Anyone willing to help found a NEW Christian nation?

Apparently we still have
the freedom to say we are Baptists when
we don't subscribe to Baptist belief.

These BAPTIST DEBATE FORUMS are for Baptists
only. Baptists believe in seperation of
church and state to a flaw. Baptists have
beleived the state should not have authority
over the local Baptist church since the
beginning in the 16th century (1500s).

Only a neo-liberal history revisionist would
think otherwise. I ask you liberal preachers
and liberal church workers and liberal
church organization workers to resign
your positions and get a real job and go
to supporting your familys by contributing
to the betterment of the country in
which you live and get off us Baptist's case.

A good Baptist might be willing to die for their
country, but we will have no King but Jesus!

JeffM: " ... something or someone is
going to snap, and soon."

But it will NOT be the Christian hands that are
on the doomsday machine that will snap.
You do know that Christian hands on the
doomsday machines that can destroy life on
earth are in the hands of American Christians,
Russian Athiests, and Chineese Athiests.
Fortunately the Athiests have no hope
for any life other than this one, so they
don't want to use the doomsday machines.
And i don't believe these Christians are
going to follow anybody into the anarchy
that only antichrist can resolve.

 

Yep, right you are. I've had a rather rude awakening on these many threads.

Brother Ed, that's massdak's line.

 

But, why are people who claim to be Baptists endorsing a non-Baptist belief?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Brother Ed, that's massdak's line. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]yeah preach it ladyeagle

 

Happens all the time - just look at the pre-trib vs post-trib threads.

I've never heard a post-tribulation rapture preached in any Baptist church, yet that viewpoint seems to dominate the Board.

How many Baptists support the Bush Faith Based Initiative program? Now that would be a poll.

 

Apparently we still have
the freedom to say we are Baptists when
we don't subscribe to Baptist belief.


I don't know exactly what your point is but:

"Don't jump to conclusions either because we wear the name "Baptist." Because Baptists place great emphasis upon the autonomy of the local church and the freedom of individual conscience, we are very diverse. Any group would have to be diverse that includes among its members Jesse Jackson and Jesse Helms, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich."

"Our Bicentennial Celebration was wonderful! I think we all were rather awed as Dr. James Dunn, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs pointed out that our church--due to its influence on education, missions and theology--has been probably one of the 100 most influential churches in American history.

Dr. Dunn also highlighted one of the most important Baptist distinctives--soul freedom. Baptists have always emphasized that an individual’s most basic responsibility is to God. It is, therefore, a most serious event whenever any individual, government, or church seeks to prohibit someone from following the dictates of their own conscience. As Dunn said, if there is a Baptist creed it is: "Ain’t nobody but Jesus going to tell me what to believe."

Taken from the West Henrietta Baptist Church site.

 

Interestingly, numerous studies that have been published in JAMA have shown that the ratio of children in an Evangelical Christian home who end up being gay are about the same as the ratio of chindren in a non-religious home. Same goes with rates of alcoholism, rates of premarital sex, spousal abuse, and financial hardship. Religious upbringing does not appear to be a factor in these issues. Now, that doesn't excuse sin, but it is certainly an interesting observation.

What's even more interesting is that the religious affiliations with highest rate of sexual purity until marriage and highest rate of heterosexuals is Judaism and Mormonism. Evangelical Christians rate the same as the national average.

 

Neither of these issues are doctrinal matters of Baptist faith. OTOH, Separation of Church and State, or Believer's Baptism would be doctrinal matters of Baptist faith.

 

Well, John, that is interesting. Looks like JAMA proved my point while refuting Gene's point that so many are from Fundamentalist Christian homes. So, like I said, blaming one's upbringing is an excuse.

 

"Neither of these issues are doctrinal matters of Baptist faith."

True, but Brother Matt wasn't specific in his question, so I threw that one out there, too. LOL.

Separation of church and state does not mean taking church out of state. That's where you and I and others differ.

 

Neither pre-trib post-trib pre-mill post-mill or a-mill are Baptist distinctives. Rejection of theocracy and 'Christendom' are however and have been since our beginnings; indeed they were Anabaptist distinctives before.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Gene, thanks for your post talking about your past. I am sure that was not an easy thing to post here. It just goes to show God's grace and the transforming love of Christ -- we can be changed though we all struggle with sin daily.

I know that a lot of Wiccans and people in the occult come from very legalistic Christian homes and churches. I don't use the term Fundamentalist because it means so many things to different people, so I use legalistic. One young man was muscially talented and wanted to play Christian rock but his family and church told him all rock music was evil. He eventually left to start his own rock band. When you put down so many rules against so many things in the name of Christ, you are just driving people away, plus, legalism is not Biblical.

Yes, these people are accountable to God. I will never deny that. But that does not give Christians an excuse to be legalistic or unloving to sinners.

 

Establishing a Republic based on Godly principles is not the same thing as a Theocracy.

Judging from observance, though, I think maybe it has becme a Baptist distinctive to want to hand the control of government over to God's enemies.

 

Indeed, we differ. I've always viewed separation of church and state to be just that. It's not separation of church from state, and not separation of state from church. It's both. Hence, separation of church AND state.

Otherwise, if it did not mean taking the church out of the state, then which church gets that privilege? The Presbyterians? They baptise infants. The Anglicans? They ordain homosexuals. The Muslims? I don't think I need to go there. The Jews? They reject Christ. The Amish? They believe the world is falt. The Mormons? The Unitarians? The Methodists? The Catholics?

If we were to give that privilege to the pmost populus religion, that would be Roman Catholics. Were that the case, most Baptists would indeed be screaming for taking the church out of the state.

 

I think that the entire concept flies in the face of the experienc of the early church. If you read the NT, no-one - not even the Lord Himself - advocates that Christians must or even aspire to hold the reins of power; on the contrary, it is envisaged that the government is at best tolerant and at worst hostile to the Church. This only changed with the fatal Catholic compromise - 'Christendom ' - between Church and State under Constantine and Theodosius in the 4th century, and that problem has dogged the church ever since. The SC plan is just more of the same old non-Scriptural nonsense.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Pennyslvania Jim said:

I agree, but these people want to establish a "Christian nation," not just one based on Godly principles.

Of course, we can even have a dispute over what Godly principles are. I agree with Matt that Christians are not commanded or told to establish Christian governments; we are to evangelize, disciple, and plant churches.

 

Should we eat dinner? How about put new tires on our cars? Should we maintain our houses and church buildings? Take baths? Vote? Write our congressmen? Or just witness and plant churches?

 

I think people from all of these groups need to be involved in government affairs both in the voting both and as candidates for various offices. We can be a "Christian Nation" without being a "religious theocracy" and still have freedom of religion for all. I don't believe that all of our founding fathers were Christians, but they all did acknowldge God and respected Christianity. I would say we don't need a "religious theocracy", and we don't need to return to the legalistic days of the puritains, but we should work to returning to the Constitutional Republic that was set up by our founders.

 

I repeat: "Christian nation" is and always has been an oxymoron if you're really a Baptist

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I think this is known as the fallacy of the red herring. Or perhaps the fallacy of muddying the waters.