England's Call to Repeal Our Declaration of Independence

Jesus is present in and acting upon the world today in the hearts of the few million redeemed saints that are here.

How could satan have offered Jesus the whole world if He would only worship him, if he didn't own it? And if he didn't own it, and it still belonged to Jesus, why didn't Jesus tell him so?

 

I heartily agree with this. But you and others seem to be arguing that Jesus has not yet been enthroned as Lord of this present world. Now I hope you guys do not think I am so dumb as to suggest that He is enthroned in a direct and visible way. This is obviously not the case.

It may turn out that we really agree and differ more on terminology. Since I agree with your statement above, would you then agree that the way that Jesus in enthroned is via His acting through the saints to enshrine kingdom values in all the institutions of this present world? As you can probably discern, I do not like the concept of separation of church and state - I think it is highly unscriptural. However, I am open to being convinced that maybe its the lesser of a number of evils.

Clearly there is scriptural support for the notion that Satan exerts considerable power of this present world. I see no conflict in asserting that Jesus has already been installed as the "new Caesar" but, of course, is doing battle with Satan.

In other words, there are competing kingdoms - the kingdom that Jesus inaugurated, and the kingdoms of the enemy that do battle. But I think that the Scriptures teach that God has still declared that Jesus is the Lord of this present earth.

Why do the nations conspire [a]
and the peoples plot in vain?

2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One. [b]
3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then he rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
6 "I have installed my King [c]
on Zion, my holy hill." 7 I will proclaim the decree of the LORD :
He said to me, "You are my Son [d] ;
today I have become your Father

Perhaps you will argue that this text from Psalm 2 describes a future state of affairs. I think it is about the present although I can see arguments to the contrary.

 

Agreed! God the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit are alive, well, and in control. We belong to Him!

 

This thread surely has gone a long way from the original topic, concerning Gordon Brown's modest proposal. But I suspect that the theological hair-splitting we are doing is quite similar to the way we parsed and critiqued his statement. We are being lawyerly and are pushing words to carry more meaning than they should.

I remember once being asked whether I read the Bible literally or as symbolic story. I did not know whether to answer "Yes to both" or "A plague on both your houses.":type:

 

Not "England"

I'm not blaming you, Revmitchell - you just copied and pasted - but as Gordon Brown is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain* and Northern Ireland (rather a mouthful, usually shortened to "the U.K." :laugh: ) it is wrong to say it is England's call, especially as Gordon Brown himself is not English, but Scottish.

* Great Britain = England, Scotland and Wales

As to whether his speech was "another way of calling on the United States to repeal their Declaration of Independence," I cannot say, but I must say I would doubt it. That certainly is would not be a widely-held view among the general population of the UK.

 

I would hardly call this hair-splitting. It is critically important that we understand the nature of the kingdom that Jesus initiated. I happen to think that the western Christian tradition has largely veered off course here, unconsciously buying into the enlightenment project of spltting the world into the "inner-life" part where God is allowed to have some sway and the world of public life where we have decided to run the world in a secular fashion. We'll God run things in the future, but not now.

Now I suspect that people like Dragoon and I are not so far as it may appear. But either way, this is not lawyerly nit-picking. This is wrestling with the word of God to determine how we should live.

As far as the thread veering off the OP, I suggest that we are getting at a fundamental theological issue that undergirds the specificities of the event in the OP.

 

Or here. Phyllis Schlafly, who wrote the piece, becomes more bombastic as the years go by. One of the privileges of being a senior I think.

 

Does Christ have supreme authority? Yes.

Is He exercising it? No.

Nuff said.