What does it mean to be a "Christian nation"? Is a "Christian nation" one of Law and Order, or of Chaos and Anarchy? Why is the Declaration of Independence so important as to be repeated in posts 2987, 3411, 3656, 4332, 4466, and more? Does it give the power to turn the nation "Christian"? Is it even to the benefit of the people to legislate morality, or do such laws simply spell out the language of sophistry?
As this battle is a battle of principalities and powers, of rules and claims to rulership, we must correctly define Law and Order in the context of Civil and Moral rulers. Therefore in this post, we will use Scripture to confirm the definitions of civility and morality. If anyone wants, I have also prepared two comments that show how the Constitution plainly affirms the Scriptural definition of religious right, and in learning so you will have the tools required to navigate the dangerous waters of a "National Sabbath" in order to avoid being caught in the storm called "Christian Nationalism".
Civility and Morality
Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? Matthew 22:15-17
A group of Pharisees, representing the religious leaders at the time, united with a group of Herodians, representing the civil leaders at the time, and the two took counsel in how they may entrap God. The fruit of their effort was to set a snare in the form of a question regarding law, thinking that there were only two possible answers. Now if tribute was plainly declared as being due unto Caesar, who at the time was "Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus" (or “Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus, Augustus”), it would amount to the recognition of Caesarean worship and thus break the religious law of the Pharisees, but if tribute was plainly denied from Caesar, it would amount to the rejection of Caesarean rule and thus break the civil law of the Herodians.
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matthew 22:18-21
But in these words, Christ established a clear distinction between Caesar and God,-between that which is Caesar's and that which is God's; that is, between the civil and the religious power, and between what we owe to the civil power and what we owe to the religious power. To say that we are to render to Caesar that which is God's, or that we are to render to God, by Caesar, that which is God's, is to pervert the words of Christ, and make them meaningless. Such an interpretation that serves only to conflate civility and morality would be but to entangle Jesus in His talk,-the very thing that the Pharisees sought to do. And if they thought to trick Jesus in this way, so too will they repeat this in these days (Matthew 10:24-25, John 15:20).
Now religion and religious duties pertain solely to God; and as that which is God's is to be rendered to him and not to Caesar, it follows inevitably that, according to the words of Christ, civil government can never of right have anything to do with religion,-with a man's personal relation of faith and obedience to God.
Morality and moral duty is the conformity of action to the divine law, and thus it is plain that morality also pertains solely to God, and with that, civil government can have nothing to do. Morality is outside of the purview of man. To even think to legislate morality is to place yourself in a position of godhood, just as the Caesars once did, and just as the Pontifex Maximi of Rome continue to do.
Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:21-22
Being angry begins in the heart and mind; being angry without a cause is a breach of morality. This transgression then requires inquiry into the inner domain of man. However, no man has either the ability or the right to investigate the heart and mind of another man. The investigation of such is called inquisition.
As obedience to the moral law is morality, and as morality pertains to the thoughts and the intents of the heart, by the very nature of the case, morality lies beyond the reach or control of the civil power. To hate, is murder; to covet, is idolatry (Colossians 3:5); to think impurely of a woman, is adultery (Matthew 5:27-28);-these are all equally immoral, and violations of the moral law, but no civil government seeks to punish for them. A man may hate his neighbor all his life; he may covet everything on earth; he may think impurely of every woman that he sees,-he may keep it up all his days; but so long as these things are confined to his thought, the civil power cannot touch him. It would be difficult to conceive of a more immoral person than such a man would be; yet the State cannot punish him. It does not attempt to punish him. With morality or immorality, the State can have nothing to do.
But let us carry this further: only let that man's hatred lead him to attempt an injury to his neighbor, and the State will punish him; only let his covetousness lead him to lay hands on what is not his own, in an attempt to steal, and the State will punish him; only let his impure thought lead him to attempt violence to any woman, and the State will punish him. Yet bear in mind that even then the State does not punish him for his immorality, but for his incivility.
Now immorality lies in the heart, “for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:” Matthew 15:19. Thus immorality can be measured by God only, “hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;)”. 1 Kings 8:39. The State punishes no man because he is immoral. If it did, it would have to punish as a murderer the man who hates another, because, according to the true standard of morality, hatred is murder. Therefore it is clear that in fact the State punishes no man because he is immoral, but because he is uncivil. It cannot punish immorality; it must punish incivility.
By all these things it is made clear that we owe to Caesar (civil government) only that which is civil, and that we owe to God that which is moral or religious. Other definitions show the same thing. For instance, sin as defined by Webster is “any violation of God's will;” and as defined by the Scriptures, “is the transgression of the law.” That the law here referred to is the moral law-the ten commandments-is shown by Romans 7:7:- “I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Thus the Scriptures show that sin is a transgression of the law which says, “Thou shalt not covet,” and that is the moral law. But crime is an offense against the law of the State and is thus wholly the affair of the State. The civil statutes are what define crime, and deal with crime, but have no bearing on sin; the divine statutes are what define sin, and deal with sin, but have no bearing on crime.
The Promotion and Punishment of Morality
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:4-5
The word for “die” is “mûṯ”, which in this context means “to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)”. Therefore to put morality in the hands of man is to do the work of the devil. It is to declare man “as gods, knowing good and evil”. It is to make the statement that man are immortal beings who can never die, for theirs is the authorship of “wise moral conduct”.
As God is the only moral governor, as His is the only moral government, as His law is the only moral law, and as it pertains to Him alone to punish immorality, so likewise the promotion of morality pertains to Him alone. But obedience to God must spring from the heart (1 John 3:21-22) in sincerity and truth (Joshua 24:14). This it must do as a free-will offering of choice, as love demands choice, or it becomes of force and not of obedience; for, as we have proved by the word of God,the law of God takes cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20
It is God alone who knocks at the door of the heart, but it is the decision of man alone as to whether they will choose to accept His invitation.
But herein is the current situation of man: “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” By transgression, all men have made themselves immoral. “Therefore by the deeds of the law [by obedience] there shall no flesh be justified [accounted righteous, made moral] in his sight.” Romans 3:20. As all men have, by transgression of the law of God, made themselves immoral, therefore no man can, by obedience to the law, become moral, because it is that very law which declares him to be immoral (Galatians 2:16). The demands, therefore, of the moral law, must be satisfied before he can ever be accepted as moral by either the law or its Author. But the demands of the moral law can never be satisfied by an immoral person; and this is just what every person has made himself by transgression. Therefore it is certain that men can never become moral by the moral law.
From this it is equally certain that if ever man shall be made moral, it must be by the Author and Source of all morality. And this is just the provision which God has made. For “now the righteousness [the morality] of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness [the morality] of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference; for all have sinned [made themselves immoral], and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:21-23. It is by the morality of Christ alone that man can be made moral. And this morality of Christ is the morality of God, which is imputed to us for Christ's sake; and we receive it by faith in Him who is both the author and finisher of faith; and there is no other in this world.
What a "Moral Government" Entails
But it may be asked, Does not the civil power enforce the observance of the commandments of God, which say, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, and, Thou shalt not bear false witness? Does not the civil power punish the violation of these commandments of God?
Answer:-
The civil power does not enforce these, nor does it punish the violation of them, as commandments of God. The State does forbid murder and theft and perjury, and some States forbid adultery, but not as commandments of God. From time immemorial, governments that knew nothing about God, have forbidden these things.
If the civil power attempted to enforce these as the commandments of God, it would have to punish as a murderer the man who hates another; it would have to punish as an adulterer the person who thinks impurely; because these things are violations of the commandments of God.
But such an effort would be an attempt to punish sin, because transgression of the law of God is sin; but sins will be forgiven upon the repentance of a contrite heart, and God does not punish the sinner for the violation of His law when his sins are forgiven. If the civil power undertakes to enforce the observance of the law of God, it cannot justly enforce that law upon the transgressor whom God has forgiven. Suppose a man steals, is arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty, but then repents with a broken and contrite heart and is thus forgiven by the Lord. Now he is counted by the Lord as though he had never sinned; the commandment of God does not stand against him for that transgression. And as it is the law of God that the civil law started out to enforce, the civil power also must forgive him, count him innocent, and let him go free. It can be seen at once that any such system would be utterly destructive of civil government; and this only demonstrates conclusively that **no civil government can ever of right have anything to do with the enforcement of the commandments of God as such, or with making the Bible its code of laws.** Any claim to legislate morality thus requires a new morality that is separate from God, and is thus only anarchy indeed.
Only the government of God can be sustained by the forgiveness of the sinner to the uttermost, because by the sacrifice of Christ He has made provision “to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him; seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them;” but in civil government, if a man steals, or commits any other crime, and is apprehended and found guilty, it has nothing to do with the case if the Lord does forgive him; he must be punished. Thus the civil government can never operate under the Christian identity of “Simul justus et peccator”, of being simultaneously just and sinner. It can never both justify man by the faith of Jesus, and sanctify man by the grace of God, for these operations belong wholly to God.
Let us end here with George Bancroft, “founder of American history”, on this principle as embodied in the words of Christ and in the American Constitution:-
Vindicating the right of individuality even in religion, and in religion above all, the new nation dared to set the example of accepting in its relations to God the principle first divinely ordained of God in Judea. It left the management of temporal things to the temporal power; but the American Constitution, in harmony with the people of the several States, withheld from the Federal Government the power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the sanctuary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that the infinite Spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom and purity and power.
We are letting ourselves fall into the same trap that Pharisees tried to entrap Jesus into, to which Jesus gave such a brilliant answer. The answer was not a dictum to be generalised into "A government cannot enforce morality" - neither literally nor in spirit.
Literally: "Give unto ceasar what is ceasars and unto God what is God's" only tells what we as people owe to the Government and the God respecively but does not say anything about what the Government can and cannot expect from the people.
In Spirit: Jesus did not give this as part of a sermon to teach us how to live. He gave this answer as a brilliant solution to a conundrum placed in front of him purely to prove him wrong. Pharisees had been doing this forever, twisting the literal words ignoring the spirit of the words and misleading people down the wrong path. This is one of the biggest problems of that time. That is why Jesus himself, in his teachings, always used simple to understand words and concepts as much as possible and where not possible, used anecdotes that he also carefully explained.
The other part of the question is the reason why declaration of independance is SO important. It establishes the authority under which the United States of America was being created as a sovereign nation. It was not based on man made rules or customs, but based on God given rights.
USA was created as a Christian nation, and there was a covenant with God during its creation, and it prospered as long as people held up to that covenant, and we have allowed the enemy to take control slowly as people started letting that covenant go.
Trump is reestablishing those founding principles, but more importantly, the last 8 years has shown us why we as a society can never prosper if we dont follow the path put forth by the God.
Its not about God punishing us for our sin, but rather, when people live in the sin, naturally their state of life starts deteriorating and recognising that is the reason why so many people are finding Jesus again.
🙏🌄💚🌎
What an awesome response to an already fantastic post! God bless both of you, for your research and sight. Very cool. 😁
Oh and they allow Muslims lol!
What you seem to define sounds more like a Sanhedrin.
Article VI of the national Constitution:-
By an amendment making more certain the adoption of the principle, it declares in the first amendment to the Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This first amendment was adopted in 1789 by the first Congress that ever met under the Constitution.
In 1796 a treaty was made with Tripoli, in which it was declared (Article II) that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” This treaty was signed by an ex-Congregationalist clergyman, and was signed by President Washington. It was not out of disrespect to religion or Christianity that these clauses were placed in the Constitution, and that this one was inserted in that treaty. On the contrary, it was entirely on account of their respect for religion, and the Christian religion in particular, as being beyond the province of civil government, pertaining solely to the conscience, and resting entirely between the individual and God.
The Declaration of Independence
Eternal life depends upon the personal decision to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and the man who surrenders his right to believe, surrenders eternal life. Says the Scripture, “With the mind I myself serve the law of God.” A man who surrenders his right to believe surrenders God. A "Christian Nation" can only serve to force belief, of which the USA was never intended to be.
Consequently, no man, no association or organization of men, can ever rightly ask of any man a surrender of his right to believe. Every man has the right, so far as organizations of men are concerned, to believe as he pleases; and that right, so long as he still considers himself a man, he never can surrender, and he never will. To do so would be to surely die.
The Declaration of Independence, therefore, announces the perfect principle of civil government. And to the extent to which this principle is exemplified among the people, to the extent to which the individual governs himself, just to that extent and no further will prevail the true idea of both the Declaration, and the republic which it created. Such is the first grand idea of the American Revolution. And it is too the scriptural idea, even the idea of God.
In declaring the right of the people, in the event named, to alter or abolish the government which they have, and institute a new one on such principles and in such form as to them seems best; there is likewise declared not only the complete subordination, but also the absolute impersonality, of government. In thus declaring the impersonality of government, there is wholly uprooted every vestige of any character of paternity in the government.
Spoken by James Otis, a man whose work established the legal framework for American independence, a man who phrased “no taxation without representation” and who was called the “child of independence” by John Adams, is the following:-
The Constitution
The Constitution, under commercial pressures, was originally drafted to ensure that the inalienable rights of man, as declared in the Declaration of Independence, were properly secured across the borders of land and of sea. Therefore as society was to be enlarged, the United States was formed as the people’s choice of government.
But the Constitution was not signed without its concerns. Gouver Òeur Morris, a signatory to the Constitution, remarked:-
If the Constitution is upheld as it is written, then there will remain a national government, but once the state thinks to legislate morality, then the government becomes absent of its nationality, which then devolves it into a system of anarchy.
James Wilson, one of only six who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, said:-
As by the adoption of the Constitution they would “become a nation;” as with the Constitution there would be a nation, while without it there would be none; it is made perfectly clear that the nation is that order of government, that system, that organization, that power, which is defined in the Constitution of the United States. The American people do not half appreciate the value of the Constitution under which they live. The Constitution, as it was made, gives to Caesar all his due, and leaves men free, if they so choose, to render to God all that He, in His holy word, requires of them.
The Bill of Rights
In the Virginia Convention for the drafting of the Constitution, objection was made that the Constitution did not fully enough secure religious right, to which Madison, “the Father of the Constitution,” answered:-
But the people of the United States were not satisfied with this clear evidence of intention to exclude religion from the notice of the national power; they demanded positive provisions which should, in so many words, prohibit the government of the United States from touching religion. They required that there should be added to the Constitution, articles of the nature of a Bill of Rights; and that religious right should in this be specifically declared.
The very first of these provisions stands the declaration of the freedom of religious right under the United States Government. Thus it reads:-
Thus the people of the United States, in their own capacity as such, made the supreme law of the land positively and explicitly to first declare the total exclusion of religion from any consideration whatever on the part of the national government. If the very first pillar of the Bill of Rights were to fall, then the entire Constitution, even the entirety of the nation, would collapse into anarchy just as Gouver Òeur Morris had rightfully feared.
The tenth of the ten amendments that were passed in regular course through the first Congress that ever met under the Constitution, declares as follows:-
The nation only retains those powers as granted to it by the Constitution. Anything and everything not explicitly detailed in the Constitution is a power held by the State still bound by the Declaration of Independence, then ultimately by the people.
The ninth amendment declares that-
The Constitution is to be interpreted as it stands, and without contradiction. As the ninth amendment boldly declares that the people have not delegated all of their rights, the people retain the rights which the Constitution may not touch on, namely being religious right. The authority of the Constitution is then limited to that which it is given, and therefore ultimately made subject to that which gave, being “we the people”.
As governments derive their just powers from the governed; as governments cannot justly exercise any power not delegated; and as it is impossible for any person in any way to delegate any power in things religious; it follows conclusively that the Declaration of Independence logically excludes religion in every sense and in every way from the jurisdiction and from the notice of every form of government that has resulted from that Declaration. This is scriptural, too.
No government can ever account to God for any individual. No man nor any set of men can ever have faith for another. No government will ever stand before the judgment seat of Christ to answer even for itself, much less for the people or for any individual. Therefore, no government can ever of right assume any responsibility in any way in any matter of religion. Such is the logic of the Declaration, of the Constitution, and of the Bill of Rights, as well as it is the truth of Holy Writ. To claim otherwise is to claim to be of a different creation, and thus to have a different creator, which is expressedly against the Holy Writ that speaks of “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Ephesians 4:5-6.
Your entire argument is about proving that no government should force a person to change their belief.
However, thats is a strawman argument, since I never claimed that a government is allowed to force people to change their belief.
My comment is about the authority under which USA was founded as a sovereign nation. And just to make the point explicitly clear: In as far as the USA derives its sovereignty from the God's law, specifically based on the Christian beliefs we can indeed call it a Christian nation. However being a Christian nation does not mean, the nation was only for Christians, nor that all citizens are expected to convert to Christianity.
As for the day of prayer - its done in the same spirit as the founders did the declared a day of prayer Trump is doing the same today. Its not an imposition on any citizens, and people who don't believ in it, do not need to observe it.
Great post, thank you.
It's freemasonic which is not exclusively Christian. It might be more Jewish than anything.
https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/freemasons
Jewish names appear among the founders of Freemasonry in colonial America, and in fact it is probable that Jews were the first to introduce the movement into the country. Tradition connects Mordecai Campanall, of Newport, Rhode Island, with the supposed establishment of a lodge there in 1658. In Georgia four Jews appear to have been among the founders of the first lodge, organized in Savannah in 1734. Moses Michael Hays, identified with the introduction of the Scottish Rite into the United States, was appointed deputy inspector general of Masonry for North America in about 1768...
USA was a City of London project, just like Canada and Israel and China and USSR and many many other projects.
And as any CoL project, the real goal of the project was hidden from the people who felt like they were organically fighting for their own freedom. However, like all CoL projects, there were enough secret society members, the initiated, who had a higher level understanding of the real goal of the project (the goals are always layered) within this Founders.
The only difference between project USA and all the other projects is that, even within the fog they were being manipulated, they still managed to create a system that could withstand even their own short comings and thats what makes America so amazing.
And it wasn't whether the founding fathers who were all Christians that determined this outcome, but rather the fact that the people who flocked to USA with a dream in their mind were driven by their Christian beliefs. Thats what made America a Christian Nation.
I thought some of those guys were deists. Yeah:
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine are the most prominently identified deists among the Founding Fathers, often embracing a belief in a rational creator rather than traditional Christianity. Others often described as having deistic tendencies or being "Christian deists" include James Monroe, James Madison, and George Washington, who were influenced by Enlightenment
Some people just can't participate in the equivalent of a National Day of Prayer and Rest (Sabbath) without sending up a self-important laborious Jeremiah-ed like this.
Get off the perfection spiral. Our Founders would never recognize the applications of Scripture and law as have been implied here.
Shortly after signing the Declaration of Independence, the following words were spoken to the General Assembly of Virginia:-
Study the history of Spain before and after the inquisition to see one of the most extreme, yet guaranteed, examples of such a retardation of progress when civility and morality become conflated. It is of no small significance that
At this same time in 1779, Thomas Jefferson anonymously prepared an adoption as part of the Revised Code of Virginia, “An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,” which began as follows:-
George Washington, being asked his opinion on the question of government-sponsored religion as it stood in the contest, answered that “no man's sentiments were more opposed to any kind of restraint upon religious principles” than were his, and further said:-
James Madison, the primary author who is considered to be the "Founder of the Constitution", declared against government-sponsored religion:-
The full response of Madison, which “embodied all that could be said” on the topic, is worthy of careful consideration and reading. It plainly outlines the religious liberty that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, were all written to establish and ensure. Without such liberty, all that is left is anarchy.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html
Now the sole reference to religion in the Constitution as formed by the convention, and submitted to the people, is in the declaration that-
The national government being one of delegated powers only, no mention whatever of religion, nor any reference to the subject, in the Constitution, would have totally excluded that subject from the cognizance of the government. And this sole mention that was made of it, was a clear and positive evidence that the makers of the Constitution intended to exclude the subject of religion from the notice of the national power.
"The applications of Scripture and law as have been implied here" is exactly what the founders of America and the United States nation did.
In reason and the Holy Scriptures, religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and therefore no man or men can impose any religious legislation without invading the essential prerogative of the Lord Jesus Christ. Ministers first assumed such power under the Christian name; and then Constantine approved of the practice when he adopted the profession of Christianity as an engine of State policy. And let the history of all nations be searched from that day to this, and it will appear that the imposing of religious tests has been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world. This tyranny, this anarchy, is what the founders explicitly sought to stifle.
I think OP is missing the bigger picture and is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Stopping one’s daily routine for just 24 hours to acknowledge the greatness of God isn’t out of line with the American experience. We have a national day of prayer every year and I don’t recall any president calling on any other name than God (no Muhammad) when addressing that prayer. Calling it the Sabbath is a recognition of what Christian’s have long called a day of rest. Some of us are old enough to remember when NO BUSINESSES were open on Sunday.