Is Christianity a theocracy?

[Sabertooth]

Theocracy = ruled by a priest or an order of priests.
Thearchy = ruled by Jesus Himself, in Person.

His people must yield to Him and repent of not doing so when convicted.
The unSaved continue toward Hell unless they get Saved before they die.

In the USA, God's people exert influence as voters. He expects us to support laws that

1. honor Him and
2. fit with our secular legal structure.

Of the Ten Commandments, only three of them (murder, stealing & perjury) meet that criteria. The same can be said about the rest of the OT Jewish laws. God's judgment (of the unSaved) will largely be based on OT Jewish criminal laws, not the local laws of the USA or any other country.

Witchcraft, for instance, is not a recognized crime in the USA, but it is still a sin that the unSaved must answer for.
If a heterosexual married couple agrees to let other consenting adults enter their marriage bed, they do not violate secular laws, but God will still judge them as adulterers (unless they should repent first).

The personal duty of a Christian is evangelism; telling others about God's coming Kingdom, Judgment and their need to repent so they will be on the right side of it.

Also, such a "theocracy" would demand allegiance to a single denomination. It would take away freedom of conscience. If the state "church" was significantly wrong, we would all be ruined.

 

[Sabertooth]

Did you know that many Protestant sects (including the Lutherans & the Puritans) persecuted the Baptists because of their preaching of a Believer's baptism (which most evangelicals embrace today).* If any of those sects would have been allowed to maintain their own "theocracies," that teaching would have been crushed.

*...instead of infant baptism.

 

[Aaron112]

Amen that. But it won't happen until HE does it. It is not something we will bring about.

"Before I forget entirely, or lose track of this thought" ...
I heard/read someone say that while they were reading Scripture, specifically when they read "and the government shall be upon His Shoulders",
of the Messiah, they 'realized' with a sudden great relief and release of the burden they had been carry on their own shoulders themself , as most perhaps, thinking they had to carry it, that they had to make the 'government' decisions in their own lives,
Jesus took that upon Himself...
not only the government of Israel, or of Judah, or of ? ,
but individually, individuals, persons, people who need and who needed to be free, to be helped, to be released, to be freed by Him, By God, By Jesus ....

and now I think I might have lost my train of thought/ or the thread flow... but will look again shortly to review the posts...

 

[Aaron112]

In the USA, God's people exert influence as voters.

I think and have seen for , well, almost always, that voters like to think this.
Whle those who pray and who do not vote do more actually accomplish God's Will in their lives.

 

[Sabertooth]

I think and have seen for , well, almost always, that voters like to think this.
Whle those who pray and who do not vote do more actually accomplish God's Will in their lives.

Why not both?
We are the co-rulers of this country, albeit in an extremely limited fashion. We have a responsibility to vote according to our enlightened consciences (unless we do not know the issues or candidates at hand).

 

[Aaron112]

Can you name me a society where a significant amount of unmarried men has resulted in stability and the good of society? Do you want to live in a society where a significant percentage of men will be unable to marry? Like even worse than it is now in the west?

You seem to think that the current attitudes of monogamy will prevail in a society which says polygamy and promiscuity are okay. We are already in the latter, there are no consequences for promiscuity within our modern liberal secular society. Women's choices, if we look at Tinder and other dating apps are towards the high status men and we already see the development of inceldom. You can pretend that cultural forces of monogamy and chastity will prevail, but they won't, they are already losing. And you, what, want to destroy the legal institutions holding those together? Libertarians really don't get this.

My point isn't that the state must be involved in marriage. The state doesn't have to be involved with anything. It's just that if we follow your laisse faire approach to marriage and essentially dissolve marriage as a legal institution, that will change society. As much as Christian marriage institutions and ideas changed European society over the centuries. Europeans did not naturally develop Christian marriage, it was forced on them by law and custom. This shaped the people who practiced it and it resulted in a different kind of society. Compare Islamic society to Christian society in the middle ages to see the stark differences.

Bottom-line is, if you want to maintain traditional marriage, your laisse faire approach is unsustainable. Human desire will get the better of men and women and they will use their freedom irresponsibly. Much like we all do now. This is why marriage matters in law, especially from a Christian perspective.

I just woke up, a short time ago, and fixed and am drinking a cup of coffee made with distilled water, and honey ...
Going back over tabs that were open yesterday , and just now read this one post.
I like it. I don't remember the thread, topic, or context at all. But I like this post, quoted again below in full outside the formal quote box.... nope, it wouldn't post without the formal quote box, so I pressed enter a few times inside the box , to make it all visible in smaller boxes.
"

Can you name me a society where a significant amount of unmarried men has resulted in stability and the good of society? Do you want to live in a society where a significant percentage of men will be unable to marry? Like even worse than it is now in the west?

You seem to think that the current attitudes of monogamy will prevail in a society which says polygamy and promiscuity are okay. We are already in the latter, there are no consequences for promiscuity within our modern liberal secular society. Women's choices, if we look at Tinder and other dating apps are towards the high status men and we already see the development of inceldom. You can pretend that cultural forces of monogamy and chastity will prevail, but they won't, they are already losing. And you, what, want to destroy the legal institutions holding those together? Libertarians really don't get this.

My point isn't that the state must be involved in marriage. The state doesn't have to be involved with anything. It's just that if we follow your laisse faire approach to marriage and essentially dissolve marriage as a legal institution, that will change society. As much as Christian marriage institutions and ideas changed European society over the centuries. Europeans did not naturally develop Christian marriage, it was forced on them by law and custom. This shaped the people who practiced it and it resulted in a different kind of society. Compare Islamic society to Christian society in the middle ages to see the stark differences.

Bottom-line is, if you want to maintain traditional marriage, your laisse faire approach is unsustainable. Human desire will get the better of men and women and they will use their freedom irresponsibly. Much like we all do now. This is why marriage matters in law, especially from a Christian perspective."

 

[Aaron112]

Yes, and there is the danger to supposed theocracy, where the leader(s), king, whatever, claim to be doing what is patently evil, for God, and by God's authority.

It is still heads and heals above or better than almost if not all other governments. There might be an exception, but I don't remember one at the moment.

 

[Aaron112]

Why not both?

Why not ?
Why have I never seen in person in my life anyone who prays every day frequently even think voting helps or be able to show that it makes a difference , let alone try to vote ?
Meanwhile, thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, believe it makes no difference, that it is already decided years before the voting occurs, and have shown this to be the case.

Or, most important , those I know in person who pray frequently and who do what is right always,
do not believe God ever authorized voting to be by His People, His Way, nor even recommended nor supported by God.

 

[Aaron112]

the only alternative is to have an elite which denies God and rules according to their own principles. Absolute secularism, which sounds worse to me than any of the above mentioned regimes.

I don't know if it is "absolute", but I do think we have all seen an elite in power which denies God and rules according to " principles not at all in the best interest of the subjects.

 

[Aaron112]

I get your point, and it is good, but would you not say that ancient Israel was a theocracy, regardless of who was King? In a way, God is always the ultimate ruler of all things, but that doesn't make any one kingdom or other government a theocracy.

I don't know.

Where do you draw the line between one and the other, except by the establishment of God as ruler over his particular (chosen) people.

I don't believe we get to draw the line ourselves at all, ever, so to speak.
When Jesus is the head of a man as Scripture says, is He always head, or does the man have options day to day ?

And there you see the mindset of those who claim the thousand-year rule is a spiritual and not a physical one. I understand their thinking, but still hope to see it as physical, or more accurately, super-physical, after this temporal realm, and therefore spiritual —not merely spiritual during this temporal existence.

I don't know if I see the mindset of those who claim the thousand year rule is a spiritual and not a physical one.
I don't understand their thinking.
I don't see it as merely spiritual during this temporal existence.

 

[Aaron112]

Amen that. But it won't happen until HE does it. It is not something we will bring about.

Amen , let it be, all that He Does. Even our being born again is not something we or any man at all can bring about, it is only by the will of the Father in heaven, not the will of the flesh, nor of blood.
Likewise as His Process, His Plan, His Purpose is Accomplished now on earth as it is in Heaven,
Amen.

 

[Aaron112]

I would like for government to stay out of my life as much as possible.

But I want Christ to rule over and in and through my life, and to be my very life. To be honest, your question feels rather insulting. "If you know?" Really???

Clarifying. Without asking , who would or could know unless the Father revealed it .

 

[Aaron112]

Unlike polygamy, I don't recall any instance of those particular marriage arrangements being considered criminal offenses.

Intermission question.... did God permit polygamy without punishment ? Did God punish or arrange punishment, complete or partial, for some or all of the other you mentioned ?

 

[Aaron112]

Meanwhile, thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, believe it makes no difference, that it is already decided years before the voting occurs, and have shown this to be the case.

And others, believers, see that God is in control, and rest in Him, and obey Him, and let God be God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Also, such a "theocracy" would demand allegiance to a single denomination. It would take away freedom of conscience. If the state "church" was significantly wrong, we would all be ruined.

Aye, and there's the rub! This is what the Pilgrims fled.

 

[Aaron112]

Aye, and there's the rub! This is what the Pilgrims fled.

In Godly Theocracy, in the past or future, I would not look for and hopefully not see any denominations.
I don't know about ethics in such cases or anywhere related , for what that's worth.

 

[Sabertooth]

Intermission question.... did God permit polygamy without punishment ?

(Polgamy is its own punishment...! )
To answer your question, Levirate marriage was encouraged even if a man was already married.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Aye, and there's the rub! This is what the Pilgrims fled.

Weren't the Pilgrims ultra Puritanical Christians who wanted a stricter form of Protestantism to be the standard of society?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Weren't the Pilgrims ultra Puritanical Christians who wanted a stricter form of Protestantism to be the standard of society?

Ironically, yes, as I understand it. Nevertheless, they fled government contrary to their form of belief, and I don't blame them for that. And btw, while Christians in the US are being accuse by some of wanting to form a theocracy, all they want is freedom from the rule of political correctness and such oppressive tyranny, soft or hard.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What does the Bible say about God Ruling, vs satan ruling ?

Satan is the god of this world. (2 Corinthians 4:4). The world is all human endeavour, philosophy, morality, commerce, finance, education, military and anything else not directed by the Lord Jesus. The worldly kingdoms will surely fail (Revelation 11:15). God gave all authority to Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus gave His authority to the church. The world is controlled by Satan and is directly opposed to God and Lord Jesus. (1 John 5:19). Satan is already defeated. The Church has the authority and power to cast Satan down. (Revelation 12). Satan remains in place because the church has yet to fulfill her purpose.