Has Theology Died?

[Noah Hirsch]

Ok, what un-Biblical view does Vice-President Pense have?

Well, one is his practice of referring to Papists as Christians. His speaking in general of the power of prayer when the audience is so diverse it is evident that many of their prayers are unacceptable to God and God will not hear them. He spoke in favor of the wall. He has advocated an unbiblical view on illegal aliens, which has no foundation in Scripture.

 

[Salty]

Well, one is his practice of referring to Papists as Christians. His speaking in general of the power of prayer when the audience is so diverse it is evident that many of their prayers are unacceptable to God and God will not hear them. He spoke in favor of the wall. He has advocated an unbiblical view on illegal aliens, which has no foundation in Scripture.

Thank you for an honest reply!
How do you think that the Wall and allowing illegal aliens in is unbiblical.

 

[JonC]

how can you say that about your commander-in-chief?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[timtofly]

he is the POTUS for the next 4 long years...

The Second Coming will happen first.

 

[Salty]

The Second Coming will happen first.

Maybe the Rapture - second coming will be 7 years after the Rapture

 

[Noah Hirsch]

Thank you for an honest reply!
How do you think that the Wall and allowing illegal aliens in is unbiblical.

First of all, I believe that what the Old Testament says about foreigners or aliens, what it says about sojourners is founded not upon any temporary law or precept specially given the nation of Israel to the exclusion of other nations. I believe the judicial laws given to Israel concerning sojourners and foreigners is based upon the moral law or law of nature which forever binds all.

It is evident from various passages of the Law that the strangers and sojourners were to be judged be the same law and heard equally by the judges as citizens of Israel were. (Deuteronomy 1:16-17, Exodus 12:49, 20:10, Leviticus 16:29, 20:2, 24:22, Number 35:15)

But there seems to have been no test for aliens to attain to this right to be judged equally. I believe that this is because by the light of nature all men as created in the image of God should be so treated equally so as for there to be one law for them and for natives of the land.

Scripture speaks both against oppressing an alien or sojourner and against doing an alien or sojourner wrong.

“And a sojourner shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21 ASV)

In the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus it says, “And if a stranger sojourner with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were sojourners in the land of Egypt: I am Jehovah your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34 ASV)

It is not that I think amnesty or letting illegal immigrants is illegal. It is that I think the restrictions against them and the limits put on them unbiblical. It is not a biblical idea to suppose that illegal immigrants should not be granted the same free trial by jury as American citizens.

 

[timtofly]

Maybe the Rapture - second coming will be 7 years after the Rapture

I would not get my hopes up for any specific, exact length of time. The church could still repent and turn from her wickedness.

 

[timtofly]

First of all, I believe that what the Old Testament says about foreigners or aliens, what it says about sojourners is founded not upon any temporary law or precept specially given the nation of Israel to the exclusion of other nations. I believe the judicial laws given to Israel concerning sojourners and foreigners is based upon the moral law or law of nature which forever binds all.

It is evident from various passages of the Law that the strangers and sojourners were to be judged be the same law and heard equally by the judges as citizens of Israel were. (Deuteronomy 1:16-17, Exodus 12:49, 20:10, Leviticus 16:29, 20:2, 24:22, Number 35:15)

But there seems to have been no test for aliens to attain to this right to be judged equally. I believe that this is because by the light of nature all men as created in the image of God should be so treated equally so as for there to be one law for them and for natives of the land.

Scripture speaks both against oppressing an alien or sojourner and against doing an alien or sojourner wrong.

“And a sojourner shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 22:21 ASV)

In the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus it says, “And if a stranger sojourner with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were sojourners in the land of Egypt: I am Jehovah your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34 ASV)

It is not that I think amnesty or letting illegal immigrants is illegal. It is that I think the restrictions against them and the limits put on them unbiblical. It is not a biblical idea to suppose that illegal immigrants should not be granted the same free trial by jury as American citizens.

So breaking the law is OK in your broader scheme? Calling those who willfully come in against the law is a good thing? Is that not calling evil good?

The United States did not come out of Egypt. The issue is that too many people want to come. I would say the church has failed, if only one country in the world is the only place people want to come to.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Second Coming will happen first.

Trumps?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You Americans know how to choose your leaders

My leader is Christ... I have no allegiances, with the exception of close family, beyond that.

 

[Van]

I think the title of this thread was click bait.
The actual issue presented is:

Matthew 22:21
They *said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He *said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”

1) Thus believers are to obey the laws of the governing authority. If a believer does not think immigration laws are biblical, then he or she should work to change the law.

2) And if believers think one party is way worse when it comes to keeping God's express will, then they should work to put the best party (in their opinion) in office.

3) To claim discussion of this duty is unbiblical would seem to be a ploy of the worst party or its advocates.

 

[Reformed1689]

I think the title of this thread was click bait.
The actual issue presented is:

Matthew 22:21
They *said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He *said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”

1) Thus believers are to obey the laws of the governing authority. If a believer does not think immigration laws are biblical, then he or she should work to change the law.

2) And if believers think one party is way worse when it comes to keeping God's express will, then they should work to put the best party (in their opinion) in office.

3) To claim discussion of this duty is unbiblical would seem to be a ploy of the worst party or its advocates.

Anytime I agree with @Van 100% you know you have hit a big issue! I agree with you brother!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Anytime I agree with @Van 10

Anytime I agree with @Van 100% you know you have hit a big issue! I agree with you brother!

the blind leading the blind!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I think the title of this thread was click bait.
The actual issue presented is:

Matthew 22:21
They *said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He *said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”

1) Thus believers are to obey the laws of the governing authority. If a believer does not think immigration laws are biblical, then he or she should work to change the law.

2) And if believers think one party is way worse when it comes to keeping God's express will, then they should work to put the best party (in their opinion) in office.

3) To claim discussion of this duty is unbiblical would seem to be a ploy of the worst party or its advocates.

your reasoning is always questionable!

 

[Van]

your reasoning is always questionable!

Yet another you, you, you post running away from the biblical duty to comply with authority.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Yet another you, you, you post running away from the biblical duty to comply with authority.

 

[Van]

Matthew 22:21
They *said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He *said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”

1) Thus believers are to obey the laws of the governing authority. If a believer does not think immigration laws are biblical, then he or she should work to change the law.

2) And if believers think one party is way worse when it comes to keeping God's express will, then they should work to put the best party (in their opinion) in office.

3) To claim discussion of this duty is unbiblical would seem to be a ploy of the worst party or its advocates.

 

[Noah Hirsch]

So breaking the law is OK in your broader scheme? Calling those who willfully come in against the law is a good thing? Is that not calling evil good?

The United States did not come out of Egypt. The issue is that too many people want to come. I would say the church has failed, if only one country in the world is the only place people want to come to.

No, I am not saying people should break the law. But those laws are a violation of the moral law. Those laws should not have been made. I believe that the separation of children from their parents was a violation of the moral law of God.

 

[timtofly]

No, I am not saying people should break the law. But those laws are a violation of the moral law. Those laws should not have been made. I believe that the separation of children from their parents was a violation of the moral law of God.

How is it a moral law from God, that all nations should have an "open borders" law?

 

[Noah Hirsch]

How is it a moral law from God, that all nations should have an "open borders" law?

In Scripture the nations do not seem so much to have an open border law as to not have a law preventing sojourners to come in. An open border law would imply that there would be a positive law either allowing or disallowing people to come in.

But more than the open border issue vs. no open border I am against what has been done with reference to those already inside. I am against the idea that foreigners whether illegal aliens or legal should not be entitled to an equal right to a fair and equal trial by law just as much as we citizens are.

16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the sojourner that is with him.
17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; ye shall hear the small and the great alike; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you ye shall bring unto me, and I will hear it. (Deuteronomy 1:16-17 ASV)

That which cannot be done without a violation of the law of nature also called the moral law must needs be a violation of the moral law of God. There are certain practices or laws which if used or practiced in civil government in their own nature would be sin or violations of the moral law of God. Although not every sin or transgression of the moral law is to be punished by the civil powers or outlawed by the civil law of any commonwealth or nation, yet there are some civil policies and civil laws which in their own nature are transgressions of the moral law. Forbearance to punish or make a civil law against some open sins is not necessarily a violation of the moral law. But to do that which is in its own nature a transgression of the moral law as a matter of civil policy is to violate the moral law in matter of civil government, civil law, or policy. In this way the moral law of God may be truly said to not merely give principles or values that one can choose to use or not, but it is a binding rule for civil government and policy.