Baptist Board, Politics, and Our Christian Witness

Some people can’t seem to accept that their political inclinations don’t line up with the Bible. It makes them defensive, it makes them attack trivialities where they think they can win based on political correctness. Their church may back them up by also being politically correct because they too have lost the backbone to do the right thing. It may be the death of the church.
Same is happening in politics. Mirror, mirror on the wall.............
The OP is grandstanding because his positions have been unpopular in this heated political time preceding the election. Maybe his feelings got hurt, & this is how he thinks he wins. OK. Ignore. The mods do a great job of taking down that which is truly offensive. I think we’re good to go.

 

There is also an equally convincing case that all human-created governments are in rebellion against God and His rule and thus it is a fallacy to think that man has the right to self-rule:

‘ David Lipscomb quoting B.U. Watkins in Lipscomb’s book, "On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to It".

“One of the signs of the great Apostacy, was the union of Church and State. Its chosen symbol was a woman upon the back of a seven headed and ten horned beast. It is almost uniformly admitted, among American Protestants, that this is a well chosen symbol to represent the absurd, and unnatural union of Church and State. It is generally conceded, that the woman represents the Church, and the beast the old Roman civil government. This being true, it would appear far more natural for her to be riding the beast, than for him to have his locomotion promoted by the help of the woman! When the State comes forward and proffers its assistance, and the Church voluntarily accepts of such help, it might be a question, which would be the most to blame; the Church for accepting, or the State for offering such assistance. But when the Church gives, unasked, her power to the beast, no excuse can reasonably be pleaded. If the State supporting the Church, is called an adulterous union, I am unable to see, why the union is not equally intimate, and criminal, when the Church supports the State, by participating in all its responsibilities. When the Church offers her fellowship, and co-operation in framing all the laws of the land, and in choosing its judicial and executive officers - when even her members refuse not to become legislators, and are even forward to fill all the offices of human governments, I cannot see, but the relation between church and State, is as intimate as ever, and just as illegal. Ezekiel chided the ancient Hebrews for seeking such union with the nations; and he compares Israel to a woman of the lowest infamy. It is exceedingly painful to me, to see how aptly these symbols of John and Ezekiel apply to modern professors. But how greatly would I rejoice, if the reformation of the 19th century would arise and put on her beautiful garments, and show herself to be the true spouse of Christ. May the good Lord grant that this noble brotherhood, that I so dearly love, may soon see the whole truth! But here, I am met with the objection, that these institutions are ordained of God. And he who resists them resists an ordinance of God, and shall receive punishment. Let me here pause, and remark, that I would sooner be understood as taking the popular view of this passage, rather than appear to countenance any kind of war. Nothing is further from my intention. But the fact of civil government being ordained of God, is no proof of Divine approbation. So long as it can be clearly shown that he has ordained that one sinner should punish another, so long as we read in Isaiah, that Cyrus was sent against Babylon, although he knew not God, so long as we find it not difficult to admit the application of the above passage, to civil government, whether such be its meaning or not. To make the admission saves much time, and leaves the argument much more compact. Something is gained and nothing lost by granting all we can to our opponents. That God can overrule sin, without being responsible for its commission, and without having any complicity with it, is a thing so plain, that to turn aside to explain it would almost be an insult to those for whom these columns are written. Let a hint suffice. Pharaoh was raised up by God for a certain purpose, although his behavior was far from being approved of God. With a few axioms I will close this article. Axiom 1st, No man has the right of making laws for his own government. For such a right would include the double absurdity of making him independent of God, and responsible only to himself! Axiom 2nd. A republican government is one in which power is thought to be delegated by the people to their rulers, in their act of voting. Axiom 3rd. But a man cannot delegate a power he himself does not possess. Hence, INFERENCE 1st. As man has no inherent legislative power, he cannot transfer it to another. Hence, INFERENCE 2nd. Voting is therefore a deception, and a sham, making a deceiver of him, who votes, and a dupe of him who fancies himself the recipient of delegated power.” ‘

 

It believe it is lawful for a Christian to engage in politics. I believe it is lawful for a Christian to run for civil office. I believe that it is lawful for a Christian to occupy a civil office, and use His place and station to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31)

I thus do not see any problem with a Christian website having a political forum. I only see the danger of it having a forum that too much identifies with the Republican Party or the modern religious right. I think we need to be more thoroughly biblical in our views. I think we should avoid the danger of entertaining too Anabaptistic views on civil government. We should support a certain separation between church and state. We should not, however, support such a separation between church and state that denies the lawfulness of any kind of theocracy whatsoever. Although we may disagree where the line is we should support a certain kind and measure of separation between church and state. We should not be legalistic about where we draw the line in the issue of separation between church and state.

 

Not really.

I wonder WHY a non-Christian is visiting a "Baptist Board" to discuss Politics ... there must be some place better to discuss politics (like the corner pub).

 

Says one of our resident Trump haters.

 

There is no need to identify a party as such to support. Simply showing the basic platforms of each party should, SHOULD, be enough for a Christian to make a decision which to support, keeping in mind the relative "worth" of any differing viewpoints vs: differing principles!!!!
Example: I am against abortion, but for the death penalty.
Candidate 1 :: against abortion, against death penalty ACCEPTABLE
Candidate 2 :: for abortion, for death penalty NON-ACCEPTABLE
(how many innocents are executed? Guesstimate - 10%; how many innocents are aborted? - 100%)
Regardless, you will NOT find any platforms that you 100% agree with, IMHO. In fact, I would consider that if you are in agreement with MORE than 50%, then you have found the one!

 

My plan was to form my own third party. There is nothing I disagree on the platform on my website. - Puritan Party of America

As I said so long as it is a thoroughly Bible-based, biblical, and God-centered party or platform I do not have a problem with a forum for it on a Christian website.

 

If you think anyone’s politics in this country line up with the Bible you have some serious reading to do.

 

Amen...politicians are rarely people of profound faith and love of Jesus Christ. Not every politician is like that, but so many it doesn't allow the solid Christians to do much.

 

My goal is to form the Puritan Party of America. All party members must be visible saints. Not that it is impossible for those who are not true believers to join, but that those only who make a visible and explicit profession of saintship and being such as true Christians are may join the party. https://puritanparty.wordpress.com If there is anything in the current platform of the Puritan Party of America I invite comment.