Second American Revolution: Andrew Sandlin (3 of 4)

Question: In a Christian republic based on biblical law, would non-Christian religions be banned or would they have as much freedom as they have now?

Andrew Sandlin: We certainly do not want an Ayatollah fundamentalist regime. That's not what we are looking for at all. In a biblically oriented society, political power would be greatly decreased. In these areas of capital crimes and other penal sanctions, over a long period of time by means of godly peaceful democratic change we want the Law of God to be enforced. It's not our goal to go out and impose our views on everybody else. That really is a slander against the Christian Reconstructionist position. Our goal is not to harm any particular group or any minority, but certainly it is to require that all people submit themselves to the Law of God.

If somebody says: "That's absolute religious freedom," then no we don't believe that Satanists should be permitted to sacrifice children. But that's true in this society. When people talk about intolerance, there's always a level of intolerance. In this country, we don't permit Mormon men to have more than one wife. The biblical view is that they can privately believe what they want to believe and privately practice it. But under the Old Testament law the public worship of a false god is forbidden.

In a biblical society, cults, or people who do not hold to a bare minimum orthodoxy, can hold their faith. They can teach their children their faith. But as far as public worship, the Bible does seem to forbid public worship that is contrary to Christian worship.

If somebody says, "That sounds intolerant," then there is always going to be some level of intolerance somewhere. Right now in this country, we don't have manger scenes on civil government front lawns. We, of course, consider that to be intolerant. Every civil government is going to adopt certain laws that are essentially religious in nature. That is the nature of man.

We certainly cannot permit the public proselytizing of religions that are going to undermine our religious faith and also the state itself. But that has nothing to do with imposing our views on someone else's conscience. We do believe in liberty of conscience. People are free to believe what they want to believe and say what they want to say in the private sphere and train their children. But in certain cases there will be some intolerance. If we want to get rid of intolerance, let's just get rid of the law. Every law is intolerant.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Andrew
• Sandlin
• Christian
• Culture
• God's
• Law
• Society

[goosemonsta]

Wow you folks really do have downsyndrome. All religion, and especially Christianity is over the top stupid and in fact I believe that you all should be fuckin euthanized so it will be impossible for you create more of your mentally deficient offspring.

[Inteckno]

It is thinking that creates reconstruction. Judge means tolerate, Romans 1:32-2:1.

[Inteckno]

Thinking it through is what distinguishes God's servant. Intolerance of corruption is Christian, Romans 1:32, Psalm 139:21-22. Now whether a man converts quickly or slowly, I hope that one day he will beecome as I. Am I "scary" for opposing what I know brings down the hood.

[snotbog1]

I don't believe that earthly saints will die during the millenium, only those who are rebellious. They will go to Hades and be resurrected at the end of the millenium to be judged before the great white throne. Then death and Hades will be throne together into the lake of fire. This is the order I read in Rev 20. Unless the context demands otherwise, reading the text in order suits me.

[snotbog1]

Yes, there will be physical people that enter into the millenium, although they live to an age like that before the flood. To what extent the translated saints will interact with those on earth, like I said, I don't know. Biblically, men have interacted with angelic beings so I have know problem with this. The world will still have corruption, but not like the present because Satan will be bound and Christ will be present. Regarding marriage, Jesus made it clear that those in heaven do not marry

[snotbog1]

Dispesationalism teaches a rapture before (or during) the tribulation and the second coming after the tribulation; 2 phases of one event. Again, the old testament makes referrences to Jesus coming as a servent and as a king right in the same context. Nobody understood a first and second coming. That said, it isn't outside of the "pale" for God have two stages in one event. Especially considering how the first is secret and the second visible. Not sure where you get a third coming by the Father?

[snotbog1]

Yes, Jesus addressed persistent prayer and then interupted with the word, "HOWEVER". The implication seems to imply an opposite or change of direction of what was just being described (perhaps I'm wrong). I believe this statement eludes to a faithless church in the end times, not that there will be no people of faith at all. Like the Jewish day, the day of the Lord is one that starts with darkness. You say post-mill best fits biblically but the verses against it are practically countless.

[jcr4runner]

Have you ever thought this through?

This is the first idea that made me doubt dispensationalism.

You would have saints in glorified bodies living with saints in corruptible bodies together with unconverted sinners in a corruptible world.

The mortals living during this time will marry, have children die at an old age.

Will the glorified saints be able to marry mortal saints?

How will they interact?

What happens to the saints who die? Will they be in heaven without the presence Jesus?

[jcr4runner]

Dispensationalism teaches, in effect, THREE Second Comings: the coming of Christ for the saints at the rapture; the coming of Christ to the earth at the end of the seven year tribulation; and the Father's coming at the end of the millennium.

[jcr4runner]

Jesus said, "When the Son of man returns, will he find faith on earth?"

I've always found that to be an amazing example of an out-of-context objection. You interpret it to mean that Jesus will not find ANY faith on the earth when he returns?

But the context is the parable of the unjust judge. Postmillennialists don't interpret Luke 18:8 in the negative. The whole context of this parable is that it is to demonstrate that we always ought to pray in faith and never to grow weary of praying.