason is becomes a serious problem within a culture when the belief in and prepositional faith of the reasoning process becomes polarized in opposite corners—–with the path being wrong and direction of reason false.

The problem of defining “Reason” or what would define reason was recognized by most thinkers of the past—Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hobbes, Kant, Hume, Hegel and Ayn Rand. It is a well known determination that reason and how it will be defined in the end will be by one of the two main factions. You will either have God and His Bible defining reason or you will have sinful man with his thinking and historical learning define it. We have come to a place in America were we must decide what reason is and who will define it. If you do not believe we are at that point let me give you a couple of examples to show you the confusion that is guiding the thought process. IE: Reasoning. Abortion is being called a choice—with the killing of babies—-the planet is over populated and man came from a big bang millions of years ago—-Darwin theory of evolution doing its work——taking the people away from their God—and the earth is warming and must be protected—-but not the baby—-and environmental regulations are strangling the every productivity of the people—rather then help a productive process.

If you ask whose reasoning brought this to the conclusions in the above—–the answer would be man’s reasoning—those decisions were his and that is what he believes to be the truth. He has reasoned it and accepted it to be true and with those so called truths he proceeds to built his position finalizing those and other so called truth having them become his “Worldview”. Those so called facts maybe false and/or continually subject to change—with his determinations in truth by way of reason made in wrong suppositions—with wrong conclusions.

Humanism is a polite word for Atheism—-with the Atheist having their philosophy and worldviews structured around a process of man’s reasoning. They claim to have chosen their starting point at some theoretical point using a so called reasoned process—–saying they had no pre-suppositional starting point or belief in something that forced their starting point—IE: The Big Bang—–they do have and did believe—-therefore had faith in that starting point—-even a starting point of not believing in God or hating Him as their started—they would and did believe in their starting point—-therefore a predetermined conclusion comes to be—-which is false and never final.

Because of the Atheist’s suppositions and beliefs—–he will not—-nor can not reason his way to agree with any who he might find in opposition to himself and with his basic fundamentals—even if it be another atheist who also hates God. The starting points are fixed for both Atheist and the Christian—-the one starting with God and Scripture—the other in and with man’s reasoning (reason and himself being his god) and the two will never agree or meet in compromise. The differences in Christian verse Atheist reasoning is, the Atheist has some teaching of man as his starting point——with a developing of a so called reasoned process arriving at some so called new knowledge he believes to be true—-that early trust in and faith in man’s early findings was his faith and starting point of man—-allowing himself to think he has moved forward to a new high plane of knowledge. The Christian believes in God with faith in His process/word as the starting point—-knowing man’s reason is from Him who knows all—-with the fear of the Lord as the beginning of all knowledge—believing in Him with faith his reasoning process is correct and the right conclusions will come in that faith.

If these fundamental difference are understood it will make major changes in the way we approach and reason through problems of today. It will also help explain why there can never be a satisfactory compromise in problem solving.

Let me close with this simplified showing of change in reasoning.

In the 1600’s and 1700’s Christians made up a majority of people coming to America—their thinking and reasoning came from the word of God (the Bible). After 1800’s the percentage ever so slowly slipped toward a Humanistic body—-most coming to America being heathens thereby starting the change to Secular thinking and reasoning—until the change was complete in today’s thinking—–and with the larger percentage of the culture being Humanistic—even as polls here in America show most call themselves Christians. I do not want to over simplify the long process of change in America’s thinking and reasoning because it took years of twisting and continual changing with a falling away from God and His Christ to get to this point——and now having a reasoning process that no longer works. You can not reason with or change a mind if one believes in himself (man)and hates the God of Scripture—while the other (the Christian) does not understand he will never convince the Humanist to change his mind or have him agree with the Christian doctrine of what is right in government and knowing the “Why” it is right.

Two Christians arguing a point should always yield to Scripture as the higher authority—you should find that to be true—-but sadly—not so—–today you find few—-if any—-arguing from the Scriptures and none forcing this type of argument—-the only arguing is Man’s reasoning, even so with Christians——–and of course the guy with the biggest stick always wins—-today that is man’s final reason—and that “Reasoning” will not work in changing minds or does it resolve anything.

We Shall See—Don’t you think???
Randy

In the the first article:
http://www.lehighvalleyconservative.com/is-it-time-to-resist/

I begin my case:
“This Slavish doctrine of Non-Resistance now exhibits itself here in America and must be looked at with great concern and as one of the great Biblical errors of the time.”

I set the tone of the inquiry, with back ground, saying there will be no security in the land.
“The citizen has no security against a magistrate who wishes to do evil to his people.”

Because the citizen has been:
“We have today a citizen that is dumb down not understanding what is or has happened to him and his country.”

And with turning away from God—-we have this.
“…because our Christianity has turn to emotionalism—with a lack of Biblical knowledge and certainly not understanding Romans 13:1-6.”

Is It Time To Resist? (Part 2)
http://www.lehighvalleyconservative.com/is-it-time-to-resist-part-2/

We start to get into what Paul is saying in Romans 13:1-6
“’… the power that be are ordained of God.’ Romans 13:1 (KJV 1611). Those powers that are to be used by the the magistrate are put in place by God’s authority to have a government.”

I attempt to explain the key to Romans 13:1-6 were Paul uses words “Power” and “Higher Authority” and then bringing in what Peter says to the Sanhedrin.
“Peter tells us: “…We ought to obey God rather than men.”. Acts 5:29 (KJV 1611)”

I close the article:
“How bad must it get before the citizen is to know he is not resisting God but a wicked tyrant with evil intentions—who is using his power to an evil end.”

So with those couple of sentences of back ground we can now get into the main points in attempting to solidify our position of resisting a tyrant.

The Apostle Paul is gauging his thoughts and words through the written inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so we know his thought process was well above what I am about to write but allow me my interpretion. Paul knows—-the rulers he speaks of—-must not only have Biblical attributes ruling is the fear of the Lord but they must manifest themselves in principles of order, balanced in power, in a deep and sincere respect for right, with truth in liberty—-only with these attributes of this magnitude of righteousness can the Republic, with its subjects, expect peace and safety. It would be foolish of the ruler to not know that liberty cannot be established without morality, and morality will not come without faith—-as will not knowledge come without this faith. Virtue must manifest itself not as some genius—nor can genius come without honor, where the ruler’s love of order is confused with his taste for oppression and his thoughts of freedom have as its root a contempt of the law. Paul’s ruler is fair & just at all points of God’s law within the land.

If what is written above would be God’s minister “For he is the minister of God to thee for good…” Romans 13:4 (KJV 1611)
Would it not be blasphemy to call tyrants & oppressors—”God’s ministers”? Is resisting those who resist God’s written word as being a tyrant the same thing as resisting God? If the ruler and minister of God is acting contrary to God’s Holy Bible —is he to be called God’s minister? I say “NO” and all reason would tend to agree.

The only reason for the institution of civil government, and the only rational ground of submission to it is the common safety and utility of that land. Is a child to suffer a continued beating to the point of death by the father——–will not the child and mother rebel against her husband for such a reason as harm to themselves. Would it not be stupid and ignorant of the subject—–knowing the prince has become a tyrant and would not the subject want to correct their condition. It is beyond reason that subjects would be forced to have allegiance to or have some duty owed to that prince or government—even as they dispense cruelty and the family is being treated in an unfair and unjust fashion—especially as the cruelty filters down to the children causing their death.

The question: Is it time to resist?—–Will only become troubling if the conscience of the people can not discern the Biblical nature of the offense being committed. If in fact both the tyrant and the people have no Biblical rational and/or ability to discern Biblical abuse they will fail to make the case or connection of the wrongs—only having some emotional feeling of personal hurt—with no connection of that hurt to the whole body of the citizenship as an affront to God and His holy law. The unity of the grievance becomes the group having the biggest stick through some weak reasoning process—is that not what is going on today. We have a government today that is telling its people the health care is good and proper and that it will work for the citizens—-while the opponents are saying just the opposite. I hear nothing of some sort of Biblical argument “Pro—or–Con”.

My point here again is simple—–until and unless there is a Biblical argument we will not nor can not hear “Thus saidth the Lord”. We in this land have reached the afflicted stage and the point of death to the child (with millions of abortions) and have not been willing to turn to the Lord in repentance. It can only follow—–unless we reach that point—-turning to the Lord—-Paul’s letter to the Romans and chapter 13:1-6 will mean nothing to the people or the tyrant with tyranny and abuse meaning nothing but some degree of discomfort in the land. God’s law with justice and fairness will continue to yield to the tyranny and tyrant—as we see ourselves destroyed with the affliction getting worse with each passing day. ——-look what the Lord has to say:

Hosea 4:6 (KJV 1611)
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”

This is not a game folks—–this whole situation has turned very serious—-the government has rejected God—-the Educational system has rejected God—–and the people have rejected God.

We shall See—-Don’t you think?

This concludes my thoughts on Romans 13:1-6

Randy

We have as our text Roman13:1-6 and with that we find it difficult to recognize how the Christians here in America do not understand their duty to the “Higher Authority”. Note what the apostle Paul says: “… the power that be are ordained of God.” Romans 13:1 (KJV 1611). Those powers that are to be used by the the magistrate are put in place by God’s authority to have a government—–placing Biblical law over us for our good. Nowhere does it say the magistrate has the “Authority” to do what be wants—-to his subjects—especially if that what the magistrate is doing——is against God and in a secondary mode something that is against God’s Law and therefore creating an injustice to the subjects.

Those charges to the magistrate giving him his power are from God—-True—–but they have a strict guide by which the magistrate is to validate, sanction and have that power. Note again it is God’s authority that gives the power to the magistrate—–and fixes the guide lines for the magistrate to have this ability to rule over the subjects with a power for good: “For he is the minister of God to thee for good.—” Romans 13:4 (KJV 1611). The magistrate is never given power to do evil or embark on some wickedness to harm his subjects—-that is and would be something a righteous God would not permit.

The ideal circumstance would be to have a Christian magistrate who knows and understands his responsibility to both God and the people he governs—–and having a civil body that understands their subjection—-with both magistrate and citizen knowing the civil & religious obligation due in each arena of life. But unfortunately this is not the case and with each pasting day we find ourselves in a less and less christian environment—-with a worldview diametrically opposite those of Scripture teaching and worse those in subjection do not understand or follow the Law of the Land (The Constitution) They (whoever they are) continue to fight and reject both God’s Law and the Law of the Land (the Constitution) wanting to put in place——man’s reasoning and certainly with out any fear of God.

My point in this article is again simple—–the magistrate has the power to do good and be ruler and we are to follow those righteous ordinances—for the magistrate does have God’s power—what the magistrate does not have is the authority to impose his wickedness and evilness on his subjects—-ALL—-are under God’s law and not some evil power dictated by a evil tyrant—him forcing those under him to obey his evil works.

So what is the citizen to do when the magistrate turns to being a tyrant? What happens to the citizen who resist the magistrate? Is the citizen resisting God’s Authority? At what point is the citizen charged to not obey the magistrate?

Peter tells us: “…We ought to obey God rather than men.”. Acts 5:29 (KJV 1611) The word “Obey” in the verse is the Greek word ‘peitharcheo’–to submit to authority. We then could interpreted the verse as—-We ought to obey God’s authority rather then man’s—–Note well the Jewish council may have had the power as a ruling body but Peter made it very clear they had no authority to rule their conscience nor would the Apostles listen to their direction if it was against God’s word. What did the apostles do and say: “…they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.” Acts 5:41 (KJV 1611) When was the last time you heard any politician using God’s word to correct any issue or situation——on top of that—attempting to make something right and willing to suffer for that correction—especially were it was something in violation of God’s Law.

I close:
“They know not, neither will they understand they walk on in darkness: All the foundations of the earth are out of course.” Psalm 82:5 (KJV 1611)

How bad must it get before the citizen is to know he is not resisting God but a wicked tyrant with evil intentions—who is using his power to an evil end——when all the foundations are out of course—-and that my dear friends is not to far away.

We Shall See—-Don’t you think???

I do believe there will be one more part—- part 3—-needed to confirm my point—-this non-resistance is not of God and it must be shown that it is straight from Hell—being a doctrine of Satan.

Randy

The Christian is caught in a mode of non-resistance—not understanding St. Paul and what Romans13:1-6 truly has as a meaning. The Christian thinks “Let every soul be subject unto the higher power.” the opening sentence of Chapter 13 verse 1—-having with that meaning in all issues and every situation the Christian obeying the magistrate—so they think—-because God the “Higher Authority” has given the authority to the magistrate. Those verses are not a blanket statement to force Christians to obey all that a magistrate may dictate or has put into law—–there is a line—-and Scripture will always prove Scripture—-and Paul’s writing to Timothy in his second epistle to the young man tells Timothy he is to use all Scripture because: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV 1611).

Note well Scripture will and should be applicable and used in all parts of life—–it is a guide post for a complete “Worldview” and is not to be considered just as a spiritual reference used only in some religious fashion for the soul. NO! God demands that every knee will bow— “That unto me every knee shall bow,…” Isaiah 45:23 (KJV 1611)

This Slavish doctrine of Non-Resistance now exhibits itself here in America and must be looked at with great concern and as one of the great Biblical errors of the time. This passive obedience and non-resistance is an evil doctrine which has no foundation within Scripture and should be forced into the open by and with “All Scripture” which plays its part in showing light to God’s people.

Persons in authority—-Magistrates who do evil—by their actions have a Seditious—Traitorous and Rebellious nature and will not—can not be thought of as: “For they are God’s ministers,…” Roman 13:6 (KJV 1611) They are not God’s minister and should be questioned with all seriousness if they are propagating an evil mode and because they must—- “…have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1:32 (KJV 1611) He has pleasure in his evil and will look to others to sin while enjoying those people and their sinning.

These Magistrates must be called to task using God’s word as did John Knox with Queen Mary of Scotland—along with so many other Godly men of the past. We must in these time have a concern for and against a spirit of domination—-the evilness of and absolute manifestation in control and want of power—-that will quickly destroy any righteousness a magistrate may have. A godly magistrate will quickly show his evil through tyranny as each drop of evilness turns into bucket after bucket of evilness and then into a raging sea of stormy wickedness.

The citizen has no security against a magistrate who wishes to do evil to his people. Tyranny along with evilness brings ignorance, dampens the spirit, suppresses the arts and raises a class of brutes—-and every Christian who fears God and loves righteousness is called by God to oppose this monster called a magistrate.

Every true Christian knows he is in Christ and Christ is not of this world: “My kingdom is not of this world.” John 18:36 (KJV 1611) Nevertheless the Bible lays down principles concerning the office of civil magistrate and the duty of the subjects—together with reason and obligation of that duty to God—-the Civil government should work in all fairness and justice through the Magistrate.

This title: Is it time to Resist? (Part 1) will be a series of articles in my attempt to develop Romans 13:1-6 and the subject of resistance—–with my first point in this series being a simple and natural first step in explaining Romans 13:1-6.

Paul knew only to well he was dealing with a pagan world of the Roman Empire and many of the Jews who were Zealots—-hated Roman authority—so his writing on the duty’s and responsibilities of the Christian to government was set with the strongest words and tone. This must be considered and understood as we attempts to put these verses into meaning with today’s context.

The Roman world and today’s world here in America are not the same and saying that—–allow me to give some example of difference—or none of this will make sense. The Jews despised the Roman government—today few if any true American citizen despise the government—they may not trust it but they do not despise it—–the Jews did not and would not pay tribute to Roman either through allegiance or taxation. Today most red blooded Americans pledge to the flag and do have some allegiance to the country and even as they pay their taxes—–having a complaint in paying those taxes—they pay them.

We have today a citizen that is dumb down not understanding what is or has happened to him and his country. We have a citizen that has drifted from a strong Christian back ground of yesteryear into one that is foundering—-weak—-and with little in the way of Christian religion. Having an Educational System not teaching the art of thinking and one that has taken God out of the class room. We have the family that is disintegrating right before our eyes with a government that is turning ever more corrupt with each passing day.

So Paul’s writing made prefect sense to the Roman Christian who knew exactly were their responsibility and duty were to be placed—not so today—–the Roman Christian knew a tyrant when they saw one and stayed out of his way —–protecting their families as best as they could.

Today we have families with a large percentage having no father in the home—with a Constitution that has lost it’s power to control the government and politicians ignoring it’s rule of law—a government that is visibly becoming more corrupt with each passing day—with leadership not capable of fearing God—–and a Christian community and church not willing to stand in the Gap—-not understanding Paul’s book to the Romans. Today’s Christian thinks he must follow the dictates of and be subject to the tyrant—-not understanding his duty to God and responsibilities to a good magistrate or what his duty is in fighting a evil/wick magistrate. We have in place—–a government that has turned evil with wick magistrates who hate God and we do not understand what Paul has written—because our Christianity has turn to emotionalism—with a lack of Biblical knowledge and certainly not understanding Romans 13:1-6.

In our next article we will attempt to show why it is the Christians duty to resist the tyrant—and in fact it is the Christains duty to resist the evilness and the wick magistrate.

We Shall See

Randy

In Charles A. Beard book “The Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States” (1913) Chapter 4: Property safe-guards in the election of Delegates. Professor Beard explains the process at length as he attempts to build his case—–that those who were able to vote were either property owners or had personal wealth of some given amount, and were allow participation in the process. Those outside the qualification did not take part in the process and had not much to say as to what happen in the documents formation.

Beard’s point of his book was to show those concerned with the Constitution and it’s formulation had motives outside of righteousness of the day—–as today seem to make the claim. And as Beard claims or attempts to claim—–righteousness was not the process and/or reasoning that drove the final verbiage of the Constitution but rather it was twisted in favor of some groups—–those having twist and turns of interest within the group.

His book made a stir within the intellectual community at the turn of the century. (1900) The Progressive’s were just starting to put their platform together and here was yet another reason for wanting reform and having their progressive agenda in the front with a banner of political correctness. Their type of reform fit well with the “Social Gospel” thus trapping the Christian community into a false movement which was Political, Social and the changing of the American culture for the betterment of all—-little did they know what they were doing in changing the culture 100 years later..

Let me stop there and get to my point—–if the Progressive could make the claim of unfairness in the formation of the Constitution because of who was able to select delegates and/or who, was able to vote IE: Property owners & men of some personal wealth—–then is it not fair today to say the person with property is unfairly taxed because he is singled out to pay the lot for all of the citizens—–all the while not having control over spending. He is having to pay even as those not taxed continue to vote for more & more progressive school programs.

The right to select the delegates & vote in the 1700’s and early 1800’s was determined by the ownership of real or personal property——a person had or would have had some control. This personal wealth of the individual controlled the body politics—-forcing those property owners to understand the issues of the day—-knowing full well it was to cost them money in taxation if the spending was left uncontrolled.

The opening up of the process to include all—-changed the dynamics of that voting process as all women and any American citizen were allowed to vote. I am not here to argue the right or wrong of past voting practices but only to say that the complete election process changed in it’s dynamics and control of spending was now in the hands of all regardless of ownership of property. The concern for spending was tied directly to having a strong want to control tax increases—–that concern was now gone for the larger percentage of the people who were not property owners.

The controlling factors of tax increases and concern of voters shifted to were the voter can now be bought by the politicians and the property owner was now in the minority having lost his effect on or over the spending process—-assuring him of a continued rise in his property tax. If the “Progressive” could make the claim the “Constitution” was unfair because of how and who formulated it—-then is it not unfair——they who are singled out to pay the property tax are but a minority and should not be forced to pay the full load of the tax burden—–and—–even as having every little to say in controlling spending——with this process it is not only unfair to the home owner—-the process being as is—is destroying not only the property owner but the education system—–which includes the culture and the American way—-with no one wanting to recognize we have a spending problem with debt running wild at all tangents of the culture—–the culture would rather have debt with welfare—so it seems—until it destroys itself.

It has been said: Wherever the culture goes—-politics is sure to follow. We have destroyed the culture (it is debt ridden) and with the culture goes the foundation of the “Republic”

WE SHALL SEE—Don’t you you think?

Randy

I have watched as things on almost very side change for the worse, with no defensive moves coming from any of the Republican quarters. The leaders of the Republican Party, in Washington DC., that help the people can be counted on but one hand. It is time to look close at how we formulate the argument and exactly were do we get the correct grounds in formulating those arguments and were is the battle to be staged.

Might I suggest we look to a book written somewhere around 1579 and was highly influential in the thinking of the founding fathers—held by John Adams to be one of the most influential books in America on the eve of the Revolution, so it has been said. But Before I identify the book——we must determine if we think the argument is indeed not being formulated in the correct mode as I think—–it is not. What is it that we mean when we say the argument is not right or the wording is not right in the formulation of that argument?

Before I tell you of the book’s title—-we must look at the culture and the subjects in question—–are these problems of a serious nature? Those issues of last year—–have you found them to have slipped from bad to a worse this year and what of the culture? I give you two examples and I am sure you can fill in the gaps with a bunch of others—The debt and spending has not let up as we continue to go deeper and deeper into debt destroying ourselves. Ethics and morals—In 1963, 6% of American children were born out of wedlock. Today the number stands at 41%—with a large segment of the population now less capable of self-sufficiency than when the war on poverty began under President Johnson—-Welfare programs have exploded with no end in site and now have the ability to enslave the people in a hellish downward track.

Let me make this statement——-before getting to the book and it’s title in what I believe is the correct mode of arguing and stating the problem. This issue of how to argue or position the argument is of no consequence if——-in your mind—–the problems are not serious—nor if it is not showing you they are getting worse. Those two factors must be there—–a perceived seriousness of the problem and the fact they are getting worse. Those two factors will force you to question if you are indeed arguing from a position of strength, and/or having the argument formulated and rooted with the correct elements for which and from which to fight.

This is why you don’t see a serious argument in the correct mode coming from the Republican’s—few politicians—-if any—–see these problems as serious or important enough to stick their necks out in trying to resolve—–not when weighed against the politicians getting re-elected. The problem for us is compound because:
1/ The Politician do not care what you think—they care about themselves first, their election, and not the country nor you.
2/ They find it easy to abandon the people because the leadership has allowed them to do it—-as the leadership has already OK the escape hatch not wanting to fight themselves.
3/ The Republican leadership is setting the rules of engagement (within the Party)—and the people can not win—following those rules—the rules must change as does the formulation of the argument.

Now what is this book I talked about?—-The title is “A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants” (Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos) Junius Brutus—–I have—-Still Waters Revival Books—Limited Edition—-Reprinted from the 1689 translation October 1989 (2000 copies) Believe it or not it has been on my shelf since 1989—25 years ago.

The book is made up of 4 questions I give you the 3rd question and title of that chapter. I say these are the type of questions that should be ask and forced on our leadership.

“Whether it be lawful to resist a prince who doth oppress or ruin a public state, and how far such resistance may be extended: by whom, how, and by what right or law it is permitted.”

Answers to these questions start on page 52 and runs through page 148, rather comprehensive—–picking up question 4 and running to the end of the book page 163.

If the leadership knows we are thinking in this mode—–they had better wake-up to the fact that the citizens are getting upset and have come to an understanding this is no longer a game and we want them to start giving us serious “Biblical” answers. We are at the end of the rope with nowhere to go for “We the People” and by the time December 31, 2014 comes around we may find ourselves in a pile of trouble and still being fed BS and nonsense from the same politicians—so I trust——”ALL” will know we understand Jeremiah when he tells us:

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked who can know it?”
Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV)

We Shall See—Don’t you think?
Randy

We have Jeremiah saying this:
The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked who can know it? Jeremiah 17:2 (KJV)

So how best should we promote a vibrant religious culture that would influence public life and government?

This question should now be on the lips of every American citizen across the land, but it is not. We have lost the ability to sustain a religious culture and we do not realize it nor do we know how to find our way back to it because those elements of Godly thinking with the fear of the Lord built into the social structure and Christian faith have been eliminated from the American way of life. There has been a substituting of god’s little G of all types and a church going crowd, who are full of emotion and silly-ness wanting to hear good music—–rather then good preaching. They do not understanding the seriousness of God’s law nor His wrath to come as a punishment for disobedience of His holy word in Scriptures. In this false religion we have placed a social gospel full of the progressive elements of much falseness and the fake world of doing good through political correctness and secular humanism—-this falseness is burying the truth of Jesus Christ and His Gospel and not allowing true righteousness to bless the people through a saving of the soul—nor will God allow the country to continue.

Virtually all the colonist in the revolutionary era agreed with George Washington’s view that; “all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports”. George Washington “Farewell Address” 1796

Today would you get that agreement from the citizens here in America—that religion is a necessity and should be protected—-I doubt it. Separation of Church and State will surely confuse today’s Christian.

George Mason drafted Section 15,16 of Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights. He drafted these words at the insistence of James Madison, both Men were concerned with the concept and/or thought that civil government would assume it had the right or control over religion and had the controlling right to allow it or disallow it.

Here are those words from; Virgina 1776 Declaration of Rights Final version June 12, 1776—-as written by George Mason (Page 241) “The Sacred Rights of Conscience” Dresibach and Hall Liberty Fund 2009.

Section 15:
That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
Section16:
That religion, or the duty which we owe to our creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience;and that is the mutual duty of all; to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

Here you have two men (George Mason & James Madison) that concern themselves with maintaining an open door to religious freedom and worship, knowing full well that religious worship and liberty go hand and hand. Yet we have a local Republican Party leadership that will not concern itself with principles and a School District whose Superintendent is only to quick to tell you their system is a Godless “Educational System”.

Are we not driving culture and government into the ground without God and His Holy Word of the Bible. My point is simple if a large percentage of founding father thought religion was of importance and necessary for the continuance of good government why would we not see to have—-poor, evil or no government at all without God as part of that government?

I say you will have——1/Ungodly corrupt men in government, who do not fear the Lord and 2/ Ungodly corrupt government and finally 3/ Destruction of that corrupt government, along with the corrupt culture who is as ungodly as the people in the government.

We Shall See—-Don’t you think????
Randy

R. L. Dabney in his 3rd volume of “Discussions” under the title “Civil Ethic’s” (Pg. 302) says this:

“Passing now from the social morals of the family to the general ethics of social duties, we meet the fact that the civil government is the appointed regulator and guardian of all these.”

Note he calls them “general ethics of social duties” with a most important role to be played by the government as —–“appointed regulator and guardian of all these”. Dabney continues to build his case as to what is to be done by those citizens, with the social duties coming through the family, taught to the children as each generation takes it place. I do not want to digress or get to far into the weeds but this quote from Albert Einstein is pertinent and fits right into the crumbling of the social fabric—-with its foundations hinging on what type of education is being taught—and what “World View” the culture is adopting. “Education is not learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think.”
We find today—the children being dumb down and hence adults not having the ability to think which is bad—–and worse there is no fear of God taught. The boldness of the free man in carrying out his duties will hinge on his ability to think and more importantly to have been taught to think thoughts after God and His Law as put forth in the Scriptures—–knowing—-righteousness from evil and walking in the “Fear of the Lord”. That fear and that teaching is gone!

But let us see what Dabney has to say regarding Civil Ethic’s in this particular article.

“What is the moral ground of my obligation to obey the magistrate, whom yesterday, before he was inducted into office, I would have scorned to recognize as my master, to whom today I must bow in obedience?”

I can not but think there is little scorn coming from the citizen for the politician of today because there is little in the way of deep thought regarding the seriousness of today’s problems or what this person (politician) might represent—and that is—–the worse kind of evil—No Fear of God. The ability of the citizen to understand the magnitude of the problem is well short of that ability to raise the intensity of concern within the individual and against what is happening with the culture and country. There is no understanding by the people and I dare say—– there is no God nor the Fear of HIM—–that fear within the culture is nowhere to be found.

Dabney goes on to tell us why we must listen and obey the now installed magistrate:

“The first answer is that I am bound to obey him solely because I have consented to do so.”

He lists the intellects in history that developed the social contract theory—–Thomas Hobbes, of Malmesbury, John Locke, and, introduced to the French by Rousseau’s famous book, Le Contrat Social, became the ruling philosophy of the French Jacobins—–all man made and lawless, outside of God.

“The second theory may be called theistic, tracing civic obligation to the will and ordinance of God our Creator. It answers that we are bound to obey the civil magistrate, because God, who has the right as creator and sovereign, commands it.”

Under this compact all rights come from God and the Scriptures——having all peoples fall under God’s Law and what is said to be His authority over mankind as their creator—that includes the magistrate and government. I will not go any further in bringing Dabney and his thoughts into this article—–he does go on in his discussion—-getting deep into a philosophical discussion of the rights and wrongs of the positions. I wish to state simply you will have God’s Law with the fear of HIM or you will have Man’s law and some kind of fear of man “might makes right” or the bigger stick leads and has the charge. We see this type of fear of man coming more and more into the dictate of today’s politics——with punishment being handed out—–to punish political action which is not in agreement with the Political Correct thinking of the “Progressive”. There is no challenging of what is being done by any (PC) politician—-God’s Law and what the Scriptures teaches is being swept aside in total disregard for the past beliefs and culture—and Heathenism of Secular Humanism is taking the place of the Founding Fathers Christianity.

We continue to argue a situation or issue from man’s positioning—using man law—with no concern for the righteous position that is within God’s Law. And until God’s Law comes fully into the picture as the final authority we will have more and more chaos until panic and destruction of the culture is full blown—-with the collapse of that culture—as Man’s law fails—–and God withdraws HIS mercy, with the church failing miserably.

Let me close ——R. L. Dabney (1820-1898) said in his last written book “The Practical Philosophy” (1897):
“You may deem it a strange prophecy, but I predict that the time will come in this once free America when the battle for religious liberty will have to be fought over again, and will probably be lost, because the people are already ignorant of its true basis and conditions.” Page 394

We Shall See—don’t you think????

Randy

Older Posts »