Yes, this was revival, in the Cereal Aisle. A satisfaction that cried if I may restock Pop Tarts for the Glory of the King I will.

Discipline in Early Baptist Churches

Because Scripture clearly prescribes personal holiness and church discipline, Baptists in early America were devoted to these practices (note Dagg and Mells below). Baptist leaders sought to build their denomination on Scripture alone; it is interesting that the Baptist denomination was primarily a grassroots movement among the poor and uneducated of America (Hammett 2005, 111).
Dagg, as a formidable Baptist leader in his day, focuses on the need strictly for a regenerate church membership,

In order that the church may judge whether a candidate is duly qualified for membership, they should hear his profession of faith. He is bound to let his light shine before all men, to the glory of God; and it is especially needful that they should see it, with whom he is to be associated in fellowship as a child of light. He is bound to be ready always to give an answer to every one that asketh the reason of the hope that is in him; and especially should he be ready to answer, on this point, those who are to receive him into their number, as called in one hope of their calling. He is bound to show forth the praise of him who has called him out of darkness into his marvellous light; and he should rejoice to say, “Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul (Dagg 1858, 3).”

This reflects the concept that the church is to be pure, in conception, growth, and practice. Sadly, this doctrine lost favor after the Civil War. At this time in history, the church was central to life, therefore believers lived in daily community in and out of the walls of the church. In order to promote church purity, Baptists considered themselves accountable to each other for the sake of purity. There was a concept of true family in the church. As families seek to correct each other; not in punishment, but in growth, so the church is to grow correctly (Hammett 2005,119-19).
The views which are presented in the following pages are such as have been held by the Baptist churches from time immemorial. The Author attempts to do no more than to exhibit the sentiments of our Fathers, and to defend them by showing that they are sustained by the Scriptures. It is not asserted, however, that in no instance have the principles herein set forth been departed from. In times of excitement, when party spirit ran high, or personal resentment swayed men’s minds, revolutionary measures have been resorted to in some few of our churches, and these principles have been trampled under foot. Such irregularities have never failed to be disastrous to those who perpetrated them, and their influence upon the cause of Christ has been only evil, and that continually. One of the unhappy effects is that they are taken as precedents by those who are not well informed and quoted as instances of Baptist usage. (Mell 1860, 1)

Thus, one can see that in the 19th century, Mell “asserts” that church disciple was commonplace in the Baptist church, and in places it is not it is “irregular”. Discipline was the rule, not the exception. In fact, purity of members was so valuable that in Mississippi and Louisiana, some slave owners were disciplined for not treating their “black brother[s]” well (Jeschke 1972, 138). It is clear that Baptist in the 19th century desired purity in the church. It is surprising to some, that while disciple was practiced regularly, this era experienced great growth in the Baptist churches. “Discipline was not one of the lost arts in the [18]50’s (Vedder 1907, 364).” It seems that church discipline was central to church life in days prior to the Civil War. In fact Wills shows that even though Baptist churches disciplined 2% members to the point of excommunication annually, in these years, Baptist churches grew at a rate near twice the population (Wills 1997, 22). It is interesting to note that the historic Baptists documents that were used as a guideline of discipline fall strictly in line with Matthew 18:15-21. This is observed in Mell’s second chapter on corrective discipline. Mell does not support a trial type of discipline, nor does he promote swift church hearing. His does strive to progress as Jesus teaches; to the brother first, then with two or three to the brother, then finally before the church (Mell 1860, Contents).

Decline of Discipline in Baptist Churches

The decline of church discipline is perhaps the most visible failure of the contemporary church. No longer concerned with maintaining purity of confession or lifestyle, the contemporary church sees itself as a voluntary association of autonomous members, with minimal moral accountability to God, much less to each other (Mohler 2006).
How did the church arrive in such a situation? With such strong beginnings and now for discipline to be taboo among Baptists today is unnerving. Reflecting on the fact that Quaker lives were strictly guided by the church, Vedder criticizes the church’s active voice in spousal and business disputes, “and such offenses as covetousness, slander, and idleness.” He states, “To the Baptists of to-day this kind of discipline seems a meddlesome interference with personal rights and private affairs…” (Vedder, 1907, 236) Considering that Vedder pens only about 45 years after Dagg and Mell, this is a illuminating statement.
With the rising influence of individualism it seems that 20th century Baptists thought the church should “butt-out.” This was likely not aided by Reconstruction, as ‘Yankees’ and carpetbaggers ‘invaded’ the South, surely the privatization of the individual grew. This fostered an “us versus them” mentality, which leads to a “me versus you” idea. Further, Jeschke proposes that in addition to government discipline functions, possibly the “holiness-pentecostal-charismatic movement” experience, while instituting discipline at times, provided a “subconscious substitute for the holy life” (Jescheke 1972, 144-45).
It should be said that there have obviously been abuses of church discipline. This can be traced as far back as A.D. 451 when the Council of Chalcedon would excommunicate any minister who accepted the pastorate of another church, and the Bishop that approved him, without the express permission of the Roman Catholic Church (Hammond 1874, 67). Other examples are equally difficult to understand, such as attending a football game leading to probation of service , marrying outside the church leading to excommunication, missing service leading to public accusation (Cramp 1863, 382). It is no surprise that “One Southern Baptist says, “The overreaction of most Southern Baptist congregations to the abuses in church discipline in the past have made them very slow to return to the spiritual practice”” (Jescheke 1972, 143).
Perhaps the clearest error in all of church history is the conformation to the culture. This is seen clearest in “Christian” celebrations and practices. Christmas trees, the naming of “Easter” and “Sunday”, and Halloween are a few of the places Christianity has accommodated the culture over the faith. Regarding church discipline, the vast rise of Individualism accompanied the decline in discipline. It is clear from Vedder’s statement above that “personal rights and private affairs” are considered more important than the active and open sins of church members. Individualism eventually raises one above all in every matter. This is the bedrock of postmodernism. As the “American Dream” developed, the vitality of Christian community declined (Hammett 2005, 115). Also, Wills states, business methods “replaced the pursuit of purity with the quest for efficiency… No one publicly advocated the demise of discipline… It simply faded away, as if Baptists had grown weary of holding one another accountable (Wills 1997, 9 139-40).”
It seems that with the privatization of religion, Biblical truth has become relative. When people have plumbing problems they call an experienced plumber; with taxes, an educated accountant is consulted; moreover, with terminal illness, only the best medical specialists are sought. It is rather strange that when it comes to the valuable and eternal soul of man, that it is a ‘personal matter’. This is seen best in Vedder’s praise of Baptist “growth” in the early twentieth century, “The denomination statistics show that 4,181,686 … were members of regular Baptist churches…1/18 of the population. If we add “adherents”-those connected with Baptist families, congregations, Sunday-schools-1/7 must be reckoned a Baptist in sentiment….what could be more gratifying to a religious body (Vedder 1907, 366)”? While this is disturbing in many ways, perhaps the most obvious is that this Baptist minister is eager to more than double the number of Baptists simply by association in 1900. Clearly, the ‘explosion’ of Baptists in the twentieth century brought much power to the Baptist denomination. Being “Baptist” was losing a stigma, as were other denominations. As Baptists churches grew, it became more difficult to maintain discipline. Moreover, as every generation progresses, there are cultural taboos to a previous generation, which a younger generation will embrace. With the rise of Individualism and relativism, the ‘old’ practice discipline was seen as judgmental and self righteous (Hammett 2005,115).

Discipline in the Contemporary Church
While it is disheartening that discipline has disappeared in Baptist churches of the last century, it is understandable that it remains absent. The issue is not regarding discipline per se, but rather regarding culture. It has been clear discussed that it was mainly due to the rise Individualism and relativism that church discipline declined.
Fox News recently published an article stating that on average the generation of people between 46-18 is more narcissistic than any before (Associated Press, 2007). It is worth considering how this generation came to this sad state. It is not far fetched to conclude this is due to the influence of the previous generation (their parents). That generation was surely swayed by the previous generation. This rough timeline leads inevitably to the turn of the 19th century. It is apparent that the principles set forth in Scripture and practiced historically be Baptists (and others) for centuries prior to the last two, are superior to the trends in culture.
The culture has taught the church a valuable lesson regarding discipline. This lesson contrary to the opinion of some isn’t that “culture is against Christianity”. What the culture of the 19th century taught Baptist churches as the exploded, was that people are hungry for Biblical truth and community, even if it is uncomfortable. The 20th century taught Baptist churches, that if there is no Biblical leadership, people will follow any leadership, even their own. The church should also learn that if discipline is not Biblical (as in the Counsel of Chalsedon), people will seek Biblical truth elsewhere (Reformation). Wills gives account of a man who was brought before the church for discipline on account of having dancing and fiddle music at his daughters wedding. While is clear from the account the steps set forth in Matthew 18 for church discipline were not followed, one thing is educational. When the man was given the chance to address the church, he points that the church is quick to point the sins of a poor man out, but ignore other sins of rich giver to the church. He contrast judged fiddle music (of the poor) with condoned piano music (of the rich). At the end of the man’s defense the entire church rose in repentance of their double standards and praised God for this event that brought purity (Wills 1997, 27).
It would behoove the contemporary Baptist church to consider her history. Her recent past is seeping with a ministry that conforms to culture; her history is a ministry that transforms lives. In recent years Baptist have strived to be programmatic in approach to ministry, this is a model of a 20th century business model. This model has produced “membership” that is at best nominal. John Hammett, when discussing contemporary Baptists in 2004 states, “…of those more than sixteen million (Baptist church) members only 6, 024,289, or 37 percent were on average present for Sunday morning worship…they remain in good standing at most Baptist churches… Yet they are not living like regenerate believers. (Hammett 2005, 109)” Hammett is correct to correlate regenerate church membership with church discipline. At hearts cry, he is begging to tell nearly ten million people that they are not in the light, they have no fruit.
As regenerate church membership and church discipline are correlated, people must see church disciple for what it is, not what it appears to be to a narcissistic individualistic society. Mark Dever stress that churches must practice disciple for five reasons.
1. For the good of the person disciplined.
2. For the good of other Christians, as they see the danger of sin.
3. For the health of the Church as a whole.
4. For the corporate witness of the church.
5. For the glory of God, as we reflect His holiness (Dever 2000, 174-176).

The wise reader will note that these reasons focus on the good. For Dever, to evaluate the New Testament teaching of church discipline is to see the goodness of God and the Gospel. This should appeal even to the American culture, that God and His Church seek good things for people. Discipline should not be seen as a penal sentence, but rather as a friend who takes cars keys from a drunken friend. It is not judgmental damnation, but concern that is to motivate the church to discipline.

Conclusion

While it is important to understand the historic practice and reasons of decline in church discipline, it is foremost essential to understand that it is Biblical. Baptists should not follow practices simply because they are historic, as shouldn’t any denomination. Baptist churches have long prided themselves on being “Biblical”, as seen in this article. In recent years, it is clear that Baptists have not been Biblical nor historically Baptists in this area.
Church disciple that is practiced in a Biblical manner and a loving heart can transform the contemporary church. This truth is both Scriptural and historic. Christians of all denominations must love Jesus in order to be worthy of the title. If Christians love Jesus, they should follow Him. To turn the cultural driven church to a Christ driven church will be difficult. Jesus calls Christians to difficult tasks, yet He assures final victory.

Reference List
Associated Press. 2007. Study: College Students More Narcissistic Than Ever. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254904,00.html. (Accessed 04/17/07)

Cramp, J.M. 1863. Baptist History. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society.
Dagg, J.L. 1858. Manual of Theology 2nd Part: A Treatise on Church Order. Charleston: Southern Baptist Publication Society.

Dever, Mark. 2000. Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. Wheaton: Crossway Books.
Hammett, John S. 2005. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches. Grand Rapids: Kregel.

Hammond. 1874. Canons of the First Four Councils. Oxford and London: James Parker and Co.

Jeschke, Marlin. 1972. Disciplining in the Church. Scottsdale: Herald Press.
Mell, P.H. 1860. Corrective Church Discipline. Charleston: Southern Baptist Publication Society.

Molher, R. Albert Jr. 2006 Church Discipline: The Missing Mark. www.the-highway.com/discipline_Mohler.html. (Accessed 04/01/07)

Vedder, Henry C. 1907. Short History of the Baptists. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society.

Wills, Gregory A. 1997. Democratic Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Love never fails; but if {there are gifts of} prophecy, they will be done away; if {there are} tongues, they will cease; if {there is} knowledge, it will be done away.
1Cr 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
1Cr 13:10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

and believe that the “perfect is the full canon”. Pat then states this cannot be accurate hermeneutics because “the Bible is a good book, but it’s not perfect; only Jesus Christ is perfect.” and “God’s revelation didn’t end AD 90 with the last completion of the last book of the NT.”

Sadly, In many SBC churches our people spend more time with TBN or CBN than fighting SIN. We cannot embrace charismatic thought, nor partner with any who don’t believe in the infallibility of God’s holy Word. This heresy must be confronted. And we must turn all of Evangelical thought toward Scripture.

Mr. Boggs,

I searched every corner of the internet trying to find your email-to no avail. Therefore, I am left to protest here.

According to WorldNet Daily Kavakci was invited by “Sen. Florence Shapiro, the Senate’s senior Jewish member and sponsor of Kavakci’s invocation.” It is poor journalism for you not to know this fact as it is a “strong jab” in your article. The question of appropriateness is mute. There is enough to attack Kavakci’s politics, if you wish to be political. You view of the First Amendment means very very long multifaith prayers on the National Day of Prayer, President’s Prayer Breakfast and every government meeting that still prays.

Further you spelled nonsectarian wrong, and used it out of context. For a “professing Muslim” (Sufi, Shi’a, Sunni) to use the Quran is very nonsectarian. As is a “professing Christian” (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Mormon, JW) to us the Bible. Sectarian use would be the Apocrypha, or Book of Mormon for the Christian; for the Muslim it could be Shari’a Law (Iran vs. Turkey).

Regarding the name of Allah, What should Arab Christians call the Most High? God (English)? We call Him by what we know Him as according to Scripture. Yet Scripture has been translated so we understand. So for the Arab, to use the Arab word for God, what word is there? Only “Allah”, is the concept of the One, True, High, and Holy God. Dios-Spanish, God-English, Gott-German, Dei-Latin… Allah-Arab.

True, The God of Mohammed is not the God of Paul. But when the Muslim says, “I follow the God of Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and Jesus.” Should we say, “No you don’t!”? I submit rather we should strive to help to Muslim know the God he desires. Perhaps, we should seek to correct misconceptions of the One True God, as opposed to calling Muslims everything from idolaters to “demon possessed”. What has happened to being gentle as a dove? Let us win the soul not the debate.

My Bible states that Jesus is the (one) way, (one) truth, and (one) life (John 14:6) . It also states God hates sinners (Psalm 5:5). That the “evil” store up wrath (Rom 2:5-9).
Would you not say of the unbeliever (as you allege Kavakci did) that he is “at best, misguided and, at worst, condemned.”? You open yourself to the same accusations to lay.

As a SBC pastor, of the Criswell College/SEBTS variety; I say that I serve a King who calls the world at best misguided, at worst condemned. Whether the mark is missed by an mm or a mile, it is still missed. To the world, The King commands the narrow gate. If you are at the gate sitting, or in the field without a Shepherd-clueless; the undershepherds of the King are to help the misguided and condemned.

And to the SBC undershepherds, The King calls us to be wise and yet gentle. Insults of “demon possessed pedophile” and others, are unfit for ambassadors of Christ. The Gospel stands on the chief Cornerstone, mudslinging not required. Let us be Kingdom Citizens first, Americans last. Give Islam a prayer pass…so what? That means there are still 364 days we can exalt Christ in government prayer.

p.s. If you feel compelled to reply, please read my blog matthewstevens.wordpress.com, this will clear up my views on Islam (mislead at best) and the Quran (not Scripture, not authoritative).

Read Dembski’s Article

Now read my review

Dembski, William A. What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design
1995-2002. Leadership U

Summary

In his work, Dembski seeks to give a clear alternative to both Creationism and Darwinism. His stated goal is

my aim in this talk is to make the design theorists’ critique of Darwinism intelligible, and I hope even compelling, to the contemporary theologian. In particular, I wish to show that the design theorists’ critique constitutes a genuine challenge for contemporary theology, and is not rightly dismissed by a one-liners like, “Design commits the god-of-the-gaps fallacy” or “Design violates the rules of science.” my aim in this talk is to make the design theorists’ critique of Darwinism intelligible, and I hope even compelling, to the contemporary theologian. In particular, I wish to show that the design theorists’ critique constitutes a genuine challenge for contemporary theology, and is not rightly dismissed by a one-liners like, “Design commits the god-of-the-gaps fallacy” or “Design violates the rules of science.” (Dembski 1995, 1)

To achieve this aim Dembski attempts give a clear outline of the thoughts of his camp. To doing this, Dembski strives to disassociate Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) from creationism. He also seeks to give substance to the evolutionist position in order to build academic respect for IDT. Moreover, Dembski gives strong attack to the thought of theistic evolution, which he deems a poor accommodation to Darwinism. He eventually does begin to actually define his camp at that which sees in science a clear universal design, which has purpose. Next, in bulk of the work, Dembski strives to build a respectable position of IDT, in contrast to a Blind Watchmaker Theory (BWT) which holds a naturalistic purposeless process. This position he strives to build is done in such a way that appeals (potentially) to Darwinist who have discredited his position.
Dembski seeks to summarize the purpose of his work in the need to work with the confines of the scientific community to bring about change. Dembski focuses on the need to give IDT respect in the scientific community. He never seeks to build respect for the IDT in the creationist community. For Dembski, we must “get rid of our metaphysical blinders.” (Dembski 1995, 11)

Evaluation
While Dembski strives to adequately introduce his work as substance that will engage theologians in a way that will introduce them to IDT. Moreover Dembski states that he will strive to give proper understanding to the relation between Science and theology. As the work will be evaluated in full, it serves only to say that Dembski falls short of engaging theologians, or giving illumination to the relation between science and theology.
Dembski does spend much effort to explain that IDT has no relation to creationism in any form. Dembski is very eager to point out that IDT will not base any scientific position on Genesis 1 or 2. By excluding young earth, old earth, and progressive creationism; Dembski distances his position from every conservative evangelical position as well as historical Christianity. This seems to put IDT in a theistic evolutionist position. To deny this, Dembski diligently attacks any alleged connection with theistic evolutionist by displaying theistic evolutionists as an allowance to Darwinism which leads to divinely directed pointlessness in the universe. However, it seems that Dembski is advocating that IDT is theistic evolution with purpose, thus desiring to coin it as creationism. He offers no alternative to this deduction.
Dembski does attempt to discredit Darwinism by giving clear examples of major flaws in it. He also strives to discredit traditional creationism, particularly the young earth theory. Dembski sites a Gallop poll that 50% of Americans hold to creationism and 40% Theistic evolution, while only 9% adhere to Darwinism. Ironically he has dismissed 90% of Americans as naive, and seeks to gain creditability with 9%. Considering that IDT refuses to examine Scripture as authoritative, seeks recognition on science alone, it is clear this work and the IDT view hold no substance with the orthodox Christian, much less the godless adherent to Darwinism. 700 years ago scientists knew the earth was flat, 300 years ago scientists knew the earth was the center of the universe, and for the last 200 years scientists have known Darwin is right. Therefore, Dembski has a flawed axiom and method in that he sees science as the foundation of discovering truth.
Reaction
Dembski has not aided in the understanding of the IDT for historical Christianity. If anything he has damaged it. Considering that the majority of theologians are creationists, Dembski has further damaged most willingness by theologians to consider his view. This work does give insight to the liberal quasi-Christian mindset. While moderates or liberals have distaste for the term “liberal quasi-Christian”, it must be noted that historically Christianity holds to the authority and functionality of Scripture, and therefore the Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Substitutionary atonement, and especially- Creation. Therefore any thought or group that goes left of the standard of historical Christianity, yields a “liberal quasi-Christian”, not Christian thought.
Regarding Dembski’s appeal to adherents of Darwinism, He seeks to gain a foothold in scientific academia. In doing this, Dembski is quick to disregard Scripture as authoritative and functional. Obviously his goal is to remove the barrier of Scripture as so Darwinists will be open to God, without encountering Christ. For the Christian, as Scripture (not religion) has withheld the scrutiny of science for thousands of years; Scripture must interpret science, not visa versa. By seeking to validate any Christian thought from science, Dembski sacrifices any Christian thought.

This work is helpful to prepare the church with the thought processes of a world not devoted to Scripture. By understanding how and why popular academia has the ontological presuppositions it hold, the Church should be equipped to respond with proper views regarding metaphysics, especially the imageo dei.
Further comment should be made regarding Dembski blatant mockery of traditional creationism. It must be a priority of any respectable biblical scholar to discover what Scripture says about itself, and moreover what the understanding of the original audience was. While there is obviously an element of faith regarding Scripture, it is noted that there is substantial evidence that support the claim of Scripture. Understanding that evidence eventually leads only to skepticism by the skeptic and support or proof by the believer, to the relativist- neither science nor Scripture is authoritative. Therefore for authoritative teaching, one must evaluate the validity of one presupposition or worldviews. Science (Darwinism) struggles with the purpose of life, root of emotions, complexity of thought, survival of “weak” species, universal practice of marriage, and unexplainable phenomenon (miracles).
The wisest statement Dembski makes in this work is that “the ground rules of science have to be changed.” While this is true, it raises the question, “How?” There is a legitimate concern that IDT is theistic evolution baptized with Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven Life.”

The Problem
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “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.” This has been used to protect religious liberties in American History. However In recent years some have begun to interpret this stating that religion has no role in politics. Therefore in recent times, controversy has risen regarding religion’s role in politics if any.

I. Views

Theocracy-This view holds that God alone is to run a nation. Controversy arises when determining who determines how God wants to run a nation. This concept has been seen in History regarding the Church of England, The Roman Catholic Church, and Dutch Reformers.

Strict Democracy- This view holds that the desires of the people should always be met. This is “By the People, For the People”. While this seems a wise government, many have criticized Democratic elections that do not result in particular ways, such as the recent Palestinian election supporting Hamas.

Checked Government- This view holds that while the people have a say in the government, there remains some checks and balances that should serve as a guide to the nation. The government can’t be trusted to the masses, because the masses may be ignorant or wicked. Nor can the Nation be trusted to a select few, because the few may be corrupt.

II. Sources of Authority that Influence View

A. Scripture

Isa 9:6-7 NASU
6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Rom 13:1-7 NASU
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Acts 5:27-32 NASU
27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. “And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
B. Influential Quotes
Patriarchs

Augustine
This much I have judged it advisable to quote from the fourth book of Cicero’s De Republica; and I have made the quotation word for word, with the exception of some words omitted, and some slightly transposed, for the sake of giving the sense more readily. And certainly the extract is pertinent to the matter I am endeavoring to explain. Cicero makes some further remarks, and concludes the passage by showing that the ancient Romans did not permit any living man to be either praised or blamed on the stage. But the Greeks, as I said, though not so moral, were more logical in allowing this license which the Romans forbade; for they saw that their gods approved and enjoyed the scurrilous language of low comedy when directed not only against men, but even against themselves; and this, whether the infamous actions imputed to them were the fictions of poets, or were their actual iniquities commemorated and acted in the theatres. And would that the spectators had judged them worthy only of laughter, and not of imitation! Manifestly it had been a stretch of pride to spare the good name of the leading men and the common citizens, when the very deities did not grudge that their own reputation should be blemished.( www.newadvent.org/fathers/120102.htm) Showing even the Romans had guidelines regarding religious liberty.

Reformers

John Owen
There is no outward constitution nor frame of things, in governments or nations, but it is subject to a dissolution, and may receive it, and that in a way of judgment. If any might plead exemption, that, on many accounts, of which the apostle was discoursing in prophetical terms (for it was not yet time to speak it openly to all) might interpose for its share. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/sermons.iv.xiii.html?highlight=creation#highlight)

Modern

U.S. Patriots
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm)

III. My View

While the Government should never govern the church (religion), in a democratic state-if it is the desire of the people then the government should serve religion as the people see fit. Regarding America, this idea of Government serving church (thus God) is seen first in the Declaration of Independence. Since the church is composed of people, People have every right to vote in a democratic state, therefore the church may use the government, and however the government may never legislate the church.

Euthanasia

The Problem: In recent years the “right to die” has been debated. This has led to several controversial judicial cases, as well as to confusion in the medical field.

I. Alternative views

Mercy death-This view hold that a person in violent pain, a less than functioning life, or facing imminent death should have the right to die or rather be put to death medically for the benefit of the victim or their families.

Personal Choice-This view hold that only an individual may make the decision on whether they would like to be killed. This view prohibits others from making that decision.

Obligation to live- This view hold that everyone should strive to live for as long as possible. Neither the Patient, Doctor nor family should cause death to a person. There is a distinction made between “cause death” and “let die” in this view.

II. Sources of Authority

A. Scripture
Ps 71:7-11 NASU
I have become a marvel to many,For You are my strong refuge. My mouth is filled with Your praise And with Your glory all day long. Do not cast me off in the time of old age;Do not forsake me when my strength fails. For my enemies have spoken against me;And those who watch for my life have consulted together, Saying, “God has forsaken him;Pursue and seize him, for there is no one to deliver.”

Deut 32:39 NASU
39′See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.

Gen 9:5-6 NASU
5 “Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.

B. Notable Quotes

Patristic

Augustine
am not unaware of the poor-spirited fear which prompts us to choose rather to live long in fear of so many deaths, than to die once and so escape them all; but the weak and cowardly shrinking of the flesh is one thing, and the well-considered and reasonable persuasion of the soul quite another. That death is not to be judged an evil which is the end of a good life; for death becomes evil only by the retribution which follows it. They, then, who are destined to die, need not be careful to inquire what death they are to die, but into what place death will usher them. And since Christians are well aware that the death of the godly pauper whose sores the dogs licked was far better than of the wicked rich man who lay in purple and fine linen, what harm could these terrific deaths do to the dead who had lived well? (www.newadvent.org/fathers/120101.htm)

Reformers

Luther

(When asked when he wanted to suffocate a handicapped boy”…
“Because I think he’s simply a mass of flesh without a soul. Couldn’t the devil have done this, inasmuch as he gives such shape to the body and mind even of those who have reason that in their obsession they hear, see, and feel nothing? The devil is himself their soul. The power of the devil is great when in this way he holds the minds of all men captive, but he doesn’t dare give full vent to the power on account of the angels.” (www.independentliving.org/docs7/miles2005b.html#boy)

Modern

Bobby Welch
[A]merica should be hanging its head in shame because of its complicity in the horrible death of Terri Schiavo, a woman’s whose body committed no crime, no matter what the laws of our land may say concerning euthanasia, and no matter that America slouches toward a culture of selfishness even in death, God is the ultimate authority over life and death.”

My View
While it is obvious that death is part of life, we must never be the cause of innocent death. Scripture teaches that it is God who has set the time for man to die. For anyone to take innocent live is always wrong. Mercy in death is God’s choice alone.