Poll: If the 2nd A was constitutionally repealed…….

[BasketFinch]

Then I would passively endure whatever persecution came my way, praying God protect us and accepting whatever came our way. I would not respond with violence. Myself and my family would be, as always, safest in the hands of God.

peace to you

Were WW2 Jews and Christians safe in the hands of God?
Were Christians beheaded by Muslim terrorists safest in the hands of God?

Unless you count wholesale mass slaughter allowed by God as safe because the dead will end up with God.

 

[AustinC]

You'd defend your family by letting yourself be killed by the enemy?


What if it's the police under a police state action threatening your family?

How did the early church respond to this exact scenario? You can find these truths in the book of Acts and the epistles.
We, in the west, have been blessed with an unusual kindness from God. It seems that God is giving our nation over to its own lusts and with it comes unrestrained evil. Pray for the peace of the city in which we live as exiles.

 

[canadyjd]

Scripture assures us that there will come a day when all men will voluntarily and joyfully turn their swords into ploughshares, predators and prey in happy company, but it would be irresponsible and stupid to force disarmament until that blessed day.

I understand your point of view and disagree.

peace to you

 

[Cathode]

Then I would passively endure whatever persecution came my way, praying God protect us and accepting whatever came our way. I would not respond with violence. Myself and my family would be, as always, safest in the hands of God.

peace to you

Not all have the faith that draws down such protection, at a societal level many still rely on the ancient provision and protection of God through husbands and fathers, He wrote it in their DNA, and it is legitimate.
Until the Kingdom comes to Earth as in Heaven, men can not be derelict in their duty as protectors.
A believer can take the perfect way you describe ( and it is the perfect way), but this is not something you can impose on all, some things are given certain men to do by grace, in their state and circumstances.

 

[canadyjd]

Were WW2 Jews and Christians safe in the hands of God?
Were Christians beheaded by Muslim terrorists safest in the hands of God?

Unless you count wholesale mass slaughter allowed by God as safe because the dead will end up with God.

The concept of passive martyrdom is difficult to understand and accept.

The testimony of scripture is that all that desire to live Godly lives in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

In 2 Corinthians 1, Paul speaks of constantly having the sentence of death upon himself and his companions, but always trusting God.

In 2 Corinthians 2:14-17 Paul speaks of God causing them to triumph. Most misunderstand that to mean some sort of victory, but it is not.

A Roman “triumph” was a parade where captured prisoners were going to their death. As they March through the city, people would throw flowers on the road causing a sweet aroma to fill the air.

Paul plays on that imagery saying everywhere he goes is like being paraded to his death. As he goes to his death, the sweet smell of the gospel goes out to all, to some it brings life, to others it brings death.

And then Paul asks “who is sufficient for these things?”

That question reminds true today. Who is sufficient to accept such teachings, such ministry, such a life?

Will we accept God’s plan for our lives, even when it leads to persecution and death, or will we seek a secular path of violent rebellion? All roads lead to death, but only one narrow road leads to God.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Not all have the faith that draws down such protection, at a societal level many still rely on the ancient provision and protection of God through husbands and fathers, He wrote it in their DNA, and it is legitimate.
Until the Kingdom comes to Earth as in Heaven, men can not be derelict in their duty as protectors.
A believer can take the perfect way you describe ( and it is the perfect way), but this is not something you can impose on all, some things are given certain men to do by grace, in their state and circumstances.

And I agree.

peace to you

 

[BasketFinch]

The concept of passive martyrdom is difficult to understand and accept.

The testimony of scripture is that all that desire to live Godly lives in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

In 2 Corinthians 1, Paul speaks of constantly having the sentence of death upon himself and his companions, but always trusting God.

In 2 Corinthians 2:14-17 Paul speaks of God causing them to triumph. Most misunderstand that to mean some sort of victory, but it is not.

A Roman “triumph” was a parade where captured prisoners were going to their death. As they March through the city, people would throw flowers on the road causing a sweet aroma to fill the air.

Paul plays on that imagery saying everywhere he goes is like being paraded to his death. As he goes to his death, the sweet smell of the gospel goes out to all, to some it brings life, to others it brings death.

And then Paul asks “who is sufficient for these things?”

That question reminds true today. Who is sufficient to accept such teachings, such ministry, such a life?

Will we accept God’s plan for our lives, even when it leads to persecution and death, or will we seek a secular path of violent rebellion? All roads lead to death, but only one narrow road leads to God.

peace to you

The Hebrews in the OT were not of nor on the path to God?

 

[BasketFinch]

Not all have the faith that draws down such protection, at a societal level many still rely on the ancient provision and protection of God through husbands and fathers, He wrote it in their DNA, and it is legitimate.
Until the Kingdom comes to Earth as in Heaven, men can not be derelict in their duty as protectors.
A believer can take the perfect way you describe ( and it is the perfect way), but this is not something you can impose on all, some things are given certain men to do by grace, in their state and circumstances.

Wow.

 

[canadyjd]

The Hebrews in the OT were not of nor on the path to God?

Some were, I suppose, but most were not since God repeatedly punished them for disobedience.

We are not the Hebrews of the OT. We live under a new covenant.

peace to you

peace to you

 

[BasketFinch]

Some were, I suppose, but most were not since God repeatedly punished them for disobedience.

We are not the Hebrews of the OT. We live under a new covenant.

peace to you

peace to you

I'm aware we are not the Hebrews.
Are you aware God does not change?
God is the same yesterday,today,forever.

And contrary to the dispensational fallacy that entered this discussion, God shows no partiality.

 

[canadyjd]

I'm aware we are not the Hebrews.
Are you aware God does not change?
God is the same yesterday,today,forever.

And contrary to the dispensational fallacy that entered this discussion, God shows no partiality.

God does not change, that is true. However, the ways in which He interacts with people does change to accomplish His purposes.

What He required of the Hebrew people in the conquest of Canaan and the establishment of the Nation of Israel, is not what He requires of Christians today.

His purpose was accomplished in setting the circumstances for the coming of Jesus.

As I said, we live under a new covenant.

peace to you

 

[BasketFinch]

God does not change, that is true. However, the ways in which He interacts with people does change to accomplish His purposes.

What He required of the Hebrew people in the conquest of Canaan and the establishment of the Nation of Israel, is not what He requires of Christians today.

His purpose was accomplished in setting the circumstances for the coming of Jesus.

As I said, we live under a new covenant.

peace to you

God planned to come in the flesh, as OT prophecy of Messiah, Emmanuel, show.

Your doctrine of choice is replacement theology then?

Abraham was a Gentile.

Chosen by God to be the ancestor of the people of Judah ("Jews") Matthew 1.

Abraham is first called a "Hebrew" in Genesis 14:13. The Disciples were first refered to as Christians in Acts 11:26.
The early followers of the ways of Jesus, The Way, as it was called, were people of Judah, Jews.

As I said God does not change.
"if you love me, keep my commandments."

Matthew 5
1 Corinthians 10
Romans 15

 

[canadyjd]

God planned to come in the flesh, as OT prophecy of Messiah, Emmanuel, show.

Your doctrine of choice is replacement theology then?

Abraham was a Gentile.

Chosen by God to be the ancestor of the people of Judah ("Jews") Matthew 1.

Abraham is first called a "Hebrew" in Genesis 14:13. The Disciples were first refered to as Christians in Acts 11:26.
The early followers of the ways of Jesus, The Way, as it was called, were people of Judah, Jews.

As I said God does not change.
"if you love me, keep my commandments."

Matthew 5
1 Corinthians 10
Romans 15

All that doesn’t change the fact God doesn’t require the same things of Christian’s as He required of the Hebrew people when they conquered the land of Canaan and established the national of Israel.

We live under a new covenant.

peace to you

 

[BasketFinch]

All that doesn’t change the fact God doesn’t require the same things of Christian’s as He required of the Hebrew people when they conquered the land of Canaan and established the national of Israel.

We live under a new covenant.

peace to you

Are you of the replacement theology doctrine?

 

[canadyjd]

Are you of the replacement theology doctrine?

Why don’t you explain what you mean?

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

Are you of the replacement theology doctrine?

If you mean do you believe that God establishes covenants with people and at the cross the Old Mosaic Covenant came to an end and Jesus established the New Covenant by which His children would inherit the Kingdom, then I would say, yes.
I would say that God has redeemed by grace and justified by faith since Adam and Eve. There is no replacement regarding God's means of salvation. There is only continuation and that continuation is kept in the New Covenant.

 

[BasketFinch]

Why don’t you explain what you mean?

peace to you

Replacement Theology Definition | Bible Dictionary

 

[canadyjd]

Replacement Theology Definition | Bible Dictionary

Based on the definition given, I would say yes, I favor replacement theology, but with the caveat that God’s chosen people have always been “children of the promise” not children according to linage with Abraham.

peace to you

 

[BasketFinch]

Based on the definition given, I would say yes, I favor replacement theology, but with the caveat that God’s chosen people have always been “children of the promise” not children according to linage with Abraham.

peace to you

The fascinating part is Abraham was a Gentile. Chosen by God to be the Patriarch of the people of Judah, the "Jews".

 

[canadyjd]

The fascinating part is Abraham was a Gentile. Chosen by God to be the Patriarch of the people of Judah, the "Jews".

Well, there weren’t any “Jews” at that time. Judah was his great grandson, as I’m sure your already know.

Abraham had Issac, Isaac had Jacob and Jacob had 12 sons by four different women. Jacob wrestled with God at a creek at night and refused to let Him go unless He blessed him. God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (one who strives with God) and his twelve sons became the 12 tribes of Israel, Judah being one of them. When they came into Canaan each tribe received certain lands to settle.

Fast forward a few hundred years or so and the kingdom of Israel is split in two after Solomons reign with the northern ten tribes and the two southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

The northern tribes are carried into Assyrian captivity and disappear from history. Benjamin is very small and is essentially absorbed by Judah in the south. And this “Judah” becomes symbolic of the nation of Israel,

The term “Jew” may have been a shortened version of Hebrews or Judah, depending on who you ask.

There, that’s probably much more than you expected.

Peace to you