Rollcall: Challenge for Preachers!

John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress author) was denied the right to preach because he was not licensed by the Church of England. He spent 12 years in prison for this "crime".

HankD

 

That doesn't answer the question. What Biblical rights were being denied by the crown in the colonies in 1775 that justified the actions of the colonists?

 

That is true. But the only subject that should be taught in church is the Scritpure.

Look at how many churches today have no spiritual influence because they have left the gospel. He is not "My Rev. Henry." Carl F. H. Henry was one of the leaders of the New Evangelical movement who saw at the end of his life what a great failure it had been.

I speak about abortion when it is in the text. I have said it is a blight on society. When I mentioned it a few weeks ago, I had a lady walk out obviously agitated. Turns out she had had an abortion and my wife had a great opportunity to minister to her. I don't speak about sodomy. I do speak about homosexuality, when it is in the text. I have said that it is wrong. I have yet to find any text that deals with injustices in the judicial system. Since my charge is to "preach the word" I am limited to "the word." I do not have the authority to preach anything else.

For Bart,

My freedom to preach the gospel has nothing to do with any of that. It has to do wiht the authority of God's word and the command to preach it. The gospel has been preached for centuries in countries that do not share this freedom we have. And if we lose that freedom tomorrow, I will still preach the gospel message.

You have too closely tied the gospel to the American experience. The gospel flourished in first century Rome, with a hostile government who killed Christians, who were commanded by God to submit to that government. The gospel has always flourished under persecution. It doesn't need political freedom. It needs clear proclamation.

 

Excellent point. Thank you making that point so succinctly.

 

The right not to be exploited and killed?

you've been away from home too long.

HankD

 

I know the history, don't need a recap of the lesson.

Nobody like paying taxes, but it is biblical.

 

The pattern of Scripture is that true believers joyfully accepted these things for the sake of the gospel (cf Heb 10:32ff). Even Paul was gladly imprisoned for the sake of the gospel. They didn't try to throw off the Roman government to protect themselves and their lives.

Where is the radical commitment to the biblical pattern? Where is teh biblical promise of freedom from exploitation and death? The biblical promise is different: If you live godly in Christ Jesus, you will suffer persecution (2 Tim 3:12).

 

I would have fought against the british king during the revolutionary war and the ragtag, terrorist loving south during the civil war. And yes, the south were nothing but terrorists.

 

NASB 3 John 1:2 Beloved, I pray that in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers.

HankD

 

But how is that an answer to the question? Prospering and being in good health obviously took a back seat to Christian faith and obedience for the early believers. When faced with a choice between obedience and good health, the choice of the apostles and many early believers was obedience. Heb 10 makes that clear, it seems to me.

 

Daniel David,
I wish you wouldn't beat around the bush and tell us what you really think!

 

Pastor Larry,

Yes, of course you are correct, the glorification of God takes first priority in our walk. Hopefully we will all find the faith and courage to “love not our lives unto death” when and if the time comes. And to one degree or another we should expect persecution.

If possible the alternative of prospering, enjoying good heath, tranquility, etc would be the norm.

NASB 1 Timothy 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
2 for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

In relationship to C4K's question concerning the crown and Biblical rights denied us in 1775.
Well, I admit that it is a bit of a stretch to try to justify the Revolution because the King had denied us Biblical rights via the extortion of "taxation without representation". Unless the taxation was oppressive and presumably it was if we believe the long litany of offenses at the end of the Declaration such as

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people"

The founding fathers certainly felt that these rights were not only a divine mandate but self-evident:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

and felt that the King of England had violated their rights.

Apart from the passages in Scripture calling for prayer for leaders for the possibility of peace and tranquility, I can’t find any Scripture to justify the American Revolution.

I’m sure we all agree with the founding fathers concerning our “unalienable rights”, the question being should we demand them at the price of bloodshed.

Well, I am a veteran, so I have already answered that question by my service to our nation.

Would I have fought in the Revolution had I lived then? I honestly don’t know.

In the hindsight of 200 plus years, it seems that loyalty to the Crown would have/should have been the Scriptural position for the Christian.

But...

HankD

 

I love the smell of gunpowder in the morning!



HankD

 

Dr. Bob, I am curious as to your first point.

Who appointed the King of England the magistrate over the United States? Wasn't that a position he just assumed?

Also, the beauty of the Magna Carta is that the real rule was NOT the king, but the constitution. The constitution demanded taxation WITH representation. When the king decided to break the law, he was trying to subvert the constitution. That required those who love justice to enforce the constitution.

Many on here would have fought for reasons that are clearly unbiblical. My reason isn't though. I would have been upholding my ruler.

As for the South, they attacked the Federal government. This required a swift kick in their seat cushions. Boy did they get it also.

 

What constitution are you referring to regarding the Magna Carta Daniel. I wasn't even aware that the United Kingdom had a constitution.

On that line, who decides what violates subverting the constitution? If some Islamic group feels like the constitution is being violated because they are not allowed to marry more than one wife in the US, do they, who, in their own minds "love justice" enforce the constitution over the president and Congress?

 

Constitution used in the sense of the written law. It isn't opinion but a matter of fact that the colonies were denied taxation with representation. When you couple that with the fact that the king assumed authority, you have the colonies protecting themselves.

The magna carta basically removed the authority from the king to the written law.

 

But taxation without representation is not the violation of hte biblical commandment no matter which way you cut it. That is not a valid biblical reason to reject the government.

As for the south, they seceded from the "federal government" under the provision allowed them in the constitution.

 

I reiterate my question. If we agree that Christians have the right to disobey the state, who becomes the authority? Who decides which laws I can disobey? Is it up to me? My pastor?

As above, do Muslims have the same right to decide which laws they feel are constitutional? How about Satanists? How about a cult which uses drugs as part of their "worship"?

Let me expand, if you will, on my question above by offering a possible scenario.
A group of Muslims in, lets say Ohio, get together and form an organisation. Let's call it the "Ohio Muslims United for Marital Liberty." Believing that husbands are mandated to take more than one wife they petition the state for that right. When refused they take it to the Supreme Court and still lose. Now they feel that their First Amendment rights have been violated. They decide to oppose the government and carry out the marriages anyway. Are they in the right? Would you be willing to stand with them and grant them the right to exercise their religious liberty?

 

Larry, the king wasn't the sole authority as to the interpretation of the law.

The south picked a fight with the federal government.