Great Sermon! The sons of Belial's come described in the NT as people given "to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful". Sad that children of God should partake of these named traits above. This sermon invites the listener to reflect on this, however as tough as it might sound, the evidence should be that those practicing such traits without repentance ought not to be taken as children of the living God, but of Satan. How sobering that apparent 'puzzling' realities are not identified for what they actually are, henceforth going on unchecked as mere shocking practices among the flock of God.
Mr. T Only because of the lies you portray in the second paragraph of your post is worth putting these few words together to state that you are saying things they were NOT said or implied. They are your raw personal misrepresenting deductions. We read that liers, including twisters of truth, do not inherit the kingdom. As for your pile of personal insult in the first paragraph it declares enough about yourself. As brother John had said sometime ago people who do not have an answer to bring to the table resort to personal abuse, miles away from what is Christian love. Truly a discusting behaviour. Though there are some just antecedents in Scripture, it has never been my policy to hold ignore lists believing everyone deserves time, patience and consideration. In your case now there is enough proof for the contrary. A well intended Christian should not have to come here to receive your kind of insult. Fare well
The Quiet Christian wrote: And Amen to that, Mrs. McC. We are all fallen. But no one needs Hollywood dragging us down further. Please accept my apologies for the US inflicting Hollywood on the world at large.
Yes sir, how different the world would be had we none of that. Still the more sad and lamentable point is how Christian families were not decided enough to close the doors of their homes to the intruding screen.
By pointingly bringing up nationalism, it seems the Adamic nature is flaring up again which certainty can not be pinned to either side of a pond. Comments surging from the topic in question mentioning American culture were without guile on my part, but to state the obvious in order to specifically clarify detail.
No culture is perfect, though some are more influenced by the gospel than others, Hollywood having destroyed much of Western cultures once deeply entrenched in Biblical values, and beyond.
You all base your points on sentimentality, ignoring that the issue is about the theory of state and government. You invalidate the later by pareding the first. In fact, verses and points made related to the real topic are systematically dismissed ie ignored remarkably
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Thanks for your response Adriel. Appreciate your emphasis to trust in God. So, is the church having locks on the doors a lack of trust in God? Does the fact they put their money in the bank, a lack of trust in God? Does the fact they are protected by the Police and Fire department show a lack of trust in God? If they call an ambulance due to a medical emergency is that a lack of trust in God? Do the cars with locked doors in the parking lot show a lack of trust in God? Are fire alarms and extinguishers a show of a lack of trust in God? This more than likely will be my last post in this thread but I believe these are good questions to ponder in light of your thinking on the issue. Appreciate you, have a blessed day.
Unprofitable. Surely you are good at extrapolating meaning in your favour missing the points made. Regretfully
Stevenr wrote: B. McC... Maybe Iâ€™m reading it wrong, ... ... Jesus wasnâ€™t promoting a police state to which He was in charge ... ... a poor society who to entrust citizens to carry a sword ... Was Jesus the leader of a poor society?
Sorry, certainly you are reading it wrong.
A 'poor' society is one that needs numerous checks to keep crime on check, one of these being the arming of its citizens.
Christ commended the carrying of a sword when on a trip as a means of safety, and precaution, against common thieves and robbers pervading the highways in that particular society in Judea, see the poor Samaritan's story.
However one cannot use that instance as a general blue print of practice as Americans wish to do, because of Christ very words himself not recommending it as such when he stated, "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
Ideally citizens should not be involved in such a task which is entrusted to government. Most of the citizens of European countries are not armed and the crime rates do not defer much to yours as societies asimilate practice.
When the glory of the Lord fills the earth it is said no one will need to be taught of his brethren. We know why
Stephenr Clarifying. Sorry you misslead the meaning. The sentence 'carrying the sword speaks of law and order' was referring to the teaching of Romans 13, not to your passage. Two different tracks.
QC Not to worry about upsetting any of us, please. Without wishing to insult any here, often from our site the *average* American Christian seems to show a veneer of superficiality or ignorance which leads to many miscontructions of meaning.
However, thanks for being kind, open, honest, and willing to interact in proper dialogue which is how it should be in a forum as this conducive to profitable discussion for all engaged in.
A Calvinist does his ordained duty but trusts that God is doing his perfect will in spite of whatever man does.
Mike wrote: ... employees of government can't be everywhere at all times ... it would be foolish for us to assume they can fulfill all theoretical duties in real time in the real world. ... dictatorial governments... least protective...
You forget the function of 'fear' justice creates in a community.
Lawless abounds for the lack of implementation by which inspectorates and bureaucracy multiply.
There is a balance between righteousness, crime and justice. When a society is lapsed in law implementation for lack of penal consequences, poor laws, or by the lack of justice, people increase in lawlessness
"A king that sits in the throne of judgment scatters away all evil with his eyes"
"A wise king scatters the wicked, and brings the wheel over them"
"Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness."
"When the wicked rise, men hide themselves: but when they perish, the righteous increase."
" by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil."
"Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning!"
** Stevenr Carrying the sword speaks of law and order. Two different tracks.
The Quiet Christian wrote: That leaves us with the situation of who should we let die, then. Yes, the Lord can make the attacker's gun jam so he can be wrestled to the ground or perhaps tackled from behind as has happened in other situations. In this case, it did not. The Lord placed a man with a weapon in a particular church that was attacked. The Lord gave this man clearness of mind, steadiness of hand, and clarity of eyesight then the Lord guided the bullet that was fired to the spot the Lord planned and orchestrated as an impact point. The attacker died. The Lord could have had Mr. Wilson miss or be shot first. The Lord did not.
You sound ultra Calvinist, sir, detailing how many things the Lord did, could or could not have done! You did not include the devil but. As in Eden passing on the guilt seems to solve many a trick.
Stevenr wrote: Well stated US, I see many arguments to trust God in this areaâ€”by people who obviously make preparations in others. I believe I said it earlier (or thought it, lol,) but there is a difference between choosing to let your life be taken as a marytr, and allowing others to die when you have the ability to save them. â€śDefend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.â€ť Psalms 82:3-4
The focus about the matter has to shift from the the sentimentality of duty, compassion, precaution, safety, self-guarding, responsibility or goodness, all these things being good, to the issue of Biblical role bearing.
Poor are the societies whose weak governments leave to their citizens the role especifically entrusted to them, say the carrying of the sword.
Of significant interest this year has been the launching of the 'Joint resolution for United prayer' with the aim of promoting serious commitment to a time of personal or corporate prayer each Saturday of 2020 for the healing of the land, say for the next 52 Saturdays of 2020
The call to this resolution ended by quoting 2Ch 7:14 -
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and *turn* from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
No question that this verse prompts the believer to seek God in prayer for the healing of the land, but also calls for lifestyle change with the word *turn*.
Regretfully, if there is no decisive commitment to lifestyle changes in the church of Christ in the coming months, all the prayer going on will accomplish little, or probably nothing, as the prayer God answers is not prayer in a vaccum isolated from practice.
QC Your last comment was thought provoking. Thanks for attempting to think outside the box as it were, it always helps. It has stimulated me also to deepen on the subject which is always beneficial.
The sovereignty of God in government is a very challenging, and perhaps even thrilling subject to look into because the effects and consequences of sin need balancing against norm, pattern, order and reality, making a different result of 4 to what it should be 2 plus 2.
Apparently it was feasible for Daniel to serve in public office in a pagan culture without compromising his beliefs but we do not have the guarantee that this has to be the expected pattern per se in every case
If God had a Daniel in government it does not mean he has to have necessarily a Daniel in every regional council or house of representatives we know off. As with the healings or miracles, the fact that they existed and were used with a purpose in the past, does not mean that they have to be seen today in every corner of our streets or newspapers.
Government is God given, a sovereignty of his design and will, that is because he expects us to submit to all kinds, because through all them he fufills his ordained will in our particular lives.
The Quiet Christian wrote: 1. ... the French Revolution did occur after the American. ... Enlightenment theories did influence both
2. no government except for ancient Israel's judges is "Biblical"
1. Good thinking. As pointed before, movements or currents of thought do not develop in a vacuum overnight. To understand more about this and the questionable time line, read on line to make connections 'Proofs of a conspiracy' by John Robinson.
2. Perhaps it is not the point to be looking for an exact biblical blue print for government, but for the nature of the God-given gift of government to man, which is self-regulating and variable, not rigid or static as we understand it now.
E.g. "For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged"
"Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men."
Say not all men are made to be rulers, and not everyone is granted the same honour
"he brings low, and lifts up. He raises up the poor out of the dust, and lifts up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes"
Tim Wording makes the difference as entonation does to diction
Unprofitable Servant wrote: ... the French and American Revolutions are vastly different in both origins and outcome.
This statement is not perfectly true though it contains a measure of truth.
Please, do not say things that have not been actually said as, The 'French Revolution *being the source* for the American one' You are deducting poorly from my words
When reading extensively *primary* sources or books dating from 2 or 3 hundred years back, not the internet necessarily, one can compare information that eventually brings to the correlation of events.
People are taught to evaluate events in history as if they happened in a vaccum. Not so. There are paradoxing decisions and preferences people or leaders took due to unexplained personal reasons, hidden treatises or agendas. For instance the Irish rebellion of 1641 did not happen on a limb, but there are old documents in libraries certifying it was staged in a monastery with the intent to clear off Protestant descent in Ulster, which rebellion in turn was the instigation 9 years later for parliament to send Cromwell into Ireland with the mission of clearing insurrecting nucleus.
Using a limited medium as this, it will be advisable as you say to leave the topic at rest. Take care