The Constitution Party

[Joe S]

Tell me what you think. I like the preamble, though some of their ideas seem far-fetched.

http://constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Sancity%20of%20Life

[Julie]

Joe, in 2004, The Constitution Party ran Peroutka as a presidential candidate. In California (the state I live in), the Constitution Party is affiliated with the American Independent Party. The AIP ran Ed Noonan, who is Mormon.

A friend of mine from CARM, HisElect (Adam), had a series of emails with the AIP. Here are some of them:

Hello,

My name is Adam. I live in San Diego, California. I am a fairly new supporter of the American Independent party. I voted for Peroutka in 2004. I was under the impression that those associated with the Constitution party were all Christians. However, I'm very concerned and discouraged to find out that the man running for Governor in California, Ed Noonan, is a member of the LDS church. Perhaps there are legal reasons why Mr. Noonan is allowed to be affiliated with the Constitution Party. Regrettably, I will not be able to vote for Noonan this year due to his religious beliefs. This situation also puts a huge struggle in my heart to support the Constitution Party in future elections.

Suggestion: please clearly disclose the religious beliefs of all AIP candidates on your website in future elections. This is the primary issue that determines who I vote for; everything else is secondary.

Thank you,
A concerned voter

sdsip@cox,net wrote:


The American Independent Party does not discriminate against people because of their religion. People of all faiths are welcome to join our party and to run for office. The only requirement is that they believe in and will work for a return to Constitutional government as envisioned by our founding fathers.

Suggestion: Find another party to join. Religious bigotry is not welcome here!

Nancy Spirkoff
AIP Communications Chairman

Hi Nancy,
Thank you for your reply.


Peroutka 2004: "If I am elected President, I will, like our forefathers, acknowledge and honor God as the source of law, liberty and government. And I will do everything in my Constitutional power to see that no person who fails to acknowledge God will be appointed to the Federal judiciary!"


1) Which God do you think Peroutka was referring to?
2) Does Peroutka discriminate against people because of their religion?
3) Is Peroutka a religious bigot?
4) Should Peroutka find another party to join also?


Peroutka 2004: "I believe in the God who has revealed himself in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. He exists from eternity to eternity. There never was a time when He did not exist. He is the one God who exists in trinity. God the Father anticipated salvation. God the Son, Jesus, accomplished salvation. God the Holy Spirit applies salvation to those as He brings regeneration, gives faith, and works repentance in the lives of those who are His. The Bible and the Bible alone is the ultimate and authoritative rule of faith and practice. As president, when I put my hand on the Bible to take the oath of office, I will mean what I'm saying and by God’s grace will be fully faithful to it."



Joseph Smith, LDS founder: "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods."

"Hence, the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible . . . Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many . . . but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us"

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man"

"if by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils--that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence--then Latter-day Saints do not believe it."


WWPD - "What Would Peroutka Do?"

God Bless You!


ednoonan@4xtreme.org wrote:


Dear SAVDBYHISGRACE (Adam)

It is really too bad you do not understand the word GRACE as is found in your email address.

noun: Grace
1. A sense of propriety and consideration for others
2. A disposition to kindness and compassion; benign good will
3. Free and unmerited favor or beneficence of God
4. A state of sanctification by God

Your hatred of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not testify of any Christian love for your fellowman. Yes I am a member of this church and I believe deeply in Jesus Christ. I am also a believer in the Bible. I am sorry it does not meet with your approval.

I am the State Party Chairman, and my Vice Chairman (of the AI party) is a Jew (Mark Seidenberg). So, you are doubled whammied...a Mormon and a Jew for you to hate! And our Lt. Governor candidate is a scoundral Catholic. Our Treasurer Candidate is a Mormon (my son). Our Insurance Commissioner Candidate is my son's best friend...Jay Burden is also a Mormon.

The State Party Chair of Nevada is a Mormon (Independent American Party), The State Chair of Idaho is a Mormon, and the State Party Chair of Ohio is a Mormon. We have several candidates from the Utah Constitution Party...ALL MORMONS.

I am sorry that you are so hate-filled and cannot vote for me. Even if you cannot vote for me...please vote for my dear comrades, Warren Campbell or Glenn McMillon. Surely their evangelical beliefs will suit you better. They both have endorsed me, and I have endorse them.

Good Luck to you.
Edward C. Noonan
State Party Chairman - American Independent Party
2006 Candidate/Governor - State of California



Dear Mr. Noonan,

Thank you for your reply. Please note that I never said that I hate Mormons or Jews or Catholics or any individual for any reason. I simply said that I cannot vote for you due to your religious beliefs. I consider a candidate's religious belief to be an important factor when I cast my vote.

I agree with what Michael Peroutka wrote this year:

"My precious vote can only be spent on a candidate that:

1.

Acknowledges and fears God/the Lord Jesus Christ.
2.

Demonstrates that he has an American (Biblical) view of law and government
3.

Demonstrates that he will take actions that are driven by and in harmony with God’s law and the limitations of the Constitution.

I firmly believe that if I cast my vote for someone who doesn't meet these requirements, then I will stand before God and be judged for my failure to obey Him. To vote for someone who does not meet these criteria is to do a vain thing before God and men."



Does any Mormon meet those requirements? My firm belief is - No. You claim, like every LDS member, to believe in Jesus and the bible. But I am certain that you will not claim like Peroutka (above quote in bold), that the bible alone is your authority. And I could site numerous LDS leader quotes which testify that Mormons and Christians do not worship the same Jesus -- such as Jesus being married, Jesus being the spirit brother of Lucifer, Jesus being a man who qualified to become a God, etc. But I think the current LDS President, Gordon Hinckley, sums it up best in one quote:

"The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak."
With that said, I reaffirm that you do not meet the criteria necessary to receive my vote. I cannot rally my friends or fellow church members to vote for you either. Does this mean that I hate you? Certainly not. I pray for you to be Saved By His Grace - and then perhaps next election I can vote for you with enthusiastic joy.

Blessings,
Adam

[Julie]

Then Adam received some more emails:

On Sunday Morning 11/5/06:


trueliber@gmail.com wrote:

Dear Adam,

If you believe that God cannot speak outside the Bible, then you believe in a dead god with no power or control over this world. God did not die or go away when He finished inspiring the Bible. He still loves His children in this world and has a purpose for our lives here. If your faith is in a finished book then it is as finished as the book is. My faith is in a living God who created all this universe and can and does still speak to His children here in this world. Your infallible Bible cannot save you. It is not alive and God, but an it, finished and without life or power. The Bible was created to lead men to God, not be God. The fact that it is not our only source for communication with God is simply fact. There are many other sources. God has never limited Himself to the pages of one book. Why should you try to do so?

The Living Word is Christ, not the Bible. Christ is alive.

You believe that Christ was resurrected, do you not? And you believe that Christ is God, do you not? Then how can you possibly believe that God has no body? Did Christ not eat in his resurrected body? Did he not ascend? Did his body fall back to Earth to be reburied when He ascended?

Do you believe that logic has no place in truth? Do you believe in confusion? Is God the author of confusion?

So, what is it? Can God speak or is that too big a job for Him? Does God have a body or was Christ never resurrected? Or are God and Christ two individuals? If your religion defies logic and connected thought, then it is one of confusion. Who is the author of confusion?

Sincerely, Sue Venable

(Adam did not reply)

On Sunday Evening 11/5/06:


rcaip@yahoo.com wrote:

Adam,

I have read your emails, and personally I don't want somebody like you to ever be in the AIP, or our national affiliate.

Unlike Ed, who was courteous to you in his emails- don't expect any form of kindness from me to you.

You forget these things that are written in the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

-1st Amendment of the US Constitution

"...But no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

-Article 6 of the US Constitution.

Honestly I don't know where people like you think our Party, which seeks to adhere to the Constitution, think they can exclude Mormons and others not of the Protestant Faith? There was at one time people that thought like you in our Party- including the backstabbing hypocrite Michael Peroutka- who campaigned vigorously in Utah and brown-nosed the LDS Party leaders there. Peroutka is really no longer a member of the Constitution Party or those other religious wahhabists, as they have left and are leaving the Party because we live up to Constitutional Principles, with includes religious Liberty for ALL!

I am LDS and have been the Riverside County AIP Chair since 2003. While 'Mormons' make up 15% of the whole State Committee of the AIP, Ed Noonan was elected as our State Chair by a UNANIMOUS vote at our last meeting, Ha!

I hope you never get active in the AIP, people that have caused problems for us at our meetings get kicked out and don't expect to come back. I really could give a damn about your vote either. I've dealt with people like you- you say you're a "Christian" when you cannot tolerate other 'Christians' at all, even in politics. (remember us Latter-Day Saints ARE Christian, since we worship Jesus as Our Lord and Messiah- and nobody else but Him as the Savior of Mankind). The issue of the Trinity is the stupidest thing to test other Christians by. Why don't you use the word "Trinitarian" to define us instead of Christian- because to be Christian is to be a follower and believer of Christ- so you can't nail us there!

So in reality, Adam, you only serve Satan- since Satan loves division and hate, Satan likes to influence those that claim to be Christians, but in their hearts are black and evil. Wesley A. Swift, the founder of Christian Identity in America, should be your role model, Adam.

So please don't ever bother to affiliate with us again, unless you are willing to work with every Christian to restore our nation.

-Cody Quirk

(Adam sent no reply)

[Joe S]

Thanks for the heads up, but I don't see the affiliation between AIP and CP? Is there a more concrete source which states this affiliation? Ron Paul appears to have no religous beliefs at all, judging from his website, and the CP is endorsing him. Perhaps he is an atheist or a Mormon too.

EDIT: Never mind, I did some googling and found out more about their affiliates.

[Joe S]

by James N. Clymer
Constitution Party National Chairman


There can be no denying that this issue is also horribly complicated by the fact that some of the most outspoken on the pro-disaffiliation side are in favor of a religious test, do not believe that Mormons have any place in the Constitution Party, and are using this as a vehicle to get rid of a state party that is largely Mormon. This is not something that is merely alleged; it is fully documented.

Religious tests have come up before. For example, several years ago a majority of the leadership of the CP in Illinois (the predecessor to the currently affiliated CP of Illinois) supported the exclusion of Catholics from leadership positions in the party or from membership positions altogether. At the 2004 National Convention of the Constitution Party in Valley Forge, there were platform amendment proposals submitted proposing a religious test for party membership. In both of these instances the CP rejected efforts to exclude certain religions from participating in the party


The full article: http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=283

:crying:

The CP seems to be confused. Although the constitution does not allow a religous test to hold public office, the CP is not the Federal govt' and can use any kind of test they want. And if they want people to think they are a "Christian" orginization, they should feel duty bound to qualify what they mean by "Christian", or stop affiliatiing themselves with Christianity, since atheist, mormons, muslims or anybody else can run for their party.

[JBaker45]

So the quest for the ultimate political party goes on.

(It's like trying to find a church.)

[RRHeustisJr]

So the quest for the ultimate political party goes on.

(It's like trying to find a church.)

Actually, your search has ended.

As a former officer of the American Independent Party of California and National Committee member of the Constitution Party, I can personally attest to the fact that those parties have become vehicles for the advancement of Mormon ideology and Pluralism.

Thankfully, America now has an explicitly Christian alternative: the American Heritage Party (http://www.americanheritageparty.org).

As one who resigned from the Constitution Party over the issue of its de facto adoption of the official pro-abortion Mormon position on Life of the unborn, I have written my reasons for leaving in the article, "Have Christ, Will Travel."
(http://www.christianconstitutionalist.com/articles/20060910.htm)
I encourage you to give the new American Heritage Party (http://www.americanheritageparty.org/) an honest look.

[JBaker45]

Actually, your search has ended.

As a former officer of the American Independent Party of California and National Committee member of the Constitution Party, I can personally attest to the fact that those parties have become vehicles for the advancement of Mormon ideology and Pluralism.

Thankfully, America now has an explicitly Christian alternative: the American Heritage Party (http://www.americanheritageparty.org).

As one who resigned from the Constitution Party over the issue of its de facto adoption of the official pro-abortion Mormon position on Life of the unborn, I have written my reasons for leaving in the article, "Have Christ, Will Travel."
(http://www.christianconstitutionalist.com/articles/20060910.htm)
I encourage you to give the new American Heritage Party (http://www.americanheritageparty.org/) an honest look.
*cough*

I will have to study this over time.

[RRHeustisJr]

*cough*

I will have to study this over time.

What is the purpose for the "*cough*"?

[JBaker45]

What is the purpose for the "*cough*"?
Lol.. I'm skeptical ;-)

[Tallen]

Is this a political party that "Reconstructionist" have started?

Looking over some of the materials has caused some questions to come up in my mind.

BTW, welcome to LAD. I think I am open to this idea, but need more information. Mr. Heustis I think I have read or talked to you before, do you remember me? At least your name seems familiar.

[Julie]

There's another person who is also speaking about the deception in that party. Welcome to LAD.

Don't forget to vote today, if you're in a Super Tuesday state! I have my "I Voted" sticker.

[RRHeustisJr]

Is this a political party that "Reconstructionist" have started?



Hi Tallen,

The party is founded on certain principles with a Comprehensive Vision, which is displayed plainly at: http://www.americanheritageparty.org/vision.htm .

Please take a look at this Vision, and let me know what part might concern you.

Regarding "Reconstructionists" founding the party, all I can say is that the party is open to Christians regardless of denomination.

[RRHeustisJr]

There's another person who is also speaking about the deception in that party. Welcome to LAD.



Thank you Julie,

I was very deceived by the Constitution Party, which was founded by Mormons and Pluralists in an unholy alliance with Christians. The result of that unequal yoke resulted in a compromise to its Life position. Currently, the Constitution Party's western states are nearly completely controlled by those who embrace Mormon theology, which is markedly different than orthodox Christianity.

I believe America needs an explicitly Christian party that is totally committed to America's Christian heritage. Only the American Heritage Party (http://www.americanheritageparty.org) fits that bill.

[JBaker45]

Thank you Julie,

I was very deceived by the Constitution Party, which was founded by Mormons and Pluralists in an unholy alliance with Christians. The result of that unequal yoke resulted in a compromise to its Life position. Currently, the Constitution Party's western states are nearly completely controlled by those who embrace Mormon theology, which is markedly different than orthodox Christianity.

I believe America needs an explicitly Christian party that is totally committed to America's Christian heritage. Only the American Heritage Party (http://www.americanheritageparty.org) fits that bill.
Okay..

I will look at again from this perspective ;-)

[Tallen]

Hi Tallen,

The party is founded on certain principles with a Comprehensive Vision, which is displayed plainly at: http://www.americanheritageparty.org/vision.htm .

Please take a look at this Vision, and let me know what part might concern you.

Regarding "Reconstructionists" founding the party, all I can say is that the party is open to Christians regardless of denomination.

RRH, are you familiar with this ministry, or like ministries?

SEE HERE (click) (http://www.chalcedon.edu/)

Would the American Heritage Party, for example, advocate Biblical penalites for transgessions against the law? For example, the death penalty for murder. And how would it advocate that we apply "Biblical law" to the society, in other words, is it advocating a Theonomy?

[Tallen]

Personally I am finding some problems with this party. The US was never meant to be a Christian Nation as their Vision states. Instead we were mostly a nation of Christians whose tolerance was to include those who did not embrace the bible or the Christian religion, native Americans and Orientals for example. At the time of the forming of this country, Christian societies and governments had failed in Europe as they reacted to the tyrrany of the RCC, becoming tyrannies of their own, where religious tolerance was thrown out the window for the sectarian and divisionary doctrines that were imposed on the population. There are many examples to look at.

My question is this, whose Christianity are we going to work to gain in this party?

Where there are fundamental sectarian differences, say in the application of law, whose view becomes the dominating view? How would the Antinomian Dispensationalist and the Reformed Postmillennial Reconstructionist work for common goals, for instance?

For example:

"The AHP seeks the renewal of a national Christian conscience and the restoration of God’s law as the guiding principle for all areas of life."

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. (Exo 22:18-20 KJV)

Do we apply these principals from God's law as guiding principals, and where do those principals stop in application?

[Tallen]

"The restoration of the civil government to its proper role as minister of law, justice and national defense; as defender of life – including that of the unborn child, of liberty and of property; and as moral leader and example to the people and to the nations; "

I agree with this tenent. :clap:

[Tallen]

The reduction of the prison system into a system of just restitution for the victims of crimes and capital punishment for murderers;5 (http://www.americanheritageparty.org/vision.htm#note5) and,

How about the capital punishment of other crimes the scripture condemn. The rebellious child, the homosexual, the witch, the idolater, etc. Should there be punishment in these cases as well?

[Tallen]

"We are the party of America’s heritage, but first and foremost we are called to be a Christian political party. Our heritage was great because it was Christian, and Americans, perhaps more than any other people, are accountable to put Christ first in politics. By openly acknowledging that America’s hope lies in genuine Christian reformation, and not in just another brand of political conservatism, a Christian political party offers a fundamental alternative to the unbelieving principles of the secular establishment.6 (http://www.americanheritageparty.org/vision.htm#note6) "

How would this party handle the Mason's (which a large group of founders were part of), non-religious and unbelievers that were a part of the populace of our founding Fathers?

Again, the US was not a Christian nation it was a nation of mostly Christian people. There is a big difference in these ideas, where tolerance and justice is a founding principal.

[JBaker45]

Here's another "idea"..

Mandatory tithes implemented through the income tax system. :medium-smiley-098:

[Tallen]

Here's another "idea"..

Mandatory tithes implemented through the income tax system. :medium-smiley-098:

Good point, which "Christian" sect would determine that law? Would it be mandatory or voluntary?

[RRHeustisJr]

Would the American Heritage Party, for example, advocate Biblical penalites for transgessions against the law? For example, the death penalty for murder. And how would it advocate that we apply "Biblical law" to the society, in other words, is it advocating a Theonomy?

Hi Tallen,

All of the official positions for the AHP are listed at the site. If, after reading the following three links, you don't see a particular issue being addressed, then the party does not advocate a position on that subject.

Regarding capital punishment for murder, the party definitely supports it.

Regarding Theonomy, the word appears nowhere in either the Vision, Principles or Platform of the party. However, I understand the term to mean literally "God's Law." Our party does believe in God's law, and wishes to recognize God's law as the standard upon which all other laws and regulations are judged.

Please see the Vision of the AHP at:
http://www.americanheritageparty.org/vision.htm

Please see the Principles of the AHP at:
http://www.americanheritageparty.org/princ.htm

Please see the Platform of the AHP at:
http://www.americanheritageparty.org/platform.htm

Please let me know if there is anything in these pages that strikes you as inconsistent with what a Christian party should advocate.

Thanks!

[Tallen]

Regarding capital punishment for murder, the party definitely supports it.

What about capital punishment for other crimes the scripture teaches about?


Regarding Theonomy, the word appears nowhere in either the Vision, Principles or Platform of the party.

But a lot of the supporting materials used in the "Vision" of the party is by Theonomist or Reconstructionist, depending on which title they are using. For instance, Rushdoony, Bahnsen and Demar are all folks that have spoken out for an American Theonomy and are well documented in their beliefs.

The problem I have with this is what brand of Christianity will we pick to enforce as the brand that will decide law? How far will we carry biblical law and put it into practice?


However, I understand the term to mean literally "God's Law." Our party does believe in God's law, and wishes to recognize God's law as the standard upon which all other laws and regulations are judged.

My questions come about as to the method of implementing these laws. For sure I would say there are principals taught to us in the Law of God, in scripture in general, and as the Holy Spirit witnesses to the believer. But..., and here is where the problem comes up, how far do we go and who's interpretation of scripture do we use we we institute these laws and apply them? For instance, do we execute someone that sacrifices to another god? Scripture clearly tells us that we should utterly destroy that person. Is it a party "goal"?

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. (Exo 22:18-20 KJV)

[Joe]

For instance, do we execute someone that sacrifices to another god? Scripture clearly tells us that we should utterly destroy that person. Is it a party "goal"?

Like Reed, I am also a member of the American Heritage Party. Tallen do you think that should be a goal of our party?

[Tallen]

Like Reed, I am also a member of the American Heritage Party. Tallen do you think that should be a goal of our party?

Welcome to LAD Joe, I think we have four (4) Joes now.

Joe, whether I think it should be a party goal or not is irrelevant. The point is that making "biblical laws" is a subjective statement. It depends upon what "sect" of Christianity is dictating the policy. So my question is in reality, who decides what is biblical law and who decides that within the party? So here is my questions asked again, "which "Christian" sect would determine that law? Would it be mandatory or voluntary?'

The literature that is quoted within the Vision contains ideas from Reconstructionist/Theonomist, such as Bahnsen, Rushdoony, Demar.

Is this a Reconstructionist/Theonomist party?

Does the party see that homosexuality, or witchcraft, or idolater, would be capital crimes as it is in the Law of God?

I think these questions are important, and should be asked of the party, don't you?

[JBaker45]

Welcome to LAD Joe, I think we have four (4) Joes now.

Joe, whether I think it should be a party goal or not is irrelevant. The point is that making "biblical laws" is a subjective statement. It depends upon what "sect" of Christianity is dictating the policy. So my question is in reality, who decides what is biblical law and who decides that within the party? So here is my questions asked again, "which "Christian" sect would determine that law? Would it be mandatory or voluntary?'

The literature that is quoted within the Vision contains ideas from Reconstructionist/Theonomist, such as Bahnsen, Rushdoony, Demar.

Is this a Reconstructionist/Theonomist party?

Does the party see that homosexuality, or witchcraft, or idolater, would be capital crimes as it is in the Law of God?

I think these questions are important, and should be asked of the party, don't you?
In regards to the subject of witchcraft Ted, don't the scriptures leave such matters to our own judicial discretion : "you need not permit a witch to live."

[Tallen]

In regards to the subject of witchcraft Ted, don't the scriptures leave such matters to our own judicial discretion : "you need not permit a witch to live."

Yes, but let's look at this in regards to what happened historically and with the idea that a certain sect would set policy. Historically through a zealots mind witches were burned at the stake or drowned. Often this was done behind a "party spirit" where a grudge or personal gain can be seen. That capital punishment was at the discretion of who was in control and what party they sympathized with. And witchcraft then was defined according to what would accomplish the best result of the controlling party.

Historically, theonomy hasn't worked. It either leads folks to apostasy and sectarianism (just like Israel in Christ's time) that uses any means to stay the political power, or it leads to small areas where the sect can control the populace according to the agenda of that sect (just like what happened after the Reformers in Europe and America). And if we are going to "construct a theonomy", it is appropriate and beneficial to ask, who decides what is "biblical law"?

I am confident that there are modern sects, especially within Calvinism, that would return to a medieval mindset and feel they were doing God's service if they prosecuted Arminians, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, etc., for what they would consider crimes against the state because of differing dogma. This type of zealotry is easily seen in some as they condemn any who don't believe their exact theological beliefs, and condemn folks to hell based upon their philosophies and theological understandings. The next small step is to rid them of society, and justify it as purifying that society for God.

I read the historical accounts of those that embraced these types of ideas, and although I see that most of them came from a reaction to Roman Catholic tyranny for over a thousand years, they modeled their governments after the Roman Catholic example. That was what was taught to them by Rome and what they knew because they came out of Rome. And the same tyranny that they were trying to escape was brought by them upon those that disagreed with their "faith". And I find myself not wanting to go down that failed road once again. I would not want to base a government upon any sectarian dogma, whether it is "Christian" or otherwise, without the ability of free speech and the ability to pursue happiness outside of that sectarian control.

[Tallen]

Joe's,

I hope I didn't offend you and chase you off. I would like to talk about some of the ideas in the Constitution Party's vision and goals. I am sincere in this discussion.

Blessings.

[Julie]

The American Heritage Party or the Constitution Party? Did you misspeak, Tallen?

[Tallen]

The American Heritage Party or the Constitution Party? Did you misspeak, Tallen?

I American Herititage Party and their vision. I mistyped, thank for pointing that out Julie. :medium-smiley-011:

[Joe S]

This might be a good place to ask the question: are the theonomists/reconstructionists more loyal to the ideals of the magisterial reformation? That makes us Baptists nervous. This is one of many reasons why I reject post-millenialism, with all due respect to the puritans, they got that wrong.

[Joe S]

If you're talking to me, no worries, I don't have a dog in the fight.

[Tallen]

This might be a good place to ask the question: are the theonomists/reconstructionists more loyal to the ideals of the magisterial reformation? That makes us Baptists nervous. This is one of many reasons why I reject post-millenialism, with all due respect to the puritans, they got that wrong.

There are many questions like that, that I would like answered. I see that our new friends have visited LAD, and I assume read our posts, but don't seem to intent on a discussion about their party. Perhaps they were looking for folks to join the party without questioning any of their vision. The part that I am concerned with is how are we going to define certain ideals in their party's vision and goals, and who gets to define those ideals. For instance, one of the party's goals is to "implement biblical laws" and then enforce those laws upon society. What does that mean? Will there be an adoption of a statement of faith that will then define what biblical law is? I am sure, for instance, that Travelah would be very uncomfortable in a nation run by Neo-Calvinist who claim he is a heretic and heretics should be put to death. I am not calling Trav a heretic btw. I am sure, for instance, that a homosexual Anglican priest would be very uncomfortable in a fundamentalist society where homosexuality is punishable by death. Both heresy and homosexuality are crimes that the bible teaches us were punishable by death in a theonomy.

So, I am still wondering and haven't gotten answers from any Reconstructionist in this department, although this subject has been broached several times in the past.

[Tallen]

If you're talking to me, no worries, I don't have a dog in the fight.

I already knew that, but since we picked up new members and they were both named Joe, I thought I would enclude all of the LAD Joe's. :medium-smiley-010:

[Joe S]

LOL maybe you really can have too many Joes? I could use my middle name- we got any Davids?

[JBaker45]

LOL maybe you really can have too many Joes? I could use my middle name- we got any Davids?
Hey.. Anybody know how many John Bakers there are :shocked: LOL

[RRHeustisJr]

This might be a good place to ask the question: are the theonomists/reconstructionists more loyal to the ideals of the magisterial reformation? That makes us Baptists nervous. This is one of many reasons why I reject post-millenialism, with all due respect to the puritans, they got that wrong.

Hi Joe S.,

Although I am Reformed, I am a Baptist who leans toward the post-millennial eschatological position.

However, one does not have to be post-millennial to be a member of the AHP.

[Tallen]

Hi Joe S.,

Although I am Reformed, I am a Baptist who leans toward the post-millennial eschatological position.

However, one does not have to be post-millennial to be a member of the AHP.

The Postmil position is almost always the position of the Reconstructionist, is it not? It seems that the Postmil eschatology fits into that mindset best, and is the eschatology of those that are quoted from in the Vision.

Blessings.

[Tallen]

Hey.. Anybody know how many John Bakers there are :shocked: LOL

There are seven, just on my block alone. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_6.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYYYUS) There are probably billions world-wide.

But only one on LAD, who we appreciate very much.

Blessings John.







http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb098&pp=ZSYYYYYYYYUS (http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/index.jhtml?partner=ZSzeb098_ZSYYYYYYYYUS&utm_id=7926)

[Holy Baloney]

Actually, your search has ended.

As a former officer of the American Independent Party of California and National Committee member of the Constitution Party, I can personally attest to the fact that those parties have become vehicles for the advancement of Mormon ideology and Pluralism.

Thankfully, America now has an explicitly Christian alternative: the American Heritage Party (http://www.americanheritageparty.org).

As one who resigned from the Constitution Party over the issue of its de facto adoption of the official pro-abortion Mormon position on Life of the unborn, I have written my reasons for leaving in the article, "Have Christ, Will Travel."
(http://www.christianconstitutionalist.com/articles/20060910.htm)
I encourage you to give the new American Heritage Party (http://www.americanheritageparty.org/) an honest look.

I wish you would follow through with more discussion so we could learn more, RRH.

[RRHeustisJr]

I wish you would follow through with more discussion so we could learn more, RRH.

Hi Holy,

Please note that I am not an official spokesman of the AHP. I am just a new member.

However, when I first joined the Constitution Party, I thought it was a Christian party since its platform mentioned the name of Christ. I soon learned that the party was founded with no explicitly Christian direction, and by many who espouse the cultic Mormon religion. It was at that time that I learned more about the explicitly Christian message of the American Heritage Party, and decided that this party was more aligned with my aspirations.

[RRHeustisJr]

The Postmil position is almost always the position of the Reconstructionist, is it not? It seems that the Postmil eschatology fits into that mindset best, and is the eschatology of those that are quoted from in the Vision.

Blessings.

I know of a few people who joined the AHP after their involvement in the CP; and these people are not Postmil.

However, I am inclined to believe that the vast majority of active members would probably hold to either the Amil or Postmil position.

I do not know whether all, most, or some AHP founders are classified as Reconstructionist, but assuming they are, most Reconstructionists are paedobaptistic, holding to infant baptism. As a Reformed Baptist who holds to Believers-Only baptism, I therefore would be a minority in the Reconstructionist camp, and possibly the AHP itself.

Nevertheless, I do believe in explicitly Christian politics, and I believe that a wide array of Christians, who may disagree on peripheral issues, can work together toward this goal.

[Tallen]

I know of a few people who joined the AHP after their involvement in the CP; and these people are not Postmil.

However, I am inclined to believe that the vast majority of active members would probably hold to either the Amil or Postmil position.

I do not know whether all, most, or some AHP founders are classified as Reconstructionist, but assuming they are, most Reconstructionists are paedobaptistic, holding to infant baptism. As a Reformed Baptist who holds to Believers-Only baptism, I therefore would be a minority in the Reconstructionist camp, and possibly the AHP itself.

Nevertheless, I do believe in explicitly Christian politics, and I believe that a wide array of Christians, who may disagree on peripheral issues, can work together toward this goal.

Toward what goal though, RRH? Who gets to define this?

"Explicitly Christian politics" sounds like a good and proper goal for all of us, but I am not sure how this would work in the real world without making the mistakes of the past. Let's go back to my example, it is biblically proper to use capital punishment on a heretic, should we all be working toward that goal? And who gets to decide who is the heretic, the paedobaptist against the baptist, perhaps?

In other words, I am wondering how this will work out in the real world. Do you see what I mean? :bigthink:

[RRHeustisJr]

Toward what goal though, RRH? Who gets to define this?

"Explicitly Christian politics" sounds like a good and proper goal for all of us, but I am not sure how this would work in the real world without making the mistakes of the past. Let's go back to my example, it is biblically proper to use capital punishment on a heretic, should we all be working toward that goal? And who gets to decide who is the heretic, the paedobaptist against the baptist, perhaps?

In other words, I am wondering how this will work out in the real world. Do you see what I mean? :bigthink:

Your question is a fair one, but it is no different than what we already have today. The mention of a "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence, for instance, begs the same question you are currently asking: Who gets to define this?

As we have "In God We Trust" printed on our currency, Who gets to define God?

As we have "One nation under God" embedded in our Pledge of Allegiance, Who gets to define God?

Which God? Whose God? The Christian God? The Muslim God? A one-size-fits-all God?

"Who gets to define this?"

Your question is being asked by Humanists and Pluralists today. It's not a new one.

Again, I think your question is a fair one, but simply because a debate ensues regarding the identity of a God (or a brand of theology), does not automatically mean that we are doomed "to make the mistakes of the past."

Quite frankly, I would much rather see the debate take place today as to which Christian principles should prevail, instead of the debate that currently dominates our landscape, namely whether God has any role whatsoever in our public life.

Today Americans debate the "virtues" of homosexuality and abortion, and the notion of God is banished from nearly every public discussion. I would much rather witness a debate ensue regarding which Christian principles should prevail in a certain locale instead of which Humanist principles should prevail.

If a Christian party does not exist, then by default a Humanist party fills the vacuum. Sure, people will debate which Humanist principles should prevail, as not every person agrees on every issue, every minute of the day.

Similarly, Christian party leaders would likewise debate on which Christian principles should prevail, as not every person agrees on every issue, every minute of the day.

Simply because disagreement exists does not mean that the effort is futile.

Again, I would much rather see Christians debating Christian principle instead of Humanists debating Humanist principle.

[RRHeustisJr]

It seems that the Postmil eschatology fits into that mindset best, and is the eschatology of those that are quoted from in the Vision.

This may or may not be true, but according to the American Heritage Party's Frequently Asked Questions page (http://www.americanheritageparty.org/faq.htm#B2), the party is made up of people of many different denominations. We want a party made up of those who profess Christ's Kingship, but there is no denominational test for membership:



3. DOES THE AHP HAVE A RELIGIOUS TEST FOR LEADERS AND CANDIDATES?

Yes, as concerns being a Christian; no, as concerns belonging to a particular denomination.

Qualifications for AHP leaders and candidates are based on the Christian character and leadership skills for ecclesiastical and civil leaders defined in the Bible. AHP leaders and candidates must also demonstrate a thorough comprehension of the application of the Biblical principles of Christian self- and civil government.

We want, as leaders, Bible-believing Christians from every denomination who hold the essential tenets of the Christian faith. We are pleased that having spent almost ten years together in this Christian endeavor. Our former state party in the CP (AHP of WA), and the present national committee (AHP) includes members from Baptist, Presbyterian, Evangelical Covenant, Calvary Chapel, United Reformed and Pentecostal churches.
http://www.americanheritageparty.org/faq.htm#B2

[Tallen]

Your question is a fair one, but it is no different than what we already have today. The mention of a "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence, for instance, begs the same question you are currently asking: Who gets to define this?

As it stands now, the individual get to pursue his own happiness. The government doesn't regulate or dictate his conscience, as there is no religious test for being an American citizen.


As we have "In God We Trust" printed on our currency, Who gets to define God?

As we have "One nation under God" embedded in our Pledge of Allegiance, Who gets to define God?

Which God? Whose God? The Christian God? The Muslim God? A one-size-fits-all God?

"Who gets to define this?"

Again RRH, the individual gets to define this. He has constitutional rights to pursue his Creator without the state telling him what god he has to follow. This is what the Constitution was about, and the reason that we are given freedom to speak.


Your question is being asked by Humanists and Pluralists today. It's not a new one.

And it is a question that should be asked, regardless of a persons "faith".


Again, I think your question is a fair one, but simply because a debate ensues regarding the identity of a God (or a brand of theology), does not automatically mean that we are doomed "to make the mistakes of the past."

Do you agree with the Constitution of the US and the Bill of Rights? Consider:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. US Constitution Amendment 1


Quite frankly, I would much rather see the debate take place today as to which Christian principles should prevail, instead of the debate that currently dominates our landscape, namely whether God has any role whatsoever in our public life.

In case you didn't notice, Christian principals will prevail. But not through a country or through dictating Christian morality. We are already in a kingdom, and the government of that kingdom is already established. I find that we change the world through the preaching of the gospel, not through forcing morality through a legislative process. Consider this:

Isa 9:6-7 KJV For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (7) Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Are you familiar with the Second Helvetic Confession?


Today Americans debate the "virtues" of homosexuality and abortion, and the notion of God is banished from nearly every public discussion. I would much rather witness a debate ensue regarding which Christian principles should prevail in a certain locale instead of which Humanist principles should prevail.

The humanist won't prevail, judgement will come.

Let me ask you this RRH, would you support a constitutional amendment that would put the homosexual to death? This is biblical, and Israel was told to punish a man that lays with another man by a capital punishment. Should the church (believers) start working together to pass laws that would carry out this kind of punishment?


If a Christian party does not exist, then by default a Humanist party fills the vacuum. Sure, people will debate which Humanist principles should prevail, as not every person agrees on every issue, every minute of the day.

I don't agree with you here, but that will have to be another discussion.


Similarly, Christian party leaders would likewise debate on which Christian principles should prevail, as not every person agrees on every issue, every minute of the day.

Simply because disagreement exists does not mean that the effort is futile.

Again, I would much rather see Christians debating Christian principle instead of Humanists debating Humanist principle.

I see nothing wrong with the debate of Christian principal in the public. But on the other hand, I am finding these concepts being promoted by the Reconstructionist and Theonomist to be simplistic and often breaking from our Reformed traditions and confessions.

I would like to very much discuss these things though, because I haven't any of my thoughts in this area set in stone. I am in a discovery mode, and have a lot of questions and see areas that need to be discussed before I make my mind up. BTW, I am not trying to be obtuse or a discouragement. I think what I am trying to do is get a hold of the ideas being promoted and see how they would play out in real life.

[RRHeustisJr]

As it stands now, the individual get to pursue his own happiness. The government doesn't regulate or dictate his conscience, as there is no religious test for being an American citizen.


Since the American Heritage Party has become more of the focus on this thread, I have taken the liberty of replying to your comments at:

http://www.light-after-darkness.org/forums/showpost.php?p=13555&postcount=3