I would agree to the qualification:
"Pragmatism in public policy is not a sin within the bounds of what God delegates to human gov't"
provided there was no additional implicit presumption of a de facto regulative principle of government.

Unless government does or requires something that the Bible clearly defines as sinful then we should obey our rulers. The injunction - we should obey God rather than man - requires there to be a demonstrable disobeying of God by the government.

In the example, the onus should be to prove that mandatory flouridation of water is harmful and damaging. Government would then be causing knowing or reckless injury to others. Only then would it be sin.

However, when churches and their leaders do or require any practice or doctrine or conduct that is not specifically required in the Bible they have sinned. There are no grey areas. The regulative principle has been given to the church in its specific sphere and not to governments and rulers.

Christ has given earthly government to depraved, pragmatic men. So we must obey these fallible men unless they require us to disobey Christ.

Capitalists individually are rarely altuistic enough to advocate genuinely free markets (especially for labour).

"for it contains no teaching that distinctly is Christian."

Then why did the judge appear to show partiality in the courtroom?
He allegedly "got a break from a judge after passing a Bible quiz" - the whole point of this news article?
Justice is blind - unless you can pass a bible quiz

Another interesting story [URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6599437.stm]]]today[/URL]

Amazing how they forgot to highlight they had already done it in Bosnia before Kosovo .... even less breaking of the news.

They are not impeachers, it is a "non-binding resolution".

I'll let the Americans discuss their constitutional law.

However, please forgive me if I offended you. As an Englishman it was the reference to Henry VIII that caught my eye. The English Civil War of the 1640's and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 together put paid to the supposed divine right of Kings. They learnt it from the Bible. We can learn it from history (look up the fate of King Charles I) as well as from the Bible.

The Divine Right of Presidents being advocated on Sermonaudio.

I'd like to think I've heard it all now.

Thank you for your clarification.
“They ought to be treated in the same manner,” - agreed.
(I was already agreed with the rest of your 1st post.)

I evidently was picking up on something that you did not intend to convey in your final sentence. I have seen wicked partiality first hand, and did not wish to see the door left open to it.

I watched a pastor and his deacon cohorts agree together that there were no grounds to exercise church discipline against someone but then conspire to set out to ‘meet’ with him and demand his resignation - “make no mistake – you’re leaving”. They completely lost sight of their calling in Christ and themselves fell into perilous sin that demanded their repentance, removal from office and excommunication (as they were proven impenitent when called to account).

"I think I have isolated the source of my major disagreement with folks on these issues and I think it stems from our definition of the word “dominion”. "

I agree that that is very close to the hub of the issue here. Personally, I would fine tune that comment to the keywords "dominion mandate".

Perhaps I'm being semantic, but to me dominion is a biblical word that speaks primarily to our duty to obey God.
Mandate is not in this context a biblical word and (from what I see) tends to be used as a theological justification for mankind's perceived "rights" in addition to our dominion duties.

I see the Bible expresses itself more in terms of the duties and privileges that God gives all of us (rich and poor) rather than our rights.
But I'm sure I've been inconsistent in that in my postings and from time to time talked about rights.

"I think that it is important to remember that church discipline is to restore a wayward believer, not openly wicked and profane persons."

No. This is not a biblical distinction. The only biblical distinction we can make is between church members and non-church members, those within and without.

"For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

Church discipline is to be exercised against all unrepentant erring MEMBERS without partiality.

How would you determine if a church MEMBER is your "wayward believer" or the Bible's "that wicked person"?

God's ordained means for the unrepentant within is the exercise of biblical church discipline to bring them to repentance.

Many a church member has repented and not required church discipline.
Many a church member has been perceived by men to be wicked for a season, but through the exercise of biblical church discipline in His time the Lord has shown that He knows them that are His and restores them.

"The goals of church discipline are "the glory of God," "to purge the church and preserve it from infection," to clear the church of immorality and false doctrines and "the good of persons excommunicated," the document says."

Oh that the certain modern supposedly confessional baptist churches would repent of their sins of simply using excommunication (and unbiblical versions thereof achieved by plain and simple bullying) as church punishment and church vengeance!
Oh that they would see the glory of God and the blessings and privilege that true biblical church discipline is for church members!

"Many excommunicated members maintained their piety and were eventually restored to church membership, he wrote, noting that Baptists followed the process outlined in Matthew 18 for church discipline."

Oh that certain modern churches would see that this is the true aim of church discipline!
Anything designed with no hope of restoration is SIN on the part of the elders, deacons and the church.

Away with bullying! and unbiblical charges!
Away with wicked and unrepentant "pastors" from our pulpits!
May they repent and be restored to membership.