tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post1534076709480195550..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Slaves, not rulersPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-14966577459753823652008-06-12T18:41:00.000-07:002008-06-12T18:41:00.000-07:00Agreed.Agreed.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6821921976765957232008-06-12T18:31:00.000-07:002008-06-12T18:31:00.000-07:00Hi Chad V., Let not quarrel anymore. Pax.Hi Chad V., <BR/><BR/>Let not quarrel anymore. <BR/><BR/>Pax.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82135037704274679882008-06-12T18:09:00.000-07:002008-06-12T18:09:00.000-07:00An addendum;TRUAD also said; "The topic of this th...An addendum;<BR/><BR/>TRUAD also said; "<I>The topic of this thread is to explore or define the limits of what constitutes God-honoring, Christ-glorifying engagement in the domain of civil government and politics."</I><BR/><BR/>That's why you missed the point. By definition no one who denies the gospel (RCC/Episcopal Church) can do anything Christ-glorifying. What ever is not of faith is sin (cf Rom 14:23).Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19425746348808280632008-06-12T15:38:00.000-07:002008-06-12T15:38:00.000-07:00My last comment on this string;TRUAD said; "Genera...My last comment on this string;<BR/><BR/>TRUAD said; <I>"General Main Point: What constitutes biblical civic engagement in the political process for Christians?"</I><BR/><BR/>He then proceeds to give examples of statements from the RCC and the Episcopalian church. Neither qualifies as a biblical church. Neither preaches the gospel. Neither believes in justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Neither accepts the scriptures as their sole authority on all matters of faith and practice. <BR/><BR/> The examples can't be applied to a discussion about biblical civil engagement. Neither example represents the church and how it engages civil government. They both represent false religion, in fact they are both false religions hence they have no bearing on the discussion at hand. You might as well ask me to interact with quotes from the Moonies. <BR/><BR/>The point of the post is the church's job is to preach the gospel, not work for social reform. Neither the RCC or the Episcopalians preach the gospel in the first place.<BR/><BR/>TRUAD's question ignores the thesis of the post and forces anyone who tries to answer his question to acknowledge those who teach lies as true brethren. <BR/><BR/>So, the only one who has missed the point is TRUAD and possibly you Daryl.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89128971957717749792008-06-12T11:05:00.000-07:002008-06-12T11:05:00.000-07:00Chad:"TRUADQuibble???!!! Superfluous????!!!!! Miss...Chad:<BR/><BR/>"TRUAD<BR/>Quibble???!!! Superfluous????!!!!! Missed the point????!!!!"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ummmmm...yes, completely and utterly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45795406435149978892008-06-12T10:50:00.000-07:002008-06-12T10:50:00.000-07:00TRUADQuibble???!!! Superfluous????!!!!! Missed th...<B>TRUAD</B><BR/>Quibble???!!! Superfluous????!!!!! Missed the point????!!!!Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22529659790624940762008-06-12T10:12:00.000-07:002008-06-12T10:12:00.000-07:00Chad V,Your ability to miss the major point by foc...Chad V,<BR/><BR/>Your ability to miss the major point by focusing instead on the superfluous is increasing.<BR/><BR/>The topic of this thread is to explore or define the limits of what constitutes God-honoring, Christ-glorifying engagement in the domain of civil government and politics.<BR/><BR/>I merely cite the example of one Catholic bishop with regards to the topic of timely topic of gay marriage. You <I>quibble</I> over whether the RCC is a church.<BR/><BR/>Fine. So I then provide an example of a liberal self-identified Christian who supports gay marriage. You then say that any self-identified Christian who supports gay marriage is not a Christian. Again, you're focusing upon an irrelevant-to-the-main-point detail.<BR/><BR/>General Main Point: What constitutes biblical civic engagement in the political process for Christians?<BR/><BR/>To put specifics towards exploring a helpful answer to this question, I offer up the timely example of the legalization of gay marriage.<BR/><BR/>Therefore Chad V., in your opinion, what constitutes acceptable political behavior by Christians on the issue of gay marriage such that you would not rise in angry judgmentalism towards your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71061345765729219672008-06-11T22:47:00.000-07:002008-06-11T22:47:00.000-07:00Quibble???!!! Am I to understand that you are one ...Quibble???!!! <BR/><BR/>Am I to understand that you are one of the many Christians who regard the RCC as a Christian church? <BR/><BR/>Also, the only other quotes I see from you are form bishops, I assume these are quotes form bishops, in support of gay marriage.<BR/><BR/>Gay marriage is an abomination. No one in support of this practice has any right to call himself a Christian.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47165185551574206852008-06-11T21:18:00.000-07:002008-06-11T21:18:00.000-07:00Because many Christians from a variety of faith-tr...Because many Christians from a variety of faith-traditions do regard the RCC as a church even though they may disagree with many of its doctrines.<BR/><BR/>There's no way that I could know that you would quibble about whether RCC is a church.<BR/><BR/>Now that I'm aware of it, I simply point you to a Protestant church bishop.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-72402142985571673462008-06-11T19:54:00.000-07:002008-06-11T19:54:00.000-07:00TRUAD;Then why did bring the RCC into the discussi...<B>TRUAD;</B><BR/><BR/>Then why did bring the RCC into the discussion in the first place? <BR/>You're the one who asked me to agree or disagree about a statement regarding an RCC bishop and his role in influencing the culture.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65742407643596921352008-06-11T16:34:00.000-07:002008-06-11T16:34:00.000-07:00Chad V.,Your thoughts on the Catholic Church are d...<B>Chad V.</B>,<BR/><BR/>Your thoughts on the Catholic Church are duly noted by this non-RC. Any further discussion of the RCC would be off-topic.<BR/><BR/>So, let me proffer a non-RC bishop's thoughts on his political involvement:<BR/><BR/>"Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,<BR/><BR/>I welcome the ruling of the California Supreme Court affirming the fundamental right of all people to marry. I am writing to you now to recommend a path to use this decision to strengthen our support of our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered sisters and brothers, and our continued witness to God’s inclusive love.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>I urge Episcopalians, clergy and lay, to volunteer as Deputy Marriage Commissioners. There are over 4,000 civil same-sex marriages planned in a short period of time in the city of San Francisco alone and the city is asking for help in meeting demand. I intend to volunteer for this at my earliest opportunity. This would be one sign of affirmation for the Supreme Court ruling from our diocese.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/><B>In the coming days, I will publicly state my opposition to the initiative to overturn the Supreme Court ruling.</B>"<BR/><BR/>From: <A HREF="http://episcopalbayarea.org/joomla/content/view/666/87/" REL="nofollow"> Pastoral Letter Regarding Same-sex Marriage </A>Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90773489272521339722008-06-11T11:08:00.000-07:002008-06-11T11:08:00.000-07:00TRUAD;Let me begin my answer with this; the Roman ...<B>TRUAD;</B><BR/><BR/>Let me begin my answer with this; the Roman Catholic Church is no church at all. It is a false religion. It is not Christian and I firmly believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. R.C. Bishops do not order themselves according to the mind of Christ and the entire R.C. Church is ordered according to the traditions of men. <BR/><BR/>If an R.C. Bishop wants to actively seek to conform the laws of the land to what he believes Catholic doctrine commands that's his business. The only standard by which we can judge the statement; <I> "Shaping the social order is not outside the role of a bishop",</I> is to measure that statement according the Roman Catholic Catechism. If the Catholic Catechism and the doctrines of the R.C. Church and the decrees of the Pope mandate that the Bishops seek to shape social order then that's what they're supposed to do. <BR/><BR/>Father Weisner's comment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the Church is to make social reform a priority of the church. <BR/><BR/>The fact of the matter is that social reform is all that Father Weisner has. He has no gospel to preach.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10915755057636368652008-06-11T10:13:00.000-07:002008-06-11T10:13:00.000-07:00"As faithful citizens, Catholics are called to bri...<I>"As faithful citizens, Catholics are called to bring our laws regarding marriage into conformity with what we know about the nature of marriage," said Bishop Allen Vigneron, head of the Oakland Diocese.<BR/><BR/>"Shaping the social order is not outside the role of a bishop," said Father Mark Weisner.</I><BR/><BR/>Agree or disagree?<BR/><BR/>From: <A HREF="http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_9545193?source=rss" REL="nofollow"> Bishop exhorts East Bay Catholics to defeat gay marriage </A>Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43334747882107498382008-06-11T07:06:00.000-07:002008-06-11T07:06:00.000-07:00Let me add to my previous statements that I do rec...Let me add to my previous statements that I do recognize and am very thankful that the government was founded on precepts taught in the bible and that the gospel was preached without government interference at the time of the founding of our nation. To be sure our country enjoyed many blessings because on some level the nation recognized that God was the creator and that our laws and rights come from him and he is to be glorified. Congressmen would open sessions and pray according to their convictions. If a congressman was a Christian he could pray in the name of Christ without fear of reprisal. But that is no longer the case. <BR/><BR/>I have no problem with the concept that America was founded on Christian principles, or Judeo-Christian values. That's a perfectly true and legitimate statement. I also recognize that many of the founding fathers desired to see the Christian religion flourish in America because of the liberty it would enjoy. My beef is with trying to say that we are a Christian nation. <BR/><BR/>In order for a country to be a Christian country truly, that nation would, like the local church, have to punish and strive against all false doctrines and silence the voices of those would teach falsehood. The religious freedom that our constitution maintains prohibits this kind of thing from happening. Men may practice any religion they like freely and without persecution from the government. They are not limited to being biblical Christians. So America fails the test of being a distinctly Christian nation.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42114718506136918302008-06-11T04:33:00.000-07:002008-06-11T04:33:00.000-07:00Elijah??? Or one of the prophets???Elijah??? Or one of the prophets???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8885800053975560952008-06-11T03:28:00.000-07:002008-06-11T03:28:00.000-07:00Who do you all think Jesus Christ is? ;)Who do you all think Jesus Christ is? ;)Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09456884689908680100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87944858067222464212008-06-10T19:55:00.000-07:002008-06-10T19:55:00.000-07:00You're right LIlith. Only the Declaration of Inde...You're right LIlith. Only the Declaration of Independence ever mentions either God or the Creator, never the name of Christ. It's a deliberately ecumenical statement. So that sort of makes my point. It is a myth to think that America was ever actually a Christian nation. It never was and it never will be. In fact there has never been a truly Christian nation on the face of the earth. <BR/><BR/>If people got all the laws changed in America to line up with all of God's commands, you still wouldn't have a Christian nation. You'd just have restrained wickedness. Christians aren't called to make Christian nations on the earth. Satan is the god of this world(2 Cor4:4) and he blinds men to the gospel. <BR/><BR/>The church's job is to proclaim repentance and forgiveness of sins to all nations in the name of Christ(Luke 24:47). Not make nations in the name of Christ. <BR/><BR/> Funny that you mentioned Touched by an Angel. That show was about as Christian as the Pope.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-12405065470451181802008-06-10T18:57:00.000-07:002008-06-10T18:57:00.000-07:00Chad v.: The founding documents mention God and th...Chad v.: <B>The founding documents mention God and the creator but the name of Christ is conspicuous for it's absence.</B><BR/><BR/>The only founding document I can think of which mentions God is the Declaration of Independence, which was more of a rebel manifesto than a foundation of civil law. The Q'u'r'a'n and the Book of Mormon mention God. The television show "Touched by an Angel" mentioned God all the time, and the angels kept telling people to get right with God, and it was called a "Christian show" but it was funny how they never mentioned Jesus Christ at all.Teresitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05528002521904908827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20134013494533041562008-06-10T10:44:00.000-07:002008-06-10T10:44:00.000-07:00Ed GrooverI don't recall Phil ever saying that Chr...<B>Ed Groover</B><BR/><BR/>I don't recall Phil ever saying that Christians shouldn't be politically involved. In fact he's repeatedly asserted the opposite. You may have missed him saying so but his son is a police officer.<BR/><BR/>There are huge swathes of professing Christians who think that we can somehow Christianize society. The late D. James Kennedy was constantly talking about reclaiming America for Christ which is a silly notion in the first place. America never was a Christian nation and it was never supposed to be. It was founded on religious freedom. Christianity was to be freely practiced along with other religions without interference from the government. The founding documents mention God and the creator but the name of Christ is conspicuous for it's absence. The bible was the source of many of the country's laws and government architecture but that doesn't make it a Christian country. Indeed many of the founding fathers were true Christians, but many were deists and many were Roman Catholic. It wasn't uniquely Christian. And the gospel has never had wide friendly acceptance. Read any number of writings from any pastors through history you see the same thing. Morals have always been corrupt, people are resistant to the gospel and Christ is publicly maligned and mocked by the masses. It has always been that way throughout history and the bible promises that it will remain so. If we follow Christ we are guaranteed to suffer persecutions of some sort from the world. <BR/><BR/>In Jonanthan Edwards Religious Affections he wrote of how the great sins in his town were drunkenness, fornication and Sabbath breaking. Today the most obvious public sins include all of those but added to them are abortion and homosexuality and divorce. <BR/><BR/>There tons of people who think the old days were better and they try to reclaim those days in the name of Christ. The old days were never better, just different.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68629509056767199712008-06-10T09:31:00.000-07:002008-06-10T09:31:00.000-07:00lilithIndeed, Christ says it will be visible only ...lilith<BR/><B>Indeed, Christ says it will be visible only to the justified:<BR/><BR/>John 3:3 ...Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Close enough, but again, I'm talking about the physical manifestation of the kingdom, not spiritual.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09456884689908680100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11207881167500695482008-06-10T09:24:00.000-07:002008-06-10T09:24:00.000-07:00Phil, maybe, when you're all done with this (very ...Phil, maybe, when you're all done with this (very good) series on what we are <I>not</I> supposed to do with politics, you might suggest what is a proper Christian approach to a republic. Just an idea ... you know, a follow on, a clarification.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-58679209882324477722008-06-10T08:11:00.000-07:002008-06-10T08:11:00.000-07:00Ed,I'm still only a spectator here, but I don't th...Ed,<BR/><BR/>I'm still only a spectator here, but I don't think Phil can say any more plainly than he has that he's not discouraging political involvement for individual Christians. He has been discouraging political involvement as a thing on the Church's agenda. You said you got that point, but it's painfully obvious you haven't.<BR/><BR/><I>We are under no illusions that we are going to change people's hearts or bring in the kingdom through the political process.</I><BR/><BR/>As far as that goes, you're either naive or severely under-informed. I'd say there's been a powerful illusion for a long time that that's exactly how the kingdom's gonna get here.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44980474759964234212008-06-10T06:56:00.000-07:002008-06-10T06:56:00.000-07:00Phil said: If, on the other hand, you came into m...Phil said: <I>If, on the other hand, you came into my Sunday school class and began recruiting roofing crews and telling everyone in my flock that as Christians they have a bounden duty to help change the world and <B>advance the kingdom of Christ</B> by putting roofs on people's homes, I would tell you you are off message and you need to rethink your strategy for advancing the kingdom.</I><BR/><BR/>No, I've not purposely misunderstood you. The more you explain, the more you confirm that you believe that Christians are on the wrong track to be politically involved. <BR/><BR/>Maybe there are some churches or Christians who think that they are advancing the cause of Christ by political activity. You point to theonomists, for example. I just don't see this as the motivation or expectation of the majority of conservative evangelicals. We are under no illusions that we are going to change people's hearts or bring in the kingdom through the political process. But we have every reason to see to it that our values are reflected in the nation's laws and that public <B>behavior</B> is restrained in the direction of good and wholesomeness.<BR/><BR/>If you were warning us not to get out of balance in allowing our political involvement to consume out thoughts and time, I'd applaud that. If you were exhorting us to evangelism, I'd applaud that. But I don't agree with causing Christians to believe that it's wrong to be politically involved and that they shouldn't join with fellow citizens who agree with them on questions of values and culture to mutually advance those interests in the public arena.<BR/><BR/>It's probably time for me to be finished commenting on this subject. Happy writing.Ed Grooverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05392051422721448557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-10321655467926254492008-06-10T06:22:00.000-07:002008-06-10T06:22:00.000-07:00Mike: My point is that though there be some light ...Mike: <B>My point is that though there be some light around here, the kingdom of God (not people) will not be visible to all.</B><BR/><BR/>Indeed, Christ says it will be visible only to the justified:<BR/><BR/>John 3:3 <I>...Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.</I>Teresitahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05528002521904908827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45986263073554510622008-06-10T05:03:00.000-07:002008-06-10T05:03:00.000-07:00And the reference is to the physical visibility of...And the reference is to the physical visibility of the Kingdom, not spiritual.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09456884689908680100noreply@blogger.com