Author: harry.rockefeller@gmail.com

The apostle Paul is nearing the end of his ministry. He knows
how important it is to instruct his successor to carry on the
Great Commission of Jesus Christ. Because there are many
conflicting ideas Paul knows he needs to command his successor to
discern ideas of human origin from the eternal Godly ideas. Thus
he writes in 2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is breathed out by God
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent,
equipped for every good work.” Paul goes on instructing Timothy
to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and
teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure
sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for
themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn
away from listening to the truth and wander off into
myths. [4:2b-4]”

Both Paul and Timothy must have been thinking about what the
perfect teacher, Jesus Christ, said about false teaching:
“whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to
sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone
fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the
sea [Matt 18:6]”. Obviously, since Paul and Timothy are mere
fallible men “complete patience” includes to humble themselves
and be willing to revise their own teaching when it is not in
harmony with Scripture. So it is with me. If any reader, as a
believer in Christ, believes I am in error here please instruct
me. All I ask is that you too exercise “complete patience”.

The Baptist Faith and Message recognizes a separation of church
and State authority but for the wrong reason. Where this plank
strays from the truth is in how it distances state (civil)
authority from God’s authority. Another way to express this
mistake is to say the BF&M confuses ecclesiastical authority with
God’s authority. As a result if any sampling of Baptists were
asked if God’s authority includes being over the civil government
you would probably get a solid yes, a solid no and everything
else in between.

A friend at my church finally gave me something which goes into
more detail about Baptist thinking in this area.

Walter B. Shurden wrote _How We Got That Way: Baptists on
Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State_, for the
Sixtieth Celebration of the Baptist Joint Committee 8 October
1996. Much of what he quotes below are from Glen Stassen’s essay
“The Christian Origin of Human Rights”.

… Overton has a mock trial for Mr. Persecution. The trial
ends with a concluding statement from Justice Reason. Not
Justice Bible, mind you, or Justice Theology, or Justice
Christ, but Justice Reason! Justice Reason, in his
conclusion, says that Mr. Persecution threatens “the general
and equal rights and liberties of the common people… their
native and just liberties in general”. Baptists
distinguished religious liberty and religious freedom as
belonging to all persons as persons and not to Christianity
or to people of a particular brand of Christianity. … “The
ethic of human rights can be a universal ethic, not because
its source is a common philosophy believed by all people but
because its intention and application affirm the rights of
all persons.”

The context doesn’t imply that Justice Reason is a subset of
Justice Bible. The context demands that Justice Reason be
outside of Christianity itself. The Baptists have embraced false
teaching, a myth of human origin, here. For example, what does
Justice Reason say is the proper approach to abortion? Is the
live human fetus a member of “all persons”? Does the would-be
Mother’s rights outweigh the human fetus’ right to life? May the
Bible be used to answer such ethical questions? Baptists say no.
Baptists omit God as the originator (and thus the Bible as final
authority) of human rights because they insist on combining
liberty of belief in this mix. Who would argue against religious
liberty and freedom (at least in terms of belief) for all
persons? Even I accept that point because these two ideas are
independent.

Apparently, to a Baptist it must be thoroughly impossible for
religious liberty and freedom to truly have Biblical roots and
include religious liberty and freedom for all persons. According
to Baptists Justice Reason demands “pluralism” in civil
government which is by definition the absence of any officially
sanctioned religion. The opposite of pluralism must then be
government with an officially sanctioned religion. But does this
require entanglement of church and state? Jim Spivey in
_Separation No Myth_ gives a chart in which only Christian
Reconstruction opposes pluralism but without church state
entanglements. Jim Spivey calls this a “theocratic” form of
government. To me this sounds exciting, biblical, desirable.
Why are Baptists opposed to this form of government?

Herb Titus wrote _The Constitution of the United States A
Christian Document_. He defends this point well in chapter two
where he discusses the Subscription Clause. However, in chapter
three, Mr. Titus falters. He fails to recognize the difference
between a religious oath either affirming or denying one’s
personal belief, which I too believe is anti-Biblical but more
about that later, from a religious oath binding one’s political
duty to righteousness. What I mean by this is that a politician
is duty bound to not lie, be honest, don’t steal, obey the law,
etc. For example, the U.S. Constitution in amendment 10
prohibits Congress from anything not mentioned within the
Constitution. Thus, when Congress legislates in those prohibited
areas it is stealing authority from either a lower government or
the people. This *is* just as much a religious act as the
personal belief system upon which it is founded.

I don’t work for a Christian company. There is no religious oath
I had to take as an employee. However, I had to agree to a code
of ethics. I had to agree that I would not steal intellectual
(or any other) property for example. This moral contractual
obligation I have with my secular company is still religious in
nature. There is a definition of theft, and private (corporate)
property. Some may think this example vindicates the
no-religious-oath test for a federal official. I think not. If
I and my company ever have a disagreement over this employment
contract it may result in the most formal of legal resolutions
called a civil lawsuit in which case the laws of the State of
Oklahoma are to apply. If it is appealed then perhaps the laws
of the United States would supersede Oklahoma law. The
U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Since elected
officials are not required to take a religious oath then the
definitions of property, theft, law, etc. are sitting in the seas
of human (post-modernism now) whim.

Herb quotes Thomas Jefferson “Well aware that Almighty God
created the mind free” civil rulers should not be required to
“profess or renounce this or that religious opinion”. Herb also
quotes Oliver Ellsworth and Isaac Backus. All three of these men
knew God Himself as the source of liberty, but made the same
mistake Herb has done. By the no-oath-test clause the drafters
of our Constitution ruled out any other legal authority. It is
simply a we-the-people opinion. This is what the majority of
federal judges believe today.

Herb closes this section saying “the justification for religious
tests followed from the claim that the State had jurisdiction
over the affairs of the church. Once that jurisdiction was
denied to the State, then the purpose of religious tests could no
longer be sustained.” This sounds good; a separation of civil
and ecclesiastical authority, but is it correct? Herb also
mentions that the majority of the oaths were not specific to the
denomination favored by the State. Many states had generic
religious oath tests. Why would an ecclesiastical oath be
generic? Herb goes on “the ban was dictated by Biblical law that
one’s personal faith in God was not a legitimate object of civil
government, and hence, not to be defined or to be otherwise
governed by it.” Ok then, why not an oath professing the
Divinity of both Old and New Testaments? Nope, not allowed.
Herb concludes this chapter with “The Constitution sought to
establish a Christian civil order, one in which the jurisdiction
and powers of the civil government would be limited in accordance
with the laws of God.” The only response is that Herb’s
conclusion is both illogical and incorrect.

Conference Concluding Remarks

One more suggestion in support of preterist view. Gary could
have read selections of one of the latter chapters in Hal
Lindsey’s book _Vanished Into Thin Air_ where Hal unloads his
pessimistic view of the future. Then Gary could have painted a
verbal picture: imagine the futility in the hearts of Hal’s
children and grandchildren listening to all this.

There is much more to discuss in eschatology. Perhaps a topic
such as “Revelation 20 – The millennium – Present or Future”
would be a good topic with the intent of exchanging more
information in the eschatology debate.

Gary DeMar closed the conference asking “Where Do We Go From
Here?”. I would like to see more intra-Christian debates. Here
are some suggestions:

The U.S. Constitution – a Christian document

Herb Titus or Bill Federer – yes
Gary North or Dennis Woods – no

The Marriage Protection Amendment

Pro – James Dobson
Con – Herb Titus

1st amendment includes anti-discrimination
toward atheists

Pro – John Whitehead or Keith Fornier
Con – someone who believes USC is Christian?

Christian Theocracy – Is it good or bad?

Good – Gary DeMar? or someone who takes Greg Bahnsen literally
Bad – Richard Land (of Southern Baptist ethics and religious
liberty)

The Kingdom of God – Spiritual only or ‘everything’

Pro – John Piper or John MacArthur?
Con – Gary DeMar (or any preterist really)

I heard both Bill Federer and Herb Titus speak today. Bill made
a good point about the U.S. Constitution (USC) mentioning that on
Sunday no work would be performed. This is directly linked to
the 4th Commandment in the judicially-tossed-out 10 Commandments
found in the Bible. Bill presented many other solid historical
facts which refute the secular nature of the United States
government during the colonial era. Unfortunately, the majority
of federal justices today don’t claim this holds any legal
weight.

Herb Titus spoke on both the original U.S. Constitution as well
as the meaning of the 14th amendment. He gave much interesting
detail about the context of the USC such as it mentioning the
time between the USC adoption and the birth of our nation in
1776. This fact requires the USC be moored to the
obviously-religious Declaration of Independence. As a result Herb
holds to a view that the Declaration holds civil judicial clout
just as much as the USC. He agreed with Bill in that the
original USC was decidedly a Christian document.

I wish I could comment intelligently on Herb’s 14th amendment
talk. About all I could understand from this presentation is
that *all* Supreme Court justices, including the most
conservative ones, held to a view of this amendment which was
different from Herb’s. The only other tidbit I could understand
was that the “equal protection clause” only has meaning in a
religious sense. For if this is taken in a Darwinian sense then
there is no equality. It’s back to the Greg Bahnsen
presupposition idea. If God’s creation of man (which by the way
is all races since from one couple all races came) is rejected
then man is an evolved animal and by survival-of-the-fittest
definition *not* equal to other men. There have been court cases
to demonstrate this insanity. For example, a couple suing a
hospital because with pre-natal testing the couple could have
legally gotten rid of a pregnancy by abortion but now that they
have a permanently disabled infant/child they cannot legally kill
it.

Gary DeMar debated Tommy Ice on the Great Tribulation time frame
being past or future. I have two suggestions for Gary.
Supernatural vs natural judgments often follow one another. One
of the best examples is the supernatural destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah vs the natural (civil war) destruction of Gibeah as well
as all of Israel. There is text in Genesis and Judges which ties
these two judgment stories together. The other is a suggestion
to use Brian Godawa’s point of imagery and storytelling. Gary
should have ‘painted’ a verbal picture of the Roman General
assigned to destroy the temple in 70 AD. Talk about this Roman
general strutting into the Holiest of Holies then doing some
abomination of desecration just before he orders his army to tear
it down. This would cripple Tommy Ice’s ability to get any of
the audience to believe in pushing this event into the end times.

There were other great speakers. This conference has been a
great blessing. Thank you American Vision and Gary DeMar.

I am at the first maybe-annual Superworldview conference this
Memorial Day weekend. The debate last night between the humanist,
Ed Buchner, and Bill Federer was interesting to say the least.

These debaters didn’t address each other’s points. Ed Buchner
seemed to focus in on the secularism of the current U.S.
Constitution with all amendments and thus federal law today,
while Bill discussed mostly the development and original meaning
of the U.S. Constitution including only the bill of rights.

The idea of a constitutional republic vs democracy was avoided.
In fact, Ed used Bill’s argument: that the democracy should
decide religious law; against him. Bill should have made it
clearer that the democratic majority only allowed the judicial
branch to protect certain minorities from being discriminated
against.

It is interesting that neither side brought up the 1964 Civil
Rights Act which protected religious minorities from
discrimination at all levels of government from federal right on
down to local public school or public library employee.

From the start of the debate Ed said that he believes civil law
as dictated by our current U.S. Constitution is religiously
neutral. I was surprised that Bill waited until very late in his
presentation to propose that not only is civil law inherently
religious but must be so by philosophical presuppositions. But
by the time in the debate he clearly presented this point it was
too late.

Tonight’s debate was between an evolutionist, Dr. Mark Farmer,
and a creationist, Dr. Carl Wieland. In Mark’s opening comments
he said “I do not believe in evolution”. “Scientific theory
cannot prove anything; it can only disprove.” “Evolution is one
of the most proven of theories and thus needs to be accepted as
fact.” So, with these quotes in hand I decided I could safely go
get my wife a hot drink to help keep her warm in tonight’s
debate. 😉

 Since a vote in the U.S. Senate is coming up soon for the
Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) James Dobson’s June, 2006,
‘Citizen’ magazine is almost entirely focused on this topic.

On page 21, Citizen attempts “Answering the skeptics”. Argument
1 is: “Discriminates against gays. The amendment violates the
U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that every American be treated
equally under the law.”

The argument is improperly phrased because amendments do indeed
change the original. *If* it had been illegal to discriminate
against gays all this time and now is the time the 2/3 super
majority adds an amendment to make it legal to discriminate
against gays this is the way it’s done. In a legal sense the
proponents of the MPA are admitting discrimination against gays
violates the U.S. Constitution in it’s current form.

Another point is missing in the way Citizen defines the debate.
In Citizen’s defense I believe this is a slight-of-hand from the
‘gay’ side which most liberals in general use. But the truth is
that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee that every American
be treated equally under the law. The right to liberty and
pursuit of happiness doesn’t apply to the law breaker. That’s
why we -supposedly- have prisons.

Citizen’s answer skirts the entire issue. It avoids the
accusation by retelling the long history of cultural acceptable
heterosexual marriage. Citizen concludes by saying “marriage
predates …the Bible itself”. Although true I can’t help but
think this is an attempt to distance this intentional
discrimination against gays for religious reasons. In summary,
by avoiding the argument altogether, all Citizen really said is
that there has been a long history of discrimination against
gays!

Turning the page I read this: “What’s the number-one reason
America needs a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Can
anyone say ‘Lawrence’?”. So, the real argument is now defined.
Is it legal to discriminate against gays via current marriage law
when gay behavior is law-abiding behavior? When America used to
have sodomy law there was no argument about “marriage” being
sanctioned by the state for adults of the same sex.
Discrimination was not the issue because consensual sex of same
sex partners was an illegal behavior and thus there was no
U.S. Constitutional “right” beyond that. Taking away
the illegal nature of homosexual sex is what exposes current
heterosexual marriage law as discriminatory against gays.

“Do Gays really Want ‘marriage’?” Citizen answers this question
on pages 28 and 29. They present useful data in support of the
‘average’ answer – a resounding ‘NO’. They also conclude
correctly about what it is all these gays really are fighting
for: an abolition of marriage.

Does Citizen really embrace the idea that civil law can be
religiously neutral? They close with truth everyone (including
gays) know. The gay’s “deepest desire is that homosexual
behavior would no longer be sin.” It is the Christian’s duty to
“reflect God’s heart on the matter and commit to fully engage
those in the public arena who seek to declare ‘good’ that which
God calls ‘evil’.”

Citizen is straddling the fence. On one side they embrace
secular humanism’s tenent that civil law can and must be
religiously neutral but on the other they know the Bible
says otherwise. This is why their MPA argument is weak.

Using the root composition of the word it simply means: Civil
rule by God. This is something different than democracy: rule by
the people. Most people have a negative view of theocracy. This
explains it’s use both within and without fundamentalist
Christianity. For example, the New York Times published a
full-page ad last December paid for by the political left. It
said our government “is moving each day closer to a theocracy,
where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will
rule”. More than once I have heard a Christian fundamentalist
give their opinion “I don’t want a theocracy (Old Testament civil
law).” Roger Williams is perhaps the most well known historical
figure holding this position.

Another view states Theocracy is inescapable. In Gary DeMar’s
essay, http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-03-04.asp,
he uses examples to explain what he means. He opens with the
French revolutionary democracy which is linked with the phrase
“The voice of the people is the voice of God”. Gary closes with
the example of Nazi Germany: a secular theocracy. Hitler defined
morality in his own way answerable to no one. Those Germans who
were complicitly murdering Jews were not just following orders.
They had come to believe what they were doing was “right”. They
believed they would not be in judgment of hell fire upon their
own death.

There is a third view. Theocracy is impossible. In support one
may argue that civil governments are put in place by humans. The
human or humans may claim to be god, but God, Himself, doesn’t
rule, the human does.

These three views of “Theocracy” do not void the word’s meaning.
In fact, I believe it reinforces the idea that the act of civil
governing, making decisions of what is right or wrong,
determination of civil punishment, etc. is essentially a
religious act.

Those inside the fundamentalist camp need to answer these
questions. If you don’t want a theocracy, then how can you
maintain belief in Divinely inspired Scripture which defines
morality (ethics)? If you are going to defend public displays of
10-Commandments monuments why not defend them as being the basis
of our current civil law system instead of having only historical
relevance?

Those outside the fundamentalist camp need to be asked: without
God how can there be any concept of right and wrong?

Both camps, indeed every one of us, needs to ask: who or what is
the ‘god’ who determines who wins when there is a disagreement
about right and wrong? What causes me to change my mind
concerning civil morality, law and punishment? Is it public
opinion? or the Bible or someone I respect or forget it ’cause I
don’t ever change my opinion about such matters?

Confidence in prayer requires three beliefs. One, God has the
authority to grant a request. Two, God agrees that the request
is something He too desires. Three, God actually has heard the
prayer. All three of these ideas are worth investigating. But
let’s assume the Bible-believer agrees God has given Christ power
to do anything and everything (Matthew 28:18). Let’s also assume
the Bible believer daily confesses any known sin and lives with
the intent to please God and believes God hears him. Thus, the
only question left is this: is the prayer within God’s will.

The Old Testament has much to say about the destiny of civil
authority in opposition to God’s law. When Israel was suffering
under Pharaoh of Egypt, God responded to their prayers by giving
them self-government under God with Moses as the human leader.
They only asked for relief. They didn’t specifically ask for a
civil government change (Exodus 3:7-10). In spite of the ungodly
civil government of Pharaoh their prayers were effective; God
rescued them. Pharaoh and his army were destroyed in the Red
Sea. Abraham prayed for his nephew’s city, Sodom. He asked God
to spare it for the sake of the righteous living there. God told
Abraham there were less than 10 righteous people living in the
city of Sodom. Abraham’s prayer was outside of God’s will and
God consumed the city with fire and brimstone.

What does the New Testament have to say? In 1 Timothy 2:1&2 Paul
tells us to pray for kings and those in authority. Paul unafraid
calls the civil ruler God’s servant in Romans 13. Paul as well
as other New Testament believers resorted to only prayer and
teaching because they had no legal role in the pagan Roman
government. However, they understood the Old Testament. For
their own peace the civil government needed to be under God’s
Law. However, following Jesus’ example these believers wrote
about a soon-coming wrath of God upon the earth. Using the Roman
army God layed waste Jerusalem and totally destroyed the Jewish
temple in 70 AD.

It appears the presence of a non-Christian civil government is
unrelated to prayer being within God’s will. However, if the
person praying held to the world-view that God wants civil
government without Christ at its head; this will influence what
the person will pray for. Why waste time praying for a change in
our civil government placing it under God’s authority if you
don’t believe God desires it? Instead, prayer for God’s wrath to
come swiftly would be in order. Indeed, those who believe in a
pre-tribulation rapture and pray for the saint’s rapture to take
place are praying for this very thing!

Hal Lindsey believes the prophecy in Scripture about God’s
soon-coming wrath isn’t fulfilled yet. He puts it this way in
his “Vanished into Thin Air” book. “We live in a world
essentially devoid of hope. Visions of the future as portrayed by
popular books and films include catastrophic events like asteroid
strikes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and plagues. Images of
the future are more often than not eerie, post-apocalyptic scenes
complete with darkened skies over ruined cities presided over by
chaos. Those images are completely in harmony with the
prophecies of the Book of the Revelation for the last days.”

I wonder what world-view Hal’s grandchildren have? Do they even
plan to have children if they believe their grandfather?

Do you believe the ‘world’ is doomed? Do you believe the ungodly
civil governments of today are going to take the ship called
‘planet earth’ down with them? Then you also probably believe
that God wants the United States to maintain a religiously
pluralistic civil government. Effective prayer to change our
nation placing authority back under God (Christ) Himself is
simply – absent. Instead, unanswered prayer asking for Christ’s
coming for his own and swift judgment on the rest of the world
fills the void. Thus, prayer is weakened because unanswered
prayer erodes faith in God. Who’s prayers are the opposite of
the powerful effective righteous man [James 5:16b]? “He who
doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.
That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord;
he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.” [James
1:6-8]

As Dr. Gary North would say, eschatology matters.

Fundamentalist Christians place evangelism as a high priority.
But, does a religiously pluralistic civil government hinder
evangelism?

From my previous blog, we already saw that the need for a
savior is diluted by ethical civil law condoning all kinds of
evil behavior. As Jesus told his Pharisee dinner host, tongue
in cheek, “the well are not in need of a physician but only the
sick”, so too our society doesn’t even know it is “sin sick”.

By grace through faith is how God saves. We have already seen
that the true import of ‘grace’ is also weakened by the huge
welfare programs provided by the state which only cause the
recipient to expect the free lunch.

It is perhaps ironic that God himself may be the one to allow
so many to perish without salvation. Most of the 300,000 souls
lost in the tsunami were not Christian. Many of the hurricane
victims were not Christians. God even permits wars to punish
cultures for their disobedience toward Him. The great Israel
civil war recorded in the last chapters of Judges was a result
of the corporate ethical sin of the nation. The description
of the Benjamite town of Gibeah in Judges 19:12-30 mirrors the
description of Sodom in Genesis 19:1-11.

When was the last time you had a conversation about politics,
law, or a state institution? Did the conversation naturally turn
to presenting the gospel? Probably not for most Christians.
Why? Politics, law, and the state institutions are considered
secular topics where religious conversation is unwelcome. Just
two quick examples: 1) the current flap concerning the Air Force
Academy is all about sharing the gospel; and 2) when a lawyer
quoted from Scripture to a jury the judge threw out the case. Is
it any surprise that God’s law is forbidden to be used as well as
displayed in our civil courtrooms?

In my city of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, the city council asked for
clergy to open their meetings with prayer. The city’s attorney
placed restrictions on the prayer however. It could not
proselytize nor could it discriminate against any religion. This
ruling was so far removed from biblical Christianity I replied
with a letter to the editor. I didn’t notice any other letter
printed in the paper on the subject.

We have the same situation in America that Peter and John faced
with the Jewish civil authorities: “Don’t preach or teach in the
name of Jesus”. Unlike Peter and John, who replied “we must obey
God rather than men” the fundamentalist Christians have obeyed
(secular humanistic) men rather than God.

In a sense *everything* ultimately gives God the glory. Evil
itself when punished is a form of glory given back to God but
this is not what I am talking about; but rather, does it give God
the credit for anything good that comes out of it.

Is God glorified by our military? Some good acts which borrow
from the Christian world-view may give a faint ‘yes’, but when
this question is asked in the light of the Bible the answer is a
resounding ‘no’. For example, Psalm 44:3-8 says

It was not by their sword that they won the land, nor did
their arm bring them victory; it was your right hand, your
arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them. You are
my King and my God, who decrees victories for Jacob. Through
you we push back our enemies; through your name we trample
our foes. I do not trust in my bow, my sword does not bring
me victory; but you give us victory over our enemies, you put
our adversaries to shame. In God we make our boast all day
long, and we will praise your name forever.

Much of this could apply to the American French and Indian and
Revolutionary Wars. But it is far cry from describing the
current Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

What about the benevolence of our government? Does it glorify
God? When the Tsunami struck last December 26th were any
government funds used in a way that thanked God or gave Him
credit? No. In fact, because much of the devastation was in
Muslim areas U.S. government relief efforts were consciously
sterilized of any negative-Islam voice. Also the idea of grace
was totally washed away by the pressure of worldwide public
opinion that the U.S. government needed to do more. This same
mental attitude was also evident in our own Katrina and Rita
hurricane victims/survivors. Welfare is owed to the
underprivileged. Grace is the great unknown.

Let’s take one more example: ethics. In sociology Sola-Scriptura
is applied to both family and church by fundamentalist Christians
but not to our civil government (state). Human relationships and
interaction within the family and church are judged either good
or evil based on the Bible, but not the state. Adultery is
considered sin within the church and family, but fundamentalists
have stopped requiring or even expecting the state to punish this
evil. Why? Most U. S. citizens, who are not fundamentalists,
don’t believe adultery is evil. The larger cultural ethic, which
is upheld by the state, has brainwashed even the children of the
fundamentalists. The public school is perhaps one of the more
well known tools in doing this. As a result, there is no need of
a savior because there is no ethical sin to be saved from. The
state and it’s institutions do not give God glory.