Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Redeemed
    replied
    Originally posted by rapt So what does Romans 13 mean when it says "He is the minister of God for thee to good"? Does this only apply to "good" rulers? I don't think so! God uses the most evil to do His work, like when he sent Babylon to DESOLATE Jerusalem, and later Rome to do the same thing! God accomplished what He saw as "good" to destroy those bloodthirsty, self-deceived hypocrits who hated Him. But He also protected His own, the remnant was saved in both cases.
    Rapt,

    Yes, God can use good and evil men to His purposes. However, He intended government to be Godly. He did not ordain corruption. His description of government in Romans 13 is His INTENDED role, not necessarily the reality. Just as Christians who have died to sin and arise to walk in newness of life do not always demonstrate that in their lives, so governments do not always act as "ministers of God for good". God also intended government to NOT bear the sword in vain, but they often do so by not executing criminals when they should. Thus injustice reigns in a society.
    So there's my interpretation of Romans 13. I don't believe for one minute that there is any indication that just because God uses a military or a police force that the individuals are saved because they are called "the minister of God".
    Did someone state or infer that individuals in the military or police force are saved because they are called "the minister of God"? I must have missed that. Being "the minister of God" simply means that God ordained them to carry out His purposes in civil government, whether they do or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Redeemed
    replied
    Originally posted by rapt But to try to use any of the beforementioned to try to justify a "Christian" military is incorrect.
    There is a difference in a "Christian military", as you use the term, and Christians being in the military. God ordained civil authority, including militaries, just as he ordained marriage and the church. It is a good institution, as is everything God creates and ordains. God gave specific principles of operation to each institution He ordained. When those principles are followed, His institutions are beautiful things indeed. However, all of God's institutions can be abused -- the government, the church, and the family. God doesn't prevent their abuse.

    To say that a Christian should not be in government, or the military, makes as much sense as saying Christians shouldn't be in a marriage or in church government! If the opposition arises because Christians may be required to kill, you fail to acknowledge the separation of authority and responsibility among God's institutions. God did not tell the elders of the church to "bear the sword". The authority and responsibility for execution of criminals was specifically delegated to the government. The authority and responsibility for defending a nation was specifically delegated to the government, not individuals or the church.

    God never intended the Church to take up arms and form a military -- a "Christian military" as you mentioned. That responsibility falls to the government. God never intended the elders of the church to take up a rod against other people's children. That responsibility falls to the parents.
    I don't believe his vision of a cross and hearing a voice tell in "In this sign conquer" was of God at all.
    Nor do I. Anything done "in God's name" that is contrary to God's Word is not of God.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Hmm, they never used the computer to pass on doctrine either, guess we had all better just shut up then. Using the computer is just not Biblical.

    Leave a comment:


  • rapt
    replied
    Both Babylon and Asseria bore the sword of the Lord. They were both USED by God, but neither were saved. They were later DESTROYED. God can use the BASEST of men, for we see in Daniel the Word saying that he sets up the basest to rule over men. Isn't that evidenced by the fact that God rules the universe, yet he allowed such criminals as Nero, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, the Ayatol Komini, and many many more evil men to rule?

    So what does Romans 13 mean when it says "He is the minister of God for thee to good"? Does this only apply to "good" rulers? I don't think so! God uses the most evil to do His work, like when he sent Babylon to DESOLATE Jerusalem, and later Rome to do the same thing! God accomplished what He saw as "good" to destroy those bloodthirsty, self-deceived hypocrits who hated Him. But He also protected His own, the remnant was saved in both cases.

    So there's my interpretation of Romans 13. I don't believe for one minute that there is any indication that just because God uses a military or a police force that the individuals are saved because they are called "the minister of God".

    Leave a comment:


  • Redeemed
    replied
    Re: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

    Originally posted by Explosived
    Redeemed, I have been told over and over that everyone has their own Bible, WHEN are they going to start to read and study it and get their heads out of their critical apparatus?
    By "get their heads out of their critical apparatus" I am assuming that you are making a veiled reference to a lewd and profane phrase commonly used by the world. I am disappointed.

    You constantly accuse people of being ignorant or denying the truth, but you fail to defend your position from the scriptures. Bible-believing folks want Biblical defenses.

    Leave a comment:


  • rapt
    replied
    There most certainly ISN'T any precedent in scripture for most of the things Jaltus mentioned. That's because they are not scriptural, some are not even based on any scriptural principal. Seminaries, Sunday School, (required) Sunday meetings, Christians holding political office, building church buildings, NONE of those things were seen practiced nor condoned by the early church. They did travel using the common modes to do so, so that's not unscriptural. But to try to use any of the beforementioned to try to justify a "Christian" military is incorrect. It's just another attempt at baptizing paganism like Constantine did. I don't believe his vision of a cross and hearing a voice tell him "In this sign conquer" was of God at all; no more than Mary appearing to little children at Fatima and telling them to say the rosary.
    Last edited by rapt; October 15, 2002, 08:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Executed is definately the right word. And Ginger, why are you taking Rapts side in this? I thought you were to take God's side?

    Leave a comment:


  • Redeemed
    replied
    Originally posted by Explosived "Even if Calvin was wrong for executing Servitus, that does not automatically falsify his beliefs."-Redeemed

    You mean murder don't you?

    Was Calvin a "civil authority"?
    Actually, Explosived, executing was exactly the word I meant to use.... IF Calvin was a "civil authority" in Geneva.

    There are varying accounts of his role in Geneva. Some claim that he wasn't even a citizen and thus not allowed to hold public office at all. Some claim that he was the law himself -- the "Dictator of Geneva" or the "Pope of Geneva". Some even claim that he lit the match himself, although there seems to be no proof of this.

    All I am saying is that "IF" Calvin was the civil authority as many claim, then his actions are defined as "execution", not "murder". Now, I'm not saying that Calvin exercised his God-given civil authority in a Godly manner. The fact that God establishes authorities does not imply that they are Godly -- witness our own government here in the States. The authorities may kill someone unjustly, but it is "execution" by definition, not "murder". In an unjust execution, the individuals involved may be just as guilty before God as if they had personally committed murder, but it is still "execution" by definition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Explosived
    replied
    Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

    Redeemed, I have been told over and over that everyone has their own Bible, WHEN are they going to start to read and study it and get their heads out of their critical apparatus?








    Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 3:7

    Leave a comment:


  • bill betzler
    replied
    There is also no precedent for Christians to pray in Jesus' name.
    John
    14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

    16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

    Actually, if you want anything from the Father, you must pray in Jesus' name.

    The above verses are greater than precedent. Were you speaking "technically?" Surely, you know these verses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Redeemed
    replied
    Re: ....search the Scriptures

    Originally posted by Explosived Wrong and wrong again.
    Explosived,

    Instead of simply telling people they're wrong, why don't you provide the evidence that proves them wrong? Then, perhaps, your rantings might have substance.

    Jaltus said, "There is also no precedent for Christians to pray in Jesus' name. There is also no precedent for meeting on Sundays."

    All you have to do is show one instance of Christians praying in Jesus' name or meeting on Sundays. If you can produce it then you've proven Jaltus wrong. If you can't produce it, then quit telling Jaltus he is wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Explosived
    replied
    ....search the Scriptures

    --Jaltus
    There is also no precedent for Christians to pray in Jesus' name. There is also no precedent for meeting on Sundays.
    Wrong and wrong again.

    Matthew 22:29
    Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jaltus
    replied
    Jaltus says Calvin WAS the law in Geneva, then contradicts himself by saying that the execution of heretics was in place before Calvin came. But he KNOWS that Geneva agreed to do things CALVIN'S way when they asked him back! He IGNORES the fact that Calvin said he would do everything in his power to have Servetus executed if he came there. Anyone knowing that Calvin said that and still considering him a Christian denies the Word of God, that says that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.
    Not a contradiction at all, rapt. Calvin was the law, but he did not change that law. Please show me where the contradiction lies, as there is not one apparant. You are correct that Calvin said he would execute Servetus, for Servetus, IF HE CAME BACK, would have transgressed the law.

    rapt, do you ever plan on telling us what Romans 13 say?

    You are talking out of both sides of your mouth if you do not answer the above question. You cannot tell us we are pisapplying it IF YOU WILL NOT TELL US WHAT YOU THINK THE CORRECT application of the passage is.

    Bottom line, put up or shut up.

    There is ABSOLUTELY NO PRECEDENT in the New Testament for a Christian to excecute anyone for anything! If you think there is, I CHALLENGE you to show it. The position of police or military is NOT one assigned to Christians in the bible...no, not once.
    There is also no precedent for Christians to pray in Jesus' name. There is also no precedent for driving cars. There is also no precedent for meeting on Sundays. There is also no precedent for sermons to the church. There is also no precedent for buying a church building. there is also no precedent for seminaries. There is also no precedent for Sunday Schools. There is also no precedent for ANY Christian to hold ANY political authority. Does that mean it was wrong for a King to become a Christian?

    rapt, your arguments are hollow. Not having a precedent does not make something wrong, it makes it NEW. If you had a real biblical principle to share, that would be great. But you don't.

    By the way, the "harlot" who anointed Jesus' feet WAS ALREADY SAVED (read John 11). It would really help if you knew your scripture a little better. Your lack of intertextual understanding is a bit frustrating.

    Leave a comment:


  • Explosived
    replied
    "Even if Calvin was wrong for executing Servitus, that does not automatically falsify his beliefs."-Redeemed

    You mean murder don't you?

    Was Calvin a "civil authority"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Redeemed
    replied
    Originally posted by rapt You Calvinists DENY God's word, and suppose that someone is saved even before they repent!! You think they will be saved REGARDLESS of their choices, since you deny they have any choice in the matter! You also claim that if a person is lost, he was that way from birth, and there's NOTHING HE CAN EVER DO ABOUT IT! It's called "limited atonement" and "irresistable grace" isn't it?
    I've been waiting for you to accuse me of being a Calvinist. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you or challenges your logic is a Calvinist. You're demonstrating your myopic point of view, your hastiness to jump to conclusions, and your unwillingness to listen to what's actually being said.
    Concerning what I "hate": I am instructed by God's Word to HATE EVERY FALSE WAY. If I see my brother going astray and fail to rebuke him, scripture tells me that I don't love him. To ignore him while I watch him go the way of destruction and just to keep silence would be the worst form of hatred.

    Open rebuke is better than sympathetic hypocrisy.
    I absolutely agree with you! But when you openly rebuke someone, it behooves you to make sure the plank is removed and that you are certain that you are judging rightly. To rebuke in ignorance is to lose credibility with the one you are rebuking and those that are observing.
    But will you, like the guilty person who reviled Moses for seeking to correct a disagreement among brethren, ask me how I have any right to judge between right and wrong?
    We all have, not only the right, but the responsibility, to judge between right and wrong. But make sure that you are judging rightly.
    I want to HATE WHAT GOD HATES. I don't want to call evil good or good evil.
    There are WOES upon loving what God hates, and calling evil good and good evil.
    Absolutely!! Preach on, brother!

    Just make sure you correctly identify evil before calling it evil and correctly identify good before calling it good. Calling the King James "good" and all other translations "evil" demonstrates a lack of wisdom and understanding. It casts a shadow upon the credibility of the rest of your judgments.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X