In every political/economic system

Yes, that has been my observation since I was old enough to have one.

No way, EricB! Liberals don't see anything "more accurately"! They're ideas are very dangerous. They do take us down the wrong path whenever we let them.

 

That wasn't meant as a character assault, but it seems like you are bragging of your character, and how it is being "tested". That was kind of unnecessary. I feel "tested" too.

Of course. And contrary to what you think, I am not getting "passionate" about any particular human system (but realize they're all corrupt). So you have no basis to try to throw that back at me.

In the comparisons to those other people (the "why" as to you being "better") it does come out that way. And especially, with colonizers who claimed God was giving them the land of the "heathen" (Not all, perhaps, but there was quite a lot of that going on).

And I forgot to to mention that even self-abasing language does not prove true humility. Luther and Calvin were constantly calling themselves "lowly worms". Yet the true test came when they wrote about, or even persecuted those they thought were wrong. (Anabaptists, Servetus, even other Reformers, etc). Then, all that humility went right out the window, and it was the other person they were calling all those names, like they were so much better as people, or something. The point of Christ's teaching is that if you really recognize your own debt before God, you will be more tolerant of, let alone not put down, or think yourself better than others. (and again,this even extended to the collective, "national" level with the Israelites these teachings were aimed at).

But no one here's putting down America. We're mentioning flaws that you refuse to accept, thinking they are insignificant compared to some other country or political systems' sins. It seems like "putdowns" to you, because you apparently see uncritical adoration as the only sign of fidelity.

That's still subject to subjective interpretation and perspective. Again, there were other people involved in America's founding who did not so benefit.
You exalt the intepretation itself as if it were the Word of God, so that if one challenges it, you try to lump them in with "liberals" who deny scriptural standards or God's sovereignty. I'm sorry, but you cannot tie your view of things with God's sovereignty. For that, it's like you do not even have to claim to know the mind of God. Just take these people's word for it.

So then, the people should not have full freedom to vote whatever they want? Who should control this, then? Are you suggesting the Church?

But America's ideals are already corrupted by man. The fact of that "flaw" you just admitted shows that. God did not institute this system. The only system He institutes was ancient Israel, and men corrupted even that! Why would we be so much better than even God-ordained Israel? He has allowed men to go and form their own governments according to what they think is right, and they are all thus wrong. He is not working through nations now, but rather individuals. (Funny, as you mentionde stressing the role of the individual).

I didn't say that the liberals saw things more accurately; I said that what you consider "dangerous" because it criticizes things about America, is "more accurately" criticizing different things than what you are criticizing. In other words, you are criticizing the nation just as much or even more than the liberals. It's just that the things you are criticizing they don't think are wrong, and they things they are criticizing, you don't think are wrong. Yet you claim that you love the nation, while they hate it. It's all a matter of each person thinking their perspective is the right one, and what they don't like is the ultimate evil. In order to say one perspective is the right one, you need direct reference to God's revelatio. Listing a bunch of supposed "good works" on one side is never enough, because man's good works are all filthy rags, even if he tries to credit God for them, or do them in His name.

 

I already admitted my sinfulness. I said I was a murderer, adulterer, thief, and liar in thought and in deed. I consider myself unworthy of any blessings whatsoever. How about you?

I do think this is a test of patience and tolerance. Even as I respond to your comments I am tempted to respond in a sinful manner and, I'm certain, have done so in several ways. That's the challenge I face. That's not bragging about my character. That's admitting my shortcomings. How about you?

Well, I am passionate about America! I've studied its history, seen what other countries are like, severed in our armed forces in war, recognize the price paid by our forefathers, learned to respect and greatly value the character of those before me, and know without doubt that God has greatly blessed this nation since its beginning. I know what we have is worth something, difficult to attain, a challenge to hold, and a duty to defend and protect.

When I compare men who've honorably served their nation - especially in the most difficult and risky times - with men who talk trash about their nation I'm must likely going to side with the men who've served honorably. I have little to no use for those who seem to find nothing but evilness in America's foundation.

I will listen to honest criticism of mistakes and wrong paths upon which we may tread - especially when it comes attached to the original ideals - but it must be the words of reason, wisdom, patriotism, etc. and not designed to attack the foundation. When one seeks to destroy the foundation then they are on a path to destroy the entire structure and such talk needs to be put down quickly and soundly for what it is. When one sees a design flaw in the most recent structural addition - or one that doesn't even fit on the foundation - then that needs to be heard.

I'm not stuck on thinking Americans are better than other peoples nor that our forefathers were somehow the equivalent of deity. They were simply blessed by God for reasons that pleased Him and the result was and is the best political and economic system ever known on the face of the earth.

I think rather highly of John Calvin, have read his Institutes of the Christian Religion, tested his words against his Biblical references, and find that he understood and wrote the truth.

You know what, EricB, I think perhaps you consider yourself better than the rest of us because you just can't seem to get it into your head that I'm not claiming such a thing, don't believe such a thing, and don't think that represents the true character behind the founding of our nation.

You bet I recognize my sin debt and you bet I'm real glad that Jesus Christ paid it on my behalf. Today is a great day to take special note of that!

The writings of the patriots I've posted in this thread clearly demonstrate the humility that they felt about themselves toward their creator and savior. They knew where they stood and how blessed they were.

Yes, you are putting down America, EricB - that's exactly what you've been doing in every one of your postings! You want to bring down our political and economic system to the lowest common denominator thereby making the worst equal to the best. You don't want any association with God for the blessings we've enjoyed. You deny the sovereignty of God by asserting that He had nothing to do with it and is not the underlying author of our liberty.

Everyone in America benefited from its founding as did our neighbors and eventually other nations around the world as well. We have participated in the liberation of countless of oppressed people. We have righted many wrongs. We have built a nation where every man stands equal before the law and has the opportunity exercise equal liberty. Not all things were concluded at the first instance but eventually they were and not from external force but for the force permitted within by the very structure that was established.

The Word of God is given to us in the Holy Bible. It's finished - nothing can be added and nothing can be taken away. Honorable believers will always debate points of God's Word because we do not have the mind of God and the written record can be misunderstood in its finer points. But God is sovereign which means nothing happens - including the founding, growth, and continuance of the American republic - without either His permissive or directive will. Therefore, at the most all that can be debated in whether God directed it or just permitted it. I say from the evidence of the times, the testimony of those involved, and the comparison to God's word that He most certainly directed it.

I also believe that, although the scriptures do not specifically define the American political and economic systems that not being their primary purpose, they do provide the guidelines that were needed and were applied to develop it. I believe our systems were based on principles defined in the scriptures and I believe those principals are very different than those used by other systems which have been tried by men. God's Word provides a lot of instructions - all we really need - that serve as a framework for all issues even in what we want to isolate as the "secular" life.

I don't exactly follow this question. It seems yet another side track to me. Therefore, I can't answer the question but I can comment on the subject:

The people have the freedom to vote what they want but they are also bound by their own contract and, therefore, just a simple majority vote - what would be pure democracy - may not be sufficient to attain everything they want. The powers given to the federal government were limited by those of the people and also of the States.

The individual, the family, the employer-employee, and the Church are all institutions ordained by God just as is civil government and they have dominion over certain things with various degrees of overlap and various degrees of exclusion.

This is where I think you deny the sovereignty of God without realizing that you're doing so. Either God instituted the system or someone else did. If not God then whom? Then if man did he do so without God's permission? If so then was it to met man's purposes of God's purposes? God did not abandon any of the institutions He ordained with His incarnation as Jesus Christ on this earth. All the institutions still stand as part of His grand design. Either God directed or permitted America's founding. Either God did so for purposes of good or for purposes of permitting evil. It has to be the former because America has not perpetuated general evil as a nation but instead good. It has to be His directed will because man alone is not capable of such good.

 

I'm criticize the entire liberal movement in the domains of the individual, the family, the employer-employee, the civil government, and the Church. I've witnessed the steady decay in all these institutions in my own lifetime and when compared to prior generations it is astounding how low and weak we've become. You can not truly love something that you do not honor, uphold, respect, and want to protect and defend. You can only seek to misuse it, to change its design and purpose, to lower the standards, etc. so as to make it more palatable to your own sinfulness. That is what liberalism does in any institution.

 

OK, then.

And what is the "foundation"? Much of the debate is over capitalism, and even that is said to not necessarily be a founding principle. It's a corruption of the "democracy" we were built on. But then I've seen conservatives go as far as to attack democracy (which would touch upon the "flaw" you mentioneD), favoring what they call "Republicanism" instead. And most of the things people are criticizing about the fouing include slavery and colonialism. So when you suddenly begin talking about God's sovereignty, it sounds like you are justifying everything they did, and then you shift to the other arguments; that those things weren't really that bad, they already enslaved each other, colonization actually improved things for them in the long run, etc.

But it seems that you get to dictate that a person either agrees with you on 'the foundations", or they are an enemy tearing the whole thing down.

The title of the thread is "in every political system". The OP's point finished the statement by saying that the top 10% in such, end up taking advantage or profitting off of everyone else.
The objection was made that no, America's system is better, and from there, that we should be thankful to God for it (which then becomes the whole debate), and not allow these "socialists" to change it into something else. But the original point was that in either system, you have a top 10% abusing everyone else. That gets completely lost, as if it were something we quickly stifle because we don't want to deal with it.
I guess that's supposed to mean that the system where that top 10% use private business to control is OK, because it was founded by God; opposed to the system where the top 10% use government. But there is no scriptural support for that. According to scripture, both are the workings of sinful men.

So the argument is with scripture, not with anyone trying to destroy your "foundations". It's bad enough when people cannot agree on how to interpret dininely inspired scripture. Your "foundations" are even more prone to different intepretation.

And that is your opinion, and everone who does not agree with it is not attacking your "foundations".

Well that's a whole other debate, and we used to have a whole separate forum on it, which was one of the most heated places on the board. I can see where he misread scriptures used in his election doctrine, ending up with God deliberately trapping men in damnation. For one, he adopted his theology from Augustine, which right there should raise questions. He even claimed that God gave reprobates a false faith that He would take away. You wonder how there can be any eternal security at all. Any one of us can still end up one of those "vessels of wrath", then! You just have to presume you're elect, and then try to work as hard as you can to "prove" it. Different followers interpret that differently, and then, you have those who even extended this to temporal "chosenness", with material success as the immediate proof of election; and then you have "covenant theology", which basically re-constructs the national/geneological salvation Paul was fighting so hard against.
The Puritans for one were said to believe some of that stuff. I think it is a dnagerous doctrine, because I'm not just looking at my "blessings" from it and saying "too bad for everyone else; that's just what God wants". I tend to put myself in the other person's place, and realize that there are some people I would not have wanted to have been. I call it "benefit vs expense". In the way things in life work out, some are beneficiaries, and some are expendees. I associate this "unfairness" with the fallen nature of the world. Many people try to say it is from God, because they are on the benefit end, and in Calvinism, it extends into eternal salvation as well. I think that is a bit too presumptuous; especially as everyone ultimately admits they cannot know how God works these things. But the concept of "sovereignty", coupled with "unknowability" always ends up being used to justify an unfairness in the interpreter's benefit, and knowing the way sinful man is; I question that, especially when it comes down to a matter of people's interpretations of both scripture and real life events.

You're pretty protective of your rights to not be controlled, and I think others have that right as well. Don't expect anyone to believe your ideology, or they are enemies of God's sovereignty, or the nation (which I see from this are still being tied together).

No, don't just try to throw that back at me. I'm not the one saying any group or system I identify with is any "better" than anyone else; let along trying to use God as the mascot to prove it. You're side tends to project your mindet on me; not the other way around.

But what I see in many places is people who humble themselves before God, but not before man. They become intolerant and abusive of them, and sometimes downright murderous. Hence, the reference to Calvin and Luther. (And it seems to tie in part to the whole "elect vs reprobate" concept. God hates them; so should we). Scripture clearly tells us in several places that is a wrong attitude. If you really acknowledge your sinfulness, then don't treat other [fellow] sinners those ways; and that includes accusing them of evils such as attacking the nation or denying God's sovereignty.

And the problem here is that you are looking at it collectively or corporately, rather than in terms of people as individual souls. Because the descendant of a slave or native conquest might benefit 200 years later, that does not justify the expense of the slave or conquered person himself. They count too. Things hance changed a lot in God's economy since the Israalites and the Canaanites. We can't keep using that as the model for how God exercises His sovereighty. To insist so is to basically treat the Cross as if it never existed.

So you can see no possiblity of a person being thankful for his benefit, but nevertheless seeing what was done before as wrong, which God may have used for the later benefit, but nevertheless was still sin. They have to say it was all right, and all God's doing, in order to not be accused of "attacking the country".

 

So it's the "closest". That's still a matter of interpretation. Since "capitalism" seems to always be at the center of these debates; do you honestly think that a system that practically worships money is in harmony with scripture? I think it is a matter of once again, taking principles that point toward liberty, and interpreting them as capitalism.

A great book on this whole point is Michael Horton's Beyond Culture Wars. And he is actually a staunch Calvinist, and the one thing I fault the book for is turning the issue into a Calvinist-Arminian dispute (like Arminianism is the cause of the problems in the Christian Right), when there are just as many Calvinists who are guilty of that stuff, and it is that theology that apparently provided much of the groundwork for it.

(from http://www.erictb.info/rightwing2.html#capitalism)
While making sure to point out his belief that this system is better in practical matters, he puts both in perspective:

Both Marxism and capitalism are cut from he same cloth of Enlightenment modernity...neither seeks the spiritual good of society. Both systems have much in common philosophically; they both believe that human beings are basically good, and that if things go terribly wrong, it is because of the social structures that have failed to adequately "nurture" them or unleash their possibilities. Both are offspring of the secular experiment, and by confusing capitalism with with Christianity, we are not only historically naive (ignoring its roots in the Renaissance and Enlightenment), but are incapable then of really assessing the spiritual damage either secular experiment has caused to the human spirit. Furthermore, both are idolatrous: Capitalism replaces God and His prominence with the "Invisible Hand of the Market" whereas Marxism makes an idol of the state. One looks to the state as the liberator, the other to the market, but both are essentially materialistic and hostile to spiritual realities. That is why a Solzhenitsyn can come to America and find the same disillusionment, despair, and nihilism he knew so well under a Marxist state. When Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn came to America for refuge, evangelicals found immense pleasure in his attacks on Marxism and his calls for moral repentance and spiritual awakening. And yet, many seemed to miss his attacks on the West— not only for its sexual immorality (which seems to be about the only form of immorality some conservatives worry about), but for its greed and exploitation. What Solzhenitsyn favored was not an American-style democracy over a Soviet-style dictatorship, but rather the end of ideological regimes altogether. In other words, the "ideological war" itself was the problem, regardless of the particular side one took. Both presuppose rationalism, human goodness, and autonomy, and at the same time reduce man to a merely economic animal whose whole existence is nothing more than factors of production and consumption. It's just that one explicitly rejects heaven and the other simply elects to ignore it. (P.55-57)
​

Of course, one big difference is the fact that western capitalism allowed organized religion to thrive, so was therefore seen as being "friendly" to God, while the other system was atheist. But still, Horton notes:

While attacking Marxism as godless statism, evangelicals have failed to realize that Marxism and free market capitalism are twin sisters of modernity, and...godless capitalism is just as great a threat to the soul, if not the pocket book. By reducing human beings to consumers, making nearly all social relationship depend on competition, and shrinking human life down to purely economic determinism, modern capitalism is just as dangerous to the soul— in part because of its marriage to religion, where apathy reigns in the face of every enemy except the threat to the "American Way of Life". (p.74)

​

Note the statement in the first quote that both believe man is good and only affected by bad environments. This is a frequent charge leveled at the Left, but the Right is equally guilty. If Marxist theory is wrong to say that capitalism causes man to be greedy (and therefore, the government must control), thus ignoring the Biblical doctrine of sin, then what was the Right's (backed by the Christians) alternative? Since the problem is sin, greed is inevitable. So let not the government regulate, but encourage "freedom" to gain as much as one can. (This becomes the power of the market). After all, they "earned" it, and that is godly. (Citing 2 Thess.3:10) We'll just preach morality at them to try and control them that way. (After all, in the ideal Christian society, "liberty" means "freedom to do right, not freedom to sin", as the Christians remind us in the First Amendment debates). But since that didn't work, and greed, decadence, and all other sins did run rampant, we just claim it's all the fault of "materialistic, godless Marxism"! This is what has been going on, with leaders such as D. James Kennedy going as far as preaching that "all our problems come from socialism"! All of this is based on the notions of people being "better" and that they will always do right, (even if a little moral push is needed) and thus need no government. But here is where we've deceived ourselves. People will take advantage and corrupt that system too. We have been encouraging all of the natural selfish social tendencies of people in this hedonistic society, and then decrying it's moral manifestations (and blaming them on someone else!) If this system is the way it is because of our sin nature, then what business have we calling it God's system.

 

Even that so-called "contract" is subject to interpretation. That's why there are so many debates on the Constitution. And it's not even God-breathed scripture.

But from the same line of reasoning, all the nations and movements you considered evil would also be "directed" by God. Which means that if it was God's will that the socialists take us over, or they take over the world in the Cold War as we feared, or the Islamists take over, then by fighting against it, you would be fighting against God's will.
But it's like "no; not that! God would never do that to us". What I am seeing on all counts is that it is only God's will when it is to your benefit; and when it is to your expense, it is some great evil that is not only against God's will, but it is even your duty to fight. At every turn, it seems to be slanted in your [collective] favor. That's why I can't go with what you're saying, and it is not God's sovereignty I am questioning. Because then, God's sovereignty seems to revolve around certain groups of men, and Calvinists are always the ones telling us is it not about man.

And that's another thing that always raised my ire. The notion, that undergirded most of conservative Christian preaching decades ago; that all was well, until some critical period; usually the 1960's, when it all fell apart. The 1960's was when both the sexual revolution as well as Civil Rights occurred. The latter being accused of being socilistic. Some say it was the 50's, when rock & roll came about, and the kids started becoming restless. Some say it was around either of the world wars. It usually involves the perceived loosening of sexual mores, as if that were the only commandment in the Bible. Some make it even earlier, such as the Enlightenment. Whatever aspect of Church control they favor, whenever that was eroded, that was then the new "fall" of the modern/postmodern, etc era occurred.

But since Eden, there has been no such good society. Man wants to credit himself (even if claiming God as helping him, or even working it all for him) for what no other man has ever attained. Much of what changed was from people revolting from all the abuses, such as racism, sexism, religious intolerance and abuse, etc. that occurred in the past, but were either ignored, or seen as God's will.
Of course, that never counts, as these people are all just "whining" about nothing. They're the sinners, only they need to repent. It's amazing how what is seen as God's truth leads people to be so cold and self-exalting and not caring about anyone else. That's one of the biggest complaints about Christians, among the rebelling masses "eroding" the institutions. And when the people fail to acknowledge the sin of their institutions and repent, then all you will see is them being defensive, and waging this "us versus them" stance. And I don't see it as going anywhere.

So if all you're trying to do is go back to the way things once were, all it would do is blow back up to the present; perhaps worse.

 

So, Eric, I didn't learn anything new from your last post and I see that you once again avoided several of the direct questions.

I especially note that you did not respond to my question - the second or third time - regarding your own confession which makes me wonder if you do consider yourself better than sinners such as me.

I conclude that you do not believe America was founded by the directive will of God and do not believe there's anything special about our nation's economic or political systems. It seems to me you favor some form of liberalism but are not able or willing to state what it is. You surely must not think very highly of America because you are clearly unwilling to make a single positive statement to its credit.

It seems to take dire straits to make people appreciate what they have. I guess that's why recent immigrants from less blessed nations are so thankful for the liberty and prosperity they can enjoy in this nation and, at the same time, why people who only experienced the benefits see nothing special about them. That's a shame!

 

It almost sounds like you're giving credence to the fact that America is a great nation! Is that the case, Billwald, or am I just being fooled by comparing what you've just written to all the baloney EricB has been posting?

 

By golly, Billwald, we agree on one of your two points!

 

Florida is better. I think the cold up North is killing your brain cells. :tongue3:

 

What are you talking about? I see in your posts more accusations than questions, and even the questions convey an air of you having me on trial. You asked my stance on America, and I told you. (I sumbmit as a good citizen before
god, but do not have to like or agree with everything about the country). Now you're saying something about being bettetr than sinners. No.
I don't see why that would even be questioned, as I'm not the one talking about "better" human systems or "worse" ("less responsible" groups of people. You're just taking what I've cautioned you with and throwing it back at me.
I know my own sinfulness, and it fits in with the sinfulness of all men, so I'm not going to allow someone to talk me into accepting some other groups of men being somehow less or more sinful, based on supposed works (even if you try to argue that it's the works and not the people being referenced). God says all of that is filthy rags. God says it, not me. Not "liberals trying to make everything equal" either. By accusing me of thinking I'm "better than sinners" just for pointing this out, you're now acting just like people who get angry when the Gospel or some aspect of the Gospel they don't like is preached.

Basically correct. Unless you believe in the absolute predestination of all things (every single event that occurs), than there is a lot of good, evil, neutral, and mixtures of good and evil that occurs. We do not know which of them were directly caused by God, allowed, or the purpose, and there is no scripture on these events long after its canon. So that's how I take the events connected with the founding of America. I could imagine a different history, where slavery and colonialism were less brutal, and the Africans and Indians treated as people with rights (and also taught the Gospel, instead of it being used against them), and then we would have not only all the blessings we have now, but also not have these tensions, and the problems you are complaining about. Thats how I look at it.
But by saying God caused it the way it happened; you get to completely justify one side, and blame all the problems (sin) on everyone else. We are to ask "God's will be done on earth as it is in Heaven"; unless you believe this stuff you say was God's will will be occuring in Heaven. Not "God's will be done, which is that which benefits me".

On this site:http://www.politicalcompass.org/ which is an accurate idea, showing the political compass is really a 2D matrix of authoritarian/libertarian, as well as right left; I came out as close to the center, but slightly on the side left and towards authoritarianism. And that was because of the way the questions were framed, and I felt it was a bit slanted towards pushing you to one side. (You either allow companies to do whatever they want, and the govt. offer no help to those in need, or you favor the other side). Yet I would still say it's fairly accurate for me. Since these debates are basically hard nosed positions on both sides going against each other; I will not clearly fit in any of the labels. So I end up spending most of my time just pointing out what is wrong with both, yet not having a better solution. (Since I'm debating against conservatives here, and who are the most vocal; then I point out the flaws on that side. To liberals, I would point out that they are often lacking in tact, and that their ideas fuel the opposition more, and I would also mention that if govt. should control; then who would control the govt? They are just as human as the private sector). The hope is to make people aware of the flaws they are blind to, and then maybe they will think more and be able to implement improvements.

I would make more positive statements to people who are its enemies, such as Islamists. I get just as annoyed when I hear them spouting the same sanctimonious nonsense about how they are more "spiritual", and call westerners "too earthly minded". I believe they are mostly right on that, but never think how their 70 maidens in heaven theory is about as earthly as a religious doctrine can get. But enough about them.
People who already think their system is virtually flawless do not need any further ego-streaking.

And you accuse me of having a superior attitude? Anyway,
1) If a person doesn't appreciate something, then that is their problem. Yet it seems you are trying to control how they feel.
2) For the tenth time, just because they don't see it as absolutely flawless, and never criticize anything about it, that doesn't mean they don't appreciate any of the good.
3)The immigrants you refer to are new to the country, and don't see it from the perspective of the past.

 

The same things as we started with!

You know what, EricB, we've been kicking this back and forth for what seems like a month.

I think we've both expressed our points of view and there's little common ground between us. I don't like your position and you don't like mine. I think you're way off base and you think the same about me. There's not much point to continuing such a dialogue. If we continue I'm afraid we're just to going to degenerate into comments that will not honor our Lord nor be respected by our peers on this board.

Let's just let the readers judge the merits of each position as has been expressed numerous times in numerous ways and be done with our own comments.

There will be plenty of other opportunities for you and me to disagree and I've got a feeling we'll be doing just that!

 

OK; been waiting for this. My sentiments exactly.