Herb Titus wrote _The Constitution of the United States A
Christian Document_. He defends this point well in chapter two
where he discusses the Subscription Clause. However, in chapter
three, Mr. Titus falters. He fails to recognize the difference
between a religious oath either affirming or denying one's
personal belief, which I too believe is anti-Biblical but more
about that later, from a religious oath binding one's political
duty to righteousness. What I mean by this is that a politician
is duty bound to not lie, be honest, don't steal, obey the law,
etc. For example, the U.S. Constitution in amendment 10
prohibits Congress from anything not mentioned within the
Constitution. Thus, when Congress legislates in those prohibited
areas it is stealing authority from either a lower government or
the people. This *is* just as much a religious act as the
personal belief system upon which it is founded.

I don't work for a Christian company. There is no religious oath
I had to take as an employee. However, I had to agree to a code
of ethics. I had to agree that I would not steal intellectual
(or any other) property for example. This moral contractual
obligation I have with my secular company is still religious in
nature. There is a definition of theft, and private (corporate)
property. Some may think this example vindicates the
no-religious-oath test for a federal official. I think not. If
I and my company ever have a disagreement over this employment
contract it may result in the most formal of legal resolutions
called a civil lawsuit in which case the laws of the State of
Oklahoma are to apply. If it is appealed then perhaps the laws
of the United States would supersede Oklahoma law. The
U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Since elected
officials are not required to take a religious oath then the
definitions of property, theft, law, etc. are sitting in the seas
of human (post-modernism now) whim.

Herb quotes Thomas Jefferson "Well aware that Almighty God
created the mind free" civil rulers should not be required to
"profess or renounce this or that religious opinion". Herb also
quotes Oliver Ellsworth and Isaac Backus. All three of these men
knew God Himself as the source of liberty, but made the same
mistake Herb has done. By the no-oath-test clause the drafters
of our Constitution ruled out any other legal authority. It is
simply a we-the-people opinion. This is what the majority of
federal judges believe today.

Herb closes this section saying "the justification for religious
tests followed from the claim that the State had jurisdiction
over the affairs of the church. Once that jurisdiction was
denied to the State, then the purpose of religious tests could no
longer be sustained." This sounds good; a separation of civil
and ecclesiastical authority, but is it correct? Herb also
mentions that the majority of the oaths were not specific to the
denomination favored by the State. Many states had generic
religious oath tests. Why would an ecclesiastical oath be
generic? Herb goes on "the ban was dictated by Biblical law that
one's personal faith in God was not a legitimate object of civil
government, and hence, not to be defined or to be otherwise
governed by it." Ok then, why not an oath professing the
Divinity of both Old and New Testaments? Nope, not allowed.
Herb concludes this chapter with "The Constitution sought to
establish a Christian civil order, one in which the jurisdiction
and powers of the civil government would be limited in accordance
with the laws of God." The only response is that Herb's
conclusion is both illogical and incorrect.

Conference Concluding Remarks

One more suggestion in support of preterist view. Gary could
have read selections of one of the latter chapters in Hal
Lindsey's book _Vanished Into Thin Air_ where Hal unloads his
pessimistic view of the future. Then Gary could have painted a
verbal picture: imagine the futility in the hearts of Hal's
children and grandchildren listening to all this.

There is much more to discuss in eschatology. Perhaps a topic
such as "Revelation 20 - The millennium - Present or Future"
would be a good topic with the intent of exchanging more
information in the eschatology debate.

Gary DeMar closed the conference asking "Where Do We Go From
Here?". I would like to see more intra-Christian debates. Here
are some suggestions:

The U.S. Constitution - a Christian document

Herb Titus or Bill Federer - yes
Gary North or Dennis Woods - no


The Marriage Protection Amendment

Pro - James Dobson
Con - Herb Titus


1st amendment includes anti-discrimination
toward atheists

Pro - John Whitehead or Keith Fornier
Con - someone who believes USC is Christian?


Christian Theocracy - Is it good or bad?

Good - Gary DeMar? or someone who takes Greg Bahnsen literally
Bad - Richard Land (of Southern Baptist ethics and religious
liberty)


The Kingdom of God - Spiritual only or 'everything'

Pro - John Piper or John MacArthur?
Con - Gary DeMar (or any preterist really)