What religion the State?

[Clare73]

I see no difference between the two? What is the difference between giving all religions equal rights and giving all people freedom to worship any way they choose?

Only people have rights.

That does not speak to the issue we're concerned with here. We both agree with Jesus that the Kingdom lies within us. It *always* does!
But that says nothing about how it is manifest in an earthly Kingdom, does it?

Yes, the kingdom within us is the earthly kingdom.
There is no other kingdom. God has only one kingdom, in our hearts, where he reigns and rules.

And that's the whole point. When God said the Kingdom would be taken from Israel, He did not just mean that His Spirit would be taken from *within* Israel, invisibly!

The kingdom is God in Jesus Christ within us through faith.

Unbelieving Israel does not have God within. They are cut off from him and condemned, and have been for over 2,000 years, and counting, now.

Jesus was certainly not saying the Kingdom of God *only* resides invisibly within

Read Luke 11:20, Luke 17:20-21 again.

What you propose is contradictory to authoritative NT teaching:
The temporal kingdom of God is not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36).

Jesus refused the earthly kingdom offered him by the Jews (John 6:15).

The temporal kingdom of God comes down from heaven (John 6:38) in its king (Luke 11:20).

The temporal kingdom of God is not visible, it is within (Luke 17:20-21), in the hearts where he reigns and rules.

The temporal Messianic kingdom is now, Christ reigns now (Ephesians 1:19-23), we are reigning with Christ now (Ephesians 2:6).

The future eternal kingdom of God is in the new heavens and new earth, the home of righteousness (Luke 21:25-28, Luke 21:31).

There is only one kingdom of God, everlasting, of time and moving into eternity at the end of time.

 

[Clare73]

Undoubtedly. I don't believe our leaders are acting like "Christians," if they are even Christian at all, when they allow into our country people without vetting them. Without moral standards by which to judge the worth of people entering our country, we are no better than those who invite burglars, murderers, rapists, terrorists, and those with contagious illnesses.

We are not promised Christians in our government.

 

[RandyPNW]

We are not promised Christians in our government.

And your point is what? I certainly never said Christians are promised in our govt. What I do believe, however, is that European Civilization was promised to produce Christian nations for Abraham and for Jesus.

Not every Christian in those Christian nations have been genuine Christians. Some are sheep, and some are goats. But God did promise Abraham "many nations" of his faith, and that means Christian nations, as I understand it. And that promise has been fulfilled.

Since Christian nations have been falling, just as Israel fell, Jesus must come back to restore these nations, and to save remnants of believers from all nations. And then, in the Millennium, Christ's Kingdom will reveal the complete fulfillment of what was truly promised to Abraham--nations of faith that will endure.

 

[RandyPNW]

Only people have rights.
Yes, the kingdom within us is the earthly kingdom.
There is no other kingdom. God has only one kingdom, in our hearts, where he reigns and rules.
The kingdom is God in Jesus Christ within us through faith.

No, the Kingdom that *Jesus said* would be taken from Israel and given to the Roman nation was a Kingdom that was an actual earthly *government* that had within its core genuine spiritual Christianity. It was a Kingdom "within" as well as an actual earthly kingdom.

Unbelieving Israel does not have God within. They are cut off from him and condemned, and have been for over 2,000 years, and counting, now.

You are judging all of Israel's generations by the generations that went into apostacy? Why not judge every country that way, since all countries have had times when they experienced very low levels of morality?

It is a truism to say that *unbelieving Israel* does not have God within. But what about *believing Israel?* Surely, they had God within?

There were times when Israel only had 7000 believers who obeyed God, in the time of Elijah. And there were times when the entire nation entered into the Promised Land in obedience to God. And God surely dwelt within His tabernacle as they did so!

Read Luke 11:20, Luke 17:20-21 again.

I've read the Scriptures for 50 years, dear.

What you propose is contradictory to authoritative NT teaching:
The temporal kingdom of God is not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36).

Jesus was, I believe, speaking of his prophesied Messianic Reign, which is a future Kingdom. It is the eschatological Kingdom, in which all nations of faith will be restored.

Jesus never said that God's Kingdom had not resided with the Davidic kings--they did. If you say so, then *you're* denying Scriptural truth!

2 Chron 13.8 “And now you plan to resist the kingdom of the Lord, which is in the hands of David’s descendants."

 

[Aussie Pete]

I'm not really at odds with the spirit of your post--just looking at these issues a little differently. I don't believe the Church has the authority to change a pagan state to being a Christian State. We outright disagree there.

But if you say that faithfulness to God in the Church can bring about profound changes for the better in a pagan State, I would have to agree with you. Setting a good witness doesn't get rid of the unrepentant and brazen sinners, who steadfastly refuse to submit to God. But there will always be those who respond to our message. Ultimately, God will judge the defiant.

I did not make myself clear. Does this help? The church cannot change the state. The state will change as people are saved and born again. People make up the state. During the Welsh revival in the early 1900's, pubs were closing down. So many were being saved that there were few customers. So your second interpretation is correct.

 

[RandyPNW]

I did not make myself clear. Does this help? The church cannot change the state. The state will change as people are saved and born again. People make up the state. During the Welsh revival in the early 1900's, pubs were closing down. So many were being saved that there were few customers. So your second interpretation is correct.

Yea, I love hearing about the Welsh Revival. We are still talking about it.

It's an amazing story. A couple of kids got the impetus to pray. Was it their prayers alone? No, it was God's timing, and He inspired them, and they obeyed.

May we operate in the timing of God and obey as well. Thank you!

 

[Clare73]

No, the Kingdom that *Jesus said* would be taken from Israel and given to the Roman nation was a Kingdom that was an actual earthly *government*

Jesus refers to earthly kingdoms as the kingdoms of men, never as "the kingdom," which is always the kingdom of God.

that had within its core genuine spiritual Christianity. It was a Kingdom "within" as well as an actual earthly kingdom.

So. . .
1) Jesus gave two kingdoms to the world (Rome)?
2) Jesus gave two kingdoms to those who would produce its fruit; i.e., the world (Rome)?
3) unbelieving Israel delivered a kingdom to the world (Rome) which "had within its core genuine spiritual Christianity"?

So what, and when, was this one kingdom of a visible government, in addition to this second kingdom, unobservable (Luke 17:20) invisible, specifically taken from Israel and given to Rome?

What we have here is dispensational methodology--making multiples (kingdoms) from what is one in Scripture (kingdom of God).

You are judging all of Israel's generations by the generations that went into apostacy?

I am judging Israel as the new covenant of the NT judges Israel, as it actually exists, and has for 2,000 years and counting--over half its entire life since coming out of Egypt; i.e., cut off from God and replaced with Gentiles in the one olive tree of God's people (Romans 11:17-19).

Why not judge every country that way, since all countries have had times when they experienced very low levels of morality?

Why not judge Israel the way the new covenant of the NT judges Israel?

I've read the Scriptures for 50 years, dear.

Then you know these are the only NT authoritative didactical descriptions of the Kingdom:

Jesus refused the earthly kingdom offered him by the Jews (John 6:15).

The temporal kingdom of God comes down from heaven (John 6:38) in its king (Luke 11:20).

The temporal kingdom of God is not visible, it is within (Luke 17:20-21), in the hearts where he reigns and rules.

The temporal Messianic kingdom is now, Christ reigns now (Ephesians 1:19-23), we are reigning with Christ now (Ephesians 2:6).

The future eternal kingdom of God is in the new heavens and new earth, the home of righteousness (Luke 21:25-28, Luke 21:31).

There is only one kingdom of God everlasting, spiritual only, of time and moving into eternity at the second coming at the end of time.

 

[RandyPNW]

Jesus refers to earthly kingdoms as the kingdoms of men, never as "the kingdom," which is always the kingdom of God.
So. . .
1) Jesus gave two kingdoms to the world (Rome)?
2) Jesus gave two kingdoms to those who would produce its fruit; i.e., the world (Rome)?
3) unbelieving Israel delivered a kingdom to the world (Rome) which "had within its core genuine spiritual Christianity"?

So what, and when, was this one kingdom of a visible government, in addition to this second kingdom, unobservable (Luke 17:20) invisible, specifically taken from Israel and given to Rome?

What we have here is dispensational methodology--making multiples (kingdoms) from what is one in Scripture (kingdom of God).
I am judging Israel as the new covenant of the NT judges Israel, as it actually exists, and has for 2,000 years and counting--over half its entire life since coming out of Egypt; i.e., cut off from God and replaced with Gentiles in the one olive tree of God's people (Romans 11:17-19).
Why not judge Israel the way the new covenant of the NT judges Israel?

Then you know these are the only NT authoritative didactical descriptions of the Kingdom:

Jesus refused the earthly kingdom offered him by the Jews (John 6:15).

The temporal kingdom of God comes down from heaven (John 6:38) in its king (Luke 11:20).

The temporal kingdom of God is not visible, it is within (Luke 17:20-21), in the hearts where he reigns and rules.

The temporal Messianic kingdom is now, Christ reigns now (Ephesians 1:19-23), we are reigning with Christ now (Ephesians 2:6).

The future eternal kingdom of God is in the new heavens and new earth, the home of righteousness (Luke 21:25-28, Luke 21:31).

There is only one kingdom of God everlasting, spiritual only, of time and moving into eternity at the second coming at the end of time.

I will reiterate, from post #124, which you *did not answer.*

Jesus was, I believe, speaking of his prophesied Messianic Reign, which is a future Kingdom. It is the eschatological Kingdom, in which all nations of faith will be restored.

Jesus never said that God's Kingdom had not resided with the Davidic kings--they did. If you say so, then *you're* denying Scriptural truth!

2 Chron 13.8 “And now you plan to resist the kingdom of the Lord, which is in the hands of David’s descendants."

You are getting the *Kingdom now* mixed up with the *eschatological Kingdom of the future!* Jesus did not come to establish his eschatological reign immediately. Rather, he operated under the assumption that the Kingdom, before it is fully realized, only works spiritually within various temporal forms, such as it worked within the Davidic kingdom in the OT period.

When Jesus came, still under the Law, he said that his Messianic Kingdom was "near," but not yet *here.* And even after the cross, the Kingdom remains "near" and not *here.* The eschatolopgical Kingdom is future, but the Kingdom continues to operate within temporal forms such as Christian nations, just as it did under the Davidic kings, when they obeyed the Law.

Until you answer this, you're just repeating the same old arguments. You continue to assert the argument of "two Kingdoms," and indeed God's Kingdom has worked in two different ways, one in the current temporal sense, and the other in the future Messianic sense.

That the Kingdom did operate under the Law in the temporal sense is plain in the quote I provided you, and which you *did not answer.*

2 Chron 13.8 “And now you plan to resist the kingdom of the Lord, which is in the hands of David’s descendants."

This was the *Kingdom of God!* This is biblical truth. And it is equally true that it was not yet the eschatological Kingdom. It it *biblically true* that Jesus said his own future Kingdom was "near," but not yet.

Until you answer these things, we are just spinning the same old arguments. Instead of standing on Scriptures that you offer, why not address the ones that I have offered in rebuttal?

Instead of accusing me of not believing the Bible, why not acknowledge that we are both seeking to align ourselves with biblical truth? Otherwise, we are separating ourselves from one another. And Christians are supposed to be on the same side.

 

[Clare73]

I will reiterate, from post #124, which you *did not answer.*

See post #127 for my answer to post #124.

 

[RandyPNW]

See post #127 for my answer to post #124.

As I said, you didn't answer the passage--you eliminated that part of my post, and didn't answer it. And now you eliminate the passage from your post in #128, as well. So you don't want to answer it

The part you keep ignoring is this:

2 Chron 13.8 “And now you plan to resist the kingdom of the Lord, which is in the hands of David’s descendants."

 

[Clare73]

As I said, you didn't answer the passage--you eliminated that part of my post, and didn't answer it. And now you eliminate the passage from your post in #128, as well. So you don't want to answer it.

The part you keep ignoring is this:

2 Chron 13.8 “And now you plan to resist
the kingdom of the Lord, which
is in the hands of David’s descendants."

Jesus Christ and those in him, the church, are David's descendants.

The kingdom of God is not observable, it is within
(Luke 17:20-21), in the hearts of the church, Christ's bride and body in the two-in-one enflesnment of the marital union (Ephesians 5:31-32), where he reigns and rules.

 

[RandyPNW]

Jesus Christ and those in him, the church, are David's descendants.

The kingdom of God is not observable, it is within
(Luke 17:20-21), in the hearts of the church, Christ's bride and body in the two-in-one enflesnment of the marital union (Ephesians 5:31-32), where he reigns and rules.

In context, "David's descendants" referred to the kings of Israel, which succeeded him on the throne of ancient Israel. They did *not* refer to the Church, although Jesus was the promised Messiah, a descendant of David and the future ruler over Israel and over the whole world.

As I said, this verse, which you seem to want to excise from your responses, clearly indicates that the Davidic Kingdom was a temporal form of God's Kingdom. That point is therefore clearly established as a biblical truth, which completely disproves your point.

Although you'd be right in saying the Kingdom of God has an invisible aspect to it, it is *not true* that it doesn't have a physical aspect to it, both now and in the eternal future. So Jesus statement that the Kingdom has an invisible aspect does not contradict the fact it had and still has a temporal aspect to it.

2 Chron 13.8 “And now you plan to resist
the kingdom of the Lord, which
is in the hands of David’s descendants."

Again, the following passage has to do with the *eschatological Kingdom of Christ,* which is not yet. It is "near," but it is *not yet.* It comes invisibly to Israel because Israel did not recognize Jesus physically. They did not see the Father that was speaking through him.

At that time, Israel's physical Kingdom was about to be taken away from them. And so, Jesus was saying that the restored Kingdom would have to come invisibly, before the nation could be restored. Jesus would have to die for them before their national salvation.

Luke 17.20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

This is *not* saying the Kingdom of God cannot be observed. Rather, it is saying that the *coming* of the Kingdom of God cannot be observed, because Israel will have lost that Kingdom, it being a temporal form of that Kingdom. The eternal form of the Kingdom indeed cannot be observed because it is coming at a time when God's Kingdom appears only in temporary form.

 

[Clare73]

In context, "David's descendants" referred to the kings of Israel, which succeeded him on the throne of ancient Israel. They did *not* refer to the Church, although Jesus was the promised Messiah, a descendant of David and the future ruler over Israel and over the whole world.

As I said, this verse, which you seem to want to excise from your responses, clearly indicates that the Davidic Kingdom was a temporal form of God's Kingdom. That point is therefore clearly established as a biblical truth, which completely disproves your point.

Although you'd be right in saying the Kingdom of God has an invisible aspect to it, it is *not true* that it doesn't have a physical aspect to it, both now and in the eternal future. So Jesus statement that the Kingdom has an invisible aspect does not contradict the fact it had and still has a temporal aspect to it.

2 Chron 13.8 “And now you plan to resist
the kingdom of the Lord, which
is in the hands of David’s descendants."

Again, the following passage has to do with the *eschatological Kingdom of Christ,* which is not yet. It is "near," but it is *not yet.* It comes invisibly to Israel because Israel did not recognize Jesus physically. They did not see the Father that was speaking through him.

At that time, Israel's physical Kingdom was about to be taken away from them. And so, Jesus was saying that the restored Kingdom would have to come invisibly, before the nation could be restored. Jesus would have to die for them before their national salvation.

Luke 17.20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

This is *not* saying the Kingdom of God cannot be observed. Rather, it is saying that the *coming* of the Kingdom of God cannot be observed, because Israel will have lost that Kingdom, it being a temporal form of that Kingdom. The eternal form of the Kingdom indeed cannot be observed because it is coming at a time when God's Kingdom appears only in temporary form.

The true meaning of the OT is understood correctly only in the light of the NT.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, that was indeed my point, that at the time of the founding of the U.S., the Enlightenment was all the rage. It was *not* a very Christian movement, and likely anti-Christian in sentiment.

It was more hostile towards State Churches like the RCC, but even in science, Christianity was viewed as backwards.

Nope.

Actually, people like Roger Williams were not about the Enlightenment at all. In fact, Roger Williams pre-dates the Enlightenment. They had already seen that the havoc that state churches waged was mostly upon Christians.

 

[RDKirk]

God clearly wanted to deliver *the Kingdom* to Europeans and to others throughout the world. To do that God wanted the Christian State to be established in each of the European nations, which is exactly what happened.

You'll have to point out in scripture where it says "God wanted the Christian State to be established in each of the European nations."

There were Christians like Roger Williams (and other "Separatists") opposing state religions before the Enlightenment.

 

[RandyPNW]

Nope.

Actually, people like Roger Williams were not about the Enlightenment at all. In fact, Roger Williams pre-dates the Enlightenment. They had already seen that the havoc that state churches waged was mostly upon Christians.

No, I'm not wrong. The Enlightenment played a big role in the founding principles of the U.S. Constitution, which relied on the more neutral "nature's God." This was a concept apparently going back as far as ancient Greek philosophy. A more dogmatic Christianity would call it "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Roger Williams was a separatist, which meant that he opposed corrupt State religion, and preferred Christian churches independent of State control. Indeed, a State Church can become corrupt and attempt to restrict free Christian expressions in a society, which should be opposed.

But rejecting a State Church for its corruption cannot validate rejecting the idea of a State Christianity. If there is a corrupt State Church there can also be a non-corrupt State Church. If Christianity in our society fails, should we throw out Christianity entirely? No!

 

[RandyPNW]

You'll have to point out in scripture where it says "God wanted the Christian State to be established in each of the European nations."

There were Christians like Roger Williams (and other "Separatists") opposing state religions before the Enlightenment.

I've pointed it out already, and I'll point it out again.
1) God established a State "Church," as such, when he called Israel to be a nation under God, in which "you shall have no other gods."

This was not about State control, which God was clearly against, when He said He opposed a king in Israel initially. But it is about maintaining a consensus of morality, which is guaranteed only with maintaining the proper God.

2) God promised Abraham both Israel, a biological posterity, and many nations of his faith. This is in effect many state "churches."

And indeed, when God transitioned from Israel to Europe, many Christian nations of European extraction came into existence. My assumption is that even as Christian nations apostacize, as Israel did, God will restore Israel, even as He seeks to preserve the many nations who are falling into apostasy.

 

[RDKirk]

I've pointed it out already, and I'll point it out again.
1) God established a State "Church," as such, when he called Israel to be a nation under God, in which "you shall have no other gods."

This was not about State control, which God was clearly against, when He said He opposed a king in Israel initially. But it is about maintaining a consensus of morality, which is guaranteed only with maintaining the proper God.

2) God promised Abraham both Israel, a biological posterity, and many nations of his faith. This is in effect many state "churches."

And indeed, when God transitioned from Israel to Europe, many Christian nations of European extraction came into existence. My assumption is that even as Christian nations apostacize, as Israel did, God will restore Israel, even as He seeks to preserve the many nations who are falling into apostasy.

God did not "transition" from Israel to Europe. God established a new covenant sans generis e sans soli sed fides.

 

[RandyPNW]

The true meaning of the OT is understood correctly only in the light of the NT.

That's true, but is not an argument.

 

[RandyPNW]

NEVER mind