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

createdtoworship · Feb 14, 2020

Dave L said:
These will say anything to bolster their theory. But kingdom of God and Heaven are synonyms.

I don't know enough about those topics, they may be synonymous they may not be. But many don't think so.

A Realist · Feb 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Harvard started as solely a christian based school, most of the prestigious universities did. We would return to that

psssttt.....Harvard is a private school. Like I said....apples and oranges.

Dave L · Feb 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
I don't know enough about those topics, they may be synonymous they may not be. But many don't think so.

If you study the kingdom according to Jesus, you'll see it.

Jamdoc · Feb 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Yes like I said they did not atone, but they covered sin temporarily, and allowed someone entrance to abrahams bosom. Again it's absolutely impossible to believe by faith in Christ, when he was not manifest yet, or to believe in a resurrection that had not happened yet. When Christ decended He preached the gospel to those in abrahams bosom so they could go to heaven, and declared victory over the grave and hell. For until that time, even angels did not know about grace. That means that even angels accepted that sacrifice was all their was to avoid hell. Furthermore, even if they had faith in God if they did not sacrifice as per levitical law, they would go to hell. Hell is described all over the old testament.

Here are some quotes from some theologians on this matter:

"

Walter Kaiser (b. 1933) clearly overstates the case in arguing that “the object of the OT believer’s faith was no different from our own except fro the fact that his [the object’s] name was not yet announced as Jesus” (SOT in JBT, 11). This is the typical Reformed covenantal position. John Calvin said, “The covenant made with all the patriarchs is as much like ours in substance and reality as the two are basically one and the same” (as cited in Feinberg, CD, 169). Charles Hodge likewise saw no basic difference between the content of the gospel necessary to believe for salvation in the Old Testament and that in the New:

The Redeemer is the same under all dispensations. He who was predicted as the seed of the woman…is our Lord Jesus is Christ, the Son of God…He, therefore, from the beginning has been held up as the hope of the world, the SALVATOR HOMINUM. (ibid, 170)

HOWEVER , THIS CONCLUSION IS NOT BORNE UP BY THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE. As Allen Ross notes, “It is most improbable that everyone who believed unto salvation [in the Old Testament] consciously believed in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (ibid.). John Feinberg (b. 1946) adds, “The people of the Old Testament era did not know that Jesus was the Messiah, that Jesus would die, and that His death would be the basis of salvation” (ibid., ibid., 171)."

Now normally I would take charles ryries position or norman geislers position on this, however I simply don't think faith in Christ was required in the old testament, maybe faith in God and that God is good and gracious. But still it was very clear that if you didn't sacrifice God would Judge you strictly, killing off your nation bit by bit. Allowing the enemy to conquer you or falling to starvation or other calamity. I am not sure if the sacrifice took away sin but it covered sin so that you were not punished for your sins until the covering was removed, meaning if you died after you sacrificed you were not technically seen as a sinner and you would be in paradise instead of hell where the rich young ruler was.

There's no such thing as dispensations..

Quartermaine · Feb 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
so if you don't have any thing else to add, I will finish with this conversation. I don't think you are being very cordial, or nice. It only takes a few types to repeat a short post. And for me to go back and search all posts, but not just any post, specifically your posts is quite a bit of work. So I don't think you are really too invested in this. So thanks for the debate, take care.

debate involves you actually responding to posts.

you refusal to answer is it self an answer

PloverWing · Feb 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
Harvard started as solely a christian based school, most of the prestigious universities did. We would return to that

A Realist said:
psssttt.....Harvard is a private school. Like I said....apples and oranges.

That's a good point. How far would your government reach? Would the state universities be required to become Christian schools (in the sense that colleges like Wheaton or Gordon are Christian), teaching and enforcing Christian doctrine? Would private universities like Harvard and Yale also be required to become Christian-only? A step further: If seminaries like Harvard Divinity School or Yale Divinity School taught ideas that aren't approved of by your circle of 12 advisors (as is almost certainly the case), would you require them to teach only Fundamentalist Christianity?

Quartermaine · Feb 14, 2020

Thomas White said:
In that case, they are inherently unequal members of the society you have created. They have no representation in your government, and they are forced to learn another religion without having their own considered. They do not enjoy the same status as Christians.

Under your government, liberty and equality for all do not exist.

and of course they would not be allowed to protest or petition the government to change or protect their own children from indoctrination.

Thomas White · Feb 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
So the way it sets today, since schools "don't" teach the Bible, I am therefore "inherently unequal.?" This is what you are saying? If not, then so to....the theocracy I put up would also not be unequal. See, not every theory is taught in school. Only the theories that the educational division of the government thinks are accurate.

The Bible is not taught in school because of the separation of church and state, a doctrine designed to protect religion. You are not unequal because of it because no religion is taught in schools. In a theocracy, everyone not of the religion would be unequal. You would force their children to learn about Christianity. You would force them to practice it in school, despite their beliefs. You would be persecuting people in the same way Christians have been persecuted for centuries.

createdtoworship · Feb 14, 2020

A Realist said:
psssttt.....Harvard is a private school. Like I said....apples and oranges.

I am just saying that 90% of the first colleges in america most of them very famous now, started as christian based colleges.

createdtoworship · Feb 14, 2020

Dave L said:
If you study the kingdom according to Jesus, you'll see it.

they may be similar but I don't think God makes mistakes, I think if he differentiated different titles, he meant different things, here is a summary in an image:

(click to enlarge)

"It is clear from the Scriptures that God has been trying to set up a "visible" Kingdom on this earth ever since the creation of man, to whom He gave dominion. Gen. 1:26-28. But that dominion was lost by the "Fall," and Satan set himself up as the "Prince of this world." Matt. 4:8-10. John 14:30.

In the "Call" of Abraham God took the first step toward the setting up of a "visible" Kingdom on this earth, which assumed an outward form in the "Jewish Commonwealth," under Moses, and during the administration of Moses, Joshua, the Elders that outlived Joshua, the Judges, David, Solomon, the kings of Israel and Judah down to the Babylonish Captivity, God reigned through these men under the form of a "Theocracy."

Under the Judgeship of Samuel there was a revolt against the "Theocracy," and Saul was chosen by the people as King. 1 Sam. 8:6,7. This was followed by God's selection of David. But the misrule of his successors, and the idolatry of the people, caused the cessation of the Theocratic reign in B.C. 606, and the "Times of the Gentiles" began."

from clarence larkin book...

createdtoworship · Feb 14, 2020

Jamdoc said:
There's no such thing as dispensations..

well we certainly are not saved the same way adam was, or moses, even the angels were confused about grace, and then when Jesus came everything was made new.

createdtoworship · Feb 14, 2020

Quartermaine said:
debate involves you actually responding to posts.

you refusal to answer is it self an answer

well its difficult to respond to someone when I ask for what post you want me to reply to and you tell me to look it up for myself. That is just being difficult to reason with.

createdtoworship · Feb 14, 2020

PloverWing said:
That's a good point. How far would your government reach? Would the state universities be required to become Christian schools (in the sense that colleges like Wheaton or Gordon are Christian), teaching and enforcing Christian doctrine? Would private universities like Harvard and Yale also be required to become Christian-only? A step further: If seminaries like Harvard Divinity School or Yale Divinity School taught ideas that aren't approved of by your circle of 12 advisors (as is almost certainly the case), would you require them to teach only Fundamentalist Christianity?

In public schools like I said it would be based off of a christian world view. That certainly doesn't mean the only teach what is in scripture but what entails a christian world view. So creationism would be taught, right now we can't even get ID working in public schools, creationism is a step farther than ID. No evolution would be allowed, due to lack of evidence and the fact that it is contrary to a literal reading of the first five chapters of genesis. And like I have said a few times already, all the prestigious schools started out as divinity schools in early america. God blessed them over the years, and they turned their back on God as soon as they were healthy and wealthy. It reminds me of the ten leapers that Jesus healed, only 1 of the ten came back and thanked Jesus.

createdtoworship · Feb 14, 2020

Quartermaine said:
and of course they would not be allowed to protest or petition the government to change or protect their own children from indoctrination.

I am not sure if protesting the government would be allowed or not, if it was allowed that would sort of give false hope probably. Scripture is scripture we cannot add to or dimish it. Education would be based off of a christian world view. Other religions would be mentioned but only in a way as to out reach to them. Sort of an informational setting and dialogues on debating other religiouns would be part of normal curriculum. That is what I taught in an evangelism 102 class when I did that. We debated christian cults and went through dialogues with them as assignments.

createdtoworship · Feb 14, 2020

Thomas White said:
The Bible is not taught in school because of the separation of church and state, a doctrine designed to protect religion. You are not unequal because of it because no religion is taught in schools. In a theocracy, everyone not of the religion would be unequal. You would force their children to learn about Christianity. You would force them to practice it in school, despite their beliefs. You would be persecuting people in the same way Christians have been persecuted for centuries.

yes I am very aware. The first ammendment has a clause called the "establishment clause." Historical constitutionalists have debated however that the establishment clause was never meant to keep religion out of government, but to keep government out of religion. But I suppose you can't have one without the other. But in this case, we would probably do away with the constitution outright and start over. Even though a few years ago I was a strict right leaning constitutionalist. I realize that ammendment one is sort of restricting of a theocracy.

Thomas White · Feb 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
yes I am very aware. The first ammendment has a clause called the "establishment clause." Historical constitutionalists have debated however that the establishment clause was never meant to keep religion out of government, but to keep government out of religion. But I suppose you can't have one without the other. But in this case, we would probably do away with the constitution outright and start over. Even though a few years ago I was a strict right leaning constitutionalist. I realize that ammendment one is sort of restricting of a theocracy.

But the persecution part of my comment doesn't give you pause?

Jamdoc · Feb 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
well we certainly are not saved the same way adam was, or moses, even the angels were confused about grace, and then when Jesus came everything was made new.

Romans 4
it has always been grace through faith.

Quartermaine · Feb 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
In public schools like I said it would be based off of a christian world view. That certainly doesn't mean the only teach what is in scripture but what entails a christian world view. So creationism would be taught, right now we can't even get ID working in public schools, creationism is a step farther than ID. No evolution would be allowed, due to lack of evidence and the fact that it is contrary to a literal reading of the first five chapters of genesis. And like I have said a few times already, all the prestigious schools started out as divinity schools in early america. God blessed them over the years, and they turned their back on God as soon as they were healthy and wealthy. It reminds me of the ten leapers that Jesus healed, only 1 of the ten came back and thanked Jesus.

would you want the government to force schools to teach the geocentric model of the universe? I mean as long as you are fostering ignorance among children why stop at fake science like creationism?

I'm also curious about where you are going to find teachers willing to present false information like creationism to children? I know quite a few teachers and none of them would be willing to abandon their morals to indoctrinate children. So where are you going to get millions of new but poorly educated teachers with no sense of ethics? Or will you figure out a way try to coerce the teachers we already have?

and yes i would like you to honestly respond to this post and answer the questions posed....not that i think for a moment you will.

Quartermaine · Feb 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
well its difficult to respond to someone when I ask for what post you want me to reply to and you tell me to look it up for myself. That is just being difficult to reason with.

I asked a clear question. I would not submit to your government and neither will hundreds of millions of others. So what happens to people like me who won't submit?

and yes i would like you to honestly respond to this post. Even though i know you won't

Quartermaine · Feb 14, 2020

createdtoworship said:
I am not sure if protesting the government would be allowed or not, if it was allowed that would sort of give false hope probably.

Yes, you wound't want people to hope for freedom or justice or even to hope to keep their families safe. i can't think of a single dictator or tyrant who didn't respond to protests with swift and bloody suppression. It's a tradition.

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

In the grip of grace

Living in Reality

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

Watching and Praying Always

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads