Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Again further evidence of the US Govt's aggression towards Christianity
Hello my friend!!!
You make good historical points, which I also consider everytime I think
or discuss this topic. However I keep this also in mind: Man is sinful
and will always twist something that is of God to wickedness. However
that does not excuse the Christians or the Church universal from
establishing the Kingdom of Christ in every single area of life,
including the realm of the civil magistrate.
That is why it is called a WAR. It is not easy and it will always be a
long bloodied battle, with may set backs and traitors in the midst,
until Christ returns again.
You comrade in arms,
--- In email@example.com, Ben Hart
> Not to disagree with your interpretation of Romans 13, (because I
> that's probably what Paul was getting at), but why do you think thatbeen a
> virtually every attempt to establish a single religion in a land has
> terrible debacle? Some examples include Israel, England (mid 17thcentury),
> Scotland (16-19th centuries) and New England. Wars, back-biting,social
> unrest, hatred for religion, lack of missionary zeal or resourcesflourished
> in these times and godliness was a hard thing to come by. For whateverpeace
> reason, tolerance of some form has been the only way to secure civil
> and create an environment in which Christians can freely worship andspread
> the gospel. It reminds me of the way Plato viewed democracy--it is afor a
> terrible system, but only under democracy or rule by a philosophical
> oligarchy can philosophy flourish; since the latter is not practically
> plausible democracy will have to do. Something similar could be said
> government that tolerates all kinds of differing opinions--it's notthe
> best, but *sub specie mundi *it's the best we've got and should learnto
> accept it!US
> Not my position, but something I've been thinking about lately.
> All the best!
> > From: Ic Neltococayotl puritanpresbyterian@...
> > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Again further evidence of the
> > Govt's aggression towards Christianityreligious
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 9:49 PM
> > Simon,
> > To answer your questions: 1. No it does not. Romans 13 is not "ONLY
> > designed to provide safety" and does NOT "thus not determine
> > preference", in fact it DOES determine ONE religious preference. 2.What
> > our government does is NOT in line with Romans 13.power but
> > The Bible states in Romans 13:
> > Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
> > of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever thereforeresist
> > resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that
> > shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terrorto good
> > works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?do that
> > which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is thebe
> > minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil,
> > afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the ministerof God,
> > a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore[ye] must
> > needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.revenger to
> > Now, the civil magistrate IS a minister of God. He is to be a
> > execute wrath upon him that does evil. So ask yourselves this, whatdoes
> > the passage mean by "evil"? How does it define what is "evil"? Isidolatry
> > "evil"? How about murder? Or profaning the Lord's Day? Is that evil?people
> > Is so, then this country is an unfaithful minister of God.
> > Romans 13 tells us that there CANNOT be a religious preference for
> > on part of the government. If the Bible states all over the placethat all
> > kings and princes (governments) are to bow and kiss the Son of God,Jesus
> > Christ, and recognize Him as King, then the governments are torecognize
> > only the One True Religion and suppress all false religions sincethey are
> > all evil.Establishment
> > Your view of Romans 13 is based on the 1st Amendment of the US
> > Constitution, NOT on the Word of God.
> > Historic Christianity, or the one true religion as expressed in the
> > historic Reformed/Presbyteri an Faith, teaches and upholds the
> > Principle. Look that up in the links section of this club.
> > For the royal prerogative of
> > King Jesus Christ Head of all nations,
> > Edgar
you quoted proverbs 11:14 which says: "where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." remember that proverbs are parables. verse 1:6 says; "To understand a PROVERB, and the interpretation; the words of the WISE, and THEIR dark sayings." so who are the wise counselors? its the word of God. you say its the westminster divines. you can believe that since these are the counsellors you have chosen to obey. the American version and the old version don't even agree totally but you are at liberty to believe the old if you want. but proverbs 11:14 etc. are speaking of the Bible. "The law and the prophets" we read in 2 Tim. 3:15-17; "and that from a child thou hast known the holy SCRIPTURES, WHICH ARE ABLE TO MAKE THEE WISE unto salvation....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 perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Paul, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy spirit lays down the principle in Romans 3:4, "...let God be true, but every man a liar" see also Jer.17:5. the westminster divines are men are they not? so this means that we cant trust what they have stated as always absolutely true. but the Bible is absolutely true and sufficient. In Isaiah 9:6 we read of Christ "...and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God..." same word that is used in proverbs11:14 also Paul declares in acts 20:27; "For i have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Heb.6:17 declares; "...the immutability of his counsel..." Rev. 3:18,"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire,..." etc. But we are not going to agree because we are following two different authorities. you are following another gospel and so we cant agree. I have pointed out a number of false teachings in the confession before, but if you wish to disagree you can. you can belittle me and put me down if you wish. As for anabaptist I have heard of them but I really know nothing of them. you have perverted what romans 13 is saying and you have perverted what the great commision is, etc. No i was not on this site before. james.
--- On Sun, 5/17/09, bob_suden <bsuden@...> wrote:
From: bob_suden <bsuden@...>
Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Again further evidence of the US Govt's aggression towards Christianity
Date: Sunday, May 17, 2009, 7:27 PMjames/connieblaine/ whoever you are i thought you got thrown off here before. grow up and learn to type out of respect for yourself, your audience and your subject matter. the last at least deserves better if it is what you say it is - THE TRUTH - or do you intend to give us the anabaptist version of archie the typing cockroach , if not eecummings ? No i am not calling anabaptists cockroaches, but how can you expect anybody to take you seriously when you ignore scripture even as you quote it?
Rom. 13:3,4 clearly says the magistrate punishes evil and rewards good, which obviously Nero and Hitler did not in the main do - and which means the magistrate should repress/punish abortion and homosexuality among numerous other things forbidden by the 10 commandments. Neither did Christ condemn the centurion for being a soldier (Matt. 8:5-13) - though taking an oath to uphold an atheistic or agnostic constitution to become a magistrate or soldier is a different thing - but anabaptism in its self righteous and fundamentalist flight from the world denies that a Christian can be a magistrate or soldier.
Further you insist that we must listen to your testimony and confession to the neglect of the Westminster, all the while Scripture tells us numerous times that in a multitude of counselors is safety (Prov. 11:14 15:22, 24:6). Who are we going to believe? You or the Westminster divines on what the Bible actually teaches explicitly - and implicitly (see below)? A confession of faith is inescapable and to quarrel or quibble at it because it is written down while yours is an extemporaneous, off the cuff, literal, but piecemeal quotation of Scripture, is to swallow the camel, while pretending to strain the gnat. The Bible did not just fall out of the sky yesterday and you and maybe Harold Camping and Chicken Little, but nobody else, except maybe some dead anabaptists you haven't heard of, are the only ones that have really read it, much more understood and obeyed it. If so, you need to prove it, rather than just assert it in a lowercase run on paragraph at large.
Yes, anabaptist fundamentalism boasts that it takes the Bible literally, but at times the Bible is literally made up of figures of speech, allegory etc. and along with doctrine and history, is literally a parable or poetry.
Further if you deny the good and necessary consequences of Scripture (WCF1:6) and only believe what the Bible explicitly says, you are not in good company. Christ rebukes the Sadducees for refusing to believe the consequences of Scripture when they ask him about a woman married seven times (Matt. 22:23-33). If that's what you want, have at it, but don't pretend it is biblical and we are disobedient for not agreeing with you without question on the question. After all, there is a pope in every man's heart. Even your's, if not that anabaptism exalts that kind of popery as opposed to the Roman variety. For that reason, the Protestant reformers considered anabaptism the left wing of the Reformation, even as Popery was the right wing. They were correct, unfortunately.
--- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, Connie Blaine <nylaadee@...> wrote:
> you have misinterpreted what i said about crusading against sin. of course we are to repent of sin, but we are not to think that we can make others believe as we do. only God can do that. If God wills that gay marriage or abortion should be stopped then these sins would cease. only God can give repentance as we read in 2 tim.2:25-26; "in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God paradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snar of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will." no man can acknowledge the truth unless God gives them repentance. the unsaved are under the will of Satan. you cant change the heart of anybody only God can. that is why i said if you are crusading against sin, you will only be disappointed. are you not disappointed by what you see in the world? sin is everywhere, you only need to look in your very church to find it. and Satan has
> his seat there! and you think you are going to make the world change? what says the scripture? 2 thess. 2:10-12 " and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. and for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. i already made my pastor-s know that they have false teaching. high places are in the very church. woman deacons, divorce and remarriage, traditions that make void the word of God, looking to a confession like the westminster as authoritative, reformed view of justification is wrong; the Bible is clear that we are justified by Christ's faith not by the exercise of our faith. the Bible says that a deacon or elder MUST BE the husband of one wife, having children etc. no church obeys this simple command that i have seen.
> i left the opc because of their following a confession rather than the word of God. i left nhpbc because they have rewritten the rules on these things. and also Christians are to be humble, not calling other people who disagree with them as neo-cons. what the presbyterians say or the original confession says verses the American version says means nothing. they are mans words not God's words. Baptism is not a means of grace, nor is it a sacrament. it is a ceremonial law. there are many high places in the reformed faith. don't follow the teaching of men but study the Bible for your self. i bet you never heard a sermon on how God's salvation plan is a last will and testament? or that Gabriel is not an angel? or that you are to interpret scripture with scripture, the Bible is its own interpreter. or how we are justified by the faith of Christ? really you are not following the true gospel, you are simply following your religion. i have attended a fairly
> strict reformed church over 10 years and realized that the majority of those members if not more were not saved. it was evident by their attitude towards the Bible and those who dare to question the confession. the Bible commands you to; "study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim. 2:15. the great commission has nothing to do with making governments righteous, nor is Rom. 13 speaking gov. getting involved with theology. all governments are of God whether communist or capitalist, democracy, dictatorship, and yes the evil roman Government. God has his purpose as he did with Pharaoh. Rom.9:17. Herod was a wicked ruler, but who put him there according to Rom.13? there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. so your view is not really consistent with what the Bible says. you know my pastor did a whole series of sermons on the book of proverbs but never did
> i hear him say that a proverb is a parable, amazing. thanks for your thoughtful response, James.