Wednesday, May 07, 2008

A Candidate for President

Click to the - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom

The Constitution Party had its nomination convention at the end of April and now has its nominee for the upcoming presidential election for the United States of America.
Chuck Baldwin
Chuck Baldwin was nominated for President and his Vice Presidential running mate is Darrell Castle, an attorney and Vietnam War Marine Corps veteran from Memphis, Tennessee.

Chuck has published a column in which he states what he will do if elected as the President of the United States. You can read his column at “If I Were President”.

Also of interest is the Constitution Party’s platform.

I have mentioned this platform in a previous post entitled, Constitution Party Platform. At that time I knew considerably less about the Constitution Party, but I have since learned more about it and I believe that I now have a party with which I agree in most areas. It certainly represents what I know of the Constitution far better than either the Democrat or Republican parties and their candidates do.

I offer this post and the accompanying links for any who would like to investigate Candidate Baldwin’s and the Constitution Party’s positions.


Dan @ Necessary Roughness said...

I know Alan Keyes and reparations weren't the way to go either, but why, oh why, did the CP have to elect a pastor for their nominee? It looks like an improper two-kingdoms mix right out of the gate.

Not Alone +++ PAS said...

Hi Dan!

Perhaps your reaction to this issue is unfounded.

The “Two Kingdoms” are not really separate in the first place. Both are of God and both are ruled over by God, even when those holding the authority of the temporal, secular kingdom are not of God.

Why should it be considered wrong for a pastor to be elected to a secular office? Where this becomes an issue is when the power of the sword is used to coerce religion. The tyranny of the papacy in this regard, for example, was that faith was turned into a work of man that was “enforced” by secular rule. Mohammed really did nothing different with his demonic religion. The real issue is not that a person of faith is made to be ruler and acts in accord with the true faith, but rather, when the kingdom of the Gospel is turned into a secular misuse of the Law. In that case the Gospel is actually subjected to the Law rather than the Law being subjected to the Gospel as is proper.

The father of a household serves as both spiritual and secular ruler of the household. Where this father is a true Christian, there is no separation of the two aspects of the singular God ordained headship.

The two kingdoms are not really separate. The only separation is on account of the fact that the secular kingdom, on account of it ruling over non-spiritual people, is itself non-spiritual. But the proper role of the secular kingdom is to protect the spiritual by maintaining law and order.

The real concern with Baldwin is that his religion is one of legalism, where the Law is diluted and preached as Gospel. However, he does not seem to be indicating that he perceives his role, if elected, as preaching Baptist doctrine. But even if he were to preach Baptist doctrine from the “bully pulpit”, I would still be pleased by the enactment of what he has outlined as his objectives as the President of the USA. The US Constitution is a wonderful document that would serve our country and the world well, if only it were adhered to as it was prior to the Twentieth Century. Baldwin seems to indicate a sound understanding of the Constitution as well as a commitment to adhere to it in the administration of the duties of the executive office.

I find this to be very pleasing to me and worthy of my support.