Lets vote for the Bible to be our form of government- #vote for God

[createdtoworship]

I am much afraid that schools will prove to be the great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. —Martin Luther

I am of the opinion that all problems in society came from the fall yes, but secondly they came from involving the first hebrew nation in the old testament to have a kingship. Some say that theocracies never work, yet we have never had a government simply legislate the Bible alone. The Jews never followed the strict tanach. They would go thousands of years not even reading the torah, and then King Josiah finds the scrolls one day all bundled up in the temple. So no we have never had a theocracy, accept before King saul. But no theocracy in the last four thousand years for sure. NOT A STRICT THEOCRACY.

The first amendment protects freedom of religion in some ways. And for that I am grateful, however I believe it also make it illegal to legislate religion as well.

What does the new testament teach about Government?
My theory is to follow this scripture:
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

if political work is a good work, then the Bible it says "equips for every good work."

then that including politics, and that means that it is good to be used for political purposes.
Can you follow the logic? Now there are many misconceptions of what it would mean to legislate scripture as law legally speaking and I wish to take previous comments from other threads (now closed to start of this conversation if that is ok).

The first comment was from @Greengardener and she said this:

The difficulty is establishing a man-made theocracy on earth is that the law is always subject to interpretation and application, not because the Law of God or even that the Holy Spirit is limited but because our human ability to love God and love our fellow man is limited. I love the law (and Law) of God and study it regularly. It forms the basis for what Jesus was fleshing out for us - and of course, because He gave them (us) that law. The problem with the law has always been sin. On the one hand, much of the Scripture, especially the law, was given for the multitude of transgressions we humans have figured out how to commit. We needed a definition. Not to beat the old horse one more time, but in case any of us were wondering, it's just not right, it's downright wrong to steal from your neighbor or sleep with his wife. There weren't any "his husbands" or "her wives" back then, but in America, one would extrapolate that the same rule applies. But...that's an interpretation, an application. See what I mean?

There are some questions as to what laws should be made into civil law. For example the law "you shall worship no other God." Does that mean it's illegal to be atheist or muslim? Well I would if I were to be in the place of trump running for 2020 as a person who would legislate the Bible. Upon getting elected I would have the top seminaries send the best of the best leaders and christian thinkers (which I would vet and interview with a panel) and declare what orthodox christianity is, and what doctrines incorporate that. The Trinity, soteriology, and covenants or dispensations, and any other doctrine.

Where would any set of men (or people) draw the line on the interpretation and application of God's law? Would they ban all American holidays? They are indeed all idolatrous at their roots. How about buying and selling on the Sabbath? That's banned too in the reading of the Scripture unless you subscribe to the replacement doctrines many/most Christians do, which says that somehow that age-old commandment that Jesus Himself kept sinlessly was exchanged for what the Christians now do on Sunday...except none of them do it.

On first hand I would outlaw non essential businesses from operating on the Sabbath. Gas stations, emergency rooms, police, hospitals, firefighters, etc are considered emergency services, they could all work but most commerce 99% of it would cease. But I am not sure about the gas station thing yet, I don't know if they are emergency. One could always have a spare can of gas. As far as American Holidays, there needs to be some explanation as to what is pagan and what is not. I believe Constantine blended roman holidays, pagan holidays with a christian twist when he converted to christianity. So they had pagan holidays, He gets saved, and now these same pagan holidays, now have a christian name. So we would do something a little different. We would take the christian part of the holiday, and remove the pagan aspects of them. This to me is only something that makes sense in a theocracy. Doing so now is merely personal basis. So for example on Christmas we would celebrate christs birth, but we would not have a tree, which was the pagan addition, but we would have something equally as fun, we would not take something away that we didn't substitute for something better. On easter we would have the resurrection celebrated but we would substitute out the easter bunny and the eggs which was the pagan addition. But we would still celebrate easter sunday, good friday....everyone would have good friday off as a paid holiday universally.

The Jews practicing what became Judaism had the same problem with the following concepts evidenced in the Scriptures: if we can define the Law, we can keep it. Let's all fast more often than God said, so we can be more religious and righteous than the once a year He commanded us. Let's not only keep the Sabbath by taking the day off and helping everyone else for whom we are responsible also have the day off, and let's do only what is needful or helpful for our fellow man, but let's make rules that Sabbath starts at a particular point in time and that you can't walk further than a specified distance or carry more than a specified weight.

Again just because someone who had religious principles in government failed to follow the religion, does not mean that will be the case this time. That is called the fallacy of poisoning the well. Just because something is hard does not mean we don't do everything in our power to do what is right. I have a hard time believing that.

Granted, they lost a lot by not regarding the Sabbath, and all it takes is a read through the OT and you see that story, but the plethora of enforced traditions superseded the law God gave and by following their traditions they missed the point entirely - which is what Jesus showed them when He taught them. Maybe all those obscure commandments (not mixing fabrics, not planting mixed fields) have other applications than what was originally given, but who would decide? In the present system, we get to decide. We get to decide if healing a man on the Sabbath is in agreement with the law as it was given, and that's how Jesus called that shot. Carrying his mat wasn't a violation of any particular written law, but the Pharisees missed seeing the miracle right under their nose when they tripped up over Jesus flagrantly disregarding their interpretation/application of the law as held by their traditions.

again Christ showed how religiousness without relationship was worthless, and condemned moralism and religiosity, without faith in Christ as the motivator. Christ sets us free from the law of sin and death, never the less. The law is not bad it is a school teacher to bring us to faith in Christ. While we will be legally required to follow the ten commandments you can follow them and still not be saved. It's not by our works we are saved. So this would just be civil law.

In all seriousness, wouldn't we have the same problem now? I'm with you on the definition of marriage and on the general idea of the importance of hearing what God is saying and doing it. God isn't fooled and He has the final say. I'm even with you on the idea that the Holy Spirit will teach us the truth of how we should walk with God because I believe the Holy Spirit (if it's really the Holy Spirit) will remind you of what God said and what Jesus taught - which are one and the same thing. But in all honesty, if you ask a lot of believers today, they'll tell you all kinds of things that they say they are hearing from the Holy Spirit, which things I'd personally be hesitant to accept.

yes under normal circumstances I would agree that this task would be an impossibility. But our God is a God of the impossible and the Bible actually asks us to do impossible things in the name of Christ..."be perfect as I am perfect" for example. But to say it will happen like this this time, is impossible to know if we don't try.

So if you got, say, 100 godly men in the same room to agree on what it looks like for people to be living in a theocracy, I'm not sure you could come up with better than what we already have in our constitution. In light of what could have bee decided, those founding fathers who acknowledged teh Creator of man and the rights that He gave did a rather amazing job of establishing a system that works pretty well. Seriously my concern on the other hand is with the same 100 people, you could end up with something that looks like the domination of power hungry leadership over the masses much like we saw in Hitler's regime or in the oppressed aspects of some Muslim communities.

Yes I would fast and pray for each member and ask for prayer and have prayer meetings to cover all of our own board meetings. If God is a God of prayer, He would meet us in our prayer and bless our nation. But ultimately if I was running for president I would have a choice over who was in the cabinet. Who was over everything. And I ultimately would pray to God to see what He wants me to do, not what I would want to do.

People in those situations did not fare well, whether with beheadings or other forms of destructions. That love of power is rampant. What did Peter warn them about - grievous wolves ready to wreck havoc on the church? They've been doing it from early on, probably thinking they had the right interpretation of the legalism that they defined. Again, we've been offered a perfect law of liberty - that same system God put into place that if we love Him first and foremost and love our neighbor as ourselves we could use the other definitions of transgressions and restitutions to have the best possible earthly life.

Power I am afraid is the one thing that would destroy the christian rule. Due to pride. But the fact that christianity is so peculiar to our culture: (homosexuality is wrong, a woman should submit, no women pastors, one woman one man marriage) that these things are meant to be rejected by the masses and people would in fact hate God's rule. So I don't think this will happen, but it's only because we don't truly believe in God's word, nor in the power of God to do something like this. But the Bible explicitly says if we had the faith of a mustard seed, He could move a mountain into the ocean.

One more point here: God gave man ultimate freedom from the beginning. I can't see in any place where Jesus or the disciples/apostles took that freedom away from humans.

I have been talking about this in other threads. All freedoms that one man gains, is at the cost of another mans freedom. The right to bear arms is at the cost of another mans freedom not to want people around him to be armed. The freedom to have homosexuals marry is at the cost of the freedom of a christian pastors rights NOT to marry them, or bake a cake for them, or take pictures of their event, etc. So you see, freedom is not free. Most if not all freedoms cost something. Freedom comes from God but it's not free. It is very costly. So again in Jesus condemning homosexuality He literally took their freedom away to become christian and obtain eternal life. He did so with the adulterer, and the thief and the lyer as well in dozens of verses. So yes Christianity does take away freedoms, it's probably one of the most limiting religion in the world as far as "worldly freedoms." But one of the most joyful for sure, due to serving others in Christ's love.

The Judaizers tried, but for the most part the Christians saw through it thanks to Paul's interesting arguments such as he spelled out to the Galatians. God allows us our choices and our consequences. As for me, I prefer to be self-governed (self-controlled) by my understanding and application of the laws of God, whether by study (as in study to show yourself approved unto God) or by His genuine Holy Spirit (since where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty) within the framework of our present constitution which allows me the freedom to worship God acceptably, knowing that I will account to Him for the deeds done in the body. I look to Him for His grace and mercy with my inevitable sins now washed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, but I hide His word in my heart to avoid sinning not to consider His death a common or casual thing. The kingdom of God starts here and now with our individual obedient submission to our Lord and King.

The early colonizers had in some limited aspects the same view I do, "let God rule the nation." It's not my own theory it's been practiced in some forms in some limited circles every since america was founded. In fact in a supreme court ruling a supreme court justice ruled "america is a christian nation." This ruling was overturned by the bill of rights and the constitution itself. But we should still strive for God to rule, again if scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and if political work is good work, then the Bible it says that itself alone "equips for every good work." so that including politics, and that means it can and should be legislated. Now that does not mean we should not each have our own walk with God and our own prayer life. But my cabinet by law will be required to read scripture, memorize scripture, to pray over decisions in various ways that will be part of their job. And if I don't think their walk with the Lord is right, or if they are getting too proud, I can fire them for no reason at all. Like any president can.

Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”
Exodus 19:5‭-‬6 NKJV

later on in Mathew it says that the kingdom is taken from Israel and given to a nation bearing fruits?... Matthew 21:43
View attachment 272174

 

[createdtoworship]

OP continued:

I'm especially appreciative that I don't have to fight a government that requires that I live by their definitions of righteousness instead of having the adventure of obeying for myself and answering to God.

The Bible defines every we need. 2 Tim 3:16

But again other sects of christianity which have similiar views are called dominionists....I heard about many sects in washington DC which follow Christ's rule over and above any of mans rule, and they would be a good group to get on board with this theocracy....

a book called "the family" by Jeff Sharlot

is a very interesting read I have read about half of it.

it talks about dominionism, or dominion theology and how it is currently affecting politics today, it traces dominionism into legislators world views and organizations and tracks dominion organizations dealing with bringing Christs' kingdom to earth.

and obeying His commands, I highly recommend it.

Here is a quote:

"
But at Ivanwald, or in a prayer cell at the Cedars, or in conversations with world leaders, the Family’s beliefs appear closer to a more marginal set of theologies sometimes gathered under the umbrella term of dominionism, characterized for me by William Martin, a religious historian at Rice University and Billy Graham’s official biographer, as the “intellectual heart of the Christian Right.” Dominionist theologies hold the Bible to be a guide to every decision, high and low, from whom God wants you to marry to whether God thinks you should buy a new lawn mower. Unlike neo-evangelicals, who concern themselves chiefly with getting good with Jesus, dominionists want to reconstruct early Christian society, which they believe was ruled by God alone. They view themselves as the new chosen and claim a Christian doctrine of covenantalism, meaning covenants not only between God and humanity but at every level of society, replacing the rule of law and its secular contracts. Since these covenants are signed, as it were, in the Blood of the Lamb, they are written in ink invisible to nonbelievers."

@Jamdoc another poster said something similar which I Will address to:

you have to set up a national religion to declare which denomination's views are right. You might think that's great if you agree with that denomination's views, but if you don't, it'd be a source of persecution.

No need for dogma, just systematic theology. I don't give any honor to mans creeds, just the Bible. We would only legislate the Bible, but I can see a need for some type of systematic theology to dictate which laws still apply in the new testament etc. I would appoint 12 apologetics directors, ravi zacharius, norman geisler, June hunt, John ankerburg, and some others I can't rememeber. They would all have a single vote to see if a certain church was considered "orthodox.' Then churches would recieve federal tax dollars to take care of social issues such as the entire wellfare system as well as ophanages, and probably healthcare. I would put a lot of responsibility on the church, but they would have federal funding. the tithe money would go to the government because it was a theocracy. I would require a 10% tithe, but I would also require a 7 year jubilee. So they would average out. Every seven years they had one year debt free. And every 50 years they had all loans forgiven. So those little perks would help the economy. Also I would require the farmers to give the land 1 year rest in 7. You let it over grow and allow homeless or charities to glean from the land, and the rest you let fall. But they could not use equipment on it. They have to do it by hand. There are various old testament rules I would establish, but I am not fully fully all knowleagable so I don't exactly know how a theocracy would work, however I would pray over every law, and presumably fast. And all advisors would be required to read through the Bible every year. And all churches would be required to teach expositorily through the Bible every 7 -10 years. to gain federal funding.

another poster said:

Praying for Christ to rule is very, very different from trying to rule in his name.

well when you literally legislate "only" His words you sort of get around that problem. Correct? But ultimately it would boil down as to what laws were considered new testament and which were not. So I would appoint leaders from top seminaries to discuss that. But you don't just give up because it's hard. That does not set right with me, in any fashion.

 

[Jamdoc]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's. It's also folly to try and bring through human means, the world into the kingdom of Christ. In God's time we'll have the Kingdom of Christ, and He will implement it perfectly.
That is not to say we shouldn't elect God fearing men into power if we find them running.
But I am saying that trying to make a coordinated effort to turn the US, or anywhere else, into a Theocracy is folly.

 

[createdtoworship]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's. It's also folly to try and bring through human means, the world into the kingdom of Christ. In God's time we'll have the Kingdom of Christ, and He will implement it perfectly.
That is not to say we shouldn't elect God fearing men into power if we find them running.
But I am saying that trying to make a coordinated effort to turn the US, or anywhere else, into a Theocracy is folly.

so let me ask you a question, is God's word perfect? If it is, then it should be legislated no? If it is not however, then I suggest visiting a thread on inspiration, or googling...."verbal plenary inspiration."

Again God's word says that it is profitable to equip a man unto every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 So if for example being a president of a country is good, then using the Bible as your "manuel of operation" would be good, no?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Then I demand a return to God's government, an Eastern Orthodox emperor! And the only Bible permitted is in Greek.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then I demand a return to God's government, an Eastern Orthodox emperor! And the only Bible permitted is in Greek.

well we can talk about that. You can run for president. Now make your logical case for why the eastern orthodox church should be in charge? I typically would not run the government on sectarianism but on the scripture itself, that does not mean you can't try!

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Not president, emperor. My logical case is that the last Christian Empire fell in 1917. All heretics would be exiled. Challengers to the throne will be blinded and exiled.

I'm being facetious here. Any time someone wants a theocracy, they don't consider the implications of someone else being in charge. As Churchill said, the worst form of government is democracy, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not president, emperor. My logical case is that the last Christian Empire fell in 1917. All heretics would be exiled. Challengers to the throne will be blinded and exiled.

I'm being facetious here. Any time someone wants a theocracy, they don't consider the implications of someone else being in charge. As Churchill said, the worst form of government is democracy, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.

well except "blinding" someone is simply unbiblical. So many of the principles you speak of are not strictly from the Bible, so that is not what I am talking about. I am not talking about a denomination or a sect ruling an empire. Like constantine's christianization of rome. I am talking about legislating the scriptures. Making them law. No church would have power. But orthodoxy as defined legally would have to have a definition that is why seminaries would send their best theologians and we would have a conference and speak about what doctrines to include. I don't think more than 12 people would be needed. Specially selected from among current christian seminaries.

 

[paul1149]

is God's word perfect? If it is, then it should be legislated no?

It is perfect, and it clearly shows the Hebrew nation coming to utter ruin because it could not keep the law. And neither would we be able to. The law is the tutor that leads us to Christ, and His covenant is not of the letter, but of the spirit. Christians can live and work under any type of government, and should work for righteousness therein. But to expect the legislators to show up with the Bible as their textbook - have you spent any time around these forums?

 

[Quartermaine]

SO what happens to the millions upon millions people who refuse to live under your benevolent rule? Death Camps? Secret police? Torture? Mutilation? Mass graves?

 

[createdtoworship]

It is perfect, and it clearly shows the Hebrew nation coming to utter ruin because it could not keep the law. And neither would we be able to. The law is the tutor that leads us to Christ, and His covenant is not of the letter, but of the spirit. Christians can live and work under any type of government, and should work for righteousness therein. But to expect the legislators to show up with the Bible as their textbook - have you spent any time around these forums?

well that is sort of controversial. Most evanglicals for instance while we are free from the law, still respect the ten commandments for example, and proverbs and psalms and hosts of other old testament principles. In fact the only thing I think that is not carried over is certain levitical laws, and parts of moses law that were cultural to the ancient hebrews. So while the law is only a school master, it is still not to be removed, christ said to "establish it."

so what does it mean "establish it."
it means to make it law.

 

[createdtoworship]

SO what happens to the millions upon millions people who refuse to live under your benevolent rule? Death Camps? Secret police? Torture? Mutilation? Mass graves?

that would be something we would consider. No government can legislate beliefs, so that is not what we would do. But certain world views would be barred from being taught in schools that had federal funding or federal accreditation. For example if a school removed the ten commandment for example from their statement of beliefs, they would also lose federal grant money, research grants, and accreditation.

 

[paul1149]

well that is sort of controversial. Most evanglicals for instance while we are free from the law, still respect the ten commandments for example, and proverbs and psalms and hosts of other old testament principles. In fact the only thing I think that is not carried over is certain levitical laws, and parts of moses law that were cultural to the ancient hebrews. So while the law is only a school master, it is still not to be removed, christ said to "establish it."

so what does it mean "establish it."
it means to make it law.

The law is fulfilled. The commandments are now guidelines for insight in how to love, which completes the law. The American government was built largely on Biblical principles, and that's about as close as we're going to get until the stone cut not by hands grows to fill the whole earth. Anything else is fleshly and doomed to fail.

 

[Quartermaine]

that would be something we would consider. No government can legislate beliefs, so that is not what we would do. But certain world views would be barred from being taught in schools that had federal funding or federal accreditation. For example if a school removed the ten commandment for example from their statement of beliefs, they would also lose federal grant money, research grants, and accreditation.

would you model your camps on Auschwitz? or would you prefer a more efficient and user friendly death camp design?

 

[Resha Caner]

well we can talk about that. You can run for president. Now make your logical case for why the eastern orthodox church should be in charge? I typically would not run the government on sectarianism but on the scripture itself, that does not mean you can't try!

He's being sarcastic, dude. There's no such thing as a Biblically prescribed government. There are certainly godly principles by which governments should rule, but no specified form of government. And none of it will end sin.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

would you model your camps on Auschwitz? or would you prefer a more efficient and user friendly death camp design?

And here he was complaining about blinding and exile! I'm the nice guy here when you make me Emperor (ya know, cause I should be Emperor)

 

[Jamdoc]

so let me ask you a question, is God's word perfect? If it is, then it should be legislated no? If it is not however, then I suggest visiting a thread on inspiration, or googling...."verbal plenary inspiration."

Again God's word says that it is profitable to equip a man unto every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 So if for example being a president of a country is good, then using the Bible as your "manuel of operation" would be good, no?

God's Word is perfect, human beings and their interpretation of scripture are not. That is the reason why there are so many denominations. Because if you throw 10 professing bible believing Christians into a room that have never met each other before after having read the bible cover to cover independently, they will probably all have 10 different doctrines.
It's a limitation on us.
I'll follow Christ when He implements the law, and I'm glorified to where I'm able to obey it to the letter without temptation or fail, and I will try my best to obey the law as I read it and understand it, though I will make mistakes.
But do I want some man to try and implement his interpretation of the law on me and kill me when I make mistakes? No.

 

[GACfan]

I am of the opinion that all problems in society came from the fall yes, but secondly they came from involving the first hebrew nation in the old testament to have a kingship. Some say that theocracies never work, yet we have never had a government simply legislate the Bible alone. The Jews never followed the strict tanach. They would go thousands of years not even reading the torah, and then King Josiah finds the scrolls one day all bundled up in the temple. So no we have never had a theocracy, accept before King saul. But no theocracy in the last four thousand years for sure. NOT A STRICT THEOCRACY.

And now the question becomes: Which version of Christianity would be the dominant influence behind this Christian Theocracy? Catholic? Anglicanism? Eastern Orthodox? Protestant? And if the answer is Protestant, then which Protestant denomination would be accepted as the guideline? Church of Christ? Southern Baptist? Baptist? Methodist? Nazarene? Presbyterian? Lutheran? Pentecostal? Assemblies of God? Mennonite? I could go on and list quite a few more Christian denominations, but it would take me several hours to find the names of every church in the United States and include them in this post.

Based on my 30+ years of experience with the Christian faith, I'm not naïve enough to think that the Christians from all these various Christian denominations will unanimously agree on which version of Protestantism to endorse as the right version of Christianity to be enforced by the government. What about Catholics and every other Christian sect that isn't Protestant? What about them and their rights?

 

[Quartermaine]

And now the question becomes: Which version of Christianity would be the dominant influence behind this Christian Theocracy? Catholic? Anglicanism? Eastern Orthodox? Protestant? And if the answer is Protestant, then which Protestant denomination would be accepted as the guideline? Church of Christ? Southern Baptist? Baptist? Methodist? Nazarene? Presbyterian? Lutheran? Pentecostal? Assemblies of God? Mennonite? I could go on and list quite a few more Christian denominations, but it would take me several hours to find the names of every church in the United States and include them in this post.

Based on my 30+ years of experience with the Christian faith, I'm not naïve enough to think that the Christians from all these various Christian denominations will unanimously agree on which version of Protestantism to endorse as the right version of Christianity to be enforced by the government. What about Catholics and every other Christian sect that isn't Protestant? What about them and their rights?

as noted above he is considering death camps and mass graves

 

[createdtoworship]

The law is fulfilled. The commandments are now guidelines for insight in how to love, which completes the law. The American government was built largely on Biblical principles, and that's about as close as we're going to get until the stone cut not by hands grows to fill the whole earth. Anything else is fleshly and doomed to fail.

yes the law is fulfilled, yet Christ said to "establish it." So what did He mean?