Rollcall: Challenge for Preachers!

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Bartimaeus, May 20, 2004.

  1. Bartimaeus

    Bartimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's call the roll and let our names be mentioned:
    Who of you pastors would stand with our colonist brethern and stand against the King? Who of you pastors would stand as help to the guardians of freedom and defy George III?

    Who of you pastors would aid and abet the enemy? According to my previous post, who of you pastors would be called a traitor and coward and stand with the Redcoats (according to William Cathcart, Baptist Preacher, Pastor and Historian)?

    Not many will say because they cannot agree with the colonists and preach their present position from Rom 13. You folks who preach submission need to find you another holiday, July 4th ain't for you. Don't you have a big picnic and go to the fireworks display on OUR national independance day. It ain't you for guys. You need to find out an English holiday and celebrate it. Don't you preach a big sermon on the near July 4th Sunday about freedom and independance and then preach submission.
    Put me down with the men from Valley Forge who left bloody trails in the snow because they would not be submissive to a tyrant, criminal King!
    Thanks ------Bart
    What about it Pastor Larry?
    What about it Bro Bob?
    What about it the rest of you?
    Let's throw down the glove right here!
     
  2. Phil310

    Phil310
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    What SATAN meant for evil, GOD meant for good.

    When Paul wrote Romans 13, Nero was in power. While Paul preached the channel of authority, he was under a tyrant. He even instructed to Timothy to pray for all men, especailly those in authority.

    That does not mean he condoned the tyrant. And he did lead a holy (rebellion) when he preached a higher authority, Jesus Christ, and was arrested for it. In that case he submitted to God as authority and the powers that be at the same time. He obeyed God and preached the Gospel and he submitted to every ordinance of man when he did not RESIST when arrested. He, therefore, gave himself over to the powers that be. Sounds very similar to what Christ did as well.

    Our founding fathers did the same. They trusted God and let chips fall where they may. Now you and I have the freedom to argue over whether they were correct in their motives and actions or not.

    phil310
     
  3. Jailminister

    Jailminister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will stand with you Bart as well as Dr. Dixon and all in the name of Jesus.
     
  4. Bartimaeus

    Bartimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are right, Christ did not resist, but that is another subject. It was in obedience to the plan of God not in obedience to Ceasar. Lets get this one straight quick. You talk about our founding fathers and liken them to the Lord Christ? What on earth do you mean? I don't mean to argue, just answer the question! Are you a Preacher? If so would you have stood against the tyrant? Do you have a Pastor? Would your Pastor have supported the rebellion? If so he cannot preach unlimited submission.
    Thanks ------Bart
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Do you have any kind of Biblical mandate for your challenge?
     
  6. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,650
    Likes Received:
    312
    I would remind you all that looking at this matter through 2004 lenses could be misleading. Our Baptist forefathers (unlike the Reformed/Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Congregationalists) were not split over the matter. They supported the Colonial cause pretty much to a man. Why? Because, they were loyal to their colonial legislatures. One issue (at least in 1775 or so) was would George III be allowed to rule in his colonies like a Stuart king or would he only be allowed to reign as the British system had developed since the reign of Queen Anne. Another issue was should the Colonists be forced by the Parliment in London to pay for wars outside North America. Yet another at least from the Baptist point of view, the Royal appointees in the Carolinas and Virginia had a tendency to ignore the Acts of Toleration passed in the 1760's (Brothers Matt Black or Roy1 can supply the dates for them). And the list goes on.
    The bottom line for the Baptists was, just as in the English Civil War in the 17th Century, their support for their elected representatives.
     
  7. Jailminister

    Jailminister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree somewhat Squire. The difference is though that the preachers were in the same pen with everyone else in the colony. It was not just following their elected leaders, they were actually leading.
     
  8. Phil310

    Phil310
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    "You are right, Christ did not resist, but that is another subject. It was in obedience to the plan of God not in obedience to Ceasar. Lets get this one straight quick. You talk about our founding fathers and liken them to the Lord Christ? What on earth do you mean? I don't mean to argue, just answer the question! Are you a Preacher? If so would you have stood against the tyrant? Do you have a Pastor? Would your Pastor have supported the rebellion? If so he cannot preach unlimited submission."
    Thanks ------Bart

    "Unlimited Submission" This is the first time "unlimited" came up in the question. I am for "limited" submission so long as the powers that be are protecting good and punishing evil.
    No. I would not have stood with the tyrant King George III.

    "You talk about our founding fathers and liken them to the Lord Christ? What on earth do you mean?"

    Try reading Philippians 2:5-8
     
  9. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    You act as though rebellion and submissiveness to the authorities are mutally exclusive things. It is possible to resist authority and be submissive at the same time. Jesus did it, Paul did it, John did it as just a few examples. Your question has the ring of a school yard enviroment, what is next are you going to triple dog dare everyone? Many of those original colonists did support the king, but that didn't make them cowards. I don't know what I would have done, I am baptist and baptist's have historically stood for the freedom of the individual so I could see myself joining the colonists, but that is only speculation.
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    All I want is ONE Biblical injunction for me to go out into the streets and take part in rebellion against a God-ordained and duly elected government.
     
  11. Jailminister

    Jailminister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    C4K, I nor as far as I can tell no one else is advocating the overthrow of our way of life. We are saying that it is about time that we take control over it again. That means standing and protesting, preaching holiness, loving and praying for officials, and take the battle to the devil. We can do this at the same time we are spreading the gospel and seeing people saved.
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I agree with all of that, and staying in submission to the "higher powers" at the same time. I have no problem with legal protests.
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't disagree with any of that and in fact have said that from the beginning. We should use all legal means to change our government. "Taking control of it again" means that we do it through the legal channels. That is what the Bible requires and is exactly what I have said.

    We also need to remember that such activity is the responsibility of individuals, not of the church.
     
  14. Jailminister

    Jailminister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Humm, PL you said "not of the church." Let me ask you then, who is the church?
     
  15. Jailminister

    Jailminister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Humm, PL you said "not of the church." Let me ask you then, who is the church?
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can I answer it only once???? :D

    I speak of the church as an institution. The church as an institution has no role to play in politics. To do so undermines the authority of the church. Let me remind us of what Carl F. H. Henry said:
    [/qb]He was dead on. When the pulpit becomes a place for something other than the gospel, it is subjected to mere opinion. And while true believers might differ on political opinion or position, they cannot differ on the gospel. When I use my pulpit to speak about politics, or to engage in political activism, I am encouraging doubt about the authority of God's word with those who differ with me politically.

    The church is never commanded to make political statements. It is in fact charged only with the faithful propogation and defense of the Word of God. It transcends governments, nationalities, political parties, and social agendas. It does not aim to change society from the outside. It aims to change man from the inside. If more churhces faithfully preached the word, we would have better politics. The problem is that too many churches are dabblign in things that don't matter.
     
  17. Jailminister

    Jailminister
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well first of all the church is made up of individuals who should be likeminded and in one accord. This will not happen unless they are lead and taught. Your Rev. Henry was not right on. He was only partially right.
    Let me ask you if you speak out on abortion or sodomy or injustices in the judicial system?
     
  18. Bartimaeus

    Bartimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Messages:
    909
    Likes Received:
    0
    When England was free and had one who loved righteousnous on the throne, she had churches and bible societies that sent the gospel all over the world. You men cannot separate the fact that we enjoy freedom because our forefather's defied civil government and authority and won our freedom so that you could have 200 years of Church Freedom and preaching and missionaries sent all over the world. I do not advocate anarchy. I do however say that civil government that forgets God and starts stripping a man of his freedom needs and requires civil disobedience. As Americans our rights given to us by God alone can only be taken by God alone. You must understand that your freedom to preach the gospel is tied directly to the freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. It is directly tied to our right to own property and right to contract. These are the rights that were being trampled by George III. I would stand then as I would today, (by the grace of God). As Paul did in Acts 22:24-30. He resisted authority by defying a direct command. He openly asserted his free-born rights. He was a beligerant claimant.
    Thanks -------Bart
     
  19. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Foolish question for any to try to answer today.

    Like Paul whose neck was forfeit to the executioner, I would remain faithful to the God-ordained powers. England was a good and godly government, the tories correct. No reasons conjured up could justify rebellion as "godly".

    "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry."
     
  20. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Can you give me a Biblical example of rights that we have that are "given by God alone and can be taken by God alone?"

    Please support the answer with scriptural evidence that God gave us these rights.

    Which of these Biblical rights were being denied by the crown?
     

Share This Page

Loading...