Texas talking about leaving the USA

[xlsdraw]

Intriguing history, though a bit skewed. Jew against Jew was not invented by the Nazis. Just read the Bible. The rest of history follows suit. Jewish conflict in the form of secular vs religious is a constant theme. Jews in rebellion to God have been at the heart of many vile and disastrous movements.

Including today

 

[JonC]

No, all governments are not necessarily antichrist by definition. Only governments that deny God, supplant God, suppress the Gospel can be so labeled. By definition, government that allows Christian influence is not antichrist.

It seems that you are inadvertently making an argument in favor of holding the very position you accuse others of wrongly seeking, namely that worldly government should in effect be God's kingdom on earth or not exist at all. The former is an impossibility, the latter an appeal for anarchy and lawlessness.

Yes, all secular powers are anti-Christ by definition. Israel could be an exception as a theocracy but God's kingdom is not of this world.

This does not mean God fails to set up or use worldly government. But if it is of the world it is not of Christ.

Do you know of a political party or government that proclaims the gospel and acknowledges Christ as Lord and Savior?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Yes, all secular powers are anti-Christ by definition. Israel could be an exception as a theocracy but God's kingdom is not of this world.

This does not mean God fails to set up or use worldly government. But if it is of the world it is not of Christ.

Do you know of a political party or government that proclaims the gospel and acknowledges Christ as Lord and Savior?

Do you know of Scripture that charges governments with proclaiming Christ as Lord or the Gospel for salvation?

 

[JonC]

Do you know of Scripture that charges governments with proclaiming Christ as Lord or the Gospel for salvation?

No, because they are "powers of this world" and at odds with God's Kingdom.

If they are not for God.......

 

[Revmitchell]

It seems people like you can't wait for the killing and mayhem to start.

What you don't seem to understand or care about is the destruction it will bring and that's all it will bring. Death and destruction

Everyone will be in want, in despair, and America will canabalize itself.

No trucks will run supplies to rebelling states, no medicine, no food, lawlessness will abound, and is that what you want? Because that's all it will be.

It won't be the fantasy of the Trump Train bringing greatness to the land. It would be blood in the streets and death to America.

Why do you want this?

I fear the very things you say will pale in comparison should we go to war. There are a lot of Americans talking about going to war right now. They are not just a few and they are very aware of the realities should it happen. The other realities are the freedoms we are about to lose under this next admin. They are not willing to just allow those to slip by in trade for safety and comfort.

I promise you the talk gets louder and stronger everyday. Im very concerned.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

No, because they are "powers of this world" and at odds with God's Kingdom.

If they are not for God.......

It would seem that, according to your position, Joseph, Daniel and friends, Esther and Mordecai, Nehemiah, all must have been way out of line in participating in government and should have instead bravely refused, perhaps suffered imprisonment or death rather than do so.

 

[SGO]

Some are angry and want to fight.
Scripture says,

... being reviled.
we bless;
being persecuted,
we suffer it:
Being defamed,
we entreat:
we are made as the filth of the world,
and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
1 Corinthians 4:12b-13

I think we are called to suffer rather than fight.
That is not really appealing to me.

 

[JonC]

It would seem that, according to your position, Joseph, Daniel and friends, Esther and Mordecai, Nehemiah, all must have been way out of line in participating in government and should have instead bravely refused, perhaps suffered imprisonment or death rather than do so.

No. They were faithful to God. I am not saying we are called to disobey the governments over us (except when obedience would be disobedience to God). They (as with Joseph) were faithful to God and obident to the governments to whom they were enslaved.

As with those biblical heros we are to be obedient to the government except when that obedience would be disobeying God. Imagine how many "Christians" would abandon Christianity if the government demanded their guns.

 

[Revmitchell]

No. They were faithful to God. I am not saying we are called to disobey the governments over us (except when obedience would be disobedience to God). They (as with Joseph) were faithful to God and obident to the governments to whom they were enslaved.

As with those biblical heros we are to be obedient to the government except when that obedience would be disobeying God. Imagine how many "Christians" would abandon Christianity if the government demanded their guns.

The government doesnt get to demand our guns. It would be an unlawful demand.

 

[JonC]

The government doesnt get to demand our guns. It would be an unlawful demand.

You mean unconstitutional (if a law it is lawful, the SCOTUS decides if it is constitutional).

I just wonder how many Christians hold the Constitution above Scripture.

 

[Revmitchell]

You mean unconstitutional (if a law it is lawful, the SCOTUS decides if it is constitutional).

I just wonder how many Christians hold the Constitution above Scripture.

No no just cuz they pass a law doesnt make it lawful. If they are abiding by the constitution then there is no issue with scripture.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

No. They were faithful to God. I am not saying we are called to disobey the governments over us (except when obedience would be disobedience to God). They (as with Joseph) were faithful to God and obident to the governments to whom they were enslaved.

As with those biblical heros we are to be obedient to the government except when that obedience would be disobeying God. Imagine how many "Christians" would abandon Christianity if the government demanded their guns.

How is participating in and thereby supporting antichrist government obedience to God?

 

[JonC]

No no just cuz they pass a law doesnt make it lawful. If they are abiding by the constitution then there is no issue with scripture.

What do you mean by "if they are abiding by the Constitution there is no issue with Scripture"?

I do not understand your point.

 

[JonC]

How is participating in and thereby supporting antichrist government obedience to God?

That is for the individual Christian to answer.

My answer is that we cannot serve two masters and these powers are what we are told that we struggle against. That is why I am not a Republican (or a Democrat).

As far as the biblical heros go, they were slaves. They chose disobedience to their masters when ordered to violate God's command.

 

[Revmitchell]

What do you mean by "if they are abiding by the Constitution there is no issue with Scripture"?

I do not understand your point.

I dont know how else to say that. You seem to think that laws passed and the constitution are two different things. The constitution is law. When our law makers intentionally try to get away with passing laws we know are contrary to the constitution then those laws are unlawful. We are under no obligation biblically to follow them.

 

[JonC]

I dont know how else to say that. You seem to think that laws passed and the constitution are two different things. The constitution is law. When our law makers intentionally try to get away with passing laws we know are contrary to the constitution then those laws are unlawful. We are under no obligation biblically to follow them.

Yes, laws passed and the Constitution are not the same thing.

The only secular laws passed that we are not commanded to obey are those violating God's command (not violating the US Constitution).

If Congress passes a law demanding your guns, and the SCOTUS takes a progressive interpretation then you will either give up your guns or disobey God. That is a decision each of us, if that were to occur, would have to make. And it is ultimately one that demonstrates our faith in God rather than ourselves.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, laws passed and the Constitution are not the same thing.

The only secular laws passed that we are not commanded to obey are those violating God's command (not violating the US Constitution).

Uh youre wrong, the constitution is the law of the land. Ill sat it again law of the land by which all other laws are measured

 

[JonC]

Uh youre wrong

No. You are wrong.

It is illegal in the US to sell alcohol to a minor. At one time alcohol was simply illegal. These are laws, not the Constitution.

The Constitution prohibits the Federal government from establishing religion, but early on States were not prohibited by the Constitution from doing so.

And the Constitution can be amended or interpreted to ban firearms from its citizens.

The question is what would you do? Obey God or keep your guns?


BTW....have you noticed the scarcity of ammo? I had to pick up some shells yesterday and visited several stores before finding a few boxes (son had a competition).

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

That is for the individual Christian to answer.

Perhaps, but by your own definition, it would be participating in and thereby supporting antichristianity. The definition fails biblical scrutiny.

My answer is that we cannot serve two masters and these powers are what we are told that we struggle against. That is why I am not a Republican (or a Democrat).

Interpretation does matter. No one need feel he must be of a party in order to affect government.

As far as the biblical heros go, they were slaves. They chose disobedience to their masters when ordered to violate God's command.

Again, your own definition does not afford this option. The definition fails biblical scrutiny.

 

[JonC]

Perhaps, but by your own definition, it would be participating in and thereby supporting antichristianity. The definition fails biblical scrutiny.
Interpretation does matter. No one need feel he must be of a party in order to affect government.
Again, your own definition does not afford this option. The definition fails biblical scrutiny.

No. The Bible simply says that those are worldly powers - not that we do not live under those powers.

The early church refused to hd office or vote. But they did live and serve under the government (they paid taxes to Rome and acted as required except when it was disobedience to God).

Why would anyone e vote for a political party except they trust that party to solve the issues at hand?

It is a matter, for me, of being faithful.