Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

It isn't the Catholics themselves, we have plenty of patriotic Catholics, it's their allegiance to the Pope that in Samuel Adams' day was still very likely to be called in, when the tyrannies in Europe were still fairly fresh in mind, and under some circumstances could today as well. I don't know about you but the fact that the Pope is scheduled to speak in OUR Congress in September, an unprecedented event, having been invited by two Catholics, Boehner and Pelosi, does not make ME feel very good. But that's probably because I agree with the Protestant Reformers that he's the Antichrist. Most Catholics haven't a clue about any of that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

See, the problem is nobody has a real sense of history any more, and I've only been learning some of it recently myself because all we get these days is propaganda. All of the original thirteen colonies had religious constitutions, one of them unfortunately Catholic, but all the rest were "my particular brand of religion," being Bible-based Protestant. That such a foundation was turned into a federal government that denies those Christian roots was an incredible betrayal and there were plenty who objected to it but we don't hear any of that any more, The country was SO Christian in its population and basic worldview that it seemed to BE Christian despite the built-in betrayal. Even the main founders, who were really not Christian, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, weren't looking to get rid of Christianity, not at all, just wanted to cut down on the interdenominational squabbles. Unfortunately they unwittingly set a precedent that allowed all the anti-Christian hatred we see at EvC to flourish as it does today.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's what the original American colonies did, and since they were original, how can anyone imagine they would have seen things any differently when it came to establishing a federal government. Attempts to reconcile denominational differences failed to anticipate the ultimate destruction of the colonies' original Christian worldview.When you appreciate how thoroughly Protestant the original colonies were in their constitutions and politics, it's really absurd to think an anti-Christian secular society could have resulted from any of their efforts except by some very strange misunderstandings that are today's revisionist interpretations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I haven't seen a post yet that isn't anti-Christian.But I think I'll ask it as a question: Does it make any sense that the original extremely Christian colonies with their Christian laws could possibly have intentionally designed a secular Constitution that would eventually allow the anti-Christian attitudes expressed now at EvC? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes. I'd have to check sources but the argument is that they had Christian denominations in mind and never any idea of other religions, because that's how Christian the nation was at the time. But the point I was making was that the Constitution was such a departure in many ways from the laws of the colonies that it's hard to fathom how they could have supported it if they understood it to mean what you all here think it means. There was a general agreement to encourage a general Christianity or worldview and to avoid anything specifically denominational, and there was also a specific mention in somebody's (Washington?) interpretation of freedom of religion that included Islam and other religions, but any idea that they were seeking an all-inclusive or secular government just does not fit with the mentality of the colonies, and there were people who protested the Constitution as a betrayal of the Christian foundations of the nation. There were also repeated attempts to get a Christian Preamble to the Constitution appended. It failed so that says something but I'm not entirely sure what.

I listed five founders who were Deists and not Christians. But most of the company of the founders WERE Christians. Enlightenment thinking was considered anti-Christian, it infected many in those days but Christians rejected it.The sects persecuted in the colonies of course would want to be part of the Federal government, that's one of the reasons a generic Christian perspective was sought. Generic Christian, not secular.The Revolutionary War was promoted powerfully by Christian preachers who based the seeking of liberty on the Bible. There were some who argued against it but the majority were for it.Sorry, I forgot about Maryland. Yes I know I need to read more and get all this straight. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It was the papacy as a system that was identified as Antichrist by Luther for sure but others as well, with or without an idea of a Final Antichrist who would embody all the biblical specifics in one person. Yes the idea fell out of favor and some strenuously argued against it, A W Pink for instance on the ground that it IS a system and not a man, but the Reformers' reasoning is very compelling. There were other dissidents before the Reformation that saw the papacy the same way. And I think it very sad that this understanding has been lost while so much of evangelicalism is waiting for some unknown person to rise to world power out of nowhere. I know I'm bad at keeping track of information.

Well, of course.; At first he had no intention of leaving the Roman Church, he was merely raising issues for debate which he assumed would be agreeable to the Pope. It was when the Pope rebuffed his efforts that he began to see problems. It took him a few years to arrive at the conclusion that the papacy was the Antichrist.

You have a knack for misreading me that I can never anticipate. I wasn't saying that the idea is non-Biblical at all, I merely happened to mention that the biblical specifics of an individual Antichrist might or might not also be part of the analysis. But that certainly isn't saying the Reformers' view of the papacy as Antichrist didn't also meet those biblical specifics. It did. They matched the papacy with every biblical reference. Obviously you haven't read any of Luther's arguments on the subject. The papacy is always one man at a time so there is always AN Antichrist on the papal throne.

Pretty silly to hold him to a position he completely rejected a few years later. You need to read the Reformers' thoughts on the subject. Well, the idea is not popular among Christians so you can drop your smear of all Christians. This happens to be something I've been learning about and become convinced of personally. Must be me alone who is that greatest threat then, along with a few dozen others, because the idea, as I said, is not popular with evangelicals. Most are deluded that the Roman Church is just another Christian denomination, and their idea of the Antichrist is that he's going to appear pretty soon but that nobody knows who he is, and he'll rise rapidly to world political power. Since Hitler was a model for that kind of Antichrist I hold out the possibility that the basic idea is right but that the Pope will be his main backer, as the Pope was also for Hitler.

I do not read Barton and reject his stuff as false.

Your knack just never lets up apparently. "Defense?" I was correcting your strange misreading. Now I have another strange misreading to correct. The point was I'm not sure all the Reformers who identified the papacy as the Antichrist also argued for a Final Antichrist, or were content to identify the Antichrist with the papacy without the expectation of a final singular representative. Since what you infer from what I post is so amazingly wrong most of the time I can only conclude that you're inferring something out of your own head,.If you don't know how the Reformers argued, you can't say they're wrong to identify the papacy as the Antichrist, you are merely relying on your own ideas.

Barton quoted John Adams out of context to put a Christian understanding of the Holy Spirit in his mouth, when what Adams was actually doing was ridiculing the idea of the Holy Spirit. That removed Barton forever in my judgment from any right to be taken seriously on any subject.I suspect you think any defense of the Christian influences in the founding of America has to come from Barton, but it doesn't. This nation was saturated with a Christian consciousness despite the Enlightenment influences. I don't know enough about it all, that's true, but to pretend that there was any "secular" notion behind the Constitution, even from the least Christian of the framers, just completely misses the spirit of the times.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I wasn't going to answer the rest of this but oh well. God will judge you in the end. Luther was not an Anti-Semite. He tried to befriend the Jews because he came to understand that the Roman Church WAS anti-Semitic, but when he found out the blasphemies the Jews wrote against Christ he went ballistic. That is not Anti-Semitism. Hotheaded overreaction of someone jealous for the honor of Christ is more like it. Wow. Luther took all his analysis of the papacy as the Antichrist directly from the Bible. If you don't know what he wrote you haven't a clue to its biblical basis. You clearly can't tell the difference between a doctrinal debate and a personal attitude. I have no hatred for Catholics, or lack of empathy for sinners and nothing I've said comes from such an attitude. I object to the Catholic institution, I think Catholics need to learn to see through it for their own good, so they can find salvation where there really is salvation. And I will not pretend that homosexuals are not sinners, which would be condemning them to Hell. You are the one doing that when you lie about their condition. In fact all the hatred for gays and Catholics is on your side, not mine. Well, I'm sure God will eventually let you know how far wrong you've gone.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Brief statements of what the Reformers said about Antichrist:What Did The Reformers Believe? - Who is the AntichristLuther: And many others.