6 comments

1. Yes that may very well be true that they associate becoming American with becoming Christian. After all we proclaim ourselves to be a Christian nation which means different things to different people but I actually reject that. I believe we’re a Deistic nation and used the scriptures to write our laws and way of life. But that just means we took the ethics, principles, and morality from the Bible.
   We got civil order and laws from it. We have laws and no one is asking immigrants to give up their language or culture but we want them to acclimate themselves to the American way life. Our language and laws. They have the freedom of religion anc way of their personal lives, but aren’t welcomed to imposed that on a people who already have a way of life, religion, and history.
   It’s no different in other countries. Move to Japan and they want you to learn the language and acclimate to their way of life.
   But you’re certainly correct that we should approach the immigration issue with grace and not hostility. We can support the laws regarding immigration but with love and charity

   Reply ↓

2. I believe Caleb is speaking with a mindset similar to that of John MacArthur. MacArthur did not support religious freedom in the same way that the Founders did.

   Here is an excerpt from an article, from 2021, about MacArthur’s views:

   In a Jan. 24 sermon, MacArthur told Grace Community Church that supporting religious freedom violates the Biblical commandment to have no other gods. He reiterated the point in a Feb. 28 sermon acknowledging criticism of his earlier comments. And in a state-of-the-church address on Wednesday, he encouraged evangelicals not to partner with non-Christian groups promoting religious freedom, The Christian Post reported.

   “You say, ‘Well, isn’t religious freedom important for Christianity?’” MacArthur said in the second sermon. “No, it’s meaningless. It doesn’t matter what law governments make or don’t make. They have no effect on the kingdom of God.”

   Source: https://wng.org/roundups/john-macarthur-religious-freedom-meaningless-1617222655

   I think religious freedom is a blessing in that no government can legally punish me for preaching the gospel, worshiping on Sunday, reading the Bible, and so forth. Why would I want to equip the government with the general power to regulate religion qua religion?

   Reply ↓

3. So I guess I’m not a true Christian if I don’t favor absolute freedom of speech? False ideologies have real consequences. The bearing of the consequence should be done by the false teacher and not the innocent that will inevitably pay the price. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. Christ payment for my guilt doesn’t abrogate the law for the rest of humanity. Obedience is still required of them and is not predicated upon their moral ability. The slaughtered millions of American pre-born is a real example of the consequences of freedom to teach the various false ideologies that have consumed the American mind. I guess those babies lives are the price that has to be paid for the libertarian freedom of speech that is favored by a true Christian.

   Reply ↓

   • Caleb,

     I don’t think Machen was arguing for “absolute freedom of speech” was he? Where did he oppose people bearing the consequences of their speech?

     Are you suggesting that Machen was opposed to obedience to the moral law and to civil laws? It’s true that he leaned in a libertarian direction. So did the American founders.

     Free speech is an American commitment. E.g., we’ve seen what happens when the government decides what we may or may not say re vaccinations. They tipped the scales in favor of one side, which turned out to be wrong. The American founders intended that there be relatively few regulations of speech. Of course there have always been some regulations but even the commonly cited “fire in a crowded theater” example is widely misunderstood. If there is a fire in a crowded theater, someone should probably let the crowd know about it.

     Are you suggesting that Machen would have been indifferent to the murder of infants? There’s no evidence for that. I agree with Machen here and I’ve argued for 40 years against abortion. E.g.,

     Resources On Abortion

     Machen spent his life arguing against a wide variety of false ideologies. He was able to do that because of freedom of speech.

     I’m surprised by the vehemence of your reaction. Have you read much of Machen?

     What sorts of restrictions of speech do you think the government should impose?

     Reply ↓

     • Ideologies have real consequences and false ideological teachers should bear the consequence for propagating them rather than the innocent that are harmed by the out working of those ideas. There are real consequences for the ideas of big bang cosmology, darwiniansim, feminism, political liberalism, and the various other religious and supposedly non religious ideologies allowed to be propagated. I am commenting that Machen seems to be espousing the idea that my ideological opposition should have liberty to propagate that which is opposed to the truth (if he held that our shared confession is the truth, which I’m sure he did). No man has a God given right to teach that which is opposed to the truth and when liberty is exercised to propagate lies inevitable real world consequences (like the broad acceptance and practice of abortion) is inevitable. It is a serious contradiction when we argue against lawlessness (like abortion) while arguing for the allowance of the propagation of ideologies that lead to such lawlessness. Liberty to speak and do what is good, true, and beautiful is true liberty. No one has the right to do anything else.

       Reply ↓

       • Caleb,

         You’re failing to distinguish between the two spheres of the kingdom.

         He wasn’t speaking about freedom to advocate error in the church. He was speaking about freedom of speech in the civil or secular sphere.

         The genius of the American approach is that we removed from the magistrate the authority to suppress unpopular speech.

         In 2026 that means that I get to advocate Reformed theology, piety, and practice despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans, who are Romanist or Remonstrant, oppose it.

         Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.