What is the origin of this thing Mr. Gerson calls ‘respecting the priority of conscience’? Did it come from the secularists? What about the belief in Natural Law that the American Founders (including Jefferson) appealed to as authoritative and self-evident in the Declaration? Did that also come from the secularists?

This doctrine was the consensus of colonial American Christians. From paragraph 2 under the chapter on liberty of conscience...

‘God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.’

Representative government was the natural outgrowth of elder rule church government practiced in the reformed churches. The elders were recognized by the churches as qualified according to the Scriptures. Their demeanor was one of willing servitude to the people of God. Their authority was recognized as delegated from Jesus Christ. The people were not serfs to be lorded over, but brethren of Christ ruled by Him under the authority of His word. The elders were ministers of that word.

Here is one of the references from the New Testament that is given in support of the doctrine of conscience...

‘Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand’ [Romans 14:4].

What was the result of this consensus?  Our premise is that liberty in America was associated with this doctrine being codified in law, including the concept of rule of law. But without the consensus there is no foundation for constitutionalism to stand. Today in American some men assume that liberty of conscience can be divorced from its origins in New Covenant Christianity. Our premise is that it cannot be maintained and in fact liberty is diminishing with the advent of secularism.

But even in the churches the new order of liberty wrought out by the work of Christ on the cross is more and more suppressed and exchanged for that which leads again to bondage…

Both the antinomian concepts of liberty and liberty as democracy have one thing in common. They both deny human depravity and elevate autonomous man; they suppress the knowledge of the self-revealed God and His Law. Both make man the measure of all things and both lead men toward tyranny. Secular and Biblical history are our witness.

There is no real or lasting liberty apart from spiritual liberty…

“If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free…if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. [John 8:31-36]

Political and civil liberty flow from a society of men set free from the ignorance of their own spiritual bondage. This is what is unique about the founding of America. New Covenant Christianity recognized the authorities of church and state ordained of God and for the first time they were established in their proper roles as a free state and a free church ruled by the authority of Jesus Christ through His law, governing the state and governing the church.

Today many conservatives start with the constitution and divorce it from its spiritual heritage. This heritage in Biblical Christianity is ignored or outright denied. But liberty derives it meaning from the New Covenant. We would do well to consider again the great liberty whereby the colonial and early Americans were made free…

‘CHRIST has purchased for all believers a liberty inherent in the gospel. It comprises freedom from the guilt of sin, from the condemnation that follows upon guilt, from the wrath of God, and from the severity and curse of God's law. It also includes deliverance from this present evil world, and from all such things as bondage to Satan, sin's domination, the hurtfulness of afflictions, the fear and sting of death, the victory of the grave, and eternal damnation. Furthermore, it includes free access to God and the yielding of obedience to Him, not as it were with the fear of a slave for his master, but with a childlike love and readiness.’

‘All these blessings were more or less enjoyed by believers in Old Testament days, but under New Testament conditions Christian liberty becomes more extensive. It includes freedom from the burdens imposed by the ceremonial law to which the Jewish church was subjected, greater boldness in approaching to the throne of grace, and a larger measure of the free Spirit of God than was normally granted to saints in the pre-Christian era.’ [1689 Reformed Baptist Confession]

 

 
‘God made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being…’ [Acts 17:26-28].

The command to Noah and his sons after the flood was to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” [Genesis 9:1]. The divine method used to accomplish this among the unbelieving was the confusion of tongues given in Genesis 11…

‘Its name is called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth’ [Genesis 11:9].

We learn from the divine history that the tendency of men is to centralize and for the good of man he should be decentralized into nations. To accomplish His purpose the LORD used the means of confusion of tongues. Different language brought division and separation of peoples into nations.

In Daniel’s prophecy there would be 4 world empires before the coming of the kingdom of Messiah. ‘And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom... His dominion is an everlasting dominion and his kingdom is from generation to generation’ [Daniel 2:44 & 4:34].

In Messiah the nations will hope for He has promised to redeem a multitude that no man can number from every tongue and nation [Revelation 5:9]. In Messiah’s kingdom, visible in His churches where His authority is recognized there is peace among the nations because His kingdom knows no boundaries and in Him all the walls of separation are torn down. There is no peace apart from Messiah because He alone has power to put to death our enmity towards God and one another.

The idea "that you may be terrified" is no reason to "abandon the principles of a lifetime." –Christopher Hitchens

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelGerson/2010/10/14/christopher_hitchens/

‘…it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment…’ [Hebrews 9:27]

Why do the darwinites have what they might call an irrational fear of death? Darwin is silent at funerals because he offers no hope for the dead or the dieing. His dogma is contrary to reality. All men know that God exists through what He has made. The heavens and the earth declare His glory so that all men who suppress the knowledge of God are without excuse. Men are fearful because they know that every man will give account. In that day the words of Psalm 1 will be fulfilled…

Cursed is the man
         Who walks in the counsel of the ungodly,
         And stands in the path of sinners,
         And sits in the seat of the scornful;
 For his delight is not in the law of the LORD…

 The LORD knows the way of the righteous,
         But the way of the ungodly shall perish.

The power of death and the fear of death that holds men in bondage has been broken through the gospel. This is why the words of the Redeemer are the only words that can comfort in times of death…

‘Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted' [Hebrews 2].

 

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2010/10/10/can_obama_save_us_from_bad_government/

Mr. Hill makes an excellent point about the proper roles of church and state. As the state becomes lawless it begins to oppose the authority of natural law. Rather than promoting life, liberty and private property ownership the authoritarians lord it over the people. The attitude of stewardship in service for the public good is foreign to them.

Let’s go even more basic than his statement that “private citizens…led the charge on correcting…American injustices”.  Is this not always the case? Look at the people who colonized America. They were fleeing from the injustice of institutionalized state/church religious persecution. Today we have the same thing only the religion is secularism.

Rather than promoting life they promote the irresponsible practice of abortion. They like to call it ‘pro-choice’ when a life in the womb is terminated as a method of birth control. They use the extreme cases of rape and incest to define their policy and then label the ‘pro-lifers’ as extreme.

‘Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it’ [Colossians 2].

 

 

This unified philosophy of history which sees the whole diversity of processes and events that take place in God’s world as no more, and no less, than the outworking of His great preordained plan for His creatures and His church is what we call the Reformed World View. The Doctrines of Grace assert no more than that God is sovereign in saving the individual, but Calvinism, as such, is concerned with the much broader assertion that the self-revealed God is sovereign everywhere.  

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2010/10/03/thorns_and_thistles/

Mr. Olasky is right that we cannot reverse the curse. Part of the curse is that autonomous man rejects the biblical doctrine of sin and its effects and thinks that he can be perfected through human effort alone. The other part is rejecting the gracious provision given by God to deal with man’s sin problem. When the curse was pronounced, the provision was introduced in these words of God to the serpent…

      “I will put enmity
      Between you and the woman,
      And between your seed and her Seed;
      He shall bruise your head,
      And you shall bruise His heel” [Genesis 3:15].

The prophet Isaiah speaks of the Seed of the woman who would be bruised for the sons of Adam…

      ‘He is despised and rejected by men,
      A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief…
      
      He was wounded for our transgressions,
      He was bruised for our iniquities;
      The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
      And by His stripes we are healed’ [Isaiah 53:3-5].

First, it should be noted that the “five points of Calvinism” are the answer given by the Reformed churches to a five-point manifesto put out by the “semi-Pelagians” in the early seventeenth century. The theology which it contained is known as Arminianism and stems from two philosophical principles:

1. Divine sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom, nor therefore with human responsibility
2. Ability limits obligation.

The charge of semi-Pelagianism is fully justified. From these principles, the Arminians drew two deductions:

1. Since the Bible regards faith as a free and responsible human act, it cannot be caused by God, but is exercised independently of Him
2. Since the Bible regards faith as obligatory on the part of all who hear the gospel, ability to believe must be universal.

Hence, they maintained that Scripture must be interpreted as teaching the following positions:

1. Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him.

2. Man is ever so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it.

3. God’s election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe.

4. Christ’s death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone; what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.

5. It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost.

Thus, Arminianism made man’s salvation depend ultimately on man himself, saving faith was not the gift of God [Ephesians 2:8], but viewed as man’s own work and not the work of God in him ‘to will and to do according to His good pleasure’ [Philippians 2:13].

The Reformed churches responded with what are called the Doctrines of Grace. They stem from a very different principle that “salvation is of the Lord” [Jonah 2:9]. They may be summarized thus:

1. Fallen man in his natural state lacks all power to believe the gospel, just as he lacks all power to believe the law, despite all external inducements that may be extended to him.

2. God’s election is a free, sovereign, unconditional choice of sinners, as sinners, to be redeemed by Christ, given faith and brought to glory.

3. The redeeming work of Christ had as its end and goal the salvation of the elect.

4. The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing men to faith never fails to achieve its object.

5. Believers are kept in faith and grace by the unconquerable power of God till they come to glory.

These five points are conveniently denoted by the mnemonic TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Preservation of the saints.

Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them.

The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it. Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the Doctrines of Grace as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.

Autonomy has entered the church in the doctrines of Arminianism and with it the world view that came to light in Christ’s New Covenant Church and was reborn at the Reformation has been lost again.

[edited from J I Packer’s Essay on Death of Death in the Death of Christ]http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer_intro.html

‘I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry’ [2 Timothy 4].

“And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears” [Acts 20].

In these two passages the church is warned against unfaithful people and unfaithful ministers. Unfaithful in the context of the doctrine of Christ handed down to us by His Apostles and eyewitnesses. What has happened to Protestantism since the Reformation and Great Awakening?

Has it not bartered the gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing? The substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel proved itself so mighty. The new gospel fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? The reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do. One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is overly concerned with being “helpful” to man—to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction—and too little concerned with the glory God. The old gospel was “helpful,” but incidentally, for its first concern was always faithfulness to the doctrine. It was a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its center of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new gospel the center of reference is man.

The chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.

From this change of interest has sprung a change of content, for the new gospel has in effect reformulated the biblical message in the supposed interests of “helpfulness.” Accordingly, the themes of man’s natural inability to believe, of God’s free election being the ultimate cause of salvation, and of Christ dying specifically for His sheep, are not preached. These doctrines are said to be “unhelpful”; they would drive sinners to despair, by suggesting to them that it is not in their own power to be saved through Christ. The possibility that such despair might be salutary is not considered; it is taken for granted that it cannot be, because it is so shattering to our self-esteem.

We appeal to men as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time; we speak of His redeeming work as if He had done no more by dying than make it possible for us to save ourselves by believing; we speak of God’s love as if it were no more than a general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust; and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignly active in drawing sinners to themselves, but as waiting in quiet impotence “at the door of our hearts” for us to let them in.

It is undeniable that this is how we preach; perhaps this is what we really believe. But it needs to be said with emphasis that this set of twisted half-truths is something other than the biblical gospel. The Bible is against us when we preach in this way; and the fact that such preaching has become almost standard practice among us only shows how urgent it is that we should review this matter. To recover the old, authentic, biblical gospel, and to bring our preaching and practice back into line with it, is our most pressing need. The people of God need sound doctrine in order to be salt and light in a dying culture where church and state have suppressed the truth.

[from Packer’s Introductory Essay on Death Of Death, edited]

‘The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?’ [Jeremiah 17:9-10]

Jeremiah answers the question…

The LORD [searches] the heart…even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.

Men will show their disapproval of this doctrine by confirming their depravity. They are in a desperate condition in the world without God, lost and without hope. No matter the evidence, they cling to the false hope that man is good at heart and that his goodness will be evident under the proper environments and education. Their doctrine of man is the autonomous perfectibility of man.

’Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life’ [Proverbs 4:23].

“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” [Mark 7:21-23]

There is nothing inherently evil in what God has made, but men would rather believe a lie. Evil proceeds from the sinful heart of man inherited from our father Adam. Like the father of lies, Adam fell from his state of open communion with God. Since then man has tried to regain what was lost under his own means and merits. But even from the curse of sin God provided a covering for sin by the shedding of blood. This was the testimony of Able and why his brother hated him. The two brothers represented the two streams of mankind: the children of wrath and the children of promise.

“ The stone which the builders rejected
   Has become the chief cornerstone” [Psalm 118:22]

The context is the Jewish rejection of Messiah. The kingdom of God was taken from them and given to a nation bearing the expected fruits. Peter is very bold in his identification of this new nation. He applies the promises given to Israel to the New Covenant Church, a holy nation of kings and priests to their God. [1 Peter 2:9-10]

In the New Covenant all things are new. There is no longer a Mosaic theocracy, but a free church and free state under the authority of Christ. This was realized in America under the world view of our founders. Our constitution instituted limited government with many checks and balances on the power of men as an affirmation of the depravity of man. The system of justice was established on the foundation of Biblical Law.

Thank you Mr. Diaz, that is exactly the issue. The words ‘Creator’, ‘Natural Law’ and ‘Nature’s God’ used by the American Founders in the Declaration of Independence are descriptive of their world view. They were separating themselves from the humanism of the so called Enlightenment that led to the French Revolution, resulting in anarchy and authoritarianism.

The colonial Americans had a heritage rich in Biblical Theology. They were not so arrogant to think that man was the measure of all things, but rather a creature made in the image of God. They rejected the autonomous wisdom of fallen men in favor of the eternal wisdom of the Creator of all things. They believed that God had revealed Himself not only in natural revelation but in the Scriptures of Old and New Testaments and that He did this for the good of His image bearers to reveal to them what they could not otherwise know. Namely, that the good creation was cursed because of man’s rebellion in sin, that in Adam all men are fallen under the curse of sin, that redemption is only found at the cross where the just died for the unjust and where righteousness is imputed to the guilty according to the Law and the Gospel.

The implications of this truth are many. They resulted in the concept of covenant agreements among men under rule of law based on the equity of Biblical Law. They gave us the revolutionary idea of a free church and a free state. This we now call constitutionalism. Our Constitution is where the history of redemption and the history of liberty are met. To attempt to divorce our Constitution from the world view that produced it is a complete folly and nonsense.

But this is exactly what our President and many Americans today try to do. Why do men deny our theological heritage? We will look at these three causes…

1. Jesus Christ and His cross are an offense to men…the stone of stumbling has become the chief corner stone.

2. Biblical Christianity is an offense to the apostate church…they will not walk in the old paths.

3. Vain philosophy has overcome reason…they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

 

They often read from Isaiah the prophet of the promise to the ‘offspring of Abraham’…

      But you…the descendants of Abraham My friend,
      You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,
      And called from its farthest regions,
      And said to you,

      ‘ You are My servant,
      I have chosen you and have not cast you away:
      Fear not, for I am with you;
      Be not dismayed, for I am your God.
      I will strengthen you,
      Yes, I will help you,
      I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.’ [Isaiah 41:8-10]

In context they rightly saw themselves as part of the New Covenant church and therefore the spiritual sons of Abraham and heirs according to the promises [Galatians 3:28-29].

Their belief in a sovereign and good God enabled them to persevere through the hardships of their first winter in New England. In the spring the English speaking Indian named Squanto came to their aid. Bradford considered him a gift from Heaven. The Pilgrims and Indians agreed to a treaty of peace and mutual assistance as follows…

1. That neither he nor any of his should injure or hurt any of their people.
2. That if any of his did hurt any of theirs, he should send the offender, that they might punish him.
3. That if anything were taken away from any of theirs, he should cause it to be restored, and they should do like to his.
4. If any did unjustly war against him, they would aid him; if any did war against them, he should aid them…

And what does it say of the accusers that define Christianity by the sins of the Christians? They do not know the depth of their own corruption nor the necessity of grace to overcome their own depravity. But as for us, we will praise God for His work in America among His people. The Law and the Gospel have gone forth and the kingdom of God has advanced and is advancing because the grace of God has come near. Christ has magnified His word among us [Psalm 138:1-3].

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/VictorDavisHanson/2010/09/23/a_nation_of_peasants

Why do men deny their heritage? Why is the contrast between the French and American Revolutions not more apparent to more men? Why do men look for ways to deny our Reformation heritage?

Free men are not autonomous, but bound together under a covenant of law based in the moral Law of the self-reveal God. For the law to be king it must be referenced to the personal and infinite God of creation. Any reading of the founding fathers will reveal these things. Their writings are not hidden from those who want to know.

The finite gods of the Greeks were not a sufficient foundation. The French proved that autonomous reason is also an insufficient base. The Americans appealed to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, which is the law of conscience that testifies that men are image bearers of God. This is what gives men worth and entitles him to liberty and self-determination.

And finally the testimony given to all men in the creation is so clear that men are without excuse who choose to suppress it. They bring upon themselves the same wrath that has destroyed the cultures that have gone before us who rejected their heritage in Biblical Theology.

Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2010/09/20/realism,_not_ideology,_driving_tea_partiers

What is more self-evident than the truth that a man’s labor is his property; he is the only one entitled to the fruits of his labor. This is a fundamental right under natural law because it is rooted in the moral Law that prohibits thief. The magistrate that advocates the lawlessness of thief and class envy to empower himself is not fit to have authority over a free people.

It is the right and duty of free people to rise up and remove the tyrants from authority and elect new magistrates that rule with the consent of the governed according to the natural law. This is founding principle of America. The only ideologues here are the career politicians who are more interested in their power than the interest of the people.