Does Christ Stand Behind US Gov't?

[ViaCrucis]

Problem is, it was born that way. You appear well-read. Do you remember what that Commander in Chief of the Continental Army; G.Washington said to the Delaware Nation in 1779?

Congress did not shirk these things, we can tell by listening to him. Not like today with so much vitriol for the appearance of religion and morality in the halls of government. Not till late in 1820 when by then, the illustrious statesman, Daniel Webster showed us how to bring the Christian faith out of vigilance and into lukewarmness:

"In the first place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security of their government and its due administration demand it, to require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification or condition of office? On this question, a majority of the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the people had such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular and elective governments, all office is in the free gift of the people. They may grant or they may withhold it at pleasure; and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what conditions they will grant it. " - Christian Qualification for Public Office​

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." - US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3

Perhaps you could explain how Washington's statement to the Delaware Nation has any significance whatsoever as to whether the United States is a "Christian nation"? You seem to have wanted to make the argument that "it was born that way"--presumably that it was born a Christian nation. But the quote you provide certainly doesn't say that.

And as far as religious qualifications for public office, there are none. End of debate. Article VI of the Constitution, adopted in 1788--the birth of our current democracy and republic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pommer]

Another thread might be appropriate for that if you don't mind.

“We can’t discuss that here!”
lol, you’re seriously going to suggest that a passage from scripture is off topic becuase it refutes the premise of the query posed in the OP?

 

[rocknanchor]

Eh, I noticed you ignored the quote of Jesus Christ. "My Kingdom is not of this world..."

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. ​

If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, ​

so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; ​

but now My kingdom is not from here.”​

​

For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, ​

but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,​

​

(John 18:36, Romans 14:17)​

Please note, His servants are forbidden to prevent Him being delivered. These servants are not the Master’s “servants” of Romans 13. NOW you can proceed to include Romans 14:17 which also makes perfect sense of the other two links no one wants to include (1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 4:8).

The Gethsemane servants and the Rom-13 servants both serve the same will of God at different times, for God's applicable purposes. Maybe, another discussion, maybe not, but it should be said, , we all are soldiers of the Lord and are advised NOT to become entangled with the affairs of this life (2 Timothy 2:4), does not prevent God calling certain souls to fulfill defending civil order. We are a body of specificity.

 

[rocknanchor]

‘Pommer’,'wing2000', I think it proper to include an important addition to both of your points. Actually, astounding points in His word. Here in Luke 22 gives credence to this shift of His will from uniform passivity onto the servant’s role of Rom-13. Verses 35 & 37 speak to your concern, while verses 36 & 38 speak to the purpose of His continuing servants, for all who would respond to this specific call thereafter.

35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without purse and bag and sandals, did you lack anything?” And they said, “Nothing.”​

​

36 And He said to them, “But now, the one having a purse, let him take it, and likewise a bag; and the one having no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which has been written, it behooves to be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was reckoned with the lawless.’ For also the things concerning Me have an end.”​

​

38 And they said, “Lord, behold, here are two swords.”​

​

And He said to them, “It is enough.”​

Unless otherwise directed, that will conclude my participation in this thread, as the reception has been ice-cold throughout.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

‘Pommer’,'wing2000', I think it proper to include an important addition to both of your points. Actually, astounding points in His word. Here in Luke 22 gives credence to this shift of His will from uniform passivity onto the servant’s role of Rom-13. Verses 35 & 37 speak to your concern, while verses 36 & 38 speak to the purpose of His continuing servants, for all who would respond to this specific call thereafter.

35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without purse and bag and sandals, did you lack anything?” And they said, “Nothing.”​

​

36 And He said to them, “But now, the one having a purse, let him take it, and likewise a bag; and the one having no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which has been written, it behooves to be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was reckoned with the lawless.’ For also the things concerning Me have an end fulfillment.”​

​

38 And they said, “Lord, behold, here are two swords.”​

​

And He said to them, “It is enough.”​

Unless otherwise directed, that will conclude my participation in this thread, as the reception has been ice-cold throughout.

................. Exegetically and Hermeneutically speaking, I'm almost nearly certain that Luke 22:38 has essentially nothing to do with civil service or the authorization of government force 'by Christians.'

Now, I'm just waiting for challengers to ask me, "Uh, how do YOU know that?" And I'll just answer: "Cuz I know how to read and comprehend entire texts contextually, when it's possible to do so."

 

[wing2000]

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. ​

If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, ​

so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; ​

but now My kingdom is not from here.”​

​

For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, ​

but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,​

​

(John 18:36, Romans 14:17)​

Please note, His servants are forbidden to prevent Him being delivered. These servants are not the Master’s “servants” of Romans 13. NOW you can proceed to include Romans 14:17 which also makes perfect sense of the other two links no one wants to include (1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 4:8).

The Gethsemane servants and the Rom-13 servants both serve the same will of God at different times, for God's applicable purposes. Maybe, another discussion, maybe not, but it should be said, , we all are soldiers of the Lord and are advised NOT to become entangled with the affairs of this life (2 Timothy 2:4), does not prevent God calling certain souls to fulfill defending civil order. We are a body of specificity.

Is that your take away from reading John 8 (entire chapter)?

Jesus was being delivered to Pilot by the Jewish authorities (priests). Jesus' followers "servants" could not understand why Jesus was not resistiing as they mistakenly thought Jesus came to establish an earthly kingdom. It is in this context that Pilot questions Jesus -- are you a king? [edited]

33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”

34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?”

35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?”

36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that eI might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?”

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—ito bear witness to the truth. jEveryone who is of the truth llistens to my voice.”

You ask if Jesus Christ stands behind the US Government? I submit that you, and many other American Evangelicals, are just as mistaken as Peter.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is that your take away from reading John 8 (entire chapter)?

Jesus was being delivered to Pilot by the Jewish authorities (priests). Jesus' followers "servants" could not understand why Jesus was not resistiing as they mistakenly though Jesus came to establish an earthly kingdom. It is in this context the Pilot questions as to whether he is a king:

33 zSo Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, a“Are you the King of the Jews?”

34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?”

35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?”

36 Jesus answered, b“My kingdom cis not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, dmy servants would have been fighting, that eI might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?”

Jesus answered, f“You say that I am a king. gFor this purpose I was born and for this purpose hI have come into the world—ito bear witness to the truth. jEveryone who is kof the truth llistens to my voice.”

You ask if Jesus Christ stands behind the US Government? I submit that you, and many other American Evangelicals, are just as mistaken as Peter.

If I a mere disinterested Catholic boy could understand this, perhaps @rocknanchor needs to go find a local priest and ask them. Perhaps there are some theologians in his town. Claiming that this (or rather verse 36) supports the notion that Jesus wants to control governments is an complete inversion of what John's theological point in writing this seems to be as surely "my kingdom is not of this world" is at the core opposite of kingdom of Jesus on Earth.

 

[Pommer]

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. ​

If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, ​

so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; ​

but now My kingdom is not from here.”​

​

For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, ​

but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,​

​

(John 18:36, Romans 14:17)​

Please note, His servants are forbidden to prevent Him being delivered. These servants are not the Master’s “servants” of Romans 13. NOW you can proceed to include Romans 14:17 which also makes perfect sense of the other two links no one wants to include (1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 4:8).

The Gethsemane servants and the Rom-13 servants both serve the same will of God at different times, for God's applicable purposes. Maybe, another discussion, maybe not, but it should be said, , we all are soldiers of the Lord and are advised NOT to become entangled with the affairs of this life (2 Timothy 2:4), does not prevent God calling certain souls to fulfill defending civil order. We are a body of specificity.

“But I’m not wrong!”
How delightful for you!
You can strive to make our collective civil-life into a sort of Heaven-lite where we might not even notice transitioning from this world to the next!
I do hope that you will enjoy your endeavor.

 

[rocknanchor]

If I a mere disinterested Catholic boy could understand this, perhaps @rocknanchor needs to go find a local priest and ask them. Perhaps there are some theologians in his town. Claiming that this (or rather verse 36) supports the notion that Jesus wants to control governments is an complete inversion of what John's theological point in writing this seems to be as surely "my kingdom is not of this world" is at the core opposite of kingdom of Jesus on Earth.

Control governments? No, control "evil" (Rom 13:3). Are you attempting to diminish the word of God, even, the effect of the leading of the Holy Spirit?

 

[rocknanchor]

................. Exegetically and Hermeneutically speaking, I'm almost nearly certain that Luke 22:38 has essentially nothing to do with civil service or the authorization of government force 'by Christians.'

Now, I'm just waiting for challengers to ask me, "Uh, how do YOU know that?" And I'll just answer: "Cuz I know how to read and comprehend entire texts contextually, when it's possible to do so."

You can strive to make our collective civil-life into a sort of Heaven-lite, ,"

How do I treat context? With reason. With what tools? Not by private interpretation. My hope is to harness sound doctrine and the liberty of Christ by the fruits of the Spirit. Yes, I presented extraction unto further contemplation. The only privacy I see is to make the division I used, incorrect.

So, are you all here saying scripture should never be subject to “rightly dividing the word of truth”, nor every time a gray area appears it should remain a mystery as it always leads to heresy if we subject it to further contemplation of what may be unchartered mystery?

What does the Spirit say about increasing in the word?

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. (Ephesians 1:17)​

​

My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, (Colossians 2:2)​

​

“, ,boundless riches of Christ” (Ephesians 3:8)​

But my points are held as not of Christ’s will? Just as we are warned to keep and maintain sound doctrine, we are also warned over maintaining fearfulness (2Tim 3:16, Rev 21:8).

IMHO, it is impossible to sweep this (#44) elephant under the rug. Is there such apprehension among you to even attempt a worthwhile rebuttal of Rom-13 for today’s world?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Control governments? No, control "evil" (Rom 13:3).

Your bouncing all over your text. Since I don't have it handy, I must assume this is yet more selective quotation.

Are you attempting to diminish the word of God, even, the effect of the leading of the Holy Spirit?

Now you're quoting Paul. Paul was not god and doesn't claim to be. Your holy book has no hold over me and I care not one bit about your god.

 

[rocknanchor]

Your bouncing all over your text. Since I don't have it handy, I must assume this is yet more selective quotation.

Now you're quoting Paul. Paul was not god and doesn't claim to be.

All explainable ol chap, but, not having it 'handy' sends mixed signals to further that discussion.

Your holy book has no hold over me and I care not one bit about your god.

My book? Correction, His book I explained is connected to our country is the topic, which must not be of interest to you, though you too are included in that same Thing you have trouble getting your hands on. If you don't wish to engage, vent elsewhere.

 

[essentialsaltes]

His book I explained is connected to our country

I doubt that.

 

[Desk trauma]

I doubt that.

The bible and our founding documents reference each other so often after all

 

[Hans Blaster]

My book? Correction, His book I explained is connected to our country is the topic, which must not be of interest to you, though you too are included in that same Thing you have trouble getting your hands on. If you don't wish to engage, vent elsewhere.

Yes "your book". It is not my holy book (I have none.) Your selective micro-quotation of it aren't really that convincing.

 

[Goonie]

Depends on which way the winds blowing....the smell.....

 

[timothyu]

Many nations use God for their purposes, but there are none that I can see that represent Him or are in allegiance with His Kingdom.... just the opposite actually. This is not to say there aren't a smattering of individuals around the world that are loyal to the Kingdom and no other.

 

[rocknanchor]

The bible and our founding documents reference each other so often after all

Well, at a time before State and the American Church began that spiritually perilous trek, exposing divisions, chasms and splinters over many generations, you would have to be fully out of touch to think there has been no such impact on the founding to the present, formally or otherwise. Take a peek as 'Desk Trauma' reminds us:

The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. US Congress 1854​

​

[T]he only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible. Benjamin Rush 1798​

​

[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. Noah Webster 1843​

​

We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses. Thomas Jefferson 1809​

​

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity. John Adams 1796​

 

[Pommer]

Well, at a time before State and the American Church began that spiritually perilous trek, exposing divisions, chasms and splinters over many generations, you would have to be fully out of touch to think there has been no such impact on the founding to the present, formally or otherwise. Take a peek as 'Desk Trauma' reminds us:

The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. US Congress 1854​

​

[T]he only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible. Benjamin Rush 1798​

​

[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. Noah Webster 1843​

​

We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses. Thomas Jefferson 1809​

​

The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity. John Adams 1796​

Is it your argument that since we’ve always have had “too much religion” in our politics we should stay-the-course?
Good one, you almost had me!

 

[timothyu]

“too much religion” in our politics

For 1700 years its always been the other way around.