Just keeps broad brushing all of us who want to stay actively engaged with counteracting anti God mentality and culture now!
-
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 in Politics pt 2
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
Yet you criticize me for believing my view is correct?
Ultimately. But we did not consider it enough an issue to go to war.
Do you believe we are to become entangled in the affairs of the world?
No, for seeming to extend your views as being the correct ones all should have now!
We saw God providence in Pearl Harbor, as it made no sense for Japan to do that bombing, but we needed to get into the war to stop hitler!
Being involved is not getting entangled!
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
No, the issue is not about deciding for ourselves where we stand. The specific issue is refusing baptism to a believer, that is, where someone else stands.
And Scripture is not silent on this. The apostolic church baptized those in government positions.
But in this case, where the early church, as a rule, refused baptism to a confessing believer, just who did they imagine they were judging, those in the world or those in the church?
Then where we should stand is abstaining from being a part of worldly powers. That is why I abstain from secular politics.
The early church did baptize those in government (as did the ECF's I quoted). They had no qualms about it. But when someone was baptized, when someone became a member of the Christian community, they were expected to end their involvement with worldly powers and to instead be a witness to the world.
So I do agree that Scripture is not silent about the sinner ending his or her position in regards to worldly powers. My point is that YOUR argument is one of silence. You have ignored my argument (and the early church's argument) based on Scripture (that we are called out from the World, that the World is hostile to the Kingdom, that the Worldly powers are enemies of Christ, that Christians who involve themselves in these powers are not fit for the Kingdom of God, that we are to refrain from being a part of the World system and instead are to be a light to those who remain in this system...etc.
All of those passages support the position of Christians from the time of the early church until the Roman Catholic Church. And I agree with their interpretation of those passages. I agree with how they applied those passages. Once someone is saved they are to live holy lives, lives set apart, lives not entangled with the World, while remaining in the world as a Light.
BUT you have offered absolutely no interpretation to the contrary. You just acted as if those passages did not exist. You have failed to provide even one example in Scripture to the contrary (you talked about how John the Baptist told Jewish people they were to act as they anticipated the Messiah, you talked about people who were in the world being saved....but that's it.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
It seems like we are still not on the same page somehow. This is the specific passage which I said is going too far.
Are you interpreting it to mean that they baptized these believers or that they refused them baptism? What do you think “let them not be received” means in this context?
I am interpreting it to mean that the sinner once saved stops living in sin. Scripture teaches to "expel the wicked man". If a porn star is saved it is reasonable (and I believe expected) to require that he or she quit the industry prior to being baptized into the church. Peter baptized Cornelius. We do not know what the future held for the man. I think we all know the guy could not just quit. So there are considerations that have to be taken into account.
I see no reason a Christian could not serve in the military. This is not a political office. I do understand the concern regarding serving in combat.
RighteousnessTemperance&
Well-Known Member
OK, I better understand what you are saying. However, you seem to disagree with that extrabiblical quote regarding military service. That passage indicates that the convert must quit his military service or his government position before being baptized.
The author put them in the same context, because they are so closely related. If you feel you can separate them and then reject its position regarding military service, then so be it. I have to reject it entirely. By the way, the earliest date I found for that text is ca. AD 350.
I haven't. And neither has anyone else. But, they would like you to think they have.
Quantrill
Yes. I personally believe he wants Christians to refrain from politics as they are a powerful vote. For whatever his reasons, who can say. He did mention he worked with the Federal govt. once.
But, whatever. The fact remains, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Quantrill
Probably because I served n the Army for 23 years.
Origen's defence of Christianity (explaining why Christians do not vote or hold office) was 248 AD.
Think Roman Emperor govt not same as USA Republic though!Probably because I served n the Army for 23 years.
Origen's defence of Christianity (explaining why Christians do not vote or hold office) was 248 AD.
Just seems to want us to stop being part of efforts to end abortion, or to have ended slavery!
The world is the world. For centuries Christians were politically involved in Rome. How did that turn out?
We cannot bypass the gospel in order to save the world. We are not called to make the world a moral place but to be the body of Christ calling for men to come out of the world, to repent and believe, to be re-born, to die to the workd
You asked before if it can be both - the World and the Kingdom. It cannot.