Texas talking about leaving the USA

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

My point is that, according to your own definition of worldly government and participation therein, those Bible heroes would have been participating in antichristianity all of the time.

Your definition is not biblical, which is why we both can say that, even though they were participating in worldly government all of the time, they were not participating in antichristianity all of the time, and whenever they were pressed to do so, they did resist.

We agree on the practice of those heroes, just not on the definition of worldly government. Our agreement on the former stands in opposition to the latter. Your definition of worldly government is not consistent with your view of those heroes and is not biblical.

Anyone's personal stance on participation is another matter entirely and not in question.

 

[JonC]

My point is that, according to your own definition of worldly government and participation therein, those Bible heroes would have been participating in antichristianity all of the time.

Your definition is not biblical, which is why we both can say that, even though they were participating in worldly government all of the time, they were not participating in antichristianity all of the time, and whenever they were pressed to do so, they did resist.

We agree on the practice of those heroes, just not on the definition of worldly government. Our agreement on the former stands in opposition to the latter. Your definition of worldly government is not consistent with your view of those heroes and is not biblical.

Anyone's personal stance on participation is another matter entirely and not in question.

I think the difference is in how we view "participation".

I do not think my view of the government being a worldly power can be considered in question, but I can see how you could question my view of the OT heros.

My view of government is consistent with the Christian view for the first four centuries of the Church (which proves nothing). We cannot reach back to the OT (which looked forward to the Kingdom) because the gospel is the arrival of this Kingdom.

We all participate in the government in some form. Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars and give unto God what is God's.

But there is a difference between serving where we are required to serve and becoming willfully engaged in the powers and principles of this world.

 

[Scott Downey]

Why did the Pilgrims leave England?
They could not live their lives under the authority of the church of England, not having religious freedom from persecutions.

just imagine yourself living in any other country in the world as a Christian.
How about Soviet Russia, N Korea, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt among the Muslims,
So that is why we should care that our countries government does not become like them.
Yes extreme examples, but that is how things go when stepping down that road.
So then why support leaders whose policies make it harder for Christians to live godly and peaceful lives?
We BECOME LIKE LOT

It's why should do this here for our ability to live in peace and live godly lives.
If we just let our government go crazy, then that does not make for us to live peaceable and godly lives as Christians.

2 Peter 2
4 For God did not [even] spare angels that sinned, but cast them into hell, delivering them to be kept there in pits of gloom till the judgment and their doom.
5 And He spared not the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven other persons, when He brought a flood upon the world of ungodly [people].
6 And He condemned to ruin and extinction the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to ashes [and thus] set them forth as an example to those who would be ungodly;
7 And He rescued righteous Lot, greatly worn out and distressed by the wanton ways of the ungodly and lawless—
8 For that just man, living [there] among them, tortured his righteous soul every day with what he saw and heard of [their] unlawful and wicked deeds—
9 Now if [all these things are true, then be sure] the Lord knows how to rescue the godly out of temptations and trials, and how to keep the ungodly under chastisement until the day of judgment and doom,
10 And particularly those who walk after the flesh and indulge in the lust of polluting passion and scorn and despise authority. Presumptuous [and] daring [self-willed and self-loving creatures]! They scoff at and revile dignitaries (glorious ones) without trembling,

1 Timothy 2:1-3
King James Version
2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

 

[Scarlett O.]

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.

I'm very concerned, too. It will be more horrid than people realize.

 

[Scott Downey]

A serious war inside the US would have to involve the military eventually which is still made up of people who are more than just units on paper.
There would be some dividing into partisan sides. Wars are also mostly fought by young people and a few middle aged men.
The war would in no way go nuclear. I imagine it would begin by certain areas setting up their own zones of control apart from the federal government and having them join forces into larger groups. There is no clear dividing line like North and South was, so citizens living in areas they disagree with ideologically would be forced to move out. There would be a total breakdown of federal power, there would no more overseas concerns of government, everything would become local and regional. Might become even 5 or 6 regional new power centers, not just left or right wing, no way the country could divide into only 2 power centers. we have an east and west coast.

 

[canadyjd]

There is no biblical support for Christians engaging in violent rebellion against their government.

We must pursue all constitutional means to challenge the fraud n this election.

If all avenues fail, we must trust God is in control. We cannot act like the world and respond with violence.

peace to you

 

[Scott Downey]

How Close Is the U.S. to Civil War? A War Correspondent Is in Portland to Find Out

Great reading here about civil unrest leading to wars. And I agree with him about Portland, when I was there it was a mess back in spring of 2019 when I visited my daughter in Eugene for 2 weeks. We rode around the state exploring and Oregon really is a beautiful state, and only in the rural areas did it feel safer and was really very nice. I remember thinking never wanted to visit Portland again.

This was before Antifa BLM got going on the streets, never saw any demonstrations. Eugene felt reasonably safe, but I did see many homeless living in tents on city sidewalks, and we did some outdoor dining and strange people would walk by yelling and screaming at nothing, and my daughter said they were having drug problems, like bad trips.

 

[Reformed1689]

Actually, other than the presidency the GOP did quite well - gained House seats, will likely control the Senate, has a 6-3 majority on the SCOTUS which will protect religious liberty, plus look at all of the governorships and state legislatures that the GOP controls. Most of what affects our day-to-day living is way more affected by state and local governments than the federal government.

Seems like a lot of people have put all of their hopes and dreams into one single human being, namely, Donald Trump, and his presidency. That is never, ever a good idea in any area of merely human affairs. There is only one man that is ever worthy of such devotion in all areas of life, earthly and spiritually - Jesus Christ.

Which is another reason a Biden win doesn't pass the common sense test.

 

[Benjamin]

Imagine how many "Christians" would abandon Christianity if the government demanded their guns.

With that, it seems you are begging the question on the belief that the "Christian thing to do" is to obey government tyrants and give up your guns??

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I think the difference is in how we view "participation".

I do not think my view of the government being a worldly power can be considered in question, but I can see how you could question my view of the OT heros.

My view of government is consistent with the Christian view for the first four centuries of the Church (which proves nothing). We cannot reach back to the OT (which looked forward to the Kingdom) because the gospel is the arrival of this Kingdom.

We all participate in the government in some form. Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasars and give unto God what is God's.

But there is a difference between serving where we are required to serve and becoming willfully engaged in the powers and principles of this world.

Again, the personal decision to serve or participate is not in question. This would include the early Christians, unless bona fide argument is made, e.g., based on the earliest Christians, i.e., those in the NT. A doctrinal Christian view would be that of the earliest Christians, not decisions by early Christians.

The proconsul Sergius Paulus believed but there is no indication he was or would be compelled to resign accordingly. I know of no Scripture indicating that those in government positions would be so compelled. Such a doctrine is just not there. At best, it is a matter of conscience.

What is most untenable is saying that Bible heroes serving in government were yet serving God not those governments even though they were antichrist by definition, but that Christians serving in government cannot be serving God, because government is by definition antichrist. That is simply unreasonable and should only be held as a view applicable to oneself personally.

Too many Christians have suffered and died for not bowing the knee to Caesar, and too many have served God by serving in government to justify accusing those who participate in government as serving antichrists rather than God. There is a time to take a stand. For some it is by participating in government, for others it is by refraining, for some it may be both.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There is no biblical support for Christians engaging in violent rebellion against their government.

We must pursue all constitutional means to challenge the fraud n this election.

If all avenues fail, we must trust God is in control. We cannot act like the world and respond with violence.

That may be true, but then there is more than one level of government, with the question as to precisely who and what entails the rightful government, which was also true in 1776. The Revolutionary War was not waged idly, many violations were endured before war finally broke out, but Christians most certainly played a very active role at every level. Some have taken oaths regarding the Constitution.

 

[JonC]

With that, it seems you are begging the question on the belief that the "Christian thing to do" is to obey government tyrants and give up your guns??

Not really "begging the question". Scripture is quite clear on that one.

 

[JonC]

Again, the personal decision to serve or participate is not in question. This would include the early Christians, unless bona fide argument is made, e.g., based on the earliest Christians, i.e., those in the NT. A doctrinal Christian view would be that of the earliest Christians, not decisions by early Christians.

The proconsul Sergius Paulus believed but there is no indication he was or would be compelled to resign accordingly. I know of no Scripture indicating that those in government positions would be so compelled. Such a doctrine is just not there. At best, it is a matter of conscience.

What is most untenable is saying that Bible heroes serving in government were yet serving God not those governments even though they were antichrist by definition, but that Christians serving in government cannot be serving God, because government is by definition antichrist. That is simply unreasonable and should only be held as a view applicable to oneself personally.

Too many Christians have suffered and died for not bowing the knee to Caesar, and too many have served God by serving in government to justify accusing those who participate in government as serving antichrists rather than God. There is a time to take a stand. For some it is by participating in government, for others it is by refraining, for some it may be both.

Let's look at it. We spoke of a few biblical heros who were slaves. We have to exclude Israel and Judah (we are not speaking of theocracies).

Just who are you considering to have participated in government by voting or seeking a public office?

I do agree that Christians take a stand. But I believe the stand has to be for Christ.

 

[Benjamin]

Not really "begging the question". Scripture is quite clear on that one.

I see, ...so you are begging this question. No, you are quite wrong. That would be a poor interpretation of Romans 13 and one disagreed with by many Christians throughout time.

...with the question as to precisely who and what entails the rightful government, which was also true in 1776.

There is the question in a nut shell. Whoever resisteth the power, refers to ...they who obstinately, and for no right reason, oppose the ruler, and strive to unsettle the constitution.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." and he and Thomas Jefferson wanted this phrase as our Great Seal of the United States, however they settled on, "In God we Trust."

The ONLY higher authority in the passages of Rom 13 is God. These verses have nothing to do with obeying tyranny, which in effect is what some are claiming we must do, and has everything to do with obeying God’s law. Take abortion for instance, it is impossible for rules of man to be THE LAW when they defy the law of God. To call evil LAW would be to call God EVIL! ...So much for the Rom 13 interpretation by many in Christianity today.

 

[JonC]

I see, ...so you are begging this question. No, you are quite wrong. That would be a poor interpretation of Romans 13 and one disagreed with by many Christians throughout time.



There is the question in a nut shell. Whoever resisteth the power, refers to ...they who obstinately, and for no right reason, oppose the ruler, and strive to unsettle the constitution.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." and he and Thomas Jefferson wanted this phrase as our Great Seal of the United States, however they settled on, "In God we Trust."

The ONLY higher authority in the passages of Rom 13 is God. These verses have nothing to do with obeying tyranny, which in effect is what some are claiming we must do, and has everything to do with obeying God’s law. Take abortion for instance, it is impossible for rules of man to be THE LAW when they defy the law of God. To call evil LAW would be to call God EVIL! ...So much for the Rom 13 interpretation by many in Christianity today.

I actually was not talking about Romans 13.

Do you have a passage that says to disobey the government if it denies us our constitutional rights?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

U.S. Military: Christians Not Wanted - American Contractor

Obama's army was anti Christian, no personal experience on this. Socialists dont like God and religion, historical fact.

Prove it

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Let's look at it. We spoke of a few biblical heros who were slaves. We have to exclude Israel and Judah (we are not speaking of theocracies).

Just who are you considering to have participated in government by voting or seeking a public office?

I do agree that Christians take a stand. But I believe the stand has to be for Christ.

The earlier point must be answered. The position that OT heroes were serving both God and an antichrist government blatantly violates the maxim that one cannot serve two masters.

By your definition, they would have had to refuse to serve such government completely, even if faced with death or imprisonment. Saying that they were slaves and thus excused is untenable. They are either slaves to God or slaves to the antichrist government. They cannot be both.

 

[JonC]

The earlier point must be answered. The position that OT heroes were serving both God and an antichrist government blatantly violates the maxim that one cannot serve two masters.

By your definition, they would have had to refuse to serve such government completely, even if faced with death or imprisonment. Saying that they were slaves and thus excused is untenable. They are either slaves to God or slaves to the antichrist government. They cannot be both.

Not at all. Pagan nations served God and their pagan gods. Christians pay taxes (literally working for the government to some extent). I do not think this is what Scripture means.

I am saying that Scripture describes the powers of this world as in opposition to God. And I am saying Christians need to decide whom they will serve.

I am not speaking of the context of OT people who were taken as slaves to Babylon and made to serve that pagan nation. I am speaking more of Christians who seek to serve Christ but end up serving the GOP or DNC.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Not at all. Pagan nations served God and their pagan gods. Christians pay taxes (literally working for the government to some extent). I do not think this is what Scripture means.

I am saying that Scripture describes the powers of this world as in opposition to God. And I am saying Christians need to decide whom they will serve.

I am not speaking of the context of OT people who were taken as slaves to Babylon and made to serve that pagan nation. I am speaking more of Christians who seek to serve Christ but end up serving the GOP or DNC.

You were doing OK until that last part. If a Christian is involved with the GOP or DNC and standing for Christ, then they are doing precisely what those OT heroes were doing. If a Christian is involved with the GOP or DNC but abandoning Christ, then they are not in line with those heroes.

I do not trust government as far as I can throw the White House, but government is nonetheless responsible for doing what is right, and there is nothing in the Bible indicating Christians shouldn't tell them what that is, and vote accordingly.

 

[Benjamin]

Do you have a passage that says to disobey the government if it denies us our constitutional rights?

Do you haver a passage that says to surrender your defensive weapons to a corrupt government authority bent on tyranny?