-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Christians' Proper Role in Politics Debated
- Thread starter Cindy
- Start date
Amen, Aaron. So-called Christians who don't want to be involved in politics are being blind, foolish, and LAZY, IMO. And yes, a REAL Christian is going to try to make a difference in this world, starting in communities. 
How arrogant and myopic some people are to believe the freedoms we have left just dropped out of the sky, as if our forefathers did not shed great drops of blood and life for our liberty!
A recent survey done by Fox News channel in the streets of NYC appalled me. There was hardly one person who knew what Independence Day means or why we celebrate the 4th of July. They don't even know there were great sacrifices made for our freedom and for this nation we are blessed to call America. Pretty pitiful. Pretty sad. What a disgrace!
How arrogant and myopic some people are to believe the freedoms we have left just dropped out of the sky, as if our forefathers did not shed great drops of blood and life for our liberty!
A recent survey done by Fox News channel in the streets of NYC appalled me. There was hardly one person who knew what Independence Day means or why we celebrate the 4th of July. They don't even know there were great sacrifices made for our freedom and for this nation we are blessed to call America. Pretty pitiful. Pretty sad. What a disgrace!
I think Cal Thomas has the balance. Thomas was very active in the Religious Right in the 80's but has in recent years regreted this because he saw the religious right bowing at the altar of the GOP.
I am not against Christians holding political office and I know Thomas isn't either. We need more believers who will be the salt of the earth. Every office holder however makes a vow to uphold the U.S. Constitution which is not in it's essence a Christian document. Many of us are wary of the Christian Right because some extremist elements hold to a Theonomy type belief. Here is just a sampling of such extremists,
I am not against Christians holding political office and I know Thomas isn't either. We need more believers who will be the salt of the earth. Every office holder however makes a vow to uphold the U.S. Constitution which is not in it's essence a Christian document. Many of us are wary of the Christian Right because some extremist elements hold to a Theonomy type belief. Here is just a sampling of such extremists,
This is the type of thought that both the Anabaptists and later the early Baptist fought against. The Gary North's bring a cure that is worse than the disease.
But not all of the souls believe the same way. Shouldn't we build a society on principles of liberty so that people of differing opinions are protected from each other using coercion (including imprisonment and murder) to destroy anyone who does not go with the majority?
Bowing to the GOP? That is a silly statement. A lot of the GOP is over at the big tent nowadays and could care less about Christians. The other party could have my vote anytime they wanted to do something about abortion, for example, or excessive taxation and government. The last time someone tried to be pro-life in the other party, they did not even let him speak on the convention floor. How do you expect to attract voters if their concerns are a public joke to you? Maybe you are just a bad politician.
But not all of the souls believe the same way. Shouldn't we build a society on principles of liberty so that people of differing opinions are protected from each other using coercion (including imprisonment and murder) to destroy anyone who does not go with the majority?</font>[/QUOTE]You mean the society we have now where every minority seeks to make their tiny opinion the law of the land and subject the majority to it, i.e., challenging the pledge, changing sports team mascots, equating gay marriages with heterosexual marriage? Interesting, Baptist Believer, I never see you quote any Scripture about anything, just pass off the same old rhetoric we used to get from the atheists when they were allowed on this board.
But not all of the souls believe the same way. Shouldn't we build a society on principles of liberty so that people of differing opinions are protected from each other using coercion (including imprisonment and murder) to destroy anyone who does not go with the majority?</font>[/QUOTE]You mean the society we have now where every minority seeks to make their tiny opinion the law of the land and subject the majority to it, </font>[/QUOTE]I wouldn't characterize it that way... I would say it is a society where government respects the rights of minorities (not necessarily talking about ethnic minorities) by upholding documents like the Bill of Rights (a document that is written to protect unpopular rights).
If it violates the First Amendment, yes.
Has this ever been a matter of law?
Government has the right to choose what it recognizes as marriage. That being said, I am opposed to homosexual marriage.
I do occasionally give scripture references, you apparently miss them. In any case, proof texting is a poor method of doing theology. I would rather give you a chapter reference and let you discover the meaning in context. You know, the devil quotes scripture (Matthew 4:6) but that doesn't make him right.
Ahh... are you trying to imply guilt by association?just pass off the same old rhetoric we used to get from the atheists when they were allowed on this board.
Argh, double posted!
[ July 09, 2002, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]
[ July 09, 2002, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]
"Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol."
Is there an untruth in there anywhere? I can't find one?
The history of religious liberty in America will demonstrate that pagan practices were tolerated only in as far as they did not interfere with public policy, which in the beginning were based upon Christian principles. "Tolerate" is the key word here. They were tolerated up to a certain point. They were not given any liberty.
Certainly you would not give someone the right to offer a human sacrifice to his idol. Why? Because man said thou shalt not kill? No because God said thou shalt not kill.
(I must use an extreme example here because it is only in the extremes right now that we are agreed.)
Is there an untruth in there anywhere? I can't find one?
The history of religious liberty in America will demonstrate that pagan practices were tolerated only in as far as they did not interfere with public policy, which in the beginning were based upon Christian principles. "Tolerate" is the key word here. They were tolerated up to a certain point. They were not given any liberty.
Certainly you would not give someone the right to offer a human sacrifice to his idol. Why? Because man said thou shalt not kill? No because God said thou shalt not kill.
(I must use an extreme example here because it is only in the extremes right now that we are agreed.)
So Aaron, you believe the State has the right to be the protector of Christian orthodoxy? To punish heretics? Do we really want a government that imprisons or executes Wiccans, Jehovah Witnesses, Satanists and Mormons as those of the Gary North and Rushdoony form of the "Christian" Right espouse? Is The Gospel a gospel of peace or not? and have Baptists forgot that we were the pioneers of Religious liberty but it seems we are moving more towards the Puritan and Protestant State Church view (Religious libery for us but not for others)
[ July 09, 2002, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]
Is The Gospel a gospel of peace or not? and have Baptists forgot that we were the pioneers of Religious liberty but it seems we are moving more towards the Puritan and Protestant State Church view (Religious libery for us but not for others) [ July 09, 2002, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]
Here is a sample of the early Baptist pastor Roger Williams tract on Religious Liberty in responding to the Puritan persecution in New England,
"all civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual or Christian state and worship... it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the Word of God."
"all civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual or Christian state and worship... it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the Word of God."
(Religious libery for us but not for others)
Absolutely. Liberty for Christianity, but toleration of others to a certain point. The human sacrifice example was extreme. Even rsr puts a limitation on "liberty" with his quote:
if he pays adoration one day in a week, seven days or no day -- wherein does he injure the life, liberty or property of another?
The idea of equal liberty for all religions is not only in a practical sense unworkable, but in the real sense a humanistic and diabolical idea.
The Jews cannot have liberty equal to that of Christians, or they would be stoning Christians, and thus abate our liberty.
In the true sense, the government is the protector of the Church.
[ July 10, 2002, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
Absolutely. Liberty for Christianity, but toleration of others to a certain point. The human sacrifice example was extreme. Even rsr puts a limitation on "liberty" with his quote:
if he pays adoration one day in a week, seven days or no day -- wherein does he injure the life, liberty or property of another?
The idea of equal liberty for all religions is not only in a practical sense unworkable, but in the real sense a humanistic and diabolical idea.
The Jews cannot have liberty equal to that of Christians, or they would be stoning Christians, and thus abate our liberty.
In the true sense, the government is the protector of the Church.
[ July 10, 2002, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
I am curious. What evidence do you have of this? Honestly, did you actually read this somewhere that Jewish people want to stone Christians to death? Are you taking this from the treatment of Stephen and therefore assume that the Jews are just as barbaric today? I know I am probably going to regret opening this can of worms for all the anti-semitic comments here.
Joseph Botwinick
Aaron,
Your linking of Church and State is a departure from the Baptist faith. I mean no disrespect in that I enjoy many of your posts but Baptists espousing the Church as our protector is what many Baptists died and were imprisoned for. For we Baptist to espouse such is to abandon one of our cardinal doctrines. What is your scriptural basis that Christianity should be protected by Government power?
As far as the Jews go..they do control Israel and while they do limit evangelism in that country, Israel does not imprison or stone Christians and allows religious freedom despite the country being majority Jewish. So your point lacks validity.
[ July 10, 2002, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]
Your linking of Church and State is a departure from the Baptist faith. I mean no disrespect in that I enjoy many of your posts but Baptists espousing the Church as our protector is what many Baptists died and were imprisoned for. For we Baptist to espouse such is to abandon one of our cardinal doctrines. What is your scriptural basis that Christianity should be protected by Government power?
As far as the Jews go..they do control Israel and while they do limit evangelism in that country, Israel does not imprison or stone Christians and allows religious freedom despite the country being majority Jewish. So your point lacks validity.
[ July 10, 2002, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]
What is your scriptural basis that Christianity should be protected by Government power?
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.--Romans 13:3-4
Paul, of course, is extolling the true roll of government here. This is inappropriately thought to give license to its abuses, and though full of corruption and the usurpation of liberty today, if the government is punishing the evildoer and commending those who do good, then it is operating in its legitimate capacity.
Why did the Missouri state milita drive out the Mormons in the 1800's? Because their pernicious doctrines began to affect public policy and were a direct cause of the Blackhawk wars and other atrocities. However, the Reorganized church was tolerated, because they abandoned many of the troublesome tenets of Mormonism.
This is in perfect accord with the above verses. Kind of blasts the moral evil vs rebellion argument out of the water. Doesn't it?
If, however, the government begins to punish those who do good, and reward those who do evil, it is not a legitimate government, and the governed, if they can muster the power, have the right--no, the duty--to overthrow that government and establish a legitimate government in its place.
[ July 10, 2002, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.--Romans 13:3-4
Paul, of course, is extolling the true roll of government here. This is inappropriately thought to give license to its abuses, and though full of corruption and the usurpation of liberty today, if the government is punishing the evildoer and commending those who do good, then it is operating in its legitimate capacity.
Why did the Missouri state milita drive out the Mormons in the 1800's? Because their pernicious doctrines began to affect public policy and were a direct cause of the Blackhawk wars and other atrocities. However, the Reorganized church was tolerated, because they abandoned many of the troublesome tenets of Mormonism.
This is in perfect accord with the above verses. Kind of blasts the moral evil vs rebellion argument out of the water. Doesn't it?
If, however, the government begins to punish those who do good, and reward those who do evil, it is not a legitimate government, and the governed, if they can muster the power, have the right--no, the duty--to overthrow that government and establish a legitimate government in its place.
[ July 10, 2002, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
Joseph,
Read the Law of Moses, and you will see. If anyone other than Christ made the claims about himself that Christ did, he would have been rightly stoned.
The Jews today do not stone people because they're not allowed to, just as Rome did not allow them to legally put someone to death. The government in Israel is a secular government, and they depend upon America for their existence. If they were independent, I think you would see a drastic change in their human rights policies.
Don't think that an orthodox Jew would not approve of your execution or mine because of Christ. As Paul said, "At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now." Gal. 4:29.
Read the Law of Moses, and you will see. If anyone other than Christ made the claims about himself that Christ did, he would have been rightly stoned.
The Jews today do not stone people because they're not allowed to, just as Rome did not allow them to legally put someone to death. The government in Israel is a secular government, and they depend upon America for their existence. If they were independent, I think you would see a drastic change in their human rights policies.
Don't think that an orthodox Jew would not approve of your execution or mine because of Christ. As Paul said, "At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now." Gal. 4:29.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
I know for a fact that there are orthodox Jews who would not approve of this as I am friends with many of them. For that matter, I wonder what any of us would do if there weren't laws against them. But I know that you are so much more holier than us, right? You don't need any laws to keep you straight.
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph Botwinick
The Galatian
Active Member
Now that is a diabolical idea. Satan surely loves that kind of talk.
BTW, it's safe. I just talked to a Jew. They don't want to kill us.