Or
Contents

Recommended websites: The Old Time Way;  Old Paths Baptist Church; Only Way: An Appeal to Heaven
Recommended reading: Outcome Based Religion (Click to see review)

Preface

This article is a continuation of Jerald Finney’s systematic development of the doctrines, application, history, and legalities of “separation of church and state.” See EN29 for more on this matter. This article is an edited version of Section III, Chapter 1 of the book God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed). (Link to Contents of “Separation of Church and State Law” Blog which has links so that the new follower can start his study at the beginning. “Line upon line, precept upon precept.”). See EN30 for information on books by Jerald Finney which thoroughly examine “separation of church and state law.”

Introduction to the biblical doctrine of “Separation of Church and State”

Historically, Christians, as warned by Jesus and the apostles, have been persecuted. Christians were persecuted from the beginning of the church. After union of church and state in the fourth century, the established “church,” in conjunction with the state, persecuted Christians.

Jesus preached to the multitudes concerning persecution of His followers: “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Mt. 5.10-12).

Jesus warned the disciples that His followers would be persecuted: “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me” (Jn. 15.18-21). [Emphasis mine.]

At first the persecution of Christians was by the Jewish religious leaders. Paul (then called Saul) was present at the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr (Ac. 8.1). Paul, before salvation, was actively involved in persecution: “As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison” (Ac. 8.3). After Paul’s salvation, he was persecuted and finally beheaded. He was seized by the Jews during his last visit to Jerusalem. They would have killed him, but as they were beating him, the chief captain of the Romans took soldiers and centurions, intervened, and held him. At that time Paul was allowed to speak to the people. He said, “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women” (Ac. 22.3-4).

Following the crucifixion of the Savior “in rapid succession fell many other martyred heroes [in addition to Stephen and Paul, already mentioned]: … Matthew was slain in Ethiopia, Mark dragged through the streets until dead, Luke hanged, Peter and Simeon were crucified, Andrew tied to a cross, James beheaded, Philip crucified and stoned, Bartholomew flayed alive, Thomas pierced with lances, James, the less, thrown from the temple and beaten to death, Jude shot to death with arrows, Matthias stoned to death…” EN1.

Rome persecuted Christians off and on until the early fourth century. The persecution varied in extent and duration with various emperors. EN2. Then, some “churches” were recognized by the state and formed a union with the state and became the official state “church.” “[U]nder the leadership of Emperor Constantine there [came] a truce, a courtship and proposal of marriage. The Roman Empire through its emperor [sought] a marriage with Christianity. Give us your spiritual power and we will give you of our temporal power…. In A.D. 313, a call was made for a coming together of the Christian churches or their representatives. Many but not all came. The alliance was consummated. A Hierarchy was formed. In the organization of the Hierarchy, Christ was dethroned as head of the churches and Emperor Constantine enthroned (only temporarily, however) as head of the church. [This was the beginning of what became the Catholic church.] Let it be definitely remembered that when Constantine made his call for the council, there were very many of the Christians … and of the churches, which declined to respond. They wanted no marriage with the state, and no centralized religious government, and no higher ecclesiastical government of any kind, than the individual church.” EN3.

Before the union of church and state, both Judaism and Paganism had persecuted Christians. After the union, “Christians” began to persecute Christians. “Thus [began] the days and years and even centuries of a hard and bitter persecution against all those Christians who were loyal to the original Christ and Apostolic teachings.” EN4. Some leaders of that new state “church” who had supported liberty, “forgot what they had preached in their youth” and supported persecution of dissenters. The most significant of these was St. Augustine. “Augustine made much use of the passage in Luke 14.23: ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.’ His position on religious liberty has been summarized in the maxim commonly (though erroneously) ascribed to him: ‘When error prevails, it is right to invoke liberty of conscience; but when, on the contrary, the truth predominates, it is just to use coercion.’ Augustine’s influence on the course of religious liberty and the relationship of church and state can hardly be measured. Fifteen hundred years have passed since his death, yet his teachings are still a potent factor in the position of the Catholic Church on the subject of religion and government. As a result of his teaching, “The principle that religious unity ought to be imposed in one way or another dominates the whole of the Christian Middle Ages and finds a concise and rigorous sanction in civil as well as in ecclesiastical legislation. “Because of Augustine, more than any other person,“the Medieval church was intolerant, was the source and author of persecution, justified and defended the most violent measures which could be taken against those who differed from it.” EN5.

The Middle Ages reflected the thinking of “Augustine and Aquinas, who taught that salvation could be achieved through compulsion, and that oppression and persecution of heretics was not merely the right but the holy duty of the Church.” EN6. “Over 50,000,000 Christians died martyr deaths … during the period of the ‘dark ages’ alone—about twelve or thirteen centuries” EN7.

The Inquisition was instituted in 1215 A.D. at a Council called by Pope Innocent III. “[P]robably the most cruel and bloody thing ever brought upon any people in all the world’s history was what is known as the ‘Inquisition,’ and other similar courts, designed for trying what was called ‘heresy.’ The whole world is seemingly filled with books written in condemnation of that extreme cruelty, and yet it was originated and perpetuated by a people claiming to be led and directed by the Lord. For real barbarity there seems to be nothing, absolutely nothing in all history that will surpass it.” EN8.

The atrocities and heresies of the Catholic “church” eventually led to an effort to reform that “church” from within. Among the greatest of the reformers were Martin Luther, who started the Lutheran church (which became the state-church of Germany), and John Calvin, founder of the Presbyterian church (which became the state-church of Scotland). During this period of reformation, there always existed those who dissented from Catholic and Reformation theology. In early sixteenth century Germany, two currents flowed in opposite directions. One, fostered by the established church, was toward a state-church. The other, promoted by dissenters, was toward separation of church and state. When a Protestant church became an established church it continued the persecution practiced by the harlot church.

“Both the Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches brought out of their Catholic Mother many of her evils, among them her idea of a State Church. They both soon became Established Churches. Both were soon in the persecuting business, falling little if any, short of their Catholic Mother.” EN9. (Ibid., p. 33).

Martin Luther wrote:

“It is out of the question that there should be a common Christian government over the whole world. Nay, over even one land or company of people since the wicked always outnumber the good. A man who would venture to govern an entire country or the world with the Gospel would be like a shepherd who would place in one fold wolves, lions, eagles, and sheep together and let them freely mingle with one another and say, ‘Help yourselves, and be good and peaceful among yourselves. The fold is open, there is plenty of food, have no fear of dogs and clubs.’ The sheep forsooth would keep the peace and would allow themselves to be fed and governed in peace; but they would not live long nor would any beast keep from molesting another. For this reason, these two kingdoms must be sharply distinguished and both be permitted to remain. The one to produce piety, the other to bring about external peace and prevent evil deeds. Neither is sufficient to the world without the other.” EN10.

“When Luther was expecting excommunication and assassination, he pleaded that: “Princes are not to be obeyed when they command submission to superstitious error, but their aid is not to be invoked in support of the Word of God. “Heretics, he said, must be converted by the Scriptures, and not by fire. With passion he asserted:

“I say, then neither pope, nor bishop, nor any man whatever has the right of making one syllable binding on a Christian man, unless it be done with his own consent. Whatever is done otherwise is done in the spirit of tyranny…. I cry aloud on behalf of liberty and conscience, and I proclaim with confidence that no kind of law can with any justice be imposed on Christians, except so far as they themselves will; for we are free from all.” EN11.

Nonetheless, Luther later, when he had made an effective alliance with the secular power, advocated that the magistrate, who does not make the law of God, enforce the law of God. According to Luther:

“The law is of God and from God. The State is the law-enforcing agency, administering a law of God that exists unchangeably from all eternity….
   “The need for a state arises from the fact that all men do not hear the word of God in a spirit of obedience. The magistrate does not make the law, which is of God, but enforces it. His realm is temporal, and the proper ordering of it is his responsibility. Included in the proper ordering the maintenance of churches where the word of God is truly preached and the truly Christian life is taught by precept and example. In his realm, subject to the law of God, the Prince is supreme, nor has man the right to rebel against him. But if the Prince contravenes the law of God, man may be passively disobedient, in obedience to a higher and the only finally valid law.” EN12.
   “Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their hands in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is the devil in disguise.” EN13. (Acton, pp. 102-103, quoted in Pfeffer, p. 21; see also, Verduin, Anatomy of a Hybrid, pp. 158-160, 163-168, 186-198; Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Erdsmans Pub. Co., 1964) and Thomas Armitage, The History of the Baptists, Volumes 1 and 2 (Springfield, Mo.: Baptist Bible College, 1977 Reprint). ().

Luther espoused that coercion by the state to achieve religious unity was justifiable. This was an expansion of Erastian philosophy—“the assumption of state superiority in ecclesiastical affairs and the use of religion to further state policy.” Erastianism … pervaded all Europe, with the exception of Calvin’s ecclesiocratic Geneva, after the Reformation. EN14. Erastianism achieved its greatest triumph in England. EN15. See Ibid., pp. 24-25 for a concise history of Erastianism in England.

Luther’s position resulted in persecution of dissenters such as Anabaptists who believed in believer’s baptism. Although there is no reason to believe that the Anabaptists were explicit believers in a separation of church and state and in religious tolerance, opposition to a state-church follows logically from the thinking behind adult baptism:

“Believer’s baptism [was] the key to religious thought of the Anabaptists. Infant baptism implies that a child may be admitted into the Church without his understanding or personal consent. Such a church must be a formal organization, with sponsored membership possible for those whose years permit neither faith nor understanding. Adult baptism implies a different concept of the Church. The anabaptized are the elect of a visible church which is essentially a religious community of the elect. But obviously such a church could in no sense be a State Church. The Prince could neither bring it into being, regulate it, nor enforce membership in it; indeed, any connection between the State and such a church could only be injurious to the Church. Adult baptism on the surface is remote from the concept of a separated Church and State, yet such separation is implicit in the rationale of Anabaptism. The call to such a church can never come from the palace of the Prince; it must come from the Kingdom of Heaven…” EN16. [Emphasis mine.]

John Calvin pointed out that “these two [church and state] … must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other.” He followed this approach in order to expound the “[d]ifferences between spiritual and civil government,” insisting that “we must keep in mind the distinction … so that we do not (as so commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely different nature.” EN17. “[Calvin] also wrote: ‘But whosoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between the present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ’s spiritual Kingdom of Christ and the civil government are things completely distinct.’” EN18.”

He taught that “the church does not assume to itself what belongs to the magistrate, nor can the magistrate execute that which is executed by the Church.” EN19.

However, when he established his ecclesiocracy (the author uses this term to denote a civil government in which the church and state work together to enforce spiritual and earthly laws unlike the theocracy in Israel in which God himself was directly over the state) in Geneva, absence from the sermon, and missing the partaking of the Sacrament were punished. “Criticism of the clergy was included in the crime of blasphemy and blasphemy was punishable by death” as was the contention that “it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death.” EN20. Government had “‘the duty of rightly establishing religion’ and had as its ‘appointed end’ to ‘cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church.’” EN21. Calvin’s ecclesiocratic relationship of church and state was “based on ecclesiastical supremacy and the use of state machinery to further religious interests.” EN22.

During this same period the Church of England arose from a split or division in the Catholic ranks. Henry VIII, king of England, “threw off papal authority and made himself head of the Church of England” when the Pope refused to grant him a divorce from Catherine of Spain so that he could marry Anne Boelyn. Henry’s successor, Mary, reinstated Catholicism, but her successor, Elizabeth, re-established the Church of England.

“Thus, before the close of the Sixteenth Century, there were five established Churches—churches backed up by civil governments—the Roman and Greek Catholics [the Greek Catholics separated from the Roman Catholics in the ninth century] counted as two, then the Church of England; then the Lutheran, or Church of Germany, then the Church of Scotland now known as the Presbyterian. All of them were bitter in their hatred and persecution of the people called Ana-Baptists, Waldenses and all other non-established churches, churches which never in any way had been connected with the Catholics…. Many more thousands, including both women and children were constantly perishing every day in the yet unending persecutions. The great hope awakened and inspired by the reformation had proven to be a bloody delusion. Remnants now [found] an uncertain refuge in the friendly Alps and other hiding places over the world.” EN23.

Sometime in the early seventeenth century, the Congregational church began. That church repudiated preacher rule and returned “to the New Testament democratic idea” while retaining many other “Catholic made errors such as infant baptism, pouring or sprinkling for baptism, and later adopted and practiced to an extreme degree the church and state idea. And, after refugeeing to America, themselves, became very bitter persecutors.” EN24.

The persecution of dissenters moved to America along with colonization. Section IV will cover this topic.

The final persecution is planned for those who, prior to the rapture, remain ‘separate’ by denying the divinity of man—they are to be ‘driven’ from this planet.” This persecution is being planned by Maitreya, who claims that he is a Christ and is simply waiting for humanity to call him forth. Another New Age leader, Barbara Marx Hubbard, wrote that she was told

“that her ‘Christ’ specifically described this purposeful elimination process as ‘the selection process.’ Like Maitreya, she stated that the selection process will be the penalty for anyone who persists in the ‘self-centered’ belief that humanity is not divine and is ‘separate’ from God. By this definition, Bible-believing Christians—the ones who really are Bible believing—would be defined as among those who are ‘self-centered’ and ‘separate.’ In what would be a fulfillment of the prophecy that the Antichrist will ‘make war with the saints’ (Revelation 13:7), Hubbard’s ‘Christ’—sounding much like Maitreya—states that he will ‘make war’ on those who are ‘fearful’ and ‘self-centered.’” EN25.

Ms. Hubbard wrote: “At the co-creative stage of evolution, one self-centered soul is like a lethal cancer cell in a body: deadly to itself and to the whole.” EN26. Ibid., p. 163.

The struggle over separation of church and state moved from the old world to the new, and is probably the most important topic in the history of America. For the first time, God’s truth concerning government, church, and separation of church and state was destined to prevail, first in Rhode Island and then in the United States. Prior to this struggle and since the union of church and state in the fourth century, both Catholic and Protestant sacral doctrine which had seen church and state as a single entity had tried unsuccessfully to stamp out all “heretics” who had never deviated from the true biblical doctrine of “separation of church and state.”

This section will address the biblical principle of separation of church and state. Does a church love and honor the Lord Jesus Christ enough to seek God’s guidance from the Bible concerning the issue of separation of church and state and then to act according to the principles in the Word of God? “Christ loved the church and gave himself for it,” and God “gave [Christ] to be the head over all things to the church.” (See Ep. 5.25 and 1.22); many Christians do not have the knowledge of what this entails.

Even “Christians” who believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture incorrectly interpret certain scriptures out of context to justify union of church and state and perhaps submission of church to the state or state to church. Covenant Theologians, as will be specifically addressed in another article in this section entitled “Dispensational Theology versus Covenant Theology,” to be taken from Section III, Chapter 3 of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application, believe in union of church and state. EN27. For example, many incorrectly interpret the scripture wherein Christ explained that the state is under God when He said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s” (See Lu. 20.19-26; also Mt. 22.15-22; and Mk. 12.13-17).  Many believers, having been Americanized, interpret this statement out of context and on its face to mean that one is to obey every law of the civil government because God gave civil government authority over all matters, spiritual and earthly, except perhaps the matter of salvation. Correctly understanding this statement of Christ requires a thorough understanding of the context in which the statement was made as well as an understanding of the Old and New Testaments.

Romans 13 and I Peter 2.13 are other primary scriptures cited out of context to support unlimited submission to the state in all earthly matters, and in all spiritual matters, with the possible exception of preaching salvation. The true interpretation of Romans 13 and other related verses has already been addressed in the audio teaching “American Abuse of Romans 13.1-2 and Related Verses” which is posted on this website. Additional written articles will be added to this website teaching in the future.

To correctly understand “separation of church and state” a Christian must put aside America’s teaching concerning and understanding of the concept of civil government as the supreme power. Today’s American “Christians” have been indoctrinated by America’s public schools, institutions of higher learning, media, seminaries, Bible colleges, and many churches concerning the doctrines of the church, the state or civil government, God and state, and separation of church and state. Most American “Christians” are far more American than they are Christian. They choose America and America’s principles which are mostly satanic more often than they choose the doctrines of the Word of God. To a great degree, many traditional churches and “Christians” along with many heretical and apostate “Christians” in America have become Erastian in their belief and practice.

Several topics will be examined in this Section of articles dealing with the biblical principle of “Separation of Church and State”: (1) Dispensational Theology as opposed to Covenant Theology which teaches that the principles of the theocracy in Israel are to be applied by the church thereby requiring a union of church and state; (2) some distinct differences between the church and the state which render them mutually exclusive EN28; (3) Christ’s statement concerning Caesar and God; (3) the false interpretation of Romans 13 and I Peter 2.13 which prevails in America and in churches today; (4) and the church’s relationship with Christ. Covenant Theology will be briefly and directly addressed in this Section, and much of what is written by the author in the sections on the biblical doctrine of government, the biblical doctrine of the church, this section on the biblical doctrine of separation of church and state, and the section on the history of religious freedom in America address many of the major shortcomings of Covenant Theology.

God, the Supreme Ruler of the supreme government, ordained both the church and the state. God desires that civil government choose to be under Him, and to operate according to His principles. God also desires that churches also choose to operate under Him, according to His principles. Our Lord explained through the Apostle Paul that God is over both the church and the state:

“And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power. Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, For above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, and the fullness of him that filleth all in all” (Ep. 1.19-22).

At the same time, God desires separation of church and state—that is, He desires that neither the church nor the Gentile state work with or be under the other. Understanding the proper biblical relationship of church and state is of utmost importance because Christ who is likened to the Husband of the church is jealous of His wife the church, as should the Christian likewise be jealous over the church. In today’s America, a church who does not understand this proper relationship will be easily influenced to work hand in hand with the state or to put herself under the state, especially, as will be shown in the section on “God Betrayed: Union of Church and State,” through incorporation and civil government tax exemption provisions.

God ordained civil government and the church at different times, for different purposes, and for peoples with different natures. God ordained the state, the civil government, to deal with earthly matters, and the church to deal with spiritual matters. When either a church or a civil government acts outside its God given authority, trouble lies ahead.

It is the responsibility of every church, not the state—regardless of all persecutions by the state, by the church-state alliance, and/or by the world in general—to be a light and stand for and proclaim truth. This is so because a church is the only institution made up of people privy to God’s spiritual insights, and is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Ti. 3.15).

Many earthly relationships and behaviors involve the application of spiritual insights. For example, God teaches, in His Word, the responsibilities of husbands to wives, wives to husbands, parents to children, children to parents, and so forth. Although these are spiritual teachings, they are to be applied in earthly relationships to which there is a spiritual parameter. In other words, God is involved in all relationships and has outlined the ultimate consequences for behaviors, and therefore, everything is spiritual even though it may have an earthly dimension. The trouble comes when man tries to exclude God and His principles, an impossible task.

Every sphere of ordained government has its own God-given jurisdiction. God desires the state to stay out of family affairs unless criminal acts are involved. He wants civil government to stay out of church affairs, and the church, as an institution to stay out of state affairs. Although only mature born again believers who have rightly divided the Word of truth can apply His principles in the realm of government, rarely are such individuals involved in civil government. Generally speaking, those who run civil government cannot know spiritual and ultimate truth since most leaders in civil government are unregenerate (or, in rare instances, Christians who usually are still spiritual babies). A church has no God-given jurisdiction over a family, although church preaching and teaching should teach the biblical rules for parent-child and husband-wife relationships.

Endnotes

EN1. J. M. Carroll, The Trail of Blood, (Distributed by Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, 163 N. Ashland Avenue, Lexington KY 40502, 606-266-4341), p. 11.

EN2. See, e.g., Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1953), pp. 10-12

EN3. Carroll, p. 16.

EN4. Ibid., p. 17.

EN5. Pfeffer, p. 14 citing Bates, M. Searle, Religious Liberty: An Inquiry, New Your and London, International Missionary Council, 1945, p. 139; Rufinni, Francesco, Religious Liberty, New York, The Macmillan Co., 1949, p. 36; and Carlyle, Alexander J., The Christian Church and Liberty, London, J. Clarke, 1924, p. 96; See also, Leonard Verduin, The Anatomy of a Hybrid (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Derdmans Publishing Co., 1976), pp. 105-111 and other excerpts.

EN6. Pfeffer, p. 18; Verduin, Anatomy of a Hybrid.

EN7. Carroll, p. 14.

EN8. Ibid., p. 28.

EN9. Ibid., p. 33.

EN10. Works of Martin Luther, Volume 4 (Philadelphia: A. H. Holman Co., 1931), p. 265 cited in Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2002), p. 22.

EN11. Pfeffer, p. 21, citing Acton, “The Protestant Theory of Persecution,” in Essays on Freedom and Power, p. 92, and Wace, Henry, and Bucheim, C. A., Luther’s Primary Works, Lutheran Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1885, pp. 194-195, quoted in Noss, John B., Man’s Religions, New York, The Macmillan Co., 1949, p. 92.

EN12. William H. Marnell, The First Amendment: Religious Freedom in America from Colonial Days to the School Prayer Controversy (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964), pp. 13-14.

EN13. Acton, pp. 102-103, quoted in Pfeffer, p. 21; see also, Verduin, Anatomy of a Hybrid, pp. 158-160, 163-168, 186-198; Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Erdsmans Pub. Co., 1964) and Thomas Armitage, The History of the Baptists, Volumes 1 and 2 (Springfield, Mo.: Baptist Bible College, 1977 Reprint).

EN14. Pfeffer, pp. 23-24.

EN15. See Ibid., pp. 24-25 for a concise history of Erastianism in England.

EN16. Marnell, pp. 18-20.

EN17. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:847 (IV.xix.15) 2: 1486 (IV.xx.1), trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960) cited in Hamburger, pp. 22-23.

EN18. Ibid., 2: 1488 (IV.xx.1).

EN19. Pfeffer, p. 22, citing Institutes of the Christian Religion¸ quoted in Stokes, Anson Phelps, Church and State in the United States, New York, Harper & Brothers, 1950, I. p. 110.

EN20. Pfeffer, p. 22.

EN21. Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2002), p.  23, citing Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2: 1211 (IV.xi.1; ibid., 2: 1487-1488 (IV.xx.2-3).

EN22. Pfeffer, pp. 23-24.

EN23. Carroll, p. 34.

EN24. Ibid., pp. 37-38.

EN25. Warren Smith, Deceived on Purpose (Magalia, CA: Mountain Stream Press, 2004), pp. 151, 162-164 referring to Barbara Marx Hubbard, The Revelation: A Message of Hope for the New Millennium (Novato, California: Nataraj Publishing, 1995).

EN26. Ibid., p. 163.

EN27. (Link to preview of God Betrayed): God Betrayed may be ordered from Amazon by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Amazon.com or from Barnes and Nobel by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Barnes and Noble. All books by Jerald Finney as well as many of the books he has referenced and read may also be ordered by going to the “Books” page on the “Church and State Law” website or directly from Amazon by going to the following links: (1) Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses (Kindle only); (2) The Most Important Thing: Loving God and/or Winning Souls (Kindle only); (3) Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities? (Link to preview of Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities?) which can also be ordered by clicking the following Barnes and Noble link: Separation of Church and State on Barnes and Noble.

EN28. Jesus said in Mt. 16.18: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The Greek word for church in this verse, “ecclesia (ek = ‘out of,’ kaleo = ‘to call’), an assembly of called out ones. The word is used of any assembly; the word itself implies no more, as, e.g., the town-meeting at Ephesus (Ac. 19:39) and Israel, called out of Egypt and assembled in the wilderness (Ac. 7:38). Israel was a true ‘church,’ but not in any sense the N.T. church—the only point of similarity being that both were ‘called out’ and by the same God. All else is contrast. See Ac. 7:38, note; He. 12:23 note.” 1917 Scofield Reference Edition, n. 2 to Matthew 16.18, p. 1021.

EN29. Why should believers, and especially pastors, be concerned about the area of church and state law? Because only through knowledge can they avoid dishonoring the Husband/Bridegroom/Head of their local church body and thereby failing to achieve their God-given goal—glorifying God and pleasing Him.

These articles systematically examine the biblical doctrines of church, state, separation of church and state and the application of those doctrines in America. For believers and churches, the information presented is—according to God’s Word—of great importance to our Lord. By reading and studying each article using the Bible as the standard, a believer will discover that the biblical principles are correct as presented. By studying the historical and legal facts presented—without bias, prejudice, illicit motive, or an overriding opposing agenda which has a vested interest in maintaining a status quo due to loss of finances, support or something else—and examining those facts in light of biblical principle, a qualified believer (a believer who has the necessary biblical, historical, and legal qualifications and education) can understand that the conclusions are correct.

That said, understanding the biblical principles, relevant history, and legal principles and facts is, first, impossible for one who is not a born again believer who is walking in the Spirit, and, second, daunting for even the spirit filled follower of Christ. Years of honest, open minded study is required to achieve the correct knowledge and understanding of all facets of church and state law. First, one must interpret Scripture correctly (See 2 Ti. 2:15) as to the relevant topics. After mastering the biblical principles, one must then labor through the annals of history, and the intricacies of law. In order to be qualified to comment upon the law, one must have an extensive legal education. He must understand how to do legal research and how to reach correct legal conclusions. Legal commentary by a pseudo lawyer can sound good to the untrained, while he may be correctly understood as frivolous and unlearned and probably heretical by the educated believer.

This is not to say that a non-lawyer cannot understand the legal and historical aspects of spiritual matters. In fact, the author knows some pastors and other believers who, having already correctly divided the Word of Truth and determined to seek to please God in all matters, have open minds and who have eagerly sought truth in the historical and legal church and state law arena. He is working with such a young pastor at this very moment. He is a brilliant young man who had mastered the Scriptures and Baptist history before the author met him. He excels the author in those matters, as do some other pastors and believers known by the author. Unlike most pastors, he does not have the disadvantages of having gone to either a secular or ecclesiastical (Baptist or otherwise) institution of higher learning. Secular colleges and universities usually corrupt even the most devout child of God; and religious colleges, institutions, and seminaries generally (with few exceptions, one of which the author has personal knowledge of)—by either mixing an ample dose of humanism with whatever biblically correct teaching they dose out; or by having totally having abandoned truth—likewise usually corrupt their students to one degree or another.

On the other hand, I am vexed by what I read in some books and websites concerning church and state law; particularly by some vicious, unfounded attacks upon the Biblical Law Center Declaration of Trust by unqualified, biased assailants who are attempting to mislead believers and churches through incorrect biblical and legal analyses and personal attacks upon and outright lies about those with whom they disagree in such matters.

Being a believer alone, even a pastor, does not by itself qualify one to teach on church and state law. The author has been a believer and faithful member of independent Baptist churches since his salvation. He was called by God to go to law school for His glory and to please Him. As a result of that calling, he obtained a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from one of the best law schools in the country and has practiced law for seventeen years. He has no motive for dishonesty. By design, he has never made a dime above expenses in his work in the church and state law arena. In fact, he has spent tens of thousands of dollars with total income of at most three to four thousand dollars in all the years he has worked in this area of law. Because of this he is beholden to no one and nothing but the truth and his Lord and Savior. Since becoming a lawyer, he has devoted untold thousands of hours in biblical, historical, and legal study and analysis of church and state law.

As always, he declares that if anyone can show him where he is in error, he will recant. Honest, loving believers have taught him much and caused him to modify some of his positions. He has also, in his continued studies, modified some of his conclusions and positions. However, he maintains his primary positions because neither he, through his continued studies, or others have shown him to be wrong about his basic church and state law principles and conclusions.

EN30. God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed): may be ordered from Amazon by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Amazon.com or from Barnes and Nobel by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Barnes and Noble. All books by Jerald Finney as well as many of the books he has referenced and read may also be ordered by left clicking “Books” (on the “Church and State Law” website) or directly from Amazon by going to the following links: (1) Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses (Kindle only); (2) The Most Important Thing: Loving God and/or Winning Souls (Kindle only); (3) Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities? (Link to preview of Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities?) which can also be ordered by clicking the following Barnes and Noble link: Separation of Church and State on Barnes and Noble.

Recommended websites: The Old Time Way;  Old Paths Baptist Church; Only Way: An Appeal to Heaven
Recommended reading: Outcome Based Religion (Click to see review)

Just two nights ago (December 1, 2011), on weekly Wednesday night visitation, I met a believer who explained that the King James Version (“KJV”) was not a good version, that he always referred to Greek and Hebrew lexicons for clarifications in his Bible studies. In our conversation, he also revealed that he was a promoter of other heresies as well. I was not surprised at what this man said. Many church goers have been indoctrinated to believe the same lies that this man espoused.

In my library, I have several books which explain the problems and imperfections with interpretations of the Bible and the reasons that prove that the KJV is God’s Word in the English language. See Endnote. However, The Word: God Will Keep It is the only book I have come across that traces the history of the Satanic plot that attempts to discredit and replace the KJV. In fact, The Word: God Will Keep It is the most dynamic book I have read that deals with the KJV controversy. This book will fortify the understanding of the believer who loves and understands God and His Word and the ability of God to do all things, including the power to preserve His Word in English. Pastor Faust’s arguments and reasoning are supported by facts and quotes with relevant Bible verses and comments interspersed, all building into a mighty crescendo whose peak is an explanation of the Jericho scholars who “shipwreck the faith of Christians in the infallibility of the Bible.”

Pastor Faust explains how the attempted plot to destroy the KJV has been and is being carried out; how the Satanic plan used in the Garden of Eden to convince Eve that God’s Word was not to be trusted has been very successful in leading many to reject the infallibility of the KJV. He quotes from many writers over the past 400 years and applies Scripture to the spiritual warfare surrounding the KJV. He proves the great use infidels have made and continue to make of the new, revised versions; and he shows how the doctrine of the infallibility was opposed by Unitarians, Liberals, Modernists, Catholics, and other infidels as a barrier to what they deemed to be progress (called by the Bible, the “falling away” in preparation for the coming of the Antichrist). The Word: God Will Keep It:

(1) shows how Satan, through men, has sown doubt in the Word of God in English, the KJV.  Tragically, the “end result is an ‘emerging church’ that is sure of nothing, with people lurking in the shadows of Dark Age liturgies and traditions, searching for stability and certainty. Along with this, worldliness is increased as others turn from the foundation of the Holy Scriptures to their own subjective hearts (Proverbs 18:2; 2 Timothy 4:3-4)” (p. 28; all quotations are from The Word: God Will Keep It unless otherwise indicated.);
(2) traces the origin of the seriously flawed “originals only scheme” to Roman Catholicism whose goal is to drive people to the alleged “stability and final authority of the Roman Catholic Church;”
(3) refutes the claim that the KJV only arguments are new;
(4) quotes from and analyzes the teachings of those who planned to use new Bible versions to bring about a final, one-world religion. These men viewed KJV Onlyism as a major roadblock to the goal of ushering in a one world religion. As knowledgeable Catholics realized over a century ago, the destruction of “King Bible-and-Bible-Only” is dead, having turned destructive critic and sawn off the bough whereon he sat.”  As a result of the effectiveness of the attacks on the KJV and the turn to the new perversions, many people have flocked to the Roman Catholic Church, or liturgical forms of worship, as they search for the final authority that they no longer see in the Bible;
(5) reveals the beliefs of how the Pilgrims and Puritans, John Bunyan, Michael Faraday (one of the greatest scientists who ever lived), Charles Spurgeon, John Glas, Henry Venn, Alexander Campbell (the founder of the Church or Christ), C. I. Scofield, W. A. Criswell, Dr. John R. Rice, Jack Hyles, Jack T. Chick, William P. Grady, Dr. Curtis Hutson (Dr. Rice’s successor as editor of the Swore of the Lord), Samuel C. Gipp, Sarah Moore Grimke (an early feminist), William Newcome (a nineteenth century Unitarian), Manly P. Hall (influential Lucifer worshiping occult writer and leader and 33° Mason), Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (a Satanist and early leader of the occult Theosophy movement), President Harry S. Truman, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, homosexuals, and many others felt and  feel about the KJV;
(6) gives the biblical answer to the question, “Can translations be infallible?”;
(7) uses the writings of unbelievers—including Unitarians, Catholics, Modernists, Universalists, Theosophists, Rationalists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Occultists, and other infidels whose doctrines are disproved by the KJV—beginning in the days of the KJV translators to show the views of Bible believers in their days and the abundance of KJV only believers throughout the past 400 years. He documents the fact that “some popular, early Christian leaders are quoted as if their statements concerning the King James Bible represent the only viewpoint among believers in their day. The historical sections … document that these teachers were largely outnumbered by the many Christians who believed that the King James Bible is infallible.”
(8) examines the principle men behind the Revised Version (Westcott, Hort, Lightfoot, etc.) upon which modern “Bible” versions like the NIV and NASB are rooted;
(9) etc.

In short, The Word supports the conclusion of the whole matter: “We have the literary, historic, moral, and spiritual demonstration that our Bible is the Word of God, and the word of God is our Bible” (Thomas H. Skinner, in The Preacher and the Homiletic Monthly, Volume 3, 1879, quoted on p. 118.).

Recommended websites: The Old Time Way;  Old Paths Baptist Church; Only Way: An Appeal to Heaven

Note.  The first article is an abbreviated version of the second longer, more complex, and more detailed article which follows it below. See EN1

The Legality of Door-to-Door Evangelism

Given all the God-given freedoms that the courts have taken from Americans, it is surprising that Americans still have, for the most part, freedom of speech.  The First Amendment protects American Christians as they communicate the Gospel door-to-door and through street preaching, carrying signs, and handing out tracts and other literature in the public forum. This article deals only with door-to-door evangelism.

God’s Word tells believers what He wants them to do.  If He tells them to do something, it is legal and issue becomes whether the government rules regarding that activity are legal.  “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).  Door-to-door evangelism is legal.  The Bible says it is legal, and God told us to do it. See EN2. As a lawyer, the author, in this article, addresses only the earthly consequences of door-to-door evangelism in the United States.

For the time being, believers who go door-to-door spreading the Gospel can rest easy because Christians are still protected in this enterprise due to the efforts of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“JWs”), a cult.  Because of the JWs’ stand for door-to-door communication on behalf of their cult, Baptists, if they are not already doing so, can begin to go out and do what God has told them to do—the government cannot persecute them for doing so.  It may give one who does door-to-door evangelism a citation for allegedly violating a law prohibiting his efforts and take him to court (probably will not, especially if he calls a Christian attorney familiar with the issue should the government threaten him), but as it now stands, he will prevail should the government illegally  interfere with his activity.

May the author present to you a brief example of government infringement of this constitutionally protected activity from his personal case file? The case was resolved by the author and never went to court. Near the end of the year 2000, a police officer of the city of West Lake Hills, Texas, a suburb of Austin, Texas, informed members of Capitol City Baptist Church that they could not continue their activity without a permit. The author was asked to handle the case. He called the Westlake Hills city administrator, researched the law (the city ordinance being relied on by the police officer and relevant Constitutional law), and drafted a letter to the city administrator. As a result, the city attorney agreed with this author and notified the police department that the activity was constitutionally protected. See the more lengthy article below for more information, including a copy of the letter sent to the Westlake Hills city administrator. Note. A copy of the letter which the author sent to the city administrator is included as EN22 of the longer version of this article below.

In 2002, the United States Supreme Court again dealt with the issue of door-to-door evangelism in Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton.  Stratton reaffirms the right of every citizen to engage in face-to-face conversation with his neighbors.  The Court reminded us that the American people do not require the government’s protection from speech, recognizing that the proper response to the unwelcome door-to-door canvasser is not government regulation but the homeowner’s absolute right to shut the door.  Government lacks the authority to stop Americans from talking to each other–even if they don’t want to.  Liberty ensures one’s right to speak to his neighbors even when his speech annoys them.

Although one can evangelize door-to-door in America without a permit and without being punished by the state, a homeowner can tell someone to leave his property and not come back.  If one does not leave after being told to leave or comes back after being told not to come back, he can be punished under the law of criminal trespass.  To go onto another’s property marked by a “no-trespassing” sign is also punishable under the criminal law.  Also, other criminal laws such as those regarding “disorderly conduct” still apply to one’s activities.

“For most of modern American history, we’ve worked very hard to legislate, regulate and agitate to get the true believers out of sight and out of mind. We’ve tried to license them out of existence, put them in jail, limit them to certain public places, forbid them from all public places.” EN3 . The secular law journal note from which the last statement was taken also states: “The strongest challenge to individual liberty in this nation may not be dramatic displays of force, similar to terrorism or totalitarianism, but instead, the intolerance of some Americans for day-to-day annoyances and unorthodox forms of self-expression. As the Stratton ordinance [the ordinance being challenged in the Stratton case] demonstrates, the character of this nation is defined not just in the legislative chamber and in the courtroom but also on the doorstep.” EN4.  Christians should be even more concerned than a secular writer about our ability to freely communicate without persecution.  What are Christians in this free society doing to define the nature of this nation on the doorsteps of our neighbors?  How do our efforts compare with those of the early Christians who suffered persecution and death for their obedience to God’s directions?

Thank God that, due to the efforts of the JWs, Christians can go to door-to-door and offer to communicate truth.

Endnotes

EN1 Many Christians have not taken the time to study as they should.  They have so often settled for simple answers without gaining an understanding of not only temporal facts, but also the reasoning and rationale needed to counter the complex arguments constantly being published by Satan and his followers.  It is one thing to sit in church and listen to sermons aimed at God’s people.  Sermons have a distinct purpose, and, to paraphrase Doctor J. Vernon McGee, “The cookies should be on the bottom shelf so the children can reach them.”  It is another thing to go into the world as a good soldier of the Lord Jesus Christ, fully armed for the particular battles the Lord calls us to engage in.

The Bible deals with both simple and complex issues.  If everything in God’s Word is simple, why is it that God saw the necessity of having pastors and other church members to “[s]tudy to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)” and to be diligent to grow in knowledge among other virtues (2 Peter 1:3-10)?  Why are so many so easily deceived about how to be saved?  Why do we have doctrines such as Calvinism with its variations?  Why are there so many different cults which claim to know the truth of the Bible?  Why are so many of us saved people unable to answer questions concerning many biblical principles and are therefore not only ineffective witnesses for the true Gospel, but also ignorant of biblical principles concerning witnessing, helping our neighbors, the biblical guidelines concerning the role of civil government, the role of the church, the role of the family, the role of the individual in relation to himself, the family, and the government, husband-wife and parent-child relationships, etc.?

The article above deals with door-to-door evangelism.  The shortened version basically says that the government cannot punish a person for engaging in that activity.  That version will not equip a believer to do anything other than assert that the law allows you to go door-to-door.  Reading the longer article below will help one to gain a deeper understanding of the issue; to counter verbal attacks while going door-to-door; to turn the attacks toward a discussion of the Gospel and the role of the Gospel in the development of this nation and the God-given freedoms we enjoy, including the freedom of speech which includes the freedom to evangelize door-to-door without persecution; and finally to go into a discussion of salvation.  The longer article not only gives a much more in-depth analysis of the issue, it also paves the way for an even further study.

EN2 To gain deeper understanding of biblical teachings concerning public ministry, one can consult the writings of men like Dr. Gerald Sutek—who has written several books on the subject, helped many churches and Christians to become involved in Street preaching, and practices what he preaches.  

EN3 Laurence D. Cohen, Editorial, With God (and the Supreme Court) on Their Side, Hartford Courant, July 11, 2002, at A9 cited in Proselytizers, Pamphleteers, Pests, and Other First Amendment Champions: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton , 18 BYU J. Pub. L. 229, 233-234 (2003).

EN4 Id. at 234.

The Legality of Door-to-Door Evangelism (Full version) See EN1

God’s Word tells believers what God wants them to do.  If He tells believers to do it, it is legal.  If He tells believers to do something, the issue becomes whether the government rules regarding that activity are legal.  “We ought to obey God rather than men.” EN2. Door-to-door evangelism is legal.  The Bible tells us it is legal, and we are told to do it.  For the most part, I the author leaves an in-depth biblical explanation of what Scripture says regarding public ministry, including door-to-door evangelism, to men like Dr. Gerald Sutek EN3, and addresses earthly consequences of the activity in the United States.  Regardless of the latter, door-to-door evangelism is legal and God says do it.  Should someone wish to take such scriptures as, “Obey every ordinance of man,” out of context, or misinterpret scriptures such as “Blessed are the meek,” or use their own reasoning to the effect that Christians are not to offend any man, and use them as an excuses not to obey God, the author suggests that they examine their faith and understanding very carefully.

Christians who decide to obey God in the area of public ministry can rest easy because they are still protected in this enterprise due to the efforts of members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (“JWs”), a cult. EN4. Because of the JWs’, Baptists, if they are not already doing so, can begin to go out and do what God has told them to do and the government cannot persecute them for doing so.  It may cite a person for some alleged offense and take take to court (probably will not, especially if a Christian attorney familiar with the issue is consulted); but, as it now stands, a person who practices door-to-door evangelism will prevail should the government interfere with his activity.

May the author present to you a brief example of government infringement of this constitutionally protected activity from his personal case file? The case was successfully resolved by the author and never went to court. Near the end of the year 2000, a police officer of the city of West Lake Hills, Texas, a suburb of Austin, Texas, informed members of Capitol City Baptist Church that they could not continue their activity without a permit. The author was asked to handle the case. He called the Westlake Hills city administrator, researched the law (the city ordinance being relied on by the police officer and relevant Constitutional law), and drafted a letter to the city attorney. EN22 is a copy of the letter sent by the author sent to the city administrator. As a result, the city administrator agreed with this author and notified the police department that the activity was constitutionally protected.

In 2002, the United States Supreme Court again dealt with the issue of door-to-door evangelism in Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton. EN5.  Stratton reaffirms the right of every citizen to engage in face-to-face conversation with his neighbors.  The Court reminds us that the American people do not require the government’s protection from speech, recognizing that the proper response to the unwelcome door-to-door canvasser is not government regulation but the homeowner’s absolute right to shut the door.  Government lacks the authority to stop us from talking to each other–even if we don’t want to.  Liberty ensures us the right to speak to our neighbors even when our speech annoys them.

Although one can evangelize door-to-door without a permit and without being punished by the state, a homeowner can tell anyone to leave his property and not come back. If one does not leave after being told to leave or comes back after being told not to come back, he can be punished under the law of criminal trespass.  To go onto another’s property marked by a “no-trespassing” sign is also punishable under the criminal law. Also, other criminal laws such as laws regarding “disorderly conduct” still apply to one’s activities.

SUMMARY OF STRATTON

The following is from 153 L.Ed. 205 and is a good summary of Stratton:

“SYLLABUS: Respondent Village of Stratton (Village) promulgated an ordinance that, inter alia, prohibits ‘canvassers’ from ‘going in and upon’ private residential property to promote any ‘cause’ without first obtaining a permit from the mayor’s office by completing and signing a registration form. Petitioners, a society and a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses that publish and distribute religious materials, brought this action for injunctive relief, alleging that the ordinance violates their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion, free speech, and freedom of the press. The District Court upheld most provisions of the ordinance as valid, content-neutral regulations, although it did require the Village to accept narrowing constructions of several provisions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Among its rulings, that court held that the ordinance was content neutral and of general applicability and therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny; rejected petitioners’ argument that the ordinance is overbroad because it impairs the right to distribute pamphlets anonymously that was recognized in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 131 L. Ed. 2d 426, 115 S. Ct. 1511; concluded that the Village’s interests in protecting its residents from fraud and undue annoyance and its desire to prevent criminals from posing as canvassers in order to defraud its residents were sufficient bases on which to justify the regulation; and distinguished this Court’s earlier cases protecting the Jehovah’s Witnesses ministry.
“Held: The ordinance’s provisions making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violate the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
“(a) For over 50 years, this Court has invalidated on First Amendment grounds restrictions on door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering by Jehovah’s Witnesses. See, e.g.,   Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 87 L. Ed. 1292, 63 S. Ct. 870, 891. Although those cases do not directly control the question at issue, they yield several themes that guide the Court. Among other things, those cases emphasize that the hand distribution of religious tracts is ages old and has the same claim as more orthodox practices to the guarantees of freedom of religion, speech, and press, e.g., id., at 109; discuss extensively the historical importance of door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering as vehicles for the dissemination of ideas, e.g., Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U.S. 147, 164, 84 L. Ed. 155, 60 S. Ct. 146, but recognize the legitimate interests a town may have in some form of regulation, particularly when the solicitation of money is involved, e.g.,   Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 306, 84 L. Ed. 1213, 60 S. Ct. 900, or the prevention of burglary is a legitimate concern, Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 144, 87 L. Ed. 1313, 63 S. Ct. 862; make clear that there must be a balance between such interests and the effect of the regulations on First Amendment rights; e.g., ibid.; and demonstrate that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have not struggled for their rights alone, but for those many who are poorly financed and rely extensively upon this method of communication, see, e.g.,   id., at 144-146, including nonreligious groups and individuals, see, e.g.,   Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 539-540, 89 L. Ed. 430, 65 S. Ct. 315.
“(b) The Court need not resolve the parties’ dispute as to what standard of review to use here because the breadth of speech affected by the ordinance and the nature of the regulation make it clear that the Sixth Circuit erred in upholding it. There is no doubt that the interests the ordinance assertedly serves — the prevention of fraud and crime and the protection of residents’ privacy — are important and that the Village may seek to safeguard them through some form of regulation of solicitation activity. However, the amount of speech covered by the ordinance raises serious concerns. Had its provisions been construed to apply only to commercial activities and the solicitation of funds, arguably the ordinance would have been tailored to the Village’s interest in protecting its residents’ privacy and preventing fraud. Yet, the Village’s administration of its ordinance unquestionably demonstrates that it applies to a significant number of noncommercial “canvassers” promoting a wide variety of ‘causes.’ The pernicious effect of the permit requirement is illustrated by, e.g., the requirement that a canvasser be identified in a permit application filed in the mayor’s office and made available for public inspection, which necessarily results in a surrender of the anonymity this Court has protected. Also central to the Court’s conclusion that the ordinance does not pass First Amendment scrutiny is that it is not tailored to the Village’s stated interests. Even if the interest in preventing fraud could adequately support the ordinance insofar as it applies to commercial transactions and the solicitation of funds, that interest provides no support for its application to petitioners, to political campaigns, or to enlisting support for unpopular causes. The Village’s argument that the ordinance is nonetheless valid because it serves the two additional interests of protecting residents’ privacy and the prevention of crime is unpersuasive. As to the former, an unchallenged ordinance section authorizing residents to post ‘No Solicitation’ signs, coupled with their unquestioned right to refuse to engage in conversation with unwelcome visitors, provides ample protection for unwilling listeners. As to the latter, it seems unlikely that the lack of a permit would preclude criminals from knocking on doors and engaging in conversations not covered by the ordinance, and, in any event, there is no evidence in the record of a special crime problem related to door-to-door solicitation.
“240 F.3d 553, reversed and remanded.”

OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE CONTENT OF STRATTON

Some aspects of Stratton are of special interest to the Christian.  For example, a section of the ordinance that was not challenged provided that should a resident file a “No Solicitation Registration Form” with the mayor, and post a “No Solicitation” sign on his property, no uninvited canvassers could enter his property, unless they are specifically authorized to do so in the “No Solicitation Registration Form” itself. EN6.  Each of the forms in the record contained a list of 19 suggested exceptions. EN7.  Those listed on the form included “Jehovah’s Witnesses” “Little League,” “Police,” “Campaigners,” “Camp Fire Girls,” and “Political Candidates.” EN8.  Not included in the suggested exceptions were “Christians,” “Baptists,” “Fundamental Baptists,” nor members of any other “Christian” denomination.  Apparently, it never entered the minds of the authors of the bill that members of any of those groups would be going door-to-door to spread the Gospel.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses “explained at trial that they did not apply for a permit because they derive their authority to preach from Scripture. ‘For us to seek a permit from a municipality to preach we feel would almost be an insult to God.’”EN9.  “Specifically”, they said, “from the Book of Matthew chapter 28, verses 19 and 20, which we take as our commission to preach. . . . So Jesus, by example, instituted a house-to-house search for people so as to preach the good news to them. And that’s the activity that Jehovah’s Witnesses engage in, even as Christ’s apostles did after his resurrection to heaven.” EN10.

The Court commented on prior law dealing with religiously motivated action:

     ”The only decisions in which we have held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections, such as freedom of speech and of the press, see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. at 304-307 (invalidating a licensing system for religious and charitable solicitations under which the administrator had discretion to deny a license to any cause he deemed nonreligious); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 87 L. Ed. 1292, 63 S. Ct. 870 (1943) (invalidating a flat tax on solicitation as applied to the dissemination of religious ideas); Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573, 88 L. Ed. 938, 64 S. Ct. 717 (1944) (same), or the right of parents, acknowledged in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925), to direct the education of their children, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972) (invalidating compulsory school-attendance laws as applied to Amish parents who refused on religious grounds to send their children to school).” Smith, 494 U.S. at 881 (footnote omitted by Court).” EN11.
     “For over 50 years, the Court has invalidated restrictions on door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering. (footnote with citations omitted by me). It is more than historical accident that most of these cases involved First Amendment challenges brought by Jehovah’s Witnesses, because door-to-door canvassing is mandated by their religion. As we noted in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 108, 87 L. Ed. 1292, 63 S. Ct. 870 (1943), the Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘claim to follow the example of Paul, teaching ‘publicly, and from house to house.’ Acts 20:20. They take literally the mandate of the Scriptures, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.’ Mark 16:15. In doing so they believe that they are obeying a commandment of God.’ Moreover, because they lack significant financial resources, the ability of the Witnesses to proselytize is seriously diminished by regulations that burden their efforts to canvass door-to-door.” EN12.
     “From [our past cases involving Jehovah‘s Witnesses], several themes emerge that guide our consideration of the ordinance at issue here.
     ‘First, the cases emphasize the value of the speech involved.  For example, in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, the Court noted that ‘hand distribution of religious tracts is an age-old form of missionary evangelism — as old as the history of printing presses. It has been a potent force in various religious movements down through the years . . . . This form of religious activity occupies the same high estate under the First Amendment as do worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits. It has the same claim to protection as the more orthodox and conventional exercises of religion.  It also has the same claim as the others to the guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.’ 319 U.S. at 109.
     ‘In addition, the cases discuss extensively the historical importance of door-to-door canvassing and pamphleteering as vehicles for the dissemination of ideas. In Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U.S. 147, 84 L. Ed. 155, 60 S. Ct. 146 (1939), the petitioner was a Jehovah’s Witness who had been convicted of canvassing without a permit based on evidence that she had gone from house to house offering to leave books or booklets. Writing for the Court, Justice Roberts stated that ‘pamphlets have proved most effective instruments in the dissemination of opinion. And perhaps the most effective way of bringing them to the notice of individuals is their distribution at the homes of the people. On this method of communication the ordinance imposes censorship, abuse of which engendered the struggle in England which eventuated in the establishment of the doctrine of the freedom of the press embodied in our Constitution. To require a censorship through license which makes impossible the free and unhampered distribution of pamphlets strikes at the very heart of the constitutional guarantees.’” Id., at 164 (emphasis added). EN13.
     ‘Finally, the cases demonstrate that efforts of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to resist speech regulation have not been a struggle for their rights alone. In Martin, after cataloging the many groups that rely extensively upon this method of communication, the Court summarized that ‘door-to-door distribution of circulars is essential to the poorly financed causes of little people.’ 319 U.S. at 144-146.’” EN14.
     “If the exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly cannot be made a crime, we do not think this can be accomplished by the device of requiring previous registration as a condition for exercising them and making such a condition the foundation for restraining in advance their exercise and for imposing a penalty for violating such a restraining order. So long as no more is involved than exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly, it is immune to such a restriction. If one who solicits support for the cause of labor may be required to register as a condition to the exercise of his right to make a public speech, so may he who seeks to rally support for any social, business, religious or political cause. We think a requirement that one must register before he undertakes to make a public speech to enlist support for a lawful movement is quite incompatible with the requirements of the First Amendment. (citations omitted).” EN15.
     “The mere fact that the ordinance covers so much speech raises constitutional concerns. It is offensive — not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society — that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so. Even if the issuance of permits by the mayor’s office is a ministerial task that is performed promptly and at no cost to the applicant, a law requiring a permit to engage in such speech constitutes a dramatic departure from our national heritage and constitutional tradition. Three obvious examples illustrate the pernicious effect of such a permit requirement.” EN16.
     “First, as our cases involving distribution of unsigned handbills demonstrate, there are a significant number of persons who support causes anonymously.  “The decision to favor anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. at 341-342. The requirement that a canvasser must be identified in a permit application filed in the mayor’s office and available for public inspection necessarily results in a surrender of that anonymity.” EN17.
     “Second, requiring a permit as a prior condition on the exercise of the right to speak imposes an objective burden on some speech of citizens holding religious or patriotic views. As our World War II-era cases dramatically demonstrate, there are a significant number of persons whose religious scruples will prevent them from applying for such a license. There are no doubt other patriotic citizens, who have such firm convictions about their constitutional right to engage in uninhibited debate in the context of door-to-door advocacy, that they would prefer silence to speech licensed by a petty official.” EN18.
     “Third, there is a significant amount of spontaneous speech that is effectively banned by the ordinance. A person who made a decision on a holiday or a weekend to take an active part in a political campaign could not begin to pass out handbills until after he or she obtained the required permit. Even a spontaneous decision to go across the street and urge a neighbor to vote against the mayor could not lawfully be implemented without first obtaining the mayor’s permission.  In this respect, the regulation is analogous to the circulation licensing tax the Court invalidated in Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 80 L. Ed. 660, 56 S. Ct. 444 (1936). In Grosjean, while discussing the history of the Free Press Clause of the First Amendment, the Court stated that “‘the evils to be prevented were not the censorship of the press merely, but any action of the government by means of which it might prevent such free and general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely essential to prepare the people for an intelligent exercise of their rights as citizens.’ (citations omitted by me).” EN19.

CONCLUSION

It is surprising that Americans still have the right to communicate freely.  The government still cannot punish us for communicating the Gospel door-to-door. “For most of modern American history, we’ve worked very hard to legislate, regulate and agitate to get the true believers out of sight and out of mind. We’ve tried to license them out of existence, put them in jail, limit them to certain public places, forbid them from all public places.” EN20.

A secular law journal note states: “The strongest challenge to individual liberty in this nation may not be dramatic displays of force, similar to terrorism or totalitarianism, but instead, the intolerance of some Americans for day-to-day annoyances and unorthodox forms of self-expression. As the Stratton ordinance demonstrates, the character of this nation is defined not just in the legislative chamber and in the courtroom but also on the doorstep.” EN21.  Christians should be even more concerned than a secular writer about their ability to freely communicate without persecution.  What are Christians in this free society doing to define the nature of this nation on the doorsteps of their neighbors?  How do their efforts compare with those of the early Christians who suffered persecution and death for their obedience to God’s directions?

Thank God that, due to the efforts of the JWs, Christians can go to all doors, including those of JWs, and offer them the whole truth.

Endnotes

EN1 The reader can get the point in the first three paragraphs.  Those who want to delve deeper into the subject may read further into the paper and go to other sources such as cases and law review articles.  The author has not eliminated legal citations or legalese in parts of the paper–e.g., in the summary from Lawyer’s Edition.  This allows the more serious student to examine the issues to whatever depth he desires.

EN2 Acts 5:29, KJV.  The author is not unaware that one can find a verse of scripture taken by itself to support about anything.  However, this scripture, when taken in context of the entire book of Acts and the entire Bible, definitely supports the principle that God lays out the guidelines for the Christian walk.  When God tells Christians to do something, then it is legal for them to do it.  For example, notice the verses preceding and following Acts 5:29.  The disciples were commanded not to teach in the name of Jesus.  Their response was “We ought to obey God rather than men” and immediately did what they had just been told by man not to do–that is, they immediately preached Jesus [and the Gospel, by implication] to those who had just told them not to do so.  “When [the officials] heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.” Acts 5:33.  It is interesting to note that the people to whom they spoke were offended, yet they spoke the truth nonetheless.  Another example of the fact that the Word of God is up to date: in these verses we see, if we have obeyed God and presented the Gospel to others outside the settings of our church buildings, that the attitudes and actions of the religious crowd in response to the preaching of the Gospel has not changed.   Of note also is the fact that the apostles were commanded not to teach in the name of Jesus.  Today churches line up at the door of the government to get incorporations and 501(c)(3) tax exemptions so that they can preach in the name of the government, to be told what they can and cannot preach by the government.  If the government allows a church to preach in the name of Jesus, the issue is still “by whose authority do you do this?”  Of course, it is by the authority of the state and not by the authority of Jesus.

EN3 Dr. Gerald Sutek is a great man of God who has been a leader in “public ministry” for many years.  He has preached and evangelized on the street and in pulpits all over the world and has published several biblically based books on the subject of “public ministry.”

EN4 The author speaks satirically at times.  To paraphrase Hank Hanagraph, “It’s too bad Christians won’t do for the truth what the cults do for a lie.”  Of course, cults sometimes are correct about some principles while wrong about others.

EN5 536 U.S. 150 (2002).

EN6 Stratton at 156.

EN7 Id. at 157.

EN8 Id.

EN9 Id. at 157-158.

EN10 Id. at 158 fn 7.

EN11 Id. at 159 fn 8.

EN12 Id. at 160-161.

EN13 Id. at 161-162.

EN14 Id. at 163.

EN15 Id. at 164.

EN16 Id. at 165-166.

EN 17 Id. at 166.

EN18 Id. at 167.

EN19 Id. at 167-168.

EN20 Laurence D. Cohen, Editorial, With God (and the Supreme Court) on Their Side, Hartford Courant, July 11, 2002, at A9 cited in Proselytizers, Pamphleteers, Pests, and Other First Amendment Champions: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton , 18 BYU J. Pub. L. 229, 233-234 (2003).

EN21 Id. at 234.

EN22

Letter sent to the Westlake Hills city attorney:

[Name of Westlake Hills City Administrator]
City Administrator
911 Westlake Drive
Westlake Hills, Texas 78746

RE:  Door to door communication of the Gospel.

Dear Mr. []:

I am witing this letter pursuant to our telephone conversation on November 22, 2000. I apologize for not getting back with you sooner, but I needed to copy and study your City Ordinance concerning the licensing of solicitation, and the applicable caselaw.

As you know, some people from Capitol City Baptist Church were going door to door communicating the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to residents of Westlake Hills. They were informed by a West Lake Hills police officer that they could not continue without a permit. Of course, the police officer was just doing his job as he understood the law.

I was contacted by one of the men from that church concerning the legality of their activity. They are waiting for a resolution between the City of Westlake Hills and me, their attorney, before resuming their door to door communications.

After reading your statute, I find no division of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Westlake Hills, Texas that requires people involved in door to door communication of the Gospel to ask the City of Westlake Hills for a permit. Section 58-32 states: “The regulations contained in this division shall apply to all solicitors, peddlers, and other persons conducting solicitations and whose activities are governed under division 2, 3, 4, or 5 of this article.”

Division 2 requires a permit for “Commercial Solicitations by Peddlers and Itinerant Merchants.” Division 3 requires a permit for doing “Charitable Solicitations.” Division 4 requires a permit for “Political Advocacy Solicitations.” Division 5 requires a permit for “Mobile Food Peddlers.” None of these divisions govern communication of the Gospel. It might seem that the people involved are soliciting for charity, but that is not the case. They request nothing from any resident of the City of Westlake Hills. They knock on a door, politely explain their purpose, perhaps offer a Gospel tract and engage in verbal communication concerning the Gospel if the inmate of the house is receptive. If not, they go to the next door. They are not abusive or discourteous. They honor the desires of the inmates to whom they come in contact. They never ask for money or anything else. They merely make known, to those who wish to communicate, the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

As you know, there are many criminal laws on the books that protect people from intrusion onto their property—for example, criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, obstructing a passageway or highway and many others. If a resident tells someone to leave their property and that person refuses, the person can be cited for criminal trespass, not a minor offense.

Allowing freedom of speech and religion produces positive consequences for a governmental entity. The courts have acknowledged this by recognizing the importance of freedom of speech and religion. The United States Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of door to door communication by religious people in numerous cases. In the following cases, legislation regulating canvassing and soliciting, as applied to the noncommercial activities by members of the Society of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was held to violate the First Amendment guaranties of free speech and press, and freedom of religion:

1. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 146 S. Ct. 146, 84 L. Ed. 155 (1939).
2. Caldwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940).
3. Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418, 63 S. Ct. 667, 87 L. Ed. 873 (1943).
4. Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 63 S. Ct. 862, 87 L. Ed. 1313 (1943).

As I recall, those cases are fairly succinct and answer many questions one may have concerning this issue. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the freedom of religion and freedom of communication are pillars of our nation. Noncommercial speech, especially religious speech, is given more protection than other types of speech.

Our early leaders recognized the importance of religion to a nation. George Washington said, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” In his Farewell Speech on September 19, 1776, he said: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.  “In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.”

The law of our land still protects the freedom of those who, for nothing in return, give of their time and labor to communicate the Gospel in a peaceful manner. To hinder those involved in such activity is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.

My clients wish to resolve this issue as expeditiously as possible. I will contact you in a day or two to see if you agree with their position. If you do, I would appreciate your notifying the West Lake Hills Police Department that their activities are not governed by the Solicitation Ordinance of the City of West Lake Hills.

The people involved are peaceful law abiding citizens and are willing to cooperate in any reasonable manner to address any concerns you may have. They have a high regard for the police department and for government officials and appreciate the job they do. They would be glad to give you their identities and any other information you desire. However, they cannot, according to their beliefs, ask for a permit, nor is a permit required under your present statute as I understand it.

Please do not hesitate to contact me for any reason.

Very truly yours,

Jerald C. Finney

jcf

Recommended websites: The Old Time Way;  Old Paths Baptist Church; Only Way: An Appeal to Heaven
Recommended reading: Outcome Based Religion (Click to see review)

Preface

This article is a continuation of Jerald Finney’s systematic development of the doctrines, application, history, and legalities of “separation of church and state.” See En1 for more on this matter. This article is an edited version of Section I, Chapter 12 of the book God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed). (Link to Contents of “Separation of Church and State Law” Blog which has links so that the new follower can start his study at the beginning. “Line upon line, precept upon precept.”). See En2 for information on books by Jerald Finney which thoroughly examine “separation of church and state law.”

Conclusion to “The biblical doctrine of government”

Salvation is the beginning of a new life. After salvation, one’s purpose is to glorify God.  Jesus said to Peter who rebuked Him for speaking of His coming sufferings and death at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes:

“Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of the Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works” (Mt. 16.23-27).

Hope begins with the individual, with self-government. A saved individual has hope. He has rejected sin and Satan and his rule and turned to Christ and His principles.

One who is saved, continues in God’s Word, and seeks to live according to biblical principles has the promise of persecution while on this earth: “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Ti. 3.12). Some Christians forget that although every saved person will go to heaven, there they will still be rewarded according to their works:

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved: yet so as by fire” (Mt. 3.11-15).

A church, a family, or a nation made up of Christians (those who are saved and follow the principles of God) has hope. Peter makes clear he will keep his brethren in remembrance that a believer needs certain things to prevent himself from being barren and unfruitful and to keep himself from falling—faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity (2 Pe. 1.3-13). God would have us exercise these qualities in all things. “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Pe. 1.3-4). [Bold emphasis mine.]

All things would include all principles of the Word of God: the doctrines of church, state, and separation of church and state are therefore to be studied diligently and applied by the Christian. Unfortunately, most Christians are deficient, especially in knowledge. The principle of Hosea 4.6-19 concerning rejection of knowledge and the inevitable consequences thereof, although directed immediately to the children of Israel, is also a general principle which applies to believers today. Sadly, in any nation, the lost and the saved who are not seeking to follow after God’s principles always outnumber Christians, at least in the long run. As a result, no civil government has ever been under God for any length of time, and every civil government has been or will be judged by God before He sets up His kingdom.

Did God give us all the principles people need for success as individuals, as families, as churches, and as nations knowing that we would always ultimately fail? Yes. He knew it from the beginning. He knew we would totally destroy ourselves even with all His wisdom at our disposal. He knew that we would ultimately totally reject all His wisdom, statutes, and commandments. And along the way, He knew that no one, at any time, would ever fully comprehend God and God’s ways. He knew man would blow it. Yet, because of His love, He sent His own Son to pay the price for our monstrous sins. He gave each and every person a way out. That way was not oneself, one’s conscience, one’s family, one’s virtue, one’s good deeds, one’s church membership, one’s baptism, or one’s civil government. That way was His Son. Period.

Endnotes

En1 Why should believers, and especially pastors, be concerned about the area of church and state law? Because only through knowledge can they avoid dishonoring the Husband/Bridegroom/Head of their local church body and thereby failing to achieve their God-given goal—glorifying God and pleasing Him.

These articles systematically examine the biblical doctrines of church, state, separation of church and state and the application of those doctrines in America. For believers and churches, the information presented is—according to God’s Word—of great importance to our Lord. By reading and studying each article using the Bible as the standard, a believer will discover that the biblical principles are correct as presented. By studying the historical and legal facts presented—without bias, prejudice, illicit motive, or an overriding opposing agenda which has a vested interest in maintaining a status quo due to loss of finances, support or something else—and examining those facts in light of biblical principle, a qualified believer (a believer who has the necessary biblical, historical, and legal qualifications and education) can understand that the conclusions are correct.

That said, understanding the biblical principles, relevant history, and legal principles and facts is, first, impossible for one who is not a born again believer who is walking in the Spirit, and, second, daunting for even the spirit filled follower of Christ. Years of honest, open minded study is required to achieve the correct knowledge and understanding of all facets of church and state law. First, one must interpret Scripture correctly (See 2 Ti. 2:15) as to the relevant topics. After mastering the biblical principles, one must then labor through the annals of history, and the intricacies of law. In order to be qualified to comment upon the law, one must have an extensive legal education. He must understand how to do legal research and how to reach correct legal conclusions. Legal commentary by a pseudo lawyer can sound good to the untrained, while he may be correctly understood as frivolous and unlearned and probably heretical by the educated believer.

This is not to say that a non-lawyer cannot understand the legal and historical aspects of spiritual matters. In fact, the author knows some pastors and other believers who, having already correctly divided the Word of Truth and determined to seek to please God in all matters, have open minds and who have eagerly sought truth in the historical and legal church and state law arena. He is working with such a young pastor at this very moment. He is a brilliant young man who had mastered the Scriptures and Baptist history before the author met him. He excels the author in those matters, as do some other pastors and believers known by the author. Unlike most pastors, he does not have the disadvantages of having gone to either a secular or ecclesiastical (Baptist or otherwise) institution of higher learning. Secular colleges and universities usually corrupt even the most devout child of God; and religious colleges, institutions, and seminaries generally (with few exceptions, one of which the author has personal knowledge of)—by either mixing an ample dose of humanism with whatever biblically correct teaching they dose out; or by having totally having abandoned truth—likewise usually corrupt their students to one degree or another.

On the other hand, I am vexed by what I read in some books and websites concerning church and state law; particularly by some vicious, unfounded attacks upon the Biblical Law Center Declaration of Trust by unqualified, biased assailants who are attempting to mislead believers and churches through incorrect biblical and legal analyses and personal attacks upon and outright lies about those with whom they disagree in such matters.

Being a believer alone, even a pastor, does not by itself qualify one to teach on church and state law. The author has been a believer and faithful member of independent Baptist churches since his salvation. He was called by God to go to law school for His glory and to please Him. As a result of that calling, he obtained a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from one of the best law schools in the country and has practiced law for seventeen years. He has no motive for dishonesty. By design, he has never made a dime above expenses in his work in the church and state law arena. In fact, he has spent tens of thousands of dollars with total income of at most three to four thousand dollars in all the years he has worked in this area of law. Because of this he is beholden to no one and nothing but the truth and his Lord and Savior. Since becoming a lawyer, he has devoted untold thousands of hours in biblical, historical, and legal study and analysis of church and state law.

As always, he declares that if anyone can show him where he is in error, he will recant. Honest, loving believers have taught him much and caused him to modify some of his positions. He has also, in his continued studies, modified some of his conclusions and positions. However, he maintains his primary positions because neither he, through his continued studies, or others have shown him to be wrong about his basic church and state law principles and conclusions.

En2 God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed): may be ordered from Amazon by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Amazon.com or from Barnes and Nobel by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Barnes and Noble. All books by Jerald Finney as well as many of the books he has referenced and read may also be ordered by left clicking “Books” (on the “Church and State Law” website) or directly from Amazon by going to the following links: (1) Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses (Kindle only); (2) The Most Important Thing: Loving God and/or Winning Souls (Kindle only); (3) Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities? (Link to preview of Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities?) which can also be ordered by clicking the following Barnes and Noble link: Separation of Church and State on Barnes and Noble.

Jerald Finney
Copyright © December 2, 2011
Left click the following link for easy access to all articles on this website:
Complete listing of articles on “Separation of Church and State Law” blog
or
Contents

Recommended websites: The Old Time Way;  Old Paths Baptist Church; Only Way: An Appeal to Heaven
Recommended reading: Outcome Based Religion (Click to see review)

Preface

Truth is as essential to history as the soul is to the body.—Frederick.
Quoted on 92 of The Writings of John Leland
“Truth needs no apology, and error deserves none. Prefatory lies have often atoned for ignorance and ill-will in the Eastern and European worlds; but let the sons of America be free. It is more essential to learn how to believe, than to learn what to believe” (92)

Note. Unless otherwise indicated, all quotes are from the book The Writings of John Leland, and only the page numbers are noted. Several years ago, I tried to find a copy of the writings of John Leland. I discovered a two volume set of the writings of John Leland online, but the price was $200.00. Two days later, I decided to “bite the bullet” and pay the $200.00. It was too late. The books were no longer available, and I could not find any other sources. Recently, Pastor Jason Cooley informed me that John Leland’s writings are now available for $20.00 from Local Church Bible Publishers, www.LocalChurchBiblePublishers.com. I bought the book from that source.

Book Review: The Writings of John Leland

John Leland was both a Baptist hero and an American hero. His contributions to religious liberty in America should be known by every American, and especially to every American Baptist. He was a constant and effective promoter the Baptist distinctive of separation of church and state, soul liberty, or religious liberty both before and after the ratification of the United States Constitution. His exploits and thoughts on liberty should stand next to those of George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, he was a leader for religious liberty in Virginia: “The Baptists fought to have the act incorporating the Episcopal church repealed. Reuben Ford and John Leland attended the first 1787 assembly meeting as agents in behalf of the Baptist General Committee (Charles F. James, Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 2007; first published in Lynchburg, Virginia: J. P. Bell Company, 1900), pp. 142-146). On August 10, 1787, the act incorporating the Episcopal church was repealed, and until 2001—when Jerry Falwell and trustees of the Thomas Road Baptist Church, who were joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged the Virginia Constitutional provision forbidding the incorporation of churches in federal district court—no church in Virginia could be incorporated (See Falwell v. Miller, 203 F. Supp. 2d 624 (W.D. Va. 2002).”  God Betrayed, p. 282.

“It is sad that Christian revisionists, in their successful effort to deceive the entire Christian community and advance their agenda by combining church and state, so that the resulting union of church and state can bring in the kingdom of heaven, have belittled, misrepresented, and/or totally ignored great men such as Roger Williams, Dr. John Clarke, Isaac Backus, Shubal Stearns, John Leland and others. Their efforts have done great and irreparable damage to the cause of Christ.” God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Austin, Texas: Kerygma Publishing Company, 2008), p. 208; See EN for more information on books by Jerald Finney; God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed). Tragically, even most Baptists have been deceived by the revisionists, and believe and teach the revisionist lies.

“John Leland, the most popular preacher in Virginia, was chosen by the Baptists as candidate of Orange County to the state ratification convention opposed to ratification of the United States Constitution, and his opponent was to be James Madison. Mr. Leland likely would have been elected had he not later withdrawn. Mr. Madison, when he returned from Philadelphia, stopped by Mr. Leland’s house and spent half a day communicating to him about ‘the great matters which were then agitating the people of the state and the Confederacy’ and relieving Baptist apprehensions as to the question of religious liberty. As a result of this meeting, Mr. Leland withdrew in favor of Mr. Madison and the Baptists of Orange County were won over to the side of Madison” (Charles F. James, Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 2007; first published in Lynchburg, Virginia: J. P. Bell Company, 1900), pp. 150-158; William P. Grady, What Hath God Wrought: A Biblical Interpretation of American History. (Knoxville, Tennessee: Grady Publications, Inc., 1999) pp. 166-167.” God Betrayed, p. 285.

In compiling The Writings of John Leland, “Great care has been taken to ascertain truth, and few assertions have been made that are not sustained by documentary evidence of undoubted authenticity.” The book combines what the Elder Leland believed, preached and lived with evidences of a pious character, preaching style, life history and accomplishments, personal demeanor, and his effect on those whom he converted and those to whom he preached” (65).

Reading John Leland’s writings reveals the mind of a brilliant believer. His political insights were, for like of a better word, awesome. His historical and biblical knowledge were of the highest order, but, more importantly, his analyses were brilliant, reflecting the mind of God. Through a short biography, compilation of letters, speeches to political bodies, essays, sermons, etc., The Writings of John Leland reveals, of special interest to this author, the political and spiritual life and beliefs of John Leland. Mr. Leland’s spiritual activities resulted in the salvation of many souls; and, as already noted, he was very instrumental in the adoption of the First Amendment the United States Constitution. He remained active until  his death. He wrote, “I [John Leland] close, by observing that here is an arm seventy years old, which, as long as it can rise to heaven in prayer, or wield a pen on earth, shall never be inactive, when the religious rights of men are in jeopardy. Was there a vital fibre in my heart, that did not plead for rational religious liberty, I would chase the felon from his den, and roast him in the flames” (507).

The remainder of this review will consist of two parts: (1) A summary of “Events in the Life of John Leland,” and (2) “A sampling of quotes and matters which Leland addresses in the essays, sermons, addresses, poems, etc. which are included in the book”.

Events in the Life of John Leland (9-40)

Born in Grafton, Massachusetts on May 14, 1754. As a boy, he lost all desire for youthful diversions and, due to conviction in his mind, and would talk on no subject but religion. “Reading the Bible and meditating on the shortness of time, and the importance of being prepared for death and judgment, occupied the chiefest of [his] time.” He began to earnestly seek the Lord (11), and reached conclusions about salvation. While less than twenty years old, he, although naturally bashful publically disputed on the matter of salvation freely by grace with a very respectable preacher (13), then prayed and gave the people present a word of exhortation. The next day, reproaching himself for his forwardness and presumption, he told some that they need not mind anything that he had said, since he was a poor unconverted sinner. He and another young man about his age began to set up evening meetings, to sing, pray, and speak according to their proportion of faith as the Spirit gave them utterance (15). He struggled with his moral evil in himself and “want of will,” and worried about preaching. He was baptized in June, 1774 (16).  He preaches from Malachi 9: “If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name saith the Lord of Hosts, I will even send a curse upon you ——.” He continued to preach and doors opened. He finally surrendered to the ministry, without any condition, evasion, or mental reservation (18). [Lady blamed him for being a closed communicant; he asked why he should be blamed for not communing with those who have no fellowship with him (18-19). Joined Bellingham church which gave him a license to do that which he had been doing for a year (19). Oct. 1775 went to Virginia for 8 mo. Married Sally Devine on 9/30/1776. Moved to Culpepper, Virginia. Ordained by the choice of the church, travelled and preached.  Moved to Orange county. Travailed in the desire for salvation of sinners, prays much, baptizes (130), preaches from Orange to York. (20-21). This continues through p. 40.

Pp 41- “Further sketches of the Life of John Leland.” Additional incidents from the editor which continue the history to the time of Leland’s death (1835 to the death of John Leland), including more on the life and character of Mrs. Leland (liberality, courage (e.g., saved her husband from a murderer’s sword (42), life of unceasing toil, always busy, always quiet (43), more on her life history on (43), , her faith firm in Christ, etc. Sketch of John Leland’s last sermon preached 1/8/1841 (46-47). “Thus died John Leland—a man eminent above many for piety and usefulness, whose name is connected with all that is pure in patriotism, lovely in the social and domestic virtues, philanthropic in feeling and action, arduous, disinterested, and self-denying in the labors of the ministerial calling; one whose place in society, in the church, and in the ranks of the ministry, will not soon be filled—in the hearts of those who knew him, never (49).

He died as a witness for the truth, testifying, with his last breath, the value of religion, and that only, which has its seat in the heart. His life had been unostentatious; his aspirations after worldly honors, ever low and feeble; his humility and sense of dependence on God, deep-felt and abiding—and thus he died….” His tombstone read: “Here lies the body of the Rev. John Leland, who labored 67 years to promote piety and vindicate the civil and religious rights of all  men. He died January, 14, 1841, aged 86 years and 8 months (50).” His religious creed (50-1).

“Through a long life, Elder Leland sustained, with uniform consistency, the two-fold character of the Patriot and the Christian. For His religious creed he acknowledged no director but the Bible. He loved the pure, unadulterated word of truth and as a minister of that word, zealous and faithful, he preached it, as far as he was able, unmixed with the doctrines and commandments of men, ‘not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.’ He was clear in exposition, happy in illustration, often powerful and eloquent in appeals to the conscience and heart. He insisted, in absolute and unqualified terms, on the great fundamental truths of the gospel, the necessity of regeneration, faith and repentance; but, on points not essential to salvation, though his opinions were no less firmly established, and he never shrunk from advocating them on proper occasions, yet he did not censure or denounce those who differed from him, nor  exclude from fellowship, ass Christians, any who gave evidence of a gracious change, whatever might be their peculiar doctrinal views. He never engaged in controversy; and when any of his published opinions were disputed, or commented upon, as was sometimes the case, with severity, he preferred to  ‘let the matter rest a little, and then give another thrust,’ as he expressed it, to the wwast of time, repetitions, and tediousness of reviews and replies.” (51-52).

“His political creed was based upon those ‘sufficient truths’ of equality, and of inherent and inalienable rights recognized by the master spirits of the revolution as the principles for the support of which they pledged ‘their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.’ As a politician, he was above the influence of any but sincere and patriotic motives. He was a statesman, rather than a politician. He studied the fundamental principles of government, and drew his conclusions directly from them, without any intervening medium of self or party interest…. His sentiments, on particular measures, it is unnecessary to comment upon, as they are clearly expressed in his writings. His feelings on the subject of slavery may be gathered from the fact that, during his fourteen years’ residence in Virginia he never owned a slave, as well as from his remarks in the Virginia Chronicle, and from the resolution offered by him, when a member of the Baptist General Committee, and passed by them, in 1789, in the following words: …” (51-52).

 “The great object, (next in importance to his mission as a preacher of Christ,) for which he seems to have been raised up by a special Providence, was to promote the establishment of religious liberty in the United States. His efforts, perhaps, contributed as much  as those of any other man, to the overthrow of ecclesiastical tyranny in Virginia, the state of his adoption, and exerted a beneficial influence, though less successful, towards the promotion of the same end in that of his nativity. In the former, in the years 1786-7-8, we find his name in the doings of the Baptist General Committee, with which he stood connected, as messenger to the General Assembly, appointed to draft and present memorials respecting the Incorporating  act, the application of the glebe lands to public use, etc. Though the cause of religious freedom was the common cause of all dissenters, yet the Baptists, as a sect, took the lead in those active, energetic, and persevering measures, which at length prevailed in its establishment. Many individuals of other denominations took an active part, and aided materially in bringing about the glorious result; nay, that even many of the more conscientious and patriotic among the members of the established church, made praiseworthy exertions in its favor, is a fact too honorable to themselves, and to the state that produced them, to be passed unnoticed. Enrolled among the ardent champions of religious liberty, are the names of Virginia’s most illustrious sons—of Washington, Henry, Jefferson, Madison. To particularize, in regard to the efforts made, and the good accomplished by each, is unnecessary in this place; the following Address an Reply, which are inserted entire, will serve to exhibit the enlarged views and the unselfish spirit of the patriots of that day, as well as the harmony, one might almost say identity, of sentiment that prevailed among them.” … (Address to President Washington: see pp. 52-54.). George Washington’s reply on pp. 54-55, says, in part: “If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention where I  had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the  religious  rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and if I could now conceive that the  general government might even be so administered, as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself, to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. For you, doubtless, remember, I have often expressed my sentiments, that any man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected  in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience... (52).”

Leland moved to New England in 1791. Immediately “commenced anew the warfare against religious  intolerance, and the defence of the cause that had so signally triumphed in Virginia. During his stay in New London, he published his ‘Rights of Conscience Inalienable,’ and afterwards, from time to time, other works of the same character; some of which will be found in [this volume], and others it has been impossible to obtain. “Our limits do not allow us to enter upon the history and progress of religious liberty in Massachusetts. This may be found elsewhere…. At length, in the beginning of 1811, a decision by Judge Parsons, that no society, not incorporated by law, could claim even the pitiful privilege of drawing back money, awakened the fears of the dissenters, and a circular Address, accompanied by a petition to the legislature, praying for a revision of the laws respecting public worship, was circulated through the state. At the solicitation of the people of Cheshire, Mr. Leland accepted a seat in the legislature, for the special purpose of aiding the measures petitioned for. His speech, delivered during the debate on the subject, may be found in another part of the work (55).”

“A law was finally passed that gave some relief, but not complete satisfaction. The ‘stump’ of the tree of ecclesiastical oppression, so carefully preserved ‘with a band of iron and brass,’ continued, therefore to furnish a subject for his animadversion, in various essays, addresses, etc.  and he improved such opportunities as were offered him, as a matter of duty, and in fulfillment of the public pledge he had  given, that ‘as long as he could speak with his tongue, wield a pen, or heave a cry to heaven, whenever the rights of men, the liberty of conscience, or the good of his country were invaded by fraud or force, his feeble efforts should not lie dormant.’”

A sampling of quotes and matters which Leland addresses in the book

59- His views on church discipline, communion, etc.
65 – Excerpt from Semple’s Virginia Baptists on John Leland.
68- 69 Leland on God’s Sovereignty vs. free will.
69 – 70 Criticisms of John Leland.

 70 “There is evidently a wide difference between searching the Scriptures to find a system of truth, and searching them for evidence to support one already adopted….”

78 (In Preface to “The Bible Baptist): “Truth needs no apology, and error deserves none. Prefatory lies have often atoned for ignorance and ill-will in the Eastern and European worlds; but let the sons of America be free. It is more essential to learn how to believe, than to learn what to believe.
                “The doctrine and spirit of the following remarks, are left for the reader to judge of for himself. Truth is in the least danger of being lost, when free examination is allowed.”

78 “Christian writers generally agree to reproach the Jews, for treating the Rabbies with as much respect as they did the prophets; giving as great credit to their traditions as they did to the sacred volume. But many Christian writers are guilty of the same absurdity. It is no more significant for Jews to quote the Talmud or the Targum, to prove a Mosaic rite, than it is for Christians to depend on Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, and the other fathers of the church, for a gospel ordinance.”

73-77 “The History of Jack Nips”: (The boy Leland examiners the teaching of the church; also state constitutions) This examines doctrines of the Presbyterian church: preaching in tones, their orthography, infant baptism of non-believers (who gave their child to God) 73-, baptism of infants who are out of the church and of infants of those who are enemies of the church (75). He does his Bible study of baptism 76. His dad intended him for a minister. His question: “But does God. Those who are sent by men to preach, must look to men for their pay; but those that are sent by God, must depend on him.” He studies all the state constitutions at age 22. He found that “there were not two of them that agreed. What said I, do great men differ? Boys, women, and little souls do; but can learned wise patriots disagree so much in judgment? If so, they cannot all be right, but they may all be wrong, and therefore, Jack Nipps for himself. What encouraged me to search and judge for myself, was this: when I was a small boy, I fancied that I stood in the middle of the world, and that the earth extended no further than my eye-sight explored: but people told me that I was wrong in my judgment; but after a few years study, I found I was half right. That the earth exceeded my eye-sight, I soon found by experience; herein I was wrong. But that I am always on the centre spot of the surface of the globe, is an undeniable truth. And as mature experience convinced me that my boyish thoughts were some of them right, I concluded it might be so with my study in politics” 77.

78- Excellent examination of “baptism” including infant baptism. John the Baptist 79. Inconsistencies of those who promote infant baptism 81. On “Mk. 16.15-16 “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned” 81-2. On Peter’s teaching on baptism 82-3. On Philip 83-4. The next baptizer, Ananias 84. Then Paul 84-6. Baptism of the Holy Ghost 87. The argument that many great reformers and preachers, in past ages, believed and practiced infant sprinkling; if error, would not God have convinced them of it, when he was with them, in so great a degree 89?

91- :The Virginia Chronicle.” Account of the different religious sects in Virginia. Settlement, population 94-95.  The Quakers (persecuted by not put to death) 94. Of the slaves 94-8. Wishes its dissolution, but points out the great problems in so doing. Briefly on their religious worship etc. “THE UNIFORMITY OF RELIGION FOR ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS 98-99. OF THE PRESBYTERIANS 99-100. OF THE METHODISTS (Armenian) (Tremendous footnote on 101 about baptism) 100-1. OF THE TUNKERS 102-3. OF THE MENNONISTS 103-4 (Excellent comments on civil government). OF THE BAPTISTS 104-5. THE PERSECUTION OF BAPTISTS (Excellent reasons why no religious test should be required for office) 105-7. THE REASONS FOR THEIR DISSENT (107-109). THREE GREAT PRINCIPLES (The 3 great principles which divide the Christian world) 109-11. OF MARRIAGE 111-2. THE DECLENSION AMONG THE BAPTISTS (“But as they gained this piece of freedom, so the cares of war, the spirit of trade, and moving to the western waters, seemed to bring on a general declension. The ways of Zion mourned. They obtained their hearts’ desire, (freedom,) but had leanness in their souls. Some of the old watchmen stumbled and fell, iniquity did abound, and the love of many waxed cold…. FN 9N 114 WHY A CONFESSION OF FAITH?) 112-4. THE GREAT WORK (The declension ended in 1785 with revival) 114-6. THE NUMBER OF BAPTISTS 116-7. ON DRESS 117. THE EXCESS OF CIVIL POWER ESPLODED (Tremendous insights on freedom of conscience, chaplains paid by govt. (in army or legislature or elsewhere, the extent of power of civil govt. (can’t use Israel as example), govt. maintenance of religion) 117-9. WASHING OF FEET AND DRY CHRISTENING 120. THE VIRGINIA BAPTISTS COMPARED WITH THE GERMAN 120-1. SOME REMARKS 121-2. THE RIGHTS AND BONDS OF CONSCIENCE 122-3. THOUGHTS ON SYSTEMS 123-4.

125-171 “The First Rise of Sin.” “If the decalogue (the Ten Commandments) is all of a moral nature, the injunction is binding on all nations; and if all nations were under the bond of regarding the seventh day in a holy manner, it is strange that St. Paul never had occasion to reprove the Gentiles, for the breach of it, fas the Jewish prophet had to reprove their own nation; and, besides … If, in the New Testament, Christians are commanded to keep the first day, by Christ or his apostles, that divine appointment is sufficient; human legislatures have nothing to do in ordaining fixed holy days, establishing creeds of faith, requiring religious tests, certificates, or anything of the kind. 146.” [God could not have prevented sin. God decreed that angels and men should not sin. No law was given men or angels to sin. If it was the design, decree, or secret will of God, that creatures should sin, how can it be sin? for sin is the transgression of his will…. If sin is the cause of general good, all creatures should love it; and if creatures should love it, why are they called upon to repent of, and hate it? … And as it was not possible for God to sin, or make creatures sin, so, likewise, (considering him in the character of a moral governor, it was not possible for him to prevent it. Should a legislature do more than make laws, forbidding crimes; … the only means he could make use of to prevent it, would make them entirely miserable…. So it was with God; he loved his creatures, and sought to make them happy; and, as rational creatures cannot be happy without the freedom of their will, this freedom was established in them by God; and, in this point of view, it was not possible for God to have prevented their sin; as the only means that would have secured them from sin, would have made them completely miserable. 141-2.]

171-75: “Letter of Valediction on Leaving Virginia, in 1791.” To slave owners and slaves 173-4.

177-192 “The Rights of Conscience Inalienable, and therefore, Religious Opinions not Cognizable by Law. 1791.” “Did not the Christian religion prevail during the first three centuries, in a more glorious manner than ever it has since, not only without the aid of law, but in opposition to all the laws of haughty monarchs? And did not religion receive a deadly wound by being fostered in the arms of civil power and regulated by law? These things are so 181.” … “To say that ‘religion cannot stand without a state establishment,’ is not only contrary to fact, (as has been already proved), but is a contradiction in phrase. Religion must have stood a time before any law could have been made about it; and if it did stand almost three hundred years without law, it can still stand without it (182).” “… The evils of establishment are many. First, second, third (Uniformity. “Millions of men, women, and children, have been tortured to death, to produce uniformity, and tet the world has not advanced one inch towards it…. The duty of the magistrates is, not to judge of the divinity or tendency of doctrines; but when those principles break out into overt acts of violence, then to use the civil sword and punish the vagrant for what he has done, and not for the religious phrenzy that he acted from. 184), fourth (Leland completely obliterates the objection “that the ignorant part of the community are not capacitated to judge for themselves” which “supports the Popish hierarchy, and all Protestant, as well as Turkish and Pagan establishments in idea.”), fifth(182-6). He shows the biblical problems with the establishment of religion in Conn. (186-90).

193-95. The Modern Priest.

Circular Letter of the Stratsbury Association, 1794. 196-99. The deists and infidels are] “equally-assiduous in declaring what is not true, and never tell us what truth is. With all their boasted illumination in the ground and laws of nature, they never tell us what natural religion is, nor how the God of nature is to be worshiped (197). Tremendous!

213- .The Yankee Spy …, 1794. By Jack Nips. Answers questions about civil govt. including pre-flood, post flood (Nimrod, Gentile nations, the nation of Israel. Sample question with part answer: “Q. Has the ecclesiastical part of the Mosaic constitution ever been abused as well as the political part? A. Yes, and that to a degree. The church of Israel took in the whole nation, and none of that nation: Whereas, Christi’s church takes no whole nation, but those who fear God and work righteousness in every nation….” Circumcision and baptism 217-18. About English govt. 218-19. About the U.S. Const. 219-20. Const. of Mass. 220. A Bill of Rights with that of Mass. examined 22029. “If a  man worships one God, three Gods, twenty Gods, or not God—if he pays adoration one day in a week seven days, or no day—wherein does he injure the life, liberty or property of another? Let any or all these actions be supposed to be religious evils of an enormous size, yet they are not crimes to be punished by the laws of state, which extend no further, in justice, that to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. (221).”

233-55. A Blow at the Root: Being a Fashionable Fast-Day Sermon Delivered 0409 1801. On liberty of conscience 239-. On persecution and murder of heretics by Papists, by Protestants, in Eng., in Mass. (Roger Williams banned, persecution, art. 3 of Mass. Const.), the  reasons given for establishment (to prevent error, to effect and preserve uniformity of sentiment, to support the gospel) examined.

273-81. The Government of Christ a Christocracy, 1804. [On Mass. 279-81].
283-300.An Elective Judiciary, with other things recommended in a speech…, 1805. Addresses the two arguments against electing judges: (1) the people have not wisdom and sedateness enough to select from among themselves , those who are best qualified to be judges and (2) if judges hold their office by t tenure of periodical elections, they will have such strong temptations to please  the strongest party, in order to secure their next election, that they will not judge uprightly.
301-314. Ordination Sermon. Isaiah/s seraphims, Ezekiel’s cherubims, John’s four beasts are the same. What do they represent?
322-29. Various poems.
330-. Essays, 1810. [Why Christ was God 331-2].

[353-358. SPEECH: DELIVERED I THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS, ON THE SUBJECT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, 1811. “Let Christianity stand upon its on basis, it is the greatest blessing that ever was among men; but incorporate it into the civil code and it becomes the mother of cruelties” 356.

356. “If, to escape this-dilemma, we adopt Papal maxim, that government is founded in grace, and, therefore, none but gracious men have a right to rule; and that these gracious rulers have both right and knowledge to legislate about religion, we shall find, what other nations have found, that these divine rulers, will be the most cruel tyrants: under this notion, Mr. Chairman, the crusades were formed in the eleventh century, which lasted about two hundred years, and destroyed nearly two millions of lives. In view of all this, and ten thousand times as much, is it to be wondered at, that the present petitioners, should be fearful of attaching corporate power to religious societies…. The interference of legislatures and magistrates, in the faith, worship, or support of religious worship, is the first step in the case, which leads in regular progression to inquisition; the principle I the same, the only difference is  in the degree of usurpation…” 357.the Gospel, was now the point at issue. On which I reasoned thus: the New Testament I in existence: it as written either by bad men or by good men: to believe that bad men wrote it, requires a a faith more marvelous that it does to believe the truth of any article contained in it. Or bad men to form a book that condemns every species of sin—that lays the honors, pleasures, and wealth of the world in t dust—that enjoins patience under injury, and goof for evil—in short, to sacrifice everything that is pleasing to bad men: who can believe it? … The belief of the gospel never makes good men worse, but often makes bad men better…. 363. Proof of the resurrection 366. What the Bible teaches about disembodied spirits 369-70.

373-5: ADDRESS TO THE ASSOCIATIO OF THE SONS OF LIBERTY, CHESHIRE, MARCH 4, 1813.
381-405. THE JARRING INTERESTS OF HEAVEN RECONCILED BY THE BLOOD OF THE CROSS, 1814. [396-405. The works which were necessary for Christ to accomplish.]
406-39. MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS, IN PROSE AND VERSE. [419-20. Age and Egotism. “We come into the world ignorant. To aa child, every thing is new and impressive, and more so to a young man, that one of a greater age. The young man of genius, is charmed with the logic of his author, and feels impressed with his own arguments. He lays down his thesis, supports it with metaphysical [metaphysics means “a study of what is outside objective experience”] arguments, forms his syllogism, and draws his conclusion, with little or no doubt of the reality of the whole….” If I use this, continue with the rest on p420.][423 “So it is with metaphysical reasoning: the smallest error, in the outset, though undiscovered by the writer or reader, if pursued, under the pretext of consistency, will lead to an amazing distance from the truth.”][426-28: !!!!!!!! NIMROD, MOSES, CHRIST, AND THE UNITED STATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!][440-46. ON SABBATICAL LAWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!][450-53: CATECHISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!][496-7. EXTRACT OF AA LETTER FROM J. L. TO HIS INQUISITIVE FRIEND][497-9. SHORT REFLECTIONS.][499-500. THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN][501-7. ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE REQUEST OF THE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE OF ARRANGEMENTS, AT PITTSSFIELD, ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE, JULY 4, 1824][508-16.FORM OF A CHARGE TO A CNADIDATE AT HIS ORDINATION]

 [572-82. SHORT SAYINGS ON TIMES, MEN, MEASURES AND RELIGION, EXHIBITED IN AN ADDRESS, DELIVERED AT CHESHIRE, JULY 5, 1830. On the national debt, the population, the office of Pope created in 606, (religious freedom, marriage of church and state 579-80), ][583-96. THE RESULT OF OBSERVATION, 1830. “In some governments, universal toleration is granted to all kinds of religious opinions. This sounds humane and benevolent, but has a deadly root. If government has power to grant it as a favor, it has equal power to withhold it. In such cases, the citizens enjoy their liberty by a tenure no better than the good will of those in power. But the freedom of religious opinions, not only with societies, but with individuals, is a right inalienable, that cannot be surrendered. Of course, no government can tolerate or prohibit it but by tyrannical usurpation. If men commit overt acts under a pretence of religious impression, let the magistrate punish them for the overt acts, and pity them for their delusion” 594. On the kingdom and also on Daniel Marshall 594.]

[597-9. OATHS, 1830.]

Etc.

Endnote

God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed): may be ordered from Amazon by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Amazon.com or from Barnes and Nobel by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Barnes and Noble. All books by Jerald Finney as well as many of the books he has referenced and read may also be ordered by left clicking “Books” (on the “Church and State Law” website) or directly from amazon.com at the following links: (1) Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses (Kindle only); (2) The Most Important Thing: Loving God and/or Winning Souls (Kindle only); (3) Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities? (Link to preview of Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities?) which can also be ordered by clicking the following Barnes and Noble link: Separation of Church and State on Barnes and Noble.

Recommended websites: The Old Time Way;  Old Paths Baptist Church; Only Way: An Appeal to Heaven
Recommended reading: Outcome Based Religion (Click to see review)

Preface

This article is a continuation of Jerald Finney’s systematic development of the doctrines, application, history, and legalities of “separation of church and state.” See En1 for more on this matter. This article is an edited version of Section I, Chapter 11 of the book God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed). (Link to Contents of “Separation of Church and State Law” Blog which has links so that the new follower can start his study at the beginning. “Line upon line, precept upon precept.”). See En2 for information on books by Jerald Finney which thoroughly examine “separation of church and state law.”

Satan orchestrates the world-system

Sometime long ago, Satan rebelled against God, thereby introducing sin to the universe:

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners” (Is. 14.12-17)?

Notice Satan’s five “I wills” in the verses quoted above. “His ‘I will’ (Isa. 14:13) marks the introduction of sin into the universe. Cast out of heaven (Lk. 10:18) he makes earth and air the scene of his tireless activity (Eph. 2:2; 1 Pet. 5:8). After the creation of man he entered into the serpent. (Gen. 3:1, note) and, beguiling Eve by his subtlety, secured the downfall of Adam and through him of the race, and the entrance of sin into the world of men (Rom. 5:12-14)” (1917 Scofield Reference Edition, n. 2 to Re. 20.10, p. 1350).

Satan seduced Eve with the same temptation whereby he was tempted: “I will be like the most High.” He said to Eve:” “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” (Ge. 3.5). Since that day, Satan has been the god of this world, but,

“[t]he Adamic Covenant (Gen 3:14, note) promised the ultimate destruction of Satan through the ‘Seed of the woman.’ Then began his long warfare against the work of God in behalf of humanity, which still continues. The present world-system (Rev. 13:8) organized upon the principle of force, greed, selfishness, ambition, and sinful pleasure, is his work and was the bribe which he offered to Christ (Mt. 4:8-9). Of that world-system he is prince (John 14:30; 16:11) and god (2 Cor. 4:4). As ‘prince of the power of the air’ (Eph. 2:2) he is at the head of vast host of demons. (Mt. 7:22, note). To him, under God, was committed upon earth the power of death (Heb. 2:14). Cast out of heaven as his proper sphere and ‘first estate,’ he still has access to God as the ‘accuser of the brethren’ (Rev. 12:10) and is permitted a certain power of sifting or testing the self-confident and carnal among believers (Job 1:6-11; Lk. 22:31-32; 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20) but this is strictly permissive and limited power, and believers so sifted are kept in faith through the advocacy of Christ (Lk. 22:31-32; 1 John 2:1, note). At the beginning of the great tribulation Satan’s privilege of access to God as accuser will be withdrawn (Rev. 12:7-12). At the return of Christ in glory Satan will be bound for one thousand years (Rev. 20:2) after which he will be ‘loosed for a little season’ (Rev. 20:3, 7-8) and will become the head of final effort to overthrow the kingdom. Defeated in this, he will be finally cast into the lake of fire, his final doom. The notion that he reigns in hell is Miltonic, not biblical. He is prince of this present world-system, but will be tormented in the lake of fire” (1917 Scofield Reference Edition, n. 2 to Re. 20.10, p. 1350).

Men, except for the remnant, and nations always choose the principles of Satan over the principles of God, and men and nations will always suffer the consequences.  “Kosmos [translated ‘world’ in Revelation 13.8] in the sense of the present world-system, the ethically bad sense of the word, refers to the ‘order,’ ‘arrangement,’ under which Satan has organized the world of unbelieving mankind upon his cosmic principles of force, greed, selfishness, ambition, and pleasure:

“Mt. 4.8, 9 [‘Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things  will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.’];
“John 12.31 [[Jesus said] ‘Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.’]; 14.30 [[Jesus said] ‘Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.’];
“John 14.30 [‘Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.’]
“John 18.36 [‘Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.’]
“Eph. 2.2 [‘Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.’ Ephesians 4.3 goes on to say, ‘Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.’];
“Eph. 6.12 [‘For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.’];
“I John 2.15-17 [‘Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.’]
   “This world-system is imposing and powerful with armies and fleets; is often outwardly religious, scientific, cultured, and elegant; but, seething with national and commercial rivalries and ambitions, is upheld in any real crisis only by armed force, and is dominated by satanic principles” (1917 Scofield Reference Edition, n. 2 to Re. 13.8, p 1342).

The god of this world blinds people to the truth. “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Co. 4.3-4). At the same time Satan is blinding people to truth, he indoctrinates people into his world principles.

A specific instance of God directly addressing Satan is recounted in Ezekiel 28. Although speaking to the king of Tyre,

“as in Isaiah 14.12, the language goes beyond the King of Tyre to Satan, inspirer and unseen ruler of such pomp and pride as that of Tyre…. The unfallen state of Satan is here described; his fall in Isa. 14.12-14 [supra]. (See Rev. 20.10, note). But there is more. The vision is not of Satan in his own person, but of Satan fulfilling himself in and through an earthly king who arrogates to himself divine honours, so that the prince of Tyrus foreshadows the beast (Dan. 7.8; Rev. 19.20)” (1917 Scofield Reference Edition, n. 1 to Ez. 28.12, p. 871). [Notice God’s five “I wills in Ezekiel 28.16-18.]

Does God desire that a government be under Satan? No! Pursuant to the Word of God, God desires every government—self-government, family government, civil government, and church government—to be under Him. But He gives every government a choice. To verify this, look at the verses cited above and then read through the Bible looking at how God deals with governments. Even a nation (civil government) can repent and turn to God at any time. God through Jeremiah said:

“At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them” (Je. 18.7-10).

Just as the doom of self, family, and churches is directed by Satan, so will the downfall of all nations be orchestrated by Satan. It is important to remember, however, that God gives every individual, every family, every church, and every nation a choice between going by His or Satan’s principles. All individuals and institutions are doomed if they let Satan’s principles of force, greed, selfishness, ambition, and/or pleasure influence them to give in to their lusts and follow Satan. Ultimately, as the Bible reveals, one’s only hope is to come to God with a humble and contrite spirit, repent of sins, and trust the Lord Jesus Christ as his/her personal savior. This will be the beginning of a new life in which one who continues in His Word will become His disciple and will know the truth which will set him free (See Jn. 8.31-32).

Endnotes

En1 Why should believers, and especially pastors, be concerned about the area of church and state law? Because only through knowledge can they avoid dishonoring the Husband/Bridegroom/Head of their local church body and thereby failing to achieve their God-given goal—glorifying God and pleasing Him.

These articles systematically examine the biblical doctrines of church, state, separation of church and state and the application of those doctrines in America. For believers and churches, the information presented is—according to God’s Word—of great importance to our Lord. By reading and studying each article using the Bible as the standard, a believer will discover that the biblical principles are correct as presented. By studying the historical and legal facts presented—without bias, prejudice, illicit motive, or an overriding opposing agenda which has a vested interest in maintaining a status quo due to loss of finances, support or something else—and examining those facts in light of biblical principle, a qualified believer (a believer who has the necessary biblical, historical, and legal qualifications and education) can understand that the conclusions are correct.

That said, understanding the biblical principles, relevant history, and legal principles and facts is, first, impossible for one who is not a born again believer who is walking in the Spirit, and, second, daunting for even the spirit filled follower of Christ. Years of honest, open minded study is required to achieve the correct knowledge and understanding of all facets of church and state law. First, one must interpret Scripture correctly (See 2 Ti. 2:15) as to the relevant topics. After mastering the biblical principles, one must then labor through the annals of history, and the intricacies of law. In order to be qualified to comment upon the law, one must have an extensive legal education. He must understand how to do legal research and how to reach correct legal conclusions. Legal commentary by a pseudo lawyer can sound good to the untrained, while he may be correctly understood as frivolous and unlearned and probably heretical by the educated believer.

This is not to say that a non-lawyer cannot understand the legal and historical aspects of spiritual matters. In fact, the author knows some pastors and other believers who, having already correctly divided the Word of Truth and determined to seek to please God in all matters, have open minds and who have eagerly sought truth in the historical and legal church and state law arena. He is working with such a young pastor at this very moment. He is a brilliant young man who had mastered the Scriptures and Baptist history before the author met him. He excels the author in those matters, as do some other pastors and believers known by the author. Unlike most pastors, he does not have the disadvantages of having gone to either a secular or ecclesiastical (Baptist or otherwise) institution of higher learning. Secular colleges and universities usually corrupt even the most devout child of God; and religious colleges, institutions, and seminaries generally (with few exceptions, one of which the author has personal knowledge of)—by either mixing an ample dose of humanism with whatever biblically correct teaching they dose out; or by having totally having abandoned truth—likewise usually corrupt their students to one degree or another.

On the other hand, I am vexed by what I read in some books and websites concerning church and state law; particularly by some vicious, unfounded attacks upon the Biblical Law Center Declaration of Trust by unqualified, biased assailants who are attempting to mislead believers and churches through incorrect biblical and legal analyses and personal attacks upon and outright lies about those with whom they disagree in such matters.

Being a believer alone, even a pastor, does not by itself qualify one to teach on church and state law. The author has been a believer and faithful member of independent Baptist churches since his salvation. He was called by God to go to law school for His glory and to please Him. As a result of that calling, he obtained a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from one of the best law schools in the country and has practiced law for seventeen years. He has no motive for dishonesty. By design, he has never made a dime above expenses in his work in the church and state law arena. In fact, he has spent tens of thousands of dollars with total income of at most three to four thousand dollars in all the years he has worked in this area of law. Because of this he is beholden to no one and nothing but the truth and his Lord and Savior. Since becoming a lawyer, he has devoted untold thousands of hours in biblical, historical, and legal study and analysis of church and state law.

As always, he declares that if anyone can show him where he is in error, he will recant. Honest, loving believers have taught him much and caused him to modify some of his positions. He has also, in his continued studies, modified some of his conclusions and positions. However, he maintains his primary positions because neither he, through his continued studies, or others have shown him to be wrong about his basic church and state law principles and conclusions.

En2 God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed): may be ordered from Amazon by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Amazon.com or from Barnes and Nobel by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Barnes and Noble. All books by Jerald Finney as well as many of the books he has referenced and read may also be ordered by left clicking “Books” (on the “Church and State Law” website) or directly from Amazon by going to the following links: (1) Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses (Kindle only); (2) The Most Important Thing: Loving God and/or Winning Souls (Kindle only); (3) Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities? (Link to preview of Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities?) which can also be ordered by clicking the following Barnes and Noble link: Separation of Church and State on Barnes and Noble.

If Christianity forbids national war—if the precepts of Christ, “I say unto you that ye resist not evil,” etc., were intended for the nations of the earth, and are binding on them, as political bodies, it follows, of course, that all the wars that have been since the introduction of Christianity, have been in direct rebellion against God.

Taking this to be the case, what ought to be done to remedy evil, and make an atonement for the long perpetuated crime? Those nations of savages, who have never heard the precepts of Christ, are excepted from present animadversion, but those nations that have been favored with the gospel, and now call themselves Christian nations, are particularly addressed.

A reformation, acceptable to God, consists in a disavowal of crimes—turning to the way of future righteousness—and restoring to the injured that which was wrongfully taken away. In this view of the subject, it becomes the kings and rulers, kingdoms and states, of this world, to confess the sin of war—turn to a course of perpetual peace—and restore all the dominion and territory, that has been taken by war, to those from whom they wrested them. Anything short of this would be hypocritical reformation. It is true, that this procedure, in a retrospective chain, would carry most of the nations and territories back to Rome, with Tiberius Cæsar at their head; in which condition the world was when Christianity was introduced.

This would be utterly impracticable. But the now existing kings and rulers, kingdoms and states, have it in their power to make restoration of the dominion and territory, which they now possess, that were taken from others by the horrid crime of war. And for such rulers and states to plead for peace without a restoration, is like the felon who wishes all others to be  at peace, that he may quietly possess his stolen goods.

When two men are in single combat, and one casts the other, and holds him, he cries, “Will you be peaceable?” But if the master was in the place of the underling, he would think more of extricating himself than he would of peace.

It is now rumored that the great powers of Europe, particularly Russia and Great Britain, are for giving peace to the world. Russia is the strongest power, by land, in Europe, and likely in the world. Great Britain commands the sea, with her navy, which is far superior to that of any other nation, if not to all other nations. Should these nations, therefore, unite to extirpate war from the earth, and establish universal peace, the poor and needy would resound their praise—the widows and fatherless would bless them. But while they proclaim peace, is it their intention to keep their navies, armies and garrisons in such repairs, that other nations cannot effectually resist them? If so, it is but the boast of complete despotism. The plain language of it is this: “We are masters, and intend to be so; we command you all to be peaceable one with another, and with us in particular; if not, see the rod in our hands, by  which we will scourge you until you are peaceable, for we are determined that all others shall be in peace, on the conditions that we prescribe.” Did Napoleon ever wish for more? Can a tyrant ask for more? If this state of the world is desirable, why did not Russia, Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and other powers adopt it seventeen years past? What scenes of horror, and seas of blood it would have prevented.

If the now triumphant kingdoms are convinced of the moral evils of war, and wish to make an atonement for the treasure which they have consumed, the powers which they have overturned, and the lives which they have destroyed, let them now confess, reform, and restore all that they can; but, if they justify their past wars, under the pretense that they were necessary, in order to free the world from the tyranny of Napoleon, and bring it  into the happy state which it is now in, other nations may justify future wars, to deliver the world from its  present masters, and bring it into a happier state than it is in at present. But if the conviction of the now triumphant kingdoms is genuine, and their desire is to free the world from the cause of war, without seeking their own supremacy, then let them disband all their troops, and dismiss their military officers—demolish all their garrisons—destroy every ship of war—and convert every implement of war into instruments of mechanism and husbandry. Let them, moreover, restore the provinces and territories, with their respective jurisdictions, which they have taken from others, and make declaration that every section of the world shall attach itself to what government they choose, establish that form of government which is most congenial to their wishes, and have those to administer it whom they prefer, and that every man shall be free in his religion, to worship whom, when, and as he pleases, without any interruption. Let this proclamation be made, and put into effect by the great powers, and followed by all the smaller dominions, and all but tyrants, pensioners, and covetous priests, who make merchandise of what they preach, and the souls of men would hail the halcyon day. For princes to talk about peace, without coming to this standard, is but mocking the people—seeking to be emblazoned for noble generosity after they have killed and taken possession, without restoring to nations their liberties, and guaranteeing to individuals their inalienable rights.

As the project has never assumed the character of system, and been put in operation, it is unknown whether the members that are to compose this congress are to be chosen by the people, or appointed by the sovereigns—whether they are to hold their offices for life, during good behavior, or for limited terms—whether each kingdom and state shall have an equal number of members, or whether kingdoms and states shall be represented according to their numbers—whether, in all cases, a majority shall rule, or in some cases more than a majority should be necessary to carry a point—whether the non-submission of a single power, or several of them in concert, shall be suppressed by force  of arms, or by non-intercourse only.

Should all these questions, and all others that might arise, be cordially adjusted, and a congress assemble in style, it would remind one of what a barbarian said to the senate of Rome: “My own countrymen are hydras, but the senate is an assembly of the gods.”

In a congress thus formed, it is presumed that every member would have the views and wishes of their respective governments at heart. So long as unity continued among them, so long harmony would remain among the confederate nations but in case of disagreement, the same evils that now infest the world would arise in all their baleful aspects. From a knowledge of the physical strength of the greater powers, the smaller ones would feel afraid, as they now do; but supposing the decrees of congress should be contrary to the will of Russia or Great Britain, or against both these powers in connection, would those great powers succumb to the little states for the sake of peace, or would they not more naturally resist? If war is declared to subject the powers that will not acquiesce, the design of the congress, which is to prevent war, will be defeated. If an embargo is appealed to, that none of the confederate nations shall buy or sell any article to the obstinate states, could they enforce it? Would not the avarice and enterprise of the merchant defeat all the laws of congress? It is hard to conceive of any advantage that would arise from a congress thus formed, that does not now exist by friendly embassy, but it is easy to foresee what pomp and expense would attend it.

To prepare a way for a congress to be appointed, to prevent the horrors of war, peace societies are forming to facilitate the grand event. If these societies lay the foundation of their appeal upon this condition: “That on the           day of                              in the year                         all nations, by their agents, shall meet at   
                     for the purpose fo affixing the day, when all armies shall be disbanded—all ships of war be sunk in the sea—alll forts and garrisons be destroyed—all instruments of war broken to pieces—all territory and dominion, taken by force of arms, restored to their best claimants_-all legal establishments of religion repealed, with a pledge that war never shall be appealed to for any purpose, and that no law shall ever be made to regulate religion, all good men, who understand the genius of Christianity, will give them their support. But if their exertions tend only to prevent the military exertions of one nation of the world, while other nations are waxing stronger and stronger, they must not judge that all those who withhold their support are enemies to human happiness.

The remarks already made originated from the supposition that the precept of Christianity, “resist not evil,” was a prohibition of national war; but the precept, connected as it is, looks as much like a prohibition of legal resistance, as it does of military force. If you are compelled, stripped of your coat, persecuted or smitten, never make use of the law to resist the evil, or get redress. Rather than go to law, why do ye not take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? … That the precepts of Christianity, which enjoin non-resistence on the disciples, were not intended as maxims of state policy or civil law, appears pretty evident, from the consideration, that Christ never assumed the character of a worldly king, or civil judge. He said his kingdom was not of this world, and he refused to act as judge, in dividing the inheritance of two brethren, and in pronouncing the penalty of the law against the adulterous woman. The direct tendency of Christ’s kingdom was the eternal salvation of souls; the systems of civil law and national war, have nothing to do with souls and eternity. In the case of the dying thief, both governments show their nature and distinctness. The government of men condemned him to death, which he himself said was just, and the government of Christ pardoned his sin. Christ did not deliver him from the penalty of the law, and the decision of the law did not interfere with the government of Christ, which was wonderously displayed in saying, “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The civil judge is not to question whether the criminal is saint or sinner, or how it will fare with him in the world to come; but these characteristics are all important in the kingdom of Christ.

In war, also, which is the same among nations that courts of trial are among individuals, the moral state, and worth of the soul is out of the question, and national justice is all that is (or ought to be) in view. Nothing can be more preposterous and presumptuous than to declaim, or conceive that all who fall in battle, will undoubtedly go to heaven. The agriculturist, the mechanic, the merchant, the sailor, the scholar and the soldier, in this respect, stand on even ground. The truth is, those who fear God and work righteousness, will be accepted of their Maker, and all others will not. The soldier, therefore, who is a devout saint, if he falls in battle, will go from the field of battle to the regions of glory; but he who is a hardened sinner, falling in battle, will sink where he will lift up his eyes in torment.

Christianity was not designed by its author, to be characteristic of the nations of the earth, in their political state; nor was the name given in the days of its purity, to any but the meek disciples of Christ. The name however, has been filched by the enemies of Christ, and Christianity has been prostituted to the vilest purposes. Since Christianity became national, Christian nations have been equally cruel and bloodthirsty, and more unjust and perfidious than Turks or heathens. Nevertheless, Christ has a people among these nations, whom he redeemed and washed with his blood—a peculiar people, zealous of good works; they are not of this world, and the world knows them not. These are his disciples indeed. And to these disciples, there are so many commands of non-resistence, patience, forgiveness of offenses, praying for enemies, rendering good for evil, and blessing for cursing, that if these disciples are not to be considered in a two-fold capacity, it is notoriously wicked for them to bear arms and go to war, prosecute any one for smiting or robbing them, suing any man for debt, or applying to any legal office to secure the titles on their lands.

By their two-fold capacity, is intended, first, their being members of Christ’s body, which is the church; and secondly, their being subjects of the government where they reside.

As members of Christ’s body, or kingdom, their weapons are all spiritual. Force and recrimination are forbidden them. Their law is love. Their armor is the word of God for a sword—faith for a shield, and hope for a helmet. Where legal force, and carnal weapons are used among nominal Christians, to convert heathen, punish heretics, establish creeds of faith and forms of worship, collect money, compel attendance on worship, etc. under a religious covert, the commands of Christ to his disciples are broken. If they think they are serving God in it, they know not what manner of spirit they are of.

In the government of Christ among his members, commonly called church discipline, no force or resisting of evil is to be used. The church is to restore such as are overtaken with faults, in the spirit of meekness, warn the unruly, with all the gentleness of Christ—admonish and reject heretics, and cast from among them wicked persons; but church censure extends no farther than non-fellowship. Fines, imprisonments, punishments and civil incapacities, are not imposed by church censure. A declaration of who and what is fellowshipped, and who and what is not fellowshipped, is all that the church is to do.

But, if the desciples of Christ are considered in the second capacity that has been suggested, members of civil society, other things may be said. Civil society ….

That war, famine, and pestilence, have continued their ravages among men, since the introduction of Christianity, as much as they did before, will be generally granted, it is presumed; and the same is true of earthquakes, eruptions, etc. But for Christ, in his dediatorial character, to direct national war, would be meddling with the government of this world, which does not appear to be included in his mission. He did not come into the world to teach men the arts of husbandry, mechanism or science. He gave no code of laws for the government of nations, nor pointed out the best mode of administration. He left no orders, whether all nations should adopt the ancient Theocracy of the Israelites, or whether they should govern themselves as reason and justice dictate. He came into the world with the avowed purpose, “To glorify God on earth—to seek and save that which was lost—to lay down his life for his sheep—to wash sinners from their sins in his own blood—to magnify the law, make an atonement for sin, and bring in everlasting righteousness—to abolish death, and open a new and living way into the kingdom of glory—to save men ay the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” etc. Having these great works to finish, (all of which tended to the eternal salvation of the souls of men,) he did not intermeddle with the affairs of this world, but left the wheels of commerce and government to roll on as Providence led the way.

The great silence, however, in the New Testament, about war, has more sifnification than words could have. Had Christ given a precept that, in certain cases, it was the duty of kingdoms and states to wage war, every nation would make such cases their own, though the war which they waged was ever so unjust. Had he, on the other hand, given a precept that every species of war was criminal, the whole would have been exposed by robbery and death, by the cruelty of an individual, or a few, at most. But, although there is no direct precept in the New Testament, for or against national war, yet there are some useful hints given to direct our minds in research.

John was the forerunner of Christ, and his ministry is called “the beginning of the gospel of Christ.” He admitted those to his baptism, who repented of their sins, and gave evidence of their repentance, by bringing forth its fruits. Some of these were soldiers, who asked the divine teacher “what they should do?”  John never suggested to them that a military life was incompatible with the gospel, and that they must quit the sword, if they would follow the Lamb of God who stood among them; but prudently answered them,  “Do violence  to no man, (who is a private citizen,) neither accuse any falsely, (for a pretence to kill him,) and be content with your wages.” If your work was unjust, your wages would be unrighteous; but, while you do your duty, be content with your pay, and not covet more.

A centurion (captain of an hundred men) sent to Christ, requesting him to speak a healing word, that his favorite sick servant might live. The condescending Saviour answered his request—healed his servant—gave him no reproof for bearing the sword—no orders to relinquish the army; but said of him, “ I have not found so great faith in Israel.”

Another centurion we read of, who was a devout man, that feared God with all his house, wh gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. The character given him is excellent; but he had not, as yet heard of the gospel way of salvation. As he was at prayer, he was warned opf God, bu a holy angel, to send for a New Testament preacher; and the preacher was also warned by a vision to go to the centurion, and tell him the way of salvation, and what he ought to do. Peter came, accordingly, and preached to him the forgiveness of sins, in the name of Jesus; and, when the Holy ghost fell on him, and those that were assembled with him, Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord; but gave him no reproof for bearing a military commission—no orders to resign  his command of the Italian band.

The parable of the marriage made for the king’s son, and the dinner made ready, is so self-evident in its meaning, that all interpreters are agreed about it. The king’s son, is Christ. The sumptuous dinner, intends the blessings of grace in the gospel, including forgiveness of sins and eternal life. The first bidden guests were the Jews, who made light of it, and murdered the servants of the king: they both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets—persecuted the apostles—pleased not God, and were contrary unto all men. For their opposition to the truth, and malice prepense against the messengers of it, He (the king) sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burnt up their city. That these armies intend the Roman legions, the murderers, the Jews, and the city, Jerusalem, there seems to be no real doubt. This event took place more than three score years after the beginning of the Christian era. Here, then is one instance in which the Almighty made use of war, after the gospel dispensation took place; and wars and rumors of wars have been in the world ever since. Many of the sore calamities, which God inflicts on wicked nations, (spoken of in the book of Revelations,) are evidently effected by the scourge of war.

But one thing should be particularly noticed, viz., that war was never appointed by God, by an original statute. Laws of civil government—putting away wives—war and such like precepts, were not from the beginning. As they all presuppose SIN in creatures, they could not have been appointed until sin had taken place. But after rebellious creatures had kindled the fire of hatred and war, the Almighty varied his precepts to meet their condition, and of course appointed war, which rebellious creatures had made, to punish them for their rebellion. This was the case in Old Testament times, and is as true in these days.

The Old Testament seems to be a kind of accommodation of God to fallen barbarous men, containing the best rules that the condition and general good of the world would admit of, having its special bearings towards the Jews.

The New Testament is not fraught with a code of civil laws, or national maxims, but has the salvation of souls as its object.

It appears, therefore, proper to examine the rise and rage of war among men, and whether any or all wars can be justified, on the principle of eternal right and wrong. Acknowledging this, however, in our examination, that the principle of eternal right and wrong, like a golden cord, runs through the Old and New Testaments, and shines with a thousand times more effulgence, than human reason can paint it with.

It is reasonable to conclude that the parent of all rational beings allots to each of them a certain degree of national right and independence, which no other individual, nor many individuals, in concert, ought to deprive him of. If this was not the case, individuals would never feel guilt for what they do, nor be accountable to their Maker for their deeds; but society must bear the whole. But as guilt preys upon individuals, for overt acts, and as every one must give an account of himself to his Maker, the argument is conclusive that each has a measure of original right, of whie he cannot justly be deprived. In this measure of natural right, exists life, liberty and property. Should one individual, therefore, be attacked by another individual, or a number of them in connection, in quest of life, liberty or property, the injured individual has a just right to use his weapon to defend himself, and if blood and life are lost in the contest, the guilt falls upon the assailants.

If no resistence can be justly offered to repel violence, it would follow of course, that one or two individuals might arm themselves, and destroy whole nations.

This kind of assault began with the first men that ever was born of a woman. His works were evil, and he slew his brother, and has ever since been called a murderer.

In process of time, individuals found it necessary to form into collective bodies, to withstand the aggressions of daring individuals and banditti. And what was unjust or expedient among individuals at first, became unjust or expedient among these collective bodies, now called governments and nations of earth.

As an individual who assaults and kills another, is a guilty murderer, s the nation that wages war, out of vain glory, from enmity, through covetousness, or from any other motive than self-defence, is guilty of murder, and will be treated by the King of kings as such. For notwithstanding any use that the Almighty may make of war, as a scourge to wicked nations, yet the nation that plunges voluntarily into it, is always criminal. Let all unrighteous, offensive wars cease, and there cannot be any righteous defensive wars on earth: for, if there is no assailant, there can be no defendant.

When one nation or government encroaches upon the territory or property of another government, dictates the other about her laws or rulers, or sheds the blood and enslaves the persons of her citizens, whether it is done under a proclamation of war or not, it is offensive war. And after the injured government has remonstrated the exercised all becoming patience, if a cessation and restitution do not follow, a defensive war seems not only justifiable but imperious; for the nation that does not contend for its own right, contends for the wrong of the encroaching nation.

Although Christianity, in its purest state, was not national, but personal and ecclesiastic, yet it is now become a national characteristic, to distinguish those nations where Christianity is professed, from Pagans, Turks and Jews.

Granting the propriety of the title, (which in fact is very disputable,) these nations, as bodies politic, may wage war upon the same footing as other nations, and on no other, viz., to defend their lives, liberty and property from the hands of those who assault them without cause. Nothing can be more horrid and wicked, than for these Christian nations to form their crusades and holy wars to convert the heathen, violently take away the land of the savages and make slaves of the prisoners.

But supposing there was a kingdom or commonwealth, of not only nominal Christians, but of real disciples of Jesus, whose hearts and practices were as perfect as this state of the world admits of, would it be lawful and duty for them to proclaim war, on any account?

This question is predicated upon a supposition which has never existed, it is presumed, since Christianity was introduced among men. The tares and the wheat have grown together, and will continue to do so until the harvest. Some colonies, however, have been settled by companies that made some advances towards it; but Roger Williams, Mr. Davenport and William Penn, with their respective associates, in Rhode Island, New Haven and Pennsylvania found so many tares among themselves, that they were obliged to have civil law (which is always sanctioned by the sword) to govern by. And notwithstanding Williams and Penn were great favorites of the savages, yet those colonies were involved in war.”

There is no doubt but many of those good people, who condemn national war of every description, are sincere in their profession; but should there be a commonwealth, in which all the leading characters, who control the destinies of bodies politic, were real saints, and conscience  bound against all war, should that commonwealth be invaded by a hostile army, of less physical strength than the commonwealth possessed, is there any doubt but what the citizens of said commonwealth would sincerely change their opinion? Would they not be guilty of neglecting the means which were in their hands, to defend themselves from the wrong of others, if they did not? Could not the most pious saint meet the hostile foe, in such a case, with the high praises of God in his mouth, and a two edged sword in his hand? Could he not do as a venerable old man did at Deerfield, in an Indian war? Said he, “I met an Indian, and I loved him; but to defend my right from his wrong, after praying the Lord to have mercy on his soul, I shot a bullet through his heart.”

…

We may reason from a unit to a universe: that which is right or wrong in an individual, would be the same in a government. Such kind of defensive war, is the only war that can be justified upon the principle of eternal right; all other wars are robbery, piracy and murder. And yet, the misanthropy and barbarity of fallen men are so great, that wars waged in avarice, on purpose to plunder—in ambition to rise high in esteem—or through hatred to a rival, are called honorable wars; and the more they can slaughter, the more splendid is the battle; while those who fall of their own, are said to be covered with glory; and, if they succeed to deprive the nation with whom they are at war, of all its sovereignty and rights, Te Deum is chanted, and the leaders of the war are led in triumph.

Military force, whether armed with staves, stones, battle-axes, swords or fire-arms, should never be called forth, but to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and enforce the laws. The words of Washington, in his last will and testament, breathe forth the spirit of a good citizen. In bequeathing his sword to his kinsman, he adds, “Never draw it but in defence of your contryu’s rights; and, when drawn, never sheath it until the object is attained.”

It is a melancholy thought, that, in all ages, men, as individuals and as nations, have been so ungrateful, covetous, and full of misanthropy, that justice and goodness could not restrain them without the scourge of severity; but, when the King of kings gives orders to “loose the four angels, which are prepared to kill the third part of men,” it is “in righteousness—HE doth judge and make war.” So individuals, in prosecuting other individuals, and nations, in warring with other nations, should do it out of love to right, and not from a spirit of hatred.

The man who prosecutes his neighbor before a legal bar, does, in fact, declare war with him, as much as one nation does with another when it commences military hostilities. How happy it would be for the world, if there was so much virtue in it, that no kind of war would be necessary! If every man and every nation would do right to their neighbors, there would not and could not be any war on earth. But the reasoning is irrefutable, that those individuals who conduct in a manner that justifies a legal prosecution against them, when collected together in a political body, would conduct so as to justify a war of hostilities against them.

The path is plain before us: let no individual work ill to his neighbor, and let no nation be unjust to another, and war will cease forever.

As things are managed at present, if not in individual, yet a frw control the destinies of each nation. The mass of the people are so ignorant that they know not why war is proclaimed, or so circumstanced that they cannot help it. In such cases, some fight for a living, and others because they are forced to. To conquer or to be conquered leaves them in the same predicament. This is a sore evil under the sun, but it is common among men.

The religion of Jesus, in its genuine course, fills men with such meekness and philanthropy, that, if it was universally possessed, there would be no prosecution at law, nor any wars among men. But, when Christianity is prostituted, to be the characteristic of an unhallowed nation—a principle of state policy—a test to office—a footstool to promotion—a sinecure to religious orders, and a piece of merchandise, it ever will be, as it ever has been, followed by war and slaughter.

Among nations, as among individuals, it frequently happens that each party has injured the other; and, if they plunge into war in that predicament, it is like the potsherds of the earth striving with the potsherds of the earth. Innocency has nothing to plead; justice has nothing to hope. If they mutually make confession and restoration, war will be prevented. If one party only makes all reasonable concessions, and the other party makes none, but rushes into war, the offence lies on the side of the last party, and the first is the defendant.

In this wrong world, right does not always take place. “Truth faileth in the streets, and equity cannot enter;” hence, victory and triumph often attend the basest tyrant, while the unoffending are trodden down like the mire of the street. The king of Babylon conquered and subjugated more than twenty-five kingdoms (see Jeremiah XXV.) and made them drink the bitter cup. The Lord used him as a scourge to those wicked nations; but, as they had done the king of Babylon no harm, he was wicked in his offensive wars upon them; and, therefore, in his turn, the king of Sheshach (Babylon) was made to drink after the.

RIGHT will finally take place. Though the contest between truth and error, right and wrong, is long, and, to appearance, very doubtful in its issue, yet truth and right must triumph at last.

END

 Recommended websites: The Old Time Way;  Old Paths Baptist Church; Only Way: An Appeal to Heaven
Recommended reading: Outcome Based Religion (Click to see review)

Preface

This article is a continuation of Jerald Finney’s systematic development of the doctrines, application, history, and legalities of “separation of church and state.” See En1 for more on this matter; See En2 for information on books by Jerald Finney which thoroughly examine “separation of church and state law.” This article is an edited version of Section I, Chapter 10 of the book God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed). (Link to Contents of “Separation of Church and State Law” Blog which has links so that the new follower can start his study at the beginning. “Line upon line, precept upon precept.”).

God judges nations

God judges nations. He judged Israel by sending Israel and Judah into captivity because of their repeated failure, despite many warnings from God, to keep His commandments and His statutes. He warned them in advance of what he was going to do (See, e.g., Je. 25.11).  His prophets repeatedly warned the Jews, not only of the consequences of their sins, but also pointed out their specific sins. Here are a few of the many relevant prophecies of warning to Israel:

“… [F]or the LORD hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood. Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away…. ”  (Ho. 4.1-3).  Israel was willfully ignorant: “… because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no more priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the  law of thy God, I will also forget thy children…. (See Ho. 4.6-11).”
     God reminds Israel through his prophet Amos of all His judgments against Israel and in spite of those judgments, “yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.”  God says, “Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel” (Am. 4.6-13 (part of verses 10 and 12 quoted)).
     God wanted Amos to preach 3 things to Israel: (1) the people did not respect the preaching of the word of God (Am. 7.10-13, 16); (2) Israel did not honor the Sabbath (Am. 8.5); (3) they did not detest sin any more (Am. 8.14).  God also wanted Amos to tell Israel exactly what he was about to do. They rejected his message. In fact, they didn’t even want to hear him preach. They rebelled at the message and the messenger.

God also judges Gentile nations. He has given them their authority (Da. 2.37-40), and will hold them to account:

     “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. Put them in fear, O LORD: that the nations may know themselves to be but men. Selah” (Ps. 9.17, 20).
     “For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth. He shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet” (Ps. 47.2-3).
     Psalm 135.6-12. “Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places…. Who smote great nations, and slew mighty kings; Sihon king of the Amorites, and Og king of Bashan, and all the kingdoms of Canaan….” (Ps. 135.6, 10-11).
     “To him which smote great kings: for his mercy endureth forever; And slew famous kings, for his mercy endureth forever; [kings named]” (Ps. 136.17-21).
     God used Assyria to judge Israel and then judged Assyria for its pride in boasting that Assyria did this (Is. 10.5-19).
    God, through his prophets, told of the coming judgments on all nations, and the reasons for those judgments: destruction of Moab (Is. 10.5-19); destruction of Damascus (Is. 17); burden of Egypt (Is. 19); prophecy that Assyria will waste Egypt and Ethiopia (Is. 20); burden of Tyre (Is. 23); woe of Ephriam (Is. 28); Armageddon: “the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them…. (Is. 34);” judgment of Babylon (Is.. 47); judgment on Israel’s oppressors (Is. 49.22-26; 51); all nations to be judged—many nations listed to be judged (Je. 25.11-14, 15-38; 26.18-38); destruction of Egypt, Philistia, Tyre, Moab, Ammonites, Edom, Damascus, Elam, Babylon, Chaldea, etc.—read through Jeremiah 46-51 and notice the reasons given for destroying these nations; Babylon destroyed because Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, scattered Israel (Je. 50.17-18); because they [strove] against the LORD (Je. 50.24); the judgment against Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chaldea because of the violence and evil done to Israel (Je. 51.24, 35-36); judgments against various nations in Ezekiel 25-32—the reason for each judgment given and the judgment; judgment of the Gentile nations in Joel 3.2-8 after Armageddon; judgments on people surrounding Israel prophesied in Amos 1.1-2.3; judgments on certain nations prophesied in Zephaniah 2.4-15; Zechariah, more than Haggai or Malachi, gives God’s thoughts about the treatment of Israel by nations surrounding Israel—He has given them their authority and will hold them to account, the test being their treatment of Israel. “For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye” (Zec. 2.8).

The test for a Gentile nation, as always, is the way a nation treats Israel. “And I will make of thee [Israel] a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing; And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed (Ge. 12.2-3).” “Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee” (Ge. 27.29).  “He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as a great lion: who shall stir him up? Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee (Nu. 24.9).”

Thus, nations that blessed Israel have invariably been blessed, those that have persecuted Israel have suffered ill (See Ge. 15.13, 14; De. 30.5-7; Is. 14.1, 2; Jl. 3.1-8; Mi. 5.7-9; Mt. 25.31-40). A careful study of ancient history and of current events reveals that disaster follows when a nation “curses” the nation Israel (See John McTeman and Bill Koenig, Israel: The Blessing or the Curse (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Heathstone Publishing, 2002), cited in William P. Grady, How Satan Turned America Against God (Knoxville, Tennessee: Grady Publications 2005), pp. 1-13.).

The “times of the Gentiles,” a period during which Jerusalem is under Gentile rule, began when Nebuchadnezzar carried Zedekiah into Babylon (2 Chr. 36.1-21; Je. 38.7; Mt. 21.24 (speaking of the time after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.)), since which time Jerusalem has been under Gentile rule. Only a remnant returned to Israel after seventy years in captivity. That remnant remained until Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews were dispersed throughout all nations.  Christ foretold: “And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Lu. 21.24).

The whole world system, made up of the Gentile nations after the dispersion of the Jews, fell into and will remain in confusion until the Lord returns (1917 Scofield Reference Edition, n. 2 to Is. 13.1, p. 724:

In the prophets “Babylon,” when not referring to the city [as in Is. 13], is used symbolically to denote the confusion “into which the whole social order or the world has fallen under Gentile world domination.”), conquers the nations with a crushing blow (Da. 2.45, Da. 7.9-11; Re. 19.11-21), and sets up His kingdom (Da. 2.44). Ultimately, Christ will return and gather the nation Israel, the “the apple of the eye of the Lord of hosts” (Zec. 2.8: “For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.” In two other verses, God calls Israel the “apple of His eye:” De. 32.10; Lam. 2.18), from all nations where He has scattered them, and bring them into the land He has given them: “Thus saith the LORD of hosts: Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country; And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness” (Zec. 8.7-8. See also, Zec. 8.1-8, De. 30.1-9 (God declared the Palestinian Covenant), Ps. 110, Ro. 11.25-27). He will establish His kingdom by power, not persuasion. This will be after the divine judgment upon the Gentile world powers:

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him” (Da. 2.44 and 7.27; see also, Da. 2.34, 35, 45; Ps. 2.4-9; Is. 9.7; Zec. 14.1-9).

In addition to His treatment of Israel at His return, Christ will destroy the present political world-system (Da. 2.34, 35; Re. 19.11-21) and judge the nations (Jl. 3.1-8; Mt. 25.31-46). Then there will follow world-wide Gentile conversion and participation in the blessings of the kingdom:

“Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession” (Ps. 2.5-8).
     “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Is. 2.2-4).
     “And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious” (Is. 11.10).
     “And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising” (Is. 60.3).
     “Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain…. Thus saith the LORD of hosts; It shall come to pass, that there shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities: … Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for  we have heard that God is with you” (Zec. 8.3, 20, 23).
     “And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the king, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of the tabernacles. In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the posts in the LORD’S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts” (Zec. 4.16-21).
     “For then [in context, after the Lord crushes the nations] will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent” (Zep. 3.9).
     “And to this agree the words of the prophets: as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things” (Ac. 15.15-17).
     “And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had perceived his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived  and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that that part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years” (Re. 19.19-20.6).

God will use Israel to “break in pieces the nations” (See Je. 51.19-23). The order of events [of the last days] is:

“(1) We are now at the end of the times of the Gentiles. The end began in 1948 when Israel became a nation. A nation was born in one day. The return was a miraculous event fulfilling the scripture that a nation would be ‘Born in a day:’ ‘Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children’ (Is. 66.8). They returned in unbelief; the Prophet Ezekiel foretold this return of the Jews without God, trusting in their own strength. Without the Holy Spirit the Jews are nothing but ‘dry bones’ (Eze. 37.1-14). The yearning in the heart of the Jews for their land—‘Next Year in Jerusalem’—has been the watch cry of Jews for 2000 years. They started going back at the beginning of the 13^th Century because of persecution. A trickle in the beginning has reached around 5 million today. Israel is returning to the land in unbelief. ‘Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away’ (Mt. 24.32-35). The fig tree is Israel (Jud. 9.11; Jl. 1.7; Mt. 21.18-19).” (Dr. Greg Dixon pointed out these insights to the author.). (2) Invasion of Israel by Russia and Moslem allies –– Magog (Rosh), Meshech (Moscow-Eastern Capitol), Tubal –(Western Capitol), Persia – (Iran), Ethiopia, Libya, Gomer-(Southern Russia), Togarmah (Eze. 38-39). This alliance includes Russia, Iran (Persia) and their Moslem allies.  These nations will be miraculously defeated by Israel (Eze.).  “(3) The invasion of Palestine by Gentile world powers headed up under the Beast and false prophet (Jl. 2.1-10, 18-20; “Armageddon:” Re. 16.13-16; Zec. 12.1-9).  (4) The destruction of the invaders by the Lord’s army (Jl. 2.11; Re. 19.11-21), and the repentance of Judah in the land (Jl. 2.12-17).  (5) The answer of Jehovah (Jl. 2.18-27).  (6) The pouring out of the Spirit (Jl. 2.28, 29). (7) The return of the Lord in glory and the setting up of the kingdom (Jl. 2.30-32; Ac. 15.15-17) by the regathering of the nation and the judgment of the nations (Jl. 3.1-16). (8) Full and permanent kingdom blessing (Jl. 3.17-21; Zec. 14.1-21).

Endnotes

En1 Why should believers, and especially pastors, be concerned about the area of church and state law? Because only through knowledge can they avoid dishonoring the Husband/Bridegroom/Head of their local church body and thereby failing to achieve their God-given goal—glorifying God and pleasing Him.

These articles systematically examine the biblical doctrines of church, state, separation of church and state and the application of those doctrines in America. For believers and churches, the information presented is—according to God’s Word—of great importance to our Lord. By reading and studying each article using the Bible as the standard, a believer will discover that the biblical principles are correct as presented. By studying the historical and legal facts presented—without bias, prejudice, illicit motive, or an overriding opposing agenda which has a vested interest in maintaining a status quo due to loss of finances, support or something else—and examining those facts in light of biblical principle, a qualified believer (a believer who has the necessary biblical, historical, and legal qualifications and education) can understand that the conclusions are correct.

That said, understanding the biblical principles, relevant history, and legal principles and facts is, first, impossible for one who is not a born again believer who is walking in the Spirit, and, second, daunting for even the spirit filled follower of Christ. Years of honest, open minded study is required to achieve the correct knowledge and understanding of all facets of church and state law. First, one must interpret Scripture correctly (See 2 Ti. 2:15) as to the relevant topics. After mastering the biblical principles, one must then labor through the annals of history, and the intricacies of law. In order to be qualified to comment upon the law, one must have an extensive legal education. He must understand how to do legal research and how to reach correct legal conclusions. Legal commentary by a pseudo lawyer can sound good to the untrained, while he may be correctly understood as frivolous and unlearned and probably heretical by the educated believer.

This is not to say that a non-lawyer cannot understand the legal and historical aspects of spiritual matters. In fact, the author knows some pastors and other believers who, having already correctly divided the Word of Truth and determined to seek to please God in all matters, have open minds and who have eagerly sought truth in the historical and legal church and state law arena. He is working with such a young pastor at this very moment. He is a brilliant young man who had mastered the Scriptures and Baptist history before the author met him. He excels the author in those matters, as do some other pastors and believers known by the author. Unlike most pastors, he does not have the disadvantages of having gone to either a secular or ecclesiastical (Baptist or otherwise) institution of higher learning. Secular colleges and universities usually corrupt even the most devout child of God; and religious colleges, institutions, and seminaries generally (with few exceptions, one of which the author has personal knowledge of)—by either mixing an ample dose of humanism with whatever biblically correct teaching they dose out; or by having totally having abandoned truth—likewise usually corrupt their students to one degree or another.

On the other hand, I am vexed by what I read in some books and websites concerning church and state law; particularly by some vicious, unfounded attacks upon the Biblical Law Center Declaration of Trust by unqualified, biased assailants who are attempting to mislead believers and churches through incorrect biblical and legal analyses and personal attacks upon and outright lies about those with whom they disagree in such matters.

Being a believer alone, even a pastor, does not by itself qualify one to teach on church and state law. The author has been a believer and faithful member of independent Baptist churches since his salvation. He was called by God to go to law school for His glory and to please Him. As a result of that calling, he obtained a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from one of the best law schools in the country and has practiced law for seventeen years. He has no motive for dishonesty. By design, he has never made a dime above expenses in his work in the church and state law arena. In fact, he has spent tens of thousands of dollars with total income of at most three to four thousand dollars in all the years he has worked in this area of law. Because of this he is beholden to no one and nothing but the truth and his Lord and Savior. Since becoming a lawyer, he has devoted untold thousands of hours in biblical, historical, and legal study and analysis of church and state law.

As always, he declares that if anyone can show him where he is in error, he will recant. Honest, loving believers have taught him much and caused him to modify some of his positions. He has also, in his continued studies, modified some of his conclusions and positions. However, he maintains his primary positions because neither he, through his continued studies, or others have shown him to be wrong about his basic church and state law principles and conclusions.

En2 God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed): may be ordered from Amazon by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Amazon.com or from Barnes and Nobel by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Barnes and Noble. All books by Jerald Finney as well as many of the books he has referenced and read may also be ordered by left clicking “Books” (on the “Church and State Law” website) or directly from Amazon by going to the following links: (1) Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses (Kindle only); (2) The Most Important Thing: Loving God and/or Winning Souls (Kindle only); (3) Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities? (Link to preview of Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities?) which can also be ordered by clicking the following Barnes and Noble link: Separation of Church and State on Barnes and Noble.

Recommended websites: The Old Time Way;  Old Paths Baptist Church; Only Way: An Appeal to Heaven
Recommended reading: Outcome Based Religion (Click to see review)

Contents:

Note. A “+” represents a supportive letter, a “-” a negative letter

I. Introduction

II. (+) Letter No. 1 and my reply (Thanks for encouraging churches with the truth)
III. (+) Letter No. 2 and my reply (Legal Questions from a pastor)
IV. (-) Letter No. 3 (Letter from a 501c3 state church pastor and my reply)
V. (-) Letter No. 4 and my reply (Letter stressing “Our Common Christian Heritage” and my reply)
VI. (+) Letter No. 5 and my reply (Church member wants advice and help in order to present the truth about church incorporation to the members of his incorporated church)
VII. (+) Letter No. 6 with no reply (Keep them [the articles, sermons, etc.] coming!)
VIII. () Letter No. 7 and my reply, his reply, and my final reply (Calvinism versus free will)

IX. Information on books by Jerald Finney including links to online previews of two of his books.
X. Links to IRS Laws (Some of these links may no longer work. If so, you can use Google to find the laws)
XI. Note concerning the Biblical Law Center and Jerald Finney

I. Introduction

This article presents more e-mails from pastors and others with their comments, concerns, and questions concerning articles on this blog, and my replies to those e-mails. These e-mail letters not only raise important questions which need to be addressed, but also give insights into the thoughts of pastors and other believers and non-believers.

II. Letter No. 1 received October 19, 2011 in response to Film: Divided (Why young people are leaving churches); Sermon: The Method Matters to God; Essay by colonial Baptist Pastor John Leland + MORE

Jerald,

Thank you for the email and the information packet.  Cornerstone is an solid independant fundamental baptist church… and heartily say amen to the information that you so graciously sent to us.

May the Lord bless you as you encourage churches with the truth,
Pastor __________________
Senior Pastor
____________________ Baptist Church
_________________________, Mi

My Reply:

Thanks, Pastor __________________________. Your letter is an encouragement to me.

For His Glory,
Brother Jerald Finney

III. Letter No. 2 received October 19, 2011 (Legal Questions)

Brother Finney,

Thank you for emailing me back. I am definitely planning on starting my church the Bible way and not place it under the restrictions of a 501c3 which would make God’s church into a government-approved Non-Profit Organization. I have recently talked to a Pastor in West Virginia who has been to court twice due to his church not being a 501c3 and he won both times. He told me that the government will consider your church an organization if you have any 1 of these 5 things: a church constitution, church membership, employees, and there were 2 others I cannot think of. I’m trying to learn all I can about how to avoid making any mistake that would cause my church to be defined as an organization or corporation by the government. I learned not to have a church constitution but to claim the Word of God as the church’s defining document. One thing I recently had questions on was how do churches pay their employees… any church that grows will need full-time Christian workers serving in the church, well, I found that churches do not have employees, they have servants who are given love offerings of support and the church cares for them as it does the pastor. That made sense to me.

I undoubtedly will need help and guidance in the matter when I do start my church.  I have many questions, but I am not ready to start a church yet, I have a Bible college degree, I have God’s calling on my life, I have been ordained and had hands laid on me and prayed over, and I believe I know what city God is sending me to, but I am still waiting on God to send me the wife He has chosen for me before I start my church. When that happens, I will be contacting you.

I appreciate the work that you are doing for pastors like me who are not taught these things, as a matter of fact, most pastors have told me to file 501c3 for lawsuit protection, it’s amazing what people tell you, it seems to me that most pastors are simply afraid of the IRS. 

Thank you for your future assitance in the ministry God has called me to.

- ___________________

My Reply to Letter No. 2:

Dear Brother _______________,

I was reviewing old e-mails and came across our communications below. I don’t recall is we ever talked about your questions.

If not, feel free to call me.

Brother Jerald Finney

From:
To: Jerald Finney <jerald.finney@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wed, December 1, 2010 1:35:31 PM
Subject: Re: Legal Questions

Hello Brother Finney,

Thank you for writing me back. I am available most afternoons and evenings, except on Wednesdays and Sundays. So just let me know what time you’d like for me to call you, it’d have to be sometime next week since this is deer gun season week in Ohio.

Thank you again.
- Brother __________________

From Jerald Finney; To _________________________; Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 2:13 PM; Subject: Legal Questions ______________________

Dear Brother ___________________,

I do have answers to all your questions, but I just have a minute right now. To go over all the questions would take more time than that. I would be honored to discuss your questions with you, so perhaps we can arrange to talk about this over the phone. My cell number is 512-785-8445, and my home number is 512-385-0761. Maybe we can touch base and arrange a time to talk about these matters of utmost importance to our Lord. I will be looking forward to meeting and talking with you. Let me just mention that this is a ministry with me and I do not charge pastors and missionaries.

May the Lord richly bless you in all that you do.

For His Glory,
Brother Jerald Finney

From: …; To: jerald.finney@sbcglobal.net; Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 6:25:05 PM; Subject: Legal Questions

Hello Brother Finney,

Allow me to introduce myself, my name is ___________________, I recently graduated from Commonwealth Baptist College and God has called me to plant an Independent Fundamental KJV Baptist church in _________________, PA. I’m currently preparing to go on deputation to start raising the support needed to do such. This is all new to me and I’m trying to learn as much as I can – especially about the legalities involved. I stumbled upon your website while trying to find info about the 501c3. 

I’ve spent half the day reading various articles on your website blog regarding the legalities and issues that come with incorporating a church, I did not know you had the option. I have heard very little about incorporation but had been told it was something I’d need to do to protect myself from lawsuits and to get tax exempt status. I now see that you do not have to be incorporated to receive tax exempt status which I’m thrilled to learn since I do not believe the government has any right to tax or regulate our churches nor do I want them having any kind of control over God’s pulpit. I also now understand why many pastors say they will lose their tax-exempt status if they endorse a political candidate or fear preaching against sodomy, it’s all related to incorporations, contracts, and government oversight.

So, thank you for your articles, they’ve enlightened me and helped me a lot. But I still have some questions if you wouldn’t mind taking the time to answer them.

First in the matter of deputation, I know most missionaries are supported by monthly check going through their local church, is this money taxable as income? Is it wise for a missionary to receive support money directly or should it go through a local church? I plan to raise support then use that support to both live on and to find a church building to rent or buy.

As a non-incorporated New Testament Baptist Church, how would I go about receiving church money, and specifically a salary, legally? Is my salary taxable? What about church property, would the church have to pay property taxes? Would I need to purchase the church property and put all buildings and such in my name or is there a way of putting it in the church’s name without it being incorporated? Can you open a bank account in a non-incorporated church’s name?

In the event I were to need an assistant pastor, how would I go about “hiring” and paying him legally? or a secretary for that matter? since a non-incorporated church cannot have employees. How would a non-incorporated church go about starting a Christian school? Would the school need to be incorporated?

I apologize for the many questions, I am just thinking ahead and trying to learn as much as I can about the legalities involved so I can plan accordingly. I plan on starting a bus ministry, Christian school, and a Christian children’s home, along with many other things in the future and want to make sure everything is done right from the start.

Thank you for your time and blogs, they have been a blessing.

- Brother ______________________

IV. Letter No. 3 received on March 25, 2010

You stereotype every 501c3 church as doing all of these things when you don’t even know who does and who don’t. It is apparent that you are against having a 501c3, but I would submit to you Romans 14:4. I can stand before God with a good conscience over this issue and I nor our church is guilty of anything you accuse. Now I know that probably bugs you, but I am thankful the God is my judge and not you sir. Tell you what, you keep condemning churches like ours and I will keep trying to win the lost to Christ and glorifying Him.

May you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ

My Response to Letter No. 3

Dear Sir,

You cannot bug me because I love God first and my neighbor (which includes you). Your letter gives me a chance to challenge you to look at the Word of God, history, and law and support what you say from those sources, not from your “conscience.” If your conscience does not condemn you for prostituting God’s bride, then your conscience may have been seared, at least as to this matter. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1 Timothy 4:1-2).

I have done a comprehensive assessment of your argument in the booklet, The Most Important Thing: Loving God and/or Winning Souls. That booklet is also reproduced on this website at the following link: The Most Important Thing: Loving God and/or Winning Souls.

One should try to win souls to Christ without leaving other biblical duties undone (without dishonoring one’s love relationship with Christ). The church I am a member of emphasizes soul winning and support of missionaries. I spend approximately 2 1/2 to 3 hours a week devoted directly to one on one soul winning (door to door evangelism) as well as taking every other opportunity to present the Gospel of salvation to those with whom I come into contact. I pledge monthly support which results in the salvation of souls worldwide. The same can be said of my pastor (who is even more devoted to this cause than I) and other members of the church. By operating according to the principles of Satan in some matters, most “Bible-believing” churches are contributing to the loss of untold numbers of souls, since, by proceeding according to human reasoning rather than Bible principle, they lose the power of God to one degree or another. Honoring God’s principles is much more important than reasoning based upon what one does while discounting or ignoring what one does not do but should be doing.

I do not condemn you-a true understanding of Word of God, history, and law condemn you. I have stereotyped no church. I have explained in detail the biblical principles violated by church incorporation and 501c3. Just operating under those satanic devices violates biblical principle, prostitutes the bride of Christ, and grieves our Lord. You do not address any of my biblical, historical, and/or legal teachings. “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2.15).

Should you wish to contribute intelligently to a resolution of your disagreements with me, please contact me. Read my writings and/or listen to my audio teachings and tell me where you believe I am wrong. I will calmly and sincerely consider what you have to say. I doubt that you can convince me that I am wrong, but if you can, I will publicly repent of any error.

For His Glory,
Jerald Finney

V. Letter No. 4 received on September 13, 2011  in response to “ON SABBATICAL LAWS” by colonial Baptist Pastor + article on the biblical doctrine of government

OUR “CHRISTIAN HERITAGE IS LONGER, STRONGER” THAN ANY OTHER HERITAGE YOU MIGHT ASPIRE TO- WHY STRESS AN ANTI-BIBLICAL DENOMINATIONAL HERITAGE??

My Reply to Letter No. 4

Dear ____________:

I love you. I always get straight to the truth, for I have not enough time for anything else.

God’s people in America are being destroyed for lack of knowledge (among other things such as love for our Lord) (See, e.g., 1 Peter 1 and Hosea 4). Baptists have no common Christian heritage with Protestants and Catholics. Catholicism, led by Constantine and justified by perverted biblical interpretations of Augustine, began in the fourth century to viciously torture and murder all those who refused to bow down to the unified church-state alliance. As many as 50,000,000 people deemed to be “heretics” were killed by that wicked alliance. The Protestant churches which came out of Catholicism adopted the Catholic union of church and state theology, and continued to persecute any who refused to submit to their wicked religion. For example, Martin Luther in Germany, although he at first espoused separation of church and state, succumbed to pressure, changed his theology, and began to persecute Jews and believers who would not bow down to the teachings of the official state church, the Lutheran church. The persecution of Baptists and other dissenters by Protestants continued in the American colonies. In fact, a great spiritual warfare between the dissenters, mainly Baptists, and the Protestants (mainly the Congregationalists in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire and the Anglicans in the southern colonies) resulted in implementation of soul liberty (religious freedom) in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Those who were by belief Baptist have always been persecuted by the arm of the civil magistrate at the behest of state churches when those churches were united with a civil government.

Sadly, informed secularists know these facts. The common Christian heritage they love to refer to includes the murder of millions when “union of church and state” was practiced, wars (like the Crusades) initiated by the state church; persecution of Baptists and other dissenters by the state established churches in the American colonies, etc. The false revised teachings being disseminated in the “Christian” community in America, in deciding to promote a false “common Christian heritage” in their arguments which allege that America is a “Christian” nation have unknowingly worked with Satan in bringing the downfall of America and the one world government and religion prophesied in Scripture. I cover all these matters and much more in my books, articles, and audio teachings.

Since true believers have decided to revise history, or follow Christian revisionist history, they have become a laughing stock among secular scholars and, due to the trickle-down effect, to the uninformed secularist masses. We see the result of the “Christian” endeavors to bring America back to God, since those endeavors have not been according to knowledge. Individual, family, church, and state morality and depravity have regressed at an accelerating rate. America, American individuals and families (in general), and American churches (in general) are now moral cesspools.

Your e-mail, dear sir, shows your ignorance of history and biblical theology. Biblical doctrine is preeminent for the believer, as is exposure of heretics and apostates. Unrevised history is very important. Without understanding history, one can never learn from and correct the mistakes, heresies, etc. of the past.

To include apostates and heretics in our “Christian” heritage other than to expose their false theologies and consequences thereof has led to tragedy, including the downfall of this nation which has paralleled a dumbing down of Americans-including most “Christians.”

For His Glory,
Jerald Finney

VI. Letter No. 5 received on April 21, 2010

Mr. Finney,

My husband will be attending a Board of Directors Meeting tonight at the church where we attend and presenting the TRUTH about caving to the State for incorporation. This will be a tremendous amount of information to digest for these men and my husband doesn’t want to overwhelm them. However, it is important to give them a snapshot of what it entails to “dissolve” a 501(c)(3) corporation. (He can’t present the PROBLEM with submitting a SOLUTION.)

Could you please provide the process regarding the Declaration of Trust in a nutshell? We realize this process isn’t going to be easy, but understand it is doable.

Your suggestions, comments, or guidance will be appreciated!

Because of Him,
__________________

My Reply to Letter No. 5

Dear Mrs. ______________________:

In order to advise your husband on this matter, I need to talk to him. Dissolving the 501c3 corporation and/or organizing a church under the Declaration of Trust involves complex legal matters. Every case has to be examined individually to determine the best way proceed.

Please have your husband call me and I will be glad to discuss this matter with him. My phone number is 512-385-0761 or 512-785-8445 (cell).

For His Glory,
Jerald Finney

Note. I did talk with and advise this concerned church member. I also sent him copies of all my books at no charge.

VII. Letter No. 6 received July 31, 2011 in response to Pastor’s article on church incorp. & 501c3; Sermon: “Him”

KEEP them coming!   “  make them shorter “  CUZ the time(s) are getting shorter before our Lord’s return & the Meeting in the air!

No Reply to Letter No. 6

VIII. Letter No. 7 received March 11, 2011
in response to “The Biblical Doctrine of Separation of Church and State.”

Dear Jerald:

On page 16 of “God Betrayed” you stated: “Man makes a choice of his own free will as to how he will respond to God. The principle of freedom of conscience or free will is found throughout the Bible.”

You quoted from John 3:16, 18 and Rev 22:17. However, I could not see how those passages supported your point that “man makes a choice of his own free will.” Certainly, those passages make the point that salvation is by faith and man must be willing to believe, but they do not in any way suggest that belief is a choice made by man’s “own free will.”

You further stated that “the principle of freedom of conscience or free will is found throughout the Bible.” When I read the bible, however, I find quite another view of man’s condition. The bible states that man is dead in trespasses and sin. We, who are saved, were at one time dead in sin, but God, through his Holy Spirit, made us alive by his glorious grace. “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” Ephesians 2:1.

It is not possible for a dead man to do anything, a dead man cannot even have faith, he must be made alive again. Man does not have it in him to come to Jesus; God must draw him. “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44. Indeed, Jesus must be the source of our faith because “there is none that seeketh after God.” Romans 3:11.

Notice what Jesus makes clear in John 15:5: “without me ye can do nothing.” Hebrews 12:2 confirms what Jesus said in John 15:5, and pretty well precludes any source for our faith other than Jesus: “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.” Hebrews 12:2.

If Jesus is the author of our faith, then that precludes man from being the author through his free will decision. An author is one that originates or creates. There is no mention in the bible of there being any coauthors of our faith, it is Jesus alone who is the author of our faith. He originates and creates faith in the believer. Jesus is also the finisher of our faith, that is, he completes and perfects our faith. So there is no room for anyone to say that God only makes an offer of salvation, and that we must accept that offer of our own free will. That is to contradict God’s word and say that man is the finisher of his own faith. The bible makes it clear that Jesus is the finisher of our faith. Jesus must first set our will free from the bondage of sin. Our faith in Jesus is both authored and finished by Jesus. Our will is enslaved to sin, and we can only believe in Jesus if Jesus frees us from that bondage and imparts the faith in us, making us new creations by the Spirit of God.

This is not some theological nit-picking; it is the very heart of the gospel. “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe.” (Romans 3:22 KJV) Notice that the righteousness of God is “by the faith of Jesus Christ.” The passage explains the source of the faith; faith comes from Jesus Christ, hence it is the “faith of Jesus Christ.” The plain language of Romans 3:22 indicates that our faith comes from Jesus. One cannot have faith in Jesus without being given the faith of Jesus.

Next, read Galatians 2:16. The passage indicates that Jesus Christ is both the source of our faith and the object of our faith. There is a clear distinction in the passage between the faith “of” Jesus and the faith “in” Jesus. The passage reveals that the faith “of” Christ is the reason we have faith “in” Christ. Our Justification is by the faith “of” Christ. We believe “in” Jesus, because we have the faith “of” Jesus. Jesus is both the object of our faith and the source of our faith. The faith supplied by Jesus is the means of our justification. Jesus has done it all! The passage refers to the source of our faith as being “of” Christ in two separate clauses.

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Galatians 2:16.

The passage that absolutely crushes the claim that man has a free will to believe in Jesus is found in John 1:13. In John 3:3 we read that Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born again to see the kingdom of God. That is a spiritual rebirth that cannot be by the will of man or through the flesh. God made it clear just three chapters earlier in John 1:13 that this new spiritual birth comes to those “[w]hich were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:13.

Notice God has stated unequivocally in John 1:13 that man does not believe in Jesus by the will of man. Man indeed is completely helpless to believe in Jesus. God must give the man a new heart to believe. Man must be born again by the Spirit of God. Man is then given the faith of Jesus to believe in Jesus. Jesus is not only the object of our faith, he is the “author and finisher of our faith.” There is no room in the gospel for man to believe in Jesus by his “own free will.” The gospel theme encapsulated in John 1:13 is that salvation is completely by the sovereign will of God.

The very theme of the gospel is that God seeks men, men do not seek God. While you state that mans belief is by his “own free will,” God states that belief is not from man’s will, but is completely an act of God’s act of mercy. “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” Romans 9:16. From the beginning of Jesus’ ministry he made it clear that he was Lord, and he chose his disciples, they did not choose him. “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.” John 15:16.

Salvation is by grace through faith. Ephesians 2:8. The faith comes by God’s grace; faith is not by man’s “own free will.” Indeed, it cannot be, because man’s condition is one of enslavement to sin and the whole point of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was to free his elect from their slavery to sin. Luke 4:18.

Please let me know if you think that I am in error on this. If you have contrary biblical authority supporting your position that “man makes a choice of his own free will” to believe in Jesus I would very much be interested in reading it.

Sincerely,
__________________

My Reply to Letter No.7

Dear Mr. ______________:

I respectfully disagree with your position in the letter [above], based upon what the Bible teaches. Very briefly, I would remind you that “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Ro. 4.5); in other words, one’s faith is not a work.

I do not have the time to address all your arguments, but let me refer you to your paragraph 2 which says:

“You [Jerald Finney] quoted from John 3:16, 18 and Rev 22:17. However, I could not see how those passages supported your point that ‘man makes a choice of his own free will.’ Certainly, those passages make the point that salvation is by faith and man must be willing to believe, but they do not in any way suggest that belief is a choice made by man’s “own free will.’”

How can man be “willing to believe” if he has no free will? He cannot. Thus, that argument is contradictory, and all your arguments can be easily answered by a believer educated in God’s Word.

All the arguments on both sides of this issue have been made. Having read the Bible many times and having heard preaching by pastors of both persuasions, it is obvious to me that the Bible teaches that man has free will. One can selectively choose Scriptures which, when taken alone and without a consideration of other Scripture, teach what you contend in your letter.

I quoted some other pastors and gave their reasoning in the book. I believe the quote of Pastor Joey Faust is especially instructive. However, the purpose of the book was not to debate a tenet of Calvinism (I say “a tenet of Calvinism” rather than “the sovereignty of God” because you and I would agree that God is sovereign—I make this clear in the book) or to fully develop what the Bible teaches about free will. I would note that many things such as salvation and the relationship between a local church and Christ (the main issue of the book) is irrelevant if man is just a robot who can make no choice since an individual is either preordained by God to salvation or eternal death in the lake of fire and a church cannot make a choice of whether to remain under Christ alone or submit herself to civil government. If there is no free will, sin is not a choice, repentance (a change of mind, or a conversion from sin to God) is not a choice, nothing is a choice; one cannot exalt himself, humble himself, or abase himself negating verses such as “every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Luke 18.14). Any given person is destined for either heaven or hell and he has no choice as to the matter. 

I have much other biblical authority, but really don’t have time to argue with anyone about this. Let me suggest that you listen to the sermon at the bottom of the “Salvation” tab of church and state law. That sermon makes clear that salvation is all of God. However, that does not mean that a man does not have free will to choose to exercise the faith that saves or not.

I was talking to a Baptist preacher and friend who believes as do you about this matter. I said, “Will you explain this portion of Scripture to me?” I read the Scripture to him. His response was, “It doesn’t mean what it says.” He is a brilliant man, but he could not explain away that example of man exercising his free will. I could have given him many others. However, neither of us convinced the other, and you will not convince me nor I you. I still love you in the Lord. There are pastors and others whom I deeply respect and love with all my heart who believe as you do. I don’t argue with them about this matter. It is between them and the Lord.

I hope you will agree that the Lord Jesus commissioned us to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” and ”to preach repentance and remission of sins in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem.” Let us be about our Father’s business as we continue to love one another.

For His Glory,
Brother Jerald Finney

Mr. ___________________’s Reply:

Dear Jerald:

Thank you for getting back to me. It is obvious to me when reading your book that God has gifted you with a sharp intellect. I realize that sometimes discussions like this can be tedious, and if it gets to that point just let me know, and we can leave the issue be. Your email, though, raised some interesting points that I want to follow up on.

I agree with you that “salvation is all of God.” Yet, I can find no biblical authority for your next statement, which contradicts the first: “However, that does not mean that a man does not have free will to choose to exercise the faith that saves or not.” If man has a “free will” to choose, then it cannot be that “salvation is all of God.”  The two statements are mutually exclusive and cannot both be true.  Wouldn’t you agree that if man has free will to choose, then salvation is at least in part of man?

The theme of the bible is that man is spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1) and that“there is none that seeketh after God.” Romans 3:11. Do you accept that premise? If you accept that premise, how does a man obtain a “free will” without God first regenerating the man?

I can cite passages that unequivocally state that salvation is not by the “choice of man’s own free will.” John 1:13; Romans 9:16.  Can you cite one single passage anywhere in the bible that sates in like unequivocal fashion that salvation is by the “choice of man’s own free will?” 

Free will assumes a will unhindered by God (hence the term “free will”). If man has an unhindered free will, that means that Judas had a free will and God was rolling the dice and hoping that Judas would betray Jesus. Under the free will theory, the crucifixion of Christ was one big gamble that paid off for God and man.

The true gospel, however, tells a different story. Judas betrayed Jesus as prophesied by God hundreds of years earlier. Jesus stated, while praying to God the Father: “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.” John 17:12.

Not only did Judas not have a free will to choose whether to betray Jesus, but every single act of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Jews, and the Romans was preordained and orchestrated by the sovereign God of Heaven. “For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” Acts 4:27-28. In fact, God orders the steps of all men and controls their very tongue. “The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue are from the Lord.” Prov. 16:1.

How do you reconcile the theory that unregenerate man has a free will to choose to believe in Jesus with those bible passages that state clearly that the unregenerate do not and cannot seek after God and that salvation is not by the will of man and the fact that God preordained and moved Judas, Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Jews, and the Romans with his divine hand to betray and crucify Jesus?

Sincerely,
_______________

My Reply to Mr. ______________’s Reply:

Dear Bro. ______________________,

Thank you for your concern and kind Christian manner in your correspondence. [Note. If your position is right, I don’t know why I would be thanking you for anything since God actually is responsible for your concern (actually, if you are right, you have no concern nor does God) and your kind Christian manner (actually, if you are right, that manner is not of you, but totally predetermined by God). Since I don’t believe as you do, I will leave the thank you above in this e-mail. Of course, if you are right, God is responsible for everything I write in this e-mail, including this Note and for my leaving this note in it.
     Your position on this matter is very confusing. I thought that the Bible says that God is not the author or confusion (1 Co. 14.33). If He is not, then no one can be the author of confusion, since no one else does anything except as God as determined in advance.]

Again, I have heard most of the arguments on both sides and come down on the side that says that the Sovereign God chose to give man a choice. That is my biblically based belief. You pick out Scriptures to support a lot of unbiblical beliefs based upon a partial reading of Scripture. You also reach conclusions that are not supported by a full reading of Scripture. In my e-mail last reply to you, I summarily addressed some of the arguments you stated in your most recent e-mail [above]. You have not even considered those succinct arguments which I presented.

Once more, I refer you to my prior e-mail and to Pastor Joey Faust’s footnote in my book. I believe he offers great insight into this matter.

If you are right, it does not matter what we do or say since we are responsible for nothing we do, say, or believe. My arguments are not my arguments since it was predetermined that I would make them. Likewise, your arguments were also predetermined by God. Each person’s fate is also set. We have no responsibility for anything. God is responsible for everything that every person has ever done, said or believed. He is responsible for every sin, crime, lie, etc. that has ever happened. Only He is responsible for anything. Everything is a gigantic game being totally controlled by God. No person is responsible for anything. God is responsible for what I am writing you at this moment. I have nothing to do with it. God is in fact arguing with Himself. What do you think is the reason for that?

On the other hand, if I am right, each person is responsible and will be held accountable.

I love you in the Lord and wish you the best, but the Lord has already filled my plate with work (not to attain my salvation, but for His Glory and pleasure). I work because I am saved, not to be saved. People have presented postions to me on other biblical matters which are not directly related to the issues concerning church, state, and separation of church and state; for example, matters involving Israel and the Sabbath. They have made arguments that I have  looked into as I do my daily Bible study. I have taken notes and meditated upon their arguments. Sometimes my beliefs have been modified, sometimes not. However, I have not taken the time for lengthy debates on most matters simply because God did not call me to argue about everything that comes along.

May the Lord richly bless you and may you grow in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. I mean nothing personal by this: I will not be taking the time to answer future e-mails about this matter for the reasons already explained. If your position is correct, God has already predetermined that this would be my final response as to this matter. Regardless of who is right, please take the matter up with Him.

For His Glory,
Brother Jerald Finney

IX. Note

God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed): may be ordered from Amazon by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Amazon.com or from Barnes and Nobel by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Barnes and Noble. All books by Jerald Finney as well as many of the books he has referenced and read may also be ordered by left clicking “Books” (on the “Church and State Law” website) or directly from Amazon by going to the following links: (1) Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses (Kindle only); (2) The Most Important Thing: Loving God and/or Winning Souls (Kindle only); (3) Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities? (Link to preview of Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities?) which can also be ordered by clicking the following Barnes and Noble link: Separation of Church and State on Barnes and Noble.

X. Links to Internal Revenue Code Laws [Some of the following links may no longer work [As of November 5, 2011]. If not, you can find the laws by using Google.]

You can read portions of the following Internal Revenue Code laws which pertain to churches and pastors by going to the following site: “Laws Protecting New Testament Churches in the United States: Read Them for Yourself”; or you may read an entire law online by clicking the following links:

1. § 501(c)(3). Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.
2. § 508. Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations
3. § 7611. Restrictions on church tax inquiries and examinations
4. § 1402. [Dealing with taxes on income of pastors]
5. § 107. Rental value of parsonages
6. § 102. Gifts and inheritances (Tithes and offerings are gifts and, therefore, according to the Internal Revenue Code § 102, not income)
7. § 2503. Taxable gifts
8. § 170. Charitable, etc., contributions and gifts

XI. Note

The Biblical Law Center helps churches to organize as New Testament churches completely out from under civil government and under God only. See churchandstatelaw.com for contact information for Jerald Finney, counsel for the Biblical Law Center. This is a ministry, not a business enterprise. Jerald Finney has made no profit at all in this endeavor of Christian love, but rather has expended much of his own money for God’s glory, in attempting to provide information and service for God’s churches.

All conclusions in this article are opinions of the author. Please do not attempt to act in the legal system if you are not a lawyer, even if you are a born-again Christian. Many questions and finer points of the law and the interpretation of the law cannot be properly understood by a simple facial reading of a civil law. For a born-again Christian to understand American law, litigation, and the legal system as well as spiritual matters within the legal system requires years of study and practice of law as well as years of study of Biblical principles, including study of the Biblical doctrines of government, church, and separation of church and state. You can always find a lawyer or Christian who will agree with the position that an American church should become incorporated and get 501(c)(3) status. Jerald Finney will discuss the matter, as time avails, with any such person, with confidence that his position is supported by God’s Word, history, and law. He is always willing, free of charge and with love, to support his belief that for a church to submit herself to civil government in any manner grieves our Lord and ultimately results in undesirable consequences. He does not have unlimited time to talk to individuals. However, he will teach or debate groups, and will point individuals to resources which fully explain his positions.

About Jerald Finney: The author is a Christian first and a lawyer second. He has no motive to mislead you. In fact, his motivation is to tell you the truth about this matter, and he guards himself against temptation on this and other issues by doing all he does at no charge. He does not seek riches. His motivation is his love for God first and for others second. His goal is the Glory of God. Jerald Finney has been saved since 1982. God called him to go to law school for His Glory. In obedience, Finney entered the University of Texas School of Law in 1990, was licensed and began to practice law, for the Glory of God, in November of 1993.  To learn more about the author click the following link: About Jerald Finney.

END

Preface

This article is a continuation of Jerald Finney’s systematic development of the doctrines, application, history, and legalities of “separation of church and state” (Link to Contents of “Separation of Church and State Law” Blog which has links so that the new follower can start his study at the beginning. “Line upon line, precept upon precept.”). See En1 for more on this matter; See En2 for information on books by Jerald Finney which thoroughly examine “separation of church and state law.” This article is an edited version of Section I, Chapter 9 of the book God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed). 

 God desires Gentile nations to glorify Him

God has also given to the Gentile civil governments freedom of choice. Many scriptures illustrate that God wants Gentile civil governments to recognize Him as who He is: for example, Exodus 7.5, 17; 14.4, 18 (Egypt); Ezekiel 25.11 (Ammonites); 25.14 (Edom); 25.17 (Philistia); 26.6, (Tyre); 28.22, 23, 24 (Zidon); 29.6, 9, 16, 21; 30.8, 19, 25; 32.16 (Egypt); 35.4 (Mt. Seir); 38.23 (the nations); 39.6, 7 (Magog & the heathen).  Solomon, in his blessing after dedicating the temple said, “That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else” (1 K. 8.60).  David, within his last words, said: “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.  And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain” (2 S. 23.3-4).  [To Nebuchadnezzar it was said] “they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will” (Da. 4.32b). So it happened and so Nebuchadnezzar then, after being restored to his kingship, “[extolled and  honoured] the King of heaven, all of whose works are truth, and his ways judgment,” recognizing that “those that walk in pride [God] is able to abase” (Da. 4.37). So Nebuchadnezzar came to be called the “servant” of Jehovah (Je. 25.9; 27.6; 43.10).  God judged King Belshazzar, Nebuchadnezzar’s son, because he did not humble his heart and “lifted up [himself] against the Lord of heaven” and had not glorified God “in whose hand [Belshazzar’s] breath [was] and whose [were] all his ways,” knowing what God had done to his father (See Da. 5.17-31).  Darius, after seeing that God miraculously delivered Daniel when he was thrown into the den of lions, decreed: “That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and stedfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end. He delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions” (Da. 6.26-27).

Cyrus chose to serve God: “That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut” (Is. 44.28-45.1).

God sent Jonah to “cry against” the Gentile city of Nineveh “for their wickedness [had] come up before [Him] (Jona. 1.2).”  After Jonah went through the city of Nineveh crying, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown (Jona. 3.4),” “[t]he people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them” (Jona. 3.5).  “And God saw their good works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not” (Jona. 3.10). Unfortunately, more than a century later Nahum delivered an unrelieved warning of judgment because Nineveh had fallen back into moral awfulness (Na. 3.1-19). “[H]e will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time” (Na. 1.9).  “According to Diodorus Siculus, the city was destroyed nearly a century later, precisely as [predicted by Nahum] (1917 Scofield Reference Edition, headnote to Na., p. 952).”

Thus God wishes each civil government to choose to rule for His glory under His precepts; that is, to establish free will for every individual while ruling under biblical principles, but not to enforce God’s rules concerning man’s relationship with God. Just as Belshazzar was without excuse in that he saw what God had done to his father, likewise rulers and civil governments today are without excuse in that the Word of God is available today for all to read and to know God’s principles and His ways.

Endnotes

En1 Why should believers, and especially pastors, be concerned about the area of church and state law? Because only through knowledge can they avoid dishonoring the Husband/Bridegroom/Head of their local church body and thereby failing to achieve their God-given goal—glorifying God and pleasing Him.

These articles systematically examine the biblical doctrines of church, state, separation of church and state and the application of those doctrines in America. For believers and churches, the information presented is—according to God’s Word—of great importance to our Lord. By reading and studying each article using the Bible as the standard, a believer will discover that the biblical principles are correct as presented. By studying the historical and legal facts presented—without bias, prejudice, illicit motive, or an overriding opposing agenda which has a vested interest in maintaining a status quo due to loss of finances, support or something else—and examining those facts in light of biblical principle, a qualified believer (a believer who has the necessary biblical, historical, and legal qualifications and education) can understand that the conclusions are correct.

That said, understanding the biblical principles, relevant history, and legal principles and facts is, first, impossible for one who is not a born again believer who is walking in the Spirit, and, second, daunting for even the spirit filled follower of Christ. Years of honest, open minded study is required to achieve the correct knowledge and understanding of all facets of church and state law. First, one must interpret Scripture correctly (See 2 Ti. 2:15) as to the relevant topics. After mastering the biblical principles, one must then labor through the annals of history, and the intricacies of law. In order to be qualified to comment upon the law, one must have an extensive legal education. He must understand how to do legal research and how to reach correct legal conclusions. Legal commentary by a pseudo lawyer can sound good to the untrained, while he may be correctly understood as frivolous and unlearned and probably heretical by the educated believer.

This is not to say that a non-lawyer cannot understand the legal and historical aspects of spiritual matters. In fact, the author knows some pastors and other believers who, having already correctly divided the Word of Truth and determined to seek to please God in all matters, have open minds and who have eagerly sought truth in the historical and legal church and state law arena. He is working with such a young pastor at this very moment. He is a brilliant young man who had mastered the Scriptures and Baptist history before the author met him. He excels the author in those matters, as do some other pastors and believers known by the author. Unlike most pastors, he does not have the disadvantages of having gone to either a secular or ecclesiastical (Baptist or otherwise) institution of higher learning. Secular colleges and universities usually corrupt even the most devout child of God; and religious colleges, institutions, and seminaries generally (with few exceptions, one of which the author has personal knowledge of)—by either mixing an ample dose of humanism with whatever biblically correct teaching they dose out; or by having totally having abandoned truth—likewise usually corrupt their students to one degree or another.

On the other hand, I am vexed by what I read in some books and websites concerning church and state law; particularly by some vicious, unfounded attacks upon the Biblical Law Center Declaration of Trust by unqualified, biased assailants who are attempting to mislead believers and churches through incorrect biblical and legal analyses and personal attacks upon and outright lies about those with whom they disagree in such matters.

Being a believer alone, even a pastor, does not by itself qualify one to teach on church and state law. The author has been a believer and faithful member of independent Baptist churches since his salvation. He was called by God to go to law school for His glory and to please Him. As a result of that calling, he obtained a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from one of the best law schools in the country and has practiced law for seventeen years. He has no motive for dishonesty. By design, he has never made a dime above expenses in his work in the church and state law arena. In fact, he has spent tens of thousands of dollars with total income of at most three to four thousand dollars in all the years he has worked in this area of law. Because of this he is beholden to no one and nothing but the truth and his Lord and Savior. Since becoming a lawyer, he has devoted untold thousands of hours in biblical, historical, and legal study and analysis of church and state law.

As always, he declares that if anyone can show him where he is in error, he will recant. Honest, loving believers have taught him much and caused him to modify some of his positions. He has also, in his continued studies, modified some of his conclusions and positions. However, he maintains his primary positions because neither he, through his continued studies, or others have shown him to be wrong about his basic church and state law principles and conclusions.

En2 God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Link to preview of God Betrayed): may be ordered from Amazon by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Amazon.com or from Barnes and Nobel by clicking the following link: God Betrayed on Barnes and Noble. All books by Jerald Finney as well as many of the books he has referenced and read may also be ordered by left clicking “Books” (on the “Church and State Law” website) or directly from Amazon by going to the following links: (1) Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses (Kindle only); (2) The Most Important Thing: Loving God and/or Winning Souls (Kindle only); (3) Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities? (Link to preview of Separation of Church and State/God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities?) which can also be ordered by clicking the following Barnes and Noble link: Separation of Church and State on Barnes and Noble.