A second century view of Christians as earthly citizens

Let everyone else speak for themselves. If I offend someone else and am made known of it by them I'll deal with that. I don't need you to be a referrer or enforcer.

 

No, but then I thought anyone's comments were open to being challenged by anyone else.

 

Whoah; I thought your response was good, but where do you get that idea from anything I saidi n #46? Again, everyone is going right past the point, and thinking we're saying all of this other, wild stuff.

What I think (and my original point) is that people are a bit too overzealous, not that they should not serve. And the ultimate evidence of this is the fact that over and over, here, people read something in someone else's words or motives that is simply not there. It's like being gripped by fearfulness, and you hear someone sneeze, and think it's an attack. Again, it's the perspective that is off.

Conservative Christians always used to throw "Be anxious for nothing" (Phil.4:6) at people, and I believe that has been misused in order to dismiss others' concerns and try to make them too passive, but on the other hand, I think that scripture really needs some heeding here.

 

I know that there are many who serve in the Military for honorable reasons, but that is not always the case. I remember during Vietnam that several neighborhood boys joined the Army for the GI Bill and to help pay for college. So, sometimes our motivation is more self-serving than we want to admit. Of course, they did serve, some even went to Southeast Asia, and one didn't return, so they earned their benefits, every one of them!

 

Very true. If a person proclaims to be a follower of Jesus Christ, that person should imitate the priorities that Jesus demonstrated.
His kingdom is in heaven, not on the earth.
His mission is the cause of Christ in the world, not putting conservative or liberal policies into place in a secular government.
His fight is with principalities and powers, not political parties or foreign governments.

That is absolutely backward from the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is a worldly mindset.

And unlike the early Christians, we act just like the ungodly. Professing Christians have abortions, get divorced, use pornography, live a promiscuous life of sin in the same percentage as non-Christians. Unlike the early Christians, we can't really tell the difference between believers and unbelievers in the world.

We spend our time and energy (just like the ungodly) involved in politics, entertainment, frivilous pursuits; instead of in the cause of Christ in the world.

You are advocating violently "defending" our constitution, believing you will are maintaining a God-given government.

I'm telling you that this country will not be spared. If you believe it will be, show me from scripture where the U.S.A. is exempt from going after the anti-christ?

Professing Christians are putting into place the very laws (death penalty, govenment involvement in all areas of personal life) that will be used to round them up and put them to death.

You are wrong. Scripture specifically commands Christians to pay their taxes and forbids them from rebelling against their governments.

You cannot justify the means by focusing on the outcomes. Clearly, the founders of this country violated scripture by supporting armed rebellion against England. Even if the outcome is the freedoms we enjoy in the U.S.A, that doesn't justify their rebellion against God and His Word.

It isn't the first time God used the rebellion of men against His Word to bring about something good.

Then you believe God commanded direct disobedience to His Word.

We will loose our focus on the kingdom of heaven and the cause of Christ in the world when we continue to focus on secular government as the means to accomplish things in the world.

That is not the purpose of Christians in the world. You are confusing the function of government and the purpose of Christians in the world. The two are not always (perhaps never) compatible.

The logical conclusion, it seems to me, of your statements is that you believe Christians should rebel, violently if necessary, if the government attempts to take their freedoms; Just like the founders of the nation.

Have I misunderstood you?

peace to youraying:

 

I won't go into a tit for tat response - it's too easy to get lost in that sort of approach.

I am not advocating violence. I am advocating that we be actively involved in all lawful actions necessary to protect, defend, and secure our nation's civil government according to its original great design SO THAT we will not be tempted to or have reason to purpose either peaceful or violent revolution in generations to come.

Jesus Christ was present for the creation of the heavens and earth. He was around during all the Old Testament times. He was the second person of the Trinity that established the death penalty to be administered by mankind for the benefit of justice among us.

A difference I think we have is that I think we own our government whereas in most other times and places people did not.

Yes, I believe our revolution was justified, ordained by God, and the result was and is a blessing to all Americans. I think it is un-Christian not to acknowledge this.

No, I don't believe America will be spared from the end times events but I none of knows when that will be and we have to live both like it will be tomorrow and like it will be many generations in the future.

I think the Christian attitude is one that is concerned first and foremost with the eternal state of man and thus our focus should be on getting the word of God out to those who don't have it. I also think we should not neglect tending to the temporal state of fellow believers and non-believers which includes those blessings that can come from a good civil government. That I think is a Christian virtue. I think it's a "head in the sands approach" to pretend it makes no difference and is none of our concern.

I recommend that all those Christians not interested in issues of politics and matters of civil government or who believe we should not be a part of such things immediately abstain from participating in the Baptist Board's political forum as this surely must be wasted effort if not sinful.

I recommend that all those Christians who believe our revolution was a sinful act beg forgiveness for the King of England and pledge complete allegiance to him post haste lest they continue living in the sinfulness they otherwise enjoy.

 

I may be way, way off base here, maybe on the wrong field.
I was taught that we could very easily have been wrong to have fought the revolutionary way. We as Christians are taught to give honor or at least follow our government, give to Caesar what is his.

That line of teaching still give me much to ponder today. I still lean to we were wrong, but I'm not real dogmatic about it. I put it correctly or incorrectly in the same boat as a wife being under submission to her husband, I don't believe she is to hang around if she is being abused.

I find support from Moses up to the men in the Roman army of the day for maybe rebellion over the government. Moses fought Egypt and his followers fought to gain control of the land which they took control of and Christ was there to help the Roman officer with his daughter, nothing said bad about him even though he was a member of an occupying army. Much nationalism is taught in the OT with Israel and the countries around them, and I think much of the same nationalism is with us today. I might be pulling straws but that is as good as I can o right now, with little time.

 

The Jews weren't wrong to rebel against the control of the Seleucid Empire in the inter-testamental period.

The Jews were wrong to rebel against the Roman Empire in 66 AD.

What is the difference? Well, for one the motive behind it. The Jews rebelled against the Seleucids because of the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes who slaughtered countless Jews, placed an idol in the temple, and sacrificed a pig on their altar. The Jews rebelled against Rome because they didn't like being ruled by Gentiles. There had been Jews wanting to rebel against Rome for quite some time. In fact, one of Jesus' disciples was part of this group, called the Zealots, before he was called to follow the Lord. The Jews had proper justification for rebelling against a government that was persecuting them and their religion when they won their independence from the Seleucids. They lacked proper justification when they rebelled against the Roman government. They were warned not to, but they still did it and thus brought upon themselves absolute desctruction.

 

Jesus spent probably the majority of his ministry healing the sick. He didn't walk on some spiritual plane far above the worldly concerns. Early Christians believed in and practiced healing in the name of Christ, as attested by even non-Christians. No doubt there are arguments as to why this is no longer so. But it seems that you could just as easily call for a resurrgance in Christian healing today. But renouncing nationalism is much easier, makes one feel spiritual, and as a bonus it fits right in with today's "No borders - No Countries - It's Not Important" attitude.

 

To a point you are correct, the one he killed before he ran away, he wasn't waiting for permission then. In school in the study on Moses, I had a professor who was from Texas and said Sam Houston did the same thing as Moses, he wasn't running but making a tactical retreat and he believed Houston and Moses were doing as God was leading. Might take what he said with a grain of salt, Texans seem to make everything bigger than life.

Getting back to the main point of this deal Eph. 5:21 would have taken care of it all. When one has been a slave or very poor and get just a little, all seem to mean more. They fit in so well, because maybe they don't spend all their time talking about how things use to be but live by Eph. 5:21. I know how happy I was when my parents got us indoor plumbing and electricity, we were thanking God for allowing us to be able to get it in and pay for it. First generation folks in an area or country, most of the time seem happier than many who are born into the family later.

 

Yes, but the ones they didn't kill were a pain to them from then on because Israel was the occupying force. Much could have been better for Israel then as with us today, if we do as God tells us through his Word.

 

Great point. And the Jews in Roman occupation could look back to the Seleucids as proof of why they should not be ruled by Gentiles, and whatever things were wrong with Roman rule they would treat as if it were the Seleucids all over again. ("last straw", perhaps?)

So again; it's the attitude that might be wrong, and the context that needs to be considered; not that going against a government is always wrong.

 

My friend I see where you are coming from, but I believe he ran because he was afraid of the government and didn't trust Israel, the slaves. They had mocked him. If my history of Egypt and Moses is correct, he might have become a Pharaoh. Didn't his Egyptian mother rule Egypt for a time?
I don't believe he could have got an army going from the slaves, he had a hard time with God leading them and him, wasn't it 40 years of wasted time of wondering?

Again my friend, I see where you are coming from. I see Moses pushed to work as you say through the government by God, not because that is what Moses wanted to do. He follow God where the Jews going up against Rome didn't as RAdam has pointed out. The big difference is he wasn't trying to achieve his goals but God's. I believe there are times when God leads us to do things as war, as He did with Israel. That is why I still believe we were wrong in the revolutionary war, but I'm not dogmatic about it.

 

Moses was neither a part of the government nor a rebel against it. He was doing what God told him to do. He wasn't trying to overthrow the government, but neither was he trying to diplomatically win the release of his people. He was telling Pharoah exactly what God instructed, and God clearly told him that Pharoah would harden his heart.

 

And what right did England, Spain, Portugal, France or any other European power of the time to come to the New World and sieze the land from the inhabitants already here?

 

Every government that's been formed - except maybe the original ones - has supplanted the one that existed before it by either peaceful of violent revolution. When people act in support of their legitimate government they are justified to use the sword as directed by that government because God has ordained it. It is an institution to which God has given authority to exercise judgment. Nothing about Christianity prohibits us from bonding together to form a new government in the interest of established justice among us. Peaceful means should be exhausted before force is used. That's what was done in America and by God's grace it gave us liberty.

Individual acts of rebellion are prohibited just as is individual vengeance. The same would be true of some illegitimate mob or faction just bent on making trouble. Those are not examples of legitimate civil government and they have no right to use the sword for their purposes.

I suppose some of us could pledge loyalty to the Queen of England instead if that would help us deal with any remorse over our alleged sinful rebellion against England.

 

Moses was an instrument of God. He was an actor in the application of force - pain, suffering, and death - upon the Egyptians to convince them to let the Jews leave. He implemented God's instructions. The Jews left forced servitude to the Egyptians and formed their own government in another land. Pharaoh agreed to let them go several times but each time, even the last time, changed his mind and wanted them to stay.

Should the Jews have obeyed Pharaoh at the Red Sea when he pursued them? Should they have turned around to go back into servitude as obedient subjects of Egypt?