A riddle
In a conclusion of a long discussion with a Christian brother concerning the subject of political moral philosophy I resorted to name-calling. I called him both a pietist and antinomian with regard to this subject. His response: "Why do you insist on applying labels to me that you know I am not familiar with?" How does his response betray both his pietism and his antinomian belief?

Hints: from mirriamwebster.com:
pietism
1 capitalized : a 17th century religious movement originating in Germany in reaction to formalism and intellectualism and stressing Bible study and personal religious experience.
2 a: emphasis on devotional experience and practices b: affectation of devotion

antinomian
1 : one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation.
2 : one who rejects a socially established morality

Jonathan V. Last wrote a column in the opinion section of the November 25th edition of the _Sunday Tulsa World_ newspaper. In "Morality: The only real legal argument" he presents an opinion of why a conservative should abolish the death penalty for most murderers.

I agree that of the three reasons given as to why the United States should or should not have capital punishment the one which applies is the moral issue. Constitutionality, or practicality hold no argument. I also agree with Jonathan that the moral question involves the state taking "divine authority unto itself". His conclusion of this argument is true. "The enactment of capital punishment is something like the establishment of a state religion."

Jonathan does a good job in a short amount of space to narrow the subject down to these valid points. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist National Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission or Dr. James Dobson would be forced to take a different logical argument than I am about to make because they, in agreement with most of the Christian ethics experts, believe in a non-Christian pluralistic civil government.

Jonathan mentions "justice and mercy are necessarily in conflict" to say "society [should] choose mercy over justice". Where he goes wrong is to hint that justice may simply go away. In a legal system where mercy is encouraged, justice is always served. Well, at least "justice" as defined by humans. Mercy involves voluntary behavior. Where is the "justice" in forcing taxpayers, maybe even close members of the victim's family, to pay the cost of life-time imprisonment for the murderer? Isn't this a perversion of Justice itself, i.e., "the state arrogates divine authority unto itself"? So logic says for the state to either enact or abolish capital punishment is something like the establishment of a state religion. Yes, the state must make moral and ethical decisions. There is no avoiding the fact, it is God-like activity.

The Bible is full of examples discussing capital punishment, and in some cases the murderer is not put to death. Consider King David. He committed adultery with Bathsheba then manipulated things to get her husband murdered. He thought he got away with it until he was confronted by Nathan, a prophet. Israel under King David arguably was the most obedient to the national civil law given in Torah. David knew that if any other person were King he would have been stoned to death. Psalm 51:4 gives David's confession "against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight." David realized that God placed the civil government and civil law and punishment as His vehicle for civil justice. This idea is repeated through the Old Testament where God judges nations, and not just Israel, for not following his standard of Righteousness and Justice. It is also confirmed in the New Testament in Romans 13 where the civil servant is described as God's servant.

Although there may be argument about the mode of capital punishment, stoning vs more modern methods, capital punishment for first degree murder is wholly in line with God's standard of Justice given in the Bible. In fact, wherever our civil government deviates from His Justice, we need to repent and resubmit to Scripture.

Hello Men
If 75% of Americans say they believe Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead but only 25% believe the Bible is without error and useful for discerning good from evil then there are roughly 50% in the middle. When Americans were asked if they would describe themselves as being a "Christian", 75% agreed it fits, but when actions are tested against a biblical worldview less than 5% of Americans line up. There's even a bigger gap here.

Our company allows us Christians to gather at lunch time for a Bible study once a week. The latest chatter was astounding to me. One blurted out "It looks like Hillary is unstoppable". Another said he was leaning toward Gulliani in spite of his bleak pro-life stand, but hoped Fred Thompson would turn into a viable candidate because he had a slightly better pro-life plank. These fellows had already dismissed Mike Huckabee for some reason (not viable?) and dismissed Ron Paul as an unelectable libertarian. One even told me his main source of news is National Public Radio (NPR) and he believed it to be relatively unbiased. What's the point? Just as what a person eats affects a person's growth, health, strength, energy, etc. so it is with information. If we accept information from ungodly sources it will be tainted with non-biblical worldviews which are difficult to discover or filter. As a result thinking will be non-biblical too. Hebrews, in chapter 5 verses 12-14, speaks to this using a similar food analogy. Why not read it?

Paul K. Blair wrote an essay on Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution titled _Original Intent?_. It may be found
here: http://www.reclaimoklahoma.org/OriginalIntentContents.htm.
Since he draws a different conclusion from what I believe the
facts - of today - present I shall address some of these facts
here.

I don't dispute that the US was a Christian nation in the past.
In many respects it still is a Christian nation. I also don't
dispute that there are some judges and Constitutional lawyers who
agree with Paul about the Christian (biblical) legal tenants still
continuing with legal force in our nation. Herb Titus is one.

In Paul's introduction he does recognize that Islam doesn't mix
with Christianity even in the subject of civil government. I
give him credit for that. I shudder to think of what worldview a
"Christian" legislator has who says a civil pledge on a Koran has
it's legal place in the United States and has absolutely no plans
to change this legality! Thus, at least Paul has taken the first
step and admits that there is no religious philosophical
neutrality in government.

Paul says the meaning of the word "religion" has changed.
"Religion" to Paul today means any god-believing religion as well
as atheistic and various humanist philosophies. I agree.
However, when James Madison wrote the constitution stating "No
religious oath shall be required" Paul claims "religious" meant
religious sect or denomination [of the Christian faith].
However, John Leland, a contemporary of James Madison, pressed
him hard to add amendment 1 to the constitution. When James
Madison agreed John Leland rejoiced that it would be possible for
a "Pagan, Turk, Jew or Christian" to be eligible for any post or
office in the government. [The Writings of John Leland,
ed. L.F.Greene. New York: Arno Press, 1969, p.191.] The meaning
of "religion" was obvious to Leland and apparently also Madison,
the author of the document.

Does the Bible hold any authoritative jurisdiction in our civil
government today? A look at the two recent
10-Commandment-public-display Supreme Court cases will give an
answer. In both cases the defenders of public display argued
that the history of the 10-Commandments should be enough to
permit public displays to stand. The court made a distinction by
agreeing with these defendants in the Texas case permitting that
display to remain publicly displayed. Having God's Commandments
displayed inside a courtroom in Pennsylvania was a different
matter. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered them removed.

Paul concludes his essay with a discussion about the Islamic
threat to our nation and proposes several ideas to overcome this
threat. Instead, I believe we need to answer this threat the way
the Bible teaches. Bible believing Christians who know civil
government must be placed under God's authority need to first
repent. Then get with God's program by pushing for passage of a
U.S. Constitutional amendment placing the Bible as the civil
backbone of our federal government. In the process of teaching
what Jesus has said "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given unto me" ample opportunity to present the gospel will
surface. The Holy Spirit will do His job of drawing in all of
God's elect. Then II Chronicles 7:14's blessing will fall once
again on our nation.

Salvation starts a person on the road to heaven.
After salvation, sanctification, the process of
becoming holy or set apart for God's use, should
consume our remaining physical life-time.  When I
think of my past, perhaps one of the biggest earliest
milestones I remember was my desire to raise my sons
under God.  Since my own earthly father had died
years before I had had a bumpy road recognizing and
accepting my heavenly Father in every way as simply
"my father".  I can recall that prayer over 25 years
ago when I asked my heavenly Father for help; for
instructions in child rearing.  I reminded Him of his
promise "I will be a father to the fatherless".
In my sprit He answered: the instructions are in the
Bible.  He also instructed me that my sons would see
and develop an understanding of Him in proportion to
my own heavenly Father/son example. This task had not
just become a righteous responsibility but had become
my calling for the next 20 years or so. Was I a perfect
father?  no.  For example, I knew that when my action
was motivated by evil I needed to quickly confess and
ask for forgiveness, and yes even from my own sons.
I wanted to become "mature ... [one of those] who have
their powers of discernment trained by constant practice
to distinguish good from evil" [Hebrews 5:14].

Why Vote?
About 15 years ago I prayed regularly and enjoyed reading the
Bible. I thought I was a good husband and father. I was
satisfied with my sanctification process but God was about to
replace my comfort with some thorns. Suddenly, I found that the
public schools began sex education for my 5th grade son.
I had learned from the Bible that education was my responsibility
and the kind of sex education the government would teach my
son would at worst be contradictory to my own teaching and at
best be sterilized of any biblical truths. When I asked why this
was happening I got the usual runaround: "My hands are tied,
in order to get [state/federal] money some bureaucrat you can't
get to talk to right now decided this had to be done." The
answer was a political one and it bothered me.

A fellow believer at my work helped me get started in political
research. He was shocked to find out that I only voted during
presidential elections. I knew little or nothing about the other
candidates or issues. He never accused me of sin but asked me to
consider taking the role of voting seriously. God brought
several verses to mind which worked conviction followed by
confession of sin, and a new desire to do my Lord's will in this
area.

Luke 20:25 told me to give to our government those things which
it demanded, and to God those things that He demands. That this
command went beyond taxes to include my vote, however, were due
to other Scriptures. Romans 13:4 and 13:6 state 3 times that the
civil servant is God's servant. The realization that the
U.S. government was not set up like the old Roman (Emperor)
monarchy sunk in. Christians designed our civil governments with
its citizens as the human civil authority (via the vote) under
God. I, Harry Rockefeller, am a civil servant here in the U.S.A.
To whom God has given much, much is required. To him that knows
to do good and doesn't do it sins. I could no longer neglect
voting with a clear conscience.