Separation of Church & State

I was trading emails with a fellow student this past week. Somehow a question regarding weather turned into an email correspondence of John Calvin and a State run Church. I suppose that it “somehow” turned to the State Church thing when I referred to Calvin as “murderous.” So here’s the question this friend of mine brought up: “Would it be wrong for a government, say, the State of New York, to use the Old Testament civil laws as its own laws?”

My knowledge of John Calvin is somewhat limited. But as I understand it, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, Calvin helped establish the laws of Geneva during his time there. He believed very strongly that the State and the Church were to work together. Now let me say that I would have no problem with a State run Church just so long as the State was acting in a Biblical manner. However, this will never happen. I’m just being a realist. What were to happen if the State Church decided that water baptism was necessary in order to obtain salvation? In order to follow the Bible, I would have to rebel against the teachings of the State Church. If the State Church then threw its weight around, I might be punished, jailed or even killed by disobeying its mandate (law) to water baptize everyone. One of the great freedoms of America is its separation of Church and State. It must be said that this in no way, shape, or form means that the State has to ban all religious thought from its institutions (as many assume), but rather that it cannot enforce someone to practice a faith or a religion that he/she does not want to participate in.

John Calvin forced his views upon the populous through a State Church that was oppressive and murderous. This cannot be ignored, nor can it be dismissed as “okay.” I have heard it said that this was just the way things were back then, so we must be forgiving of Calvin for the way he dealt with Servetus. (He had him killed for “teaching heresy”) Was murder okay back in the garden when Cain slew Abel? No. Was murder okay when David had Uriah killed in order to marry his wife, Bathsheba? No. Was murder okay when they nailed our precious Savior to the cross? No. Then why would it be okay for Calvin to murder someone just because it was the mandate of the State-run Church? Plain and simple: it is not.

The Church should care for the things of the Church. The State should care for the things of the State. The State SHOULD NOT enforce someone to believe something they do not. Now concerning John Calvin, no Christian I know would ever force another to believe what he believed or be murdered for it. Apparently Calvin is an exception in the eyes of those who idolize him, but he is no exception in my eyes. In fact, I have nowhere read any of Calvin’s words that would even lead me to the conclusion that he was saved. Sorry Calvin idolaters, this is just from what I have read. But please, feel free to post a Calvin quote that would help me change my mind. If he has testified, through the written word, of a Biblical salvation, I have yet to read it…but would love to see it.

As we continued to trade emails, my friend asked me my thoughts concerning Erastus in the Bible. Erastus is mentioned three times in Scripture. He is mentioned in (Acts 19:22) (2 Tim 4:20) and (Rom 16:23). There is no proof that the Erastus mentioned in each verse is the same as the next…but let’s assume that he was. It is mentioned in Romans that Erastus was the Chamberlain of the city. This would mean that he was a public official – perhaps a mayor or governor. The reason I was asked about Erastus was because I had made this comment:

“Here’s my humble opinion, though given time, I think I can back it up Biblically. Role of Govt: Supress Evil. Role of Christians in Govt: Pray for Leaders.”

With that comment, I was asked about Erastus’ position as Chamberlain. The question then is this: Was Erastus the Chamberlain before or after he was saved? The fact alone that Scripture says that he was indeed the Chamberlain does not necessarily mean that Christians should enter politics any more than saying Christians should cut off people’s ears because the Scripture mentions that Peter did it. A statement of fact in the Scripture is not always a command to do – we must understand this if we are to properly interpret Scriptures. The Bible does teach this:

(1Ti 2:1-2) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

This is the role of a Christian in Government according to the Scriptures. This is not just a statement of fact, but is indeed, a God-given command for all Christians.

So to tie this whole thing together, Calvin had no Biblical basis for forcing his beliefs on Geneva (or any other populous) because of his own personal convictions. Even God Almighty does not force a human to believe – though He desires all men to come unto the knowledge of the truth. It is best for the Christian to stay out of politics, but rather to focus his energies on winning others to Christ. If a political leader gets saved, he should not focus his life on changing laws to conform to Old Testament laws – but should spend him time evangelizing the lost and ministering to the saints. After all, why would a government want to adopt the Old Testament Law? It is a curse, Christian…remember? I do not live by the law, but by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. The Government’s role is to protect me from harm. It should protect my right of the freedom of worship from those who would murder me for not believing what they believe. The Government should then have protected a man from being killed by John Calvin, rather than follow Calvin’s orders and do the murdering. Make sense? I sure hope so.

Grace & Peace be unto you all.

The King James Bible (Part 5)

Argument # 4: The Italicized words didn’t appear in the originals – so they cannot be inspired.

I had a conversation (not too long ago) with my pastor about the subject of God’s word. In this conversation, we both agreed, that if there is a blatant open mistake that can be found in the Bible, that our faith system would be shattered. To me (and apparently to him as well) Jesus and the Bible are not mutually exclusive. In other words, they are one entity. How could they not be, really? If God wrote the Bible (and hopefully you believe He did, as I do) then His words are His very essence. If there is a flaw in His word (the Bible), then there is a flaw in His Word. (That’s Jesus for those of you who don’t study your Bibles.)

Now for those of you who are using a different “version” of the Bible (I’d rather prefer to it as a perversion) other than the King James Version, I’ve got either some very encouraging news or very discouraging news for you – depending upon your perspective. I am going to prove that the italicized words in the King James Bible are just as inspired as the non-italicized words with one verse of the Bible.

When I have the opportunity to compare Bibles with someone, it is always this verse that gets everyone’s attention. By this verse I will either convince them, or there is absolutely no hope for them. In other words, they have been so brainwashed into thinking “all bibles” are okay that they really do not care what the Bible actually has to say. Again, the Bible’s authority means nothing to them and its impact on their lives has been next to nothing, and likely will remain that way until the day they die.

Have I piqued your interest? Would you like to know what verse I am referring to?

Before I do so, I must ask the readers a question. So as to make this question easy for everyone, I will do it in a silly multiple choice question. Here we go:

Who killed Goliath?
1. David
2. Bathsheba
3. Balaam’s ass
4. Elhanan

This should be a no-brainer if you know your Bibles even a little bit. Yes, the answer is David. Even secular people have heard of the story of David and Goliath and know that little David took down the great, big giant with a slingshot and a stone. That’s great! You all get a 100! That is, of course, all of you but the NIV, NASB, ASV, CEV, ESV, RV translators et al. How might they have answered the above question? They would have circled #4. How do I know? I have all of those translations at my disposal. Let me show you the Bible verse I’m referring to – first in the KJV, then in others to follow.

(2Sa 21:19) And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
(Notice here in this verse that Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath in another battle with the Philistines. Now watch these other “versions” and their handiwork.)

(2Sa 21:19) There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. (NASB)

(2Sa 21:19) In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod. (NIV)

I’d keep quoting the other “versions”, but rest assured, they say the same thing. So what do you do with that, NIV user? Your Bible has a great big mistake in it. By the way, you can find the story of David killing Goliath in your own “versions” in the 17th Chapter of 1st Samuel. So not only is there a mistake, but a contradiction. Oh that’s right, there are two contradictions. (1 Chronicles 20:5) will clear things up for you as well. It is there that you will find the correct answer to the question.

So why is it (Let’s just use the NIV as the example because it is the most popular perversion to date) that the NIV has the story correct in 1 Samuel 17 and in 1 Chronicles 20, but fails to do so in 2 Samuel 21? The simple answer is that the words “the brother of” did not appear in the “originals.” They, therefore, decided to leave it out – even though it made for a glaring contradiction in their “bible.”

So now, NIV user et al, you’re going to tell me that leaving “the brother of” out of the text was the “correct” thing to do because you cannot find it in the originals? (The originals do not exist on earth by the way – they’re in heaven – read your Bibles!) I guess that leaves me in the minority. I will choose the Bible that does not have the mistake. I will choose the King James Bible.

Are the italicized words inspired? You bet they are! So how about it, NIV user – are you willing to put down your flawed “version” for a mistake-free King James Bible, or would you rather go on being willfully ignorant of the truth?

I had the opportunity to “Disciple” someone recently. When he entered our first meeting, he held an NIV under his arm. The first lesson we had was on the word of God. In that lesson, I pointed out this verse along with some others. At first he was angry. It was very visible. But let me tell you, this man was more interested in the truth than he was in his feelings. Though the idea that “his bible” was flawed bothered him, he came back the following week for lesson #2. This time he held a King James Bible under his arm as he entered my apartment. He has grown leaps and bounds and every time we meet I am floored by his passion for the Lord, the lost, and the word of God.

That can be you too, Christian. You can put down your perversion and pick up the truth. The King James Bible will change your life – I make that promise to you. Before I knew that God had actually perfectly preserved every single word that He wanted to convey to man in an English Bible, I was a sad Christian, tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. Since finding the truth, I have soared to new heights by the grace of the Lord. God wants the same for you.

I think this will conclude my King James series – unless I am challenged with a new question regarding its inspiration in the future. I pray this has either blessed you or challenged you. If it has angered you – let me say that I understand. After all, the first time someone informed me that I had an “incorrect” bible, they said that I was reading, “Satan’s book.” At least I wasn’t that blunt!

The grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

Update

For those of you who do read this blog...please forgive my lack of posting. With school, ministry and work, I have been swamped as others have as well. I plan to post this weekend, Lord willing.