The Disciple and Politics

[Tri Unity]

Here are a few quotes from the early church.

I just finished reading Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John and Tertullian's Against Praxeas.

 

[Free]

A means of testing our loyalty to God and His kingdom is introduced by concepts of democracy, patriotism and nationalism. Dual citizenship is refused to many politicians on the basis of having conflicting political interests. Treason and espionage are serious crimes no doubt. This is also true in God’s Kingdom. Many are stewards of God’s Kingdom while they willingly represent Satan’s kingdoms also. The bible clearly states that Satan is the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4), and is guiding and empowering the affairs of the unsaved nations (Rev 13). This is a conflict of interest and spiritual treason. It is a serious matter.

However, it is not important whether or not we all understand this point. Some will never understand, and they will maintain their earthly patronage until they die. It matters not, and it is useless to argue with such ones. That is the point of God testing us by these means; some will pass, some will fail. All of us are being sifted as wheat and chaff. The same thing happened in Noah’s day, and the whole world at that time, except 8 souls, were judged for treason and destroyed. The same fate awaits us today. We cannot have two masters. Yet some will go to their death arguing their point that two masters are completely agreeable to God. It’s a waste of time arguing this point.

Rather than engage and discuss, which is very much a part of the process of coming to the truth of a matter, you seem to think you have it and would prefer to, once again, you cast those who disagree with you in a negative light. It is one thing to disagree and state why, it is quite another to imply that those believers who disagree with you "willingly represent Satan's kingdoms" and are committing some form of "spiritual treason." This type of rhetoric is unbecoming of a Christian and doesn't promote healthy discussion.

As to your use of 2 Cor 4:4, Paul is not saying that Satan is the actual ruler of this world, or he would be contradiction what Jesus already said:

Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. (ESV)

Joh 14:30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me, (ESV)

Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Clearly Satan is not literally the "god of this world" in the sense that he is somehow ruling over this world. Jesus is currently enthroned as King and Satan can only be said to be a "god of this world" in the sense that the world implicitly follows and worships him--he is set up as a god to them.

As for Rev 13, I would again direct you to Rom 13 and suggest trying to understand the two together.

And, again, none of this in any way suggests that Christians should not be involved in politics.

 

[Tri Unity]

Rather than engage and discuss, which is very much a part of the process of coming to the truth of a matter, you seem to think you have it and would prefer to, once again, you cast those who disagree with you in a negative light. It is one thing to disagree and state why, it is quite another to imply that those believers who disagree with you "willingly represent Satan's kingdoms" and are committing some form of "spiritual treason." This type of rhetoric is unbecoming of a Christian and doesn't promote healthy discussion.

Ok, let me try to be more sensitive...

For me personally - and I not judging you if you disagree – for me personally to participate in voting, government activities or community building; I would personally consider it an act of treason toward the Kingdom of God and my Christ who is my only King. I have personally come to understand my Christ as the King of God’s Kingdom, and I believe that the scriptures warn me against participation into the affairs of this world. Consequently, I do not want to place my faith in worldly Kingdoms; as Christ, my King, said to me in the Gospels that His Kingdom is no part of this world (John 18:36). His Kingdom is not part of Israel; or Rome; or Constantinople; or England; or America; or Europe; or the United Nations. God has designated these kingdoms as “beasts” in Daniel and Revelation, and that He would destroy all of these Kingdoms by the sword of His mouth and establish a New (heavenly) Jerusalem that would govern the affairs of mankind.

This is my personal belief. If you do not share my view, that is fine. Your denial of my Christian views does not in any way make their reality any less. You do not offend, threaten or intimidate me in anyway by your denial. You are free to develop any philosophy you wish; incorporating any government you wish to into your own brand of Christianity. This type of ideology has always happened, and always will happen, until Christ returns. For me personally, I wish to stick to the gospel message and the tradition of the Church that was taught in the first centuries immediately after Christ, before the Church fell into darkness after Emperor Theodosius made the Roman Catholic Church the only legal church of Christendom (The Edict of Theodosius). This is my personal view. I hope it does not offend you. I trust that after suitable research into the subject you will likely amend your views as I had.

I don’t know what else I can say (other than to simply agree with you) that will appease you. My comments have been misrepresented by you as though I intended to insult you by teaching and sharing what the Bible teaches. I hope you learn to not be so easily offended.

God Bless
Tri

 

[Butch5]

Ok, let me try to be more sensitive...

For me personally - and I not judging you if you disagree – for me personally to participate in voting, government activities or community building; I would personally consider it an act of treason toward the Kingdom of God and my Christ who is my only King. I have personally come to understand my Christ as the King of God’s Kingdom, and I believe that the scriptures warn me against participation into the affairs of this world. Consequently, I do not want to place my faith in worldly Kingdoms; as Christ, my King, said to me in the Gospels that His Kingdom is no part of this world (John 18:36). His Kingdom is not part of Israel; or Rome; or Constantinople; or England; or America; or Europe; or the United Nations. God has designated these kingdoms as “beasts†in Daniel and Revelation, and that He would destroy all of these Kingdoms by the sword of His mouth and establish a New (heavenly) Jerusalem that would govern the affairs of mankind.

This is my personal belief. If you do not share my view, that is fine. Your denial of my Christian views does not in any way make their reality any less. You do not offend, threaten or intimidate me in anyway by your denial. You are free to develop any philosophy you wish; incorporating any government you wish to into your own brand of Christianity. This type of ideology has always happened, and always will happen, until Christ returns. For me personally, I wish to stick to the gospel message and the tradition of the Church that was taught in the first centuries immediately after Christ, before the Church fell into darkness after Emperor Theodosius made the Roman Catholic Church the only legal church of Christendom (The Edict of Theodosius). This is my personal view. I hope it does not offend you. I trust that after suitable research into the subject you will likely amend your views as I had.

I don’t know what else I can say (other than to simply agree with you) that will appease you. My comments have been misrepresented by you as though I intended to insult you by teaching and sharing what the Bible teaches. I hope you learn to not be so easily offended.

God Bless
Tri

If Chrtistians would look to the first Christans as commentaries rather than these modern "theologians" they would see what Christianity really is. I suspect however, that many would leave the faith because it is not the easy believism that is preached today. They took Jesus' words seriously, if a man is not willing to forsake all he cannot be my disciple.


Hey, are you familiar with David Bercot's writings?

 

[Butch5]

I just finished reading Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John and Tertullian's Against Praxeas.

Cool, I've just started recording the epistle of Barnabas.

 

[Tri Unity]

Hey, are you familiar with David Bercot's writings?

Hi Butch,

Yes, I have a couple of David's books. I recognised some of your above quotations from his dictionary. I read Barnabas too. I regularly read the ECF's to explore the organic church before it backslid. It is the only real way to find out what the true gospel was in the minds of the original hearers.

As you said, many today would abandon Christianity if they found out the real gospel. The made up modern version attempts to be all nice and cosy with the world, sharing ethics and values with the godless, and becoming a hideous hybrid that is spoken of in Revelation 2 & 3. I was there myself, so I do not disdain or speak with contempt, only against what I previously believed as a christian do-gooder. We all have a lot of ignorance and growing to do. I have been the foremost, so I do not judge, but we all need correction at times. Our christian duty is to take correction where it is needed. What good is it that we preach to others yet we ourselves will not submit to Christ!?

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch,

Yes, I have a couple of David's books. I recognised some of your above quotations from his dictionary. I read Barnabas too. I regularly read the ECF's to explore the organic church before it backslid. It is the only real way to find out what the true gospel was in the minds of the original hearers.

As you said, many today would abandon Christianity if they found out the real gospel. The made up modern version attempts to be all nice and cosy with the world, sharing ethics and values with the godless, and becoming a hideous hybrid that is spoken of in Revelation 2 & 3. I was there myself, so I do not disdain or speak with contempt, only against what I previously believed as a christian do-gooder. We all have a lot of ignorance and growing to do. I have been the foremost, so I do not judge, but we all need correction at times. Our christian duty is to take correction where it is needed. What good is it that we preach to others yet we ourselves will not submit to Christ!?

Agreed! It is frustrating sometimes when there is so much error. It would be nice if leaders in the church were not so concerned with their doctrines and would lead their flocks back to the pristine faith.

 

[farouk]

How about if prominent evangelicals just stayed off the media in November and concentrated on their Bible studies?

 

[Asyncritus]

I just finished reading Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John and Tertullian's Against Praxeas.

Why are you wasting your life doing this?

Can't you read the gospel for yourself?

 

[Free]

Ok, let me try to be more sensitive...

For me personally - and I not judging you if you disagree – for me personally to participate in voting, government activities or community building; I would personally consider it an act of treason toward the Kingdom of God and my Christ who is my only King. I have personally come to understand my Christ as the King of God’s Kingdom, and I believe that the scriptures warn me against participation into the affairs of this world.

And I still suggest that the Scriptures are in no way suggesting that believers are not to be involved. Even in the quotes provided by Butch5, which I will address, there are none, that I can see, that appeal to Scripture as their basis for not participating in politics. And I think that some of them are not saying what Butch5 is thinking they are saying, just as happens with Scripture.

Consequently, I do not want to place my faith in worldly Kingdoms; as Christ, my King, said to me in the Gospels that His Kingdom is no part of this world (John 18:36).

But that's not really what he said. He said is kingdom is not from this world.

His Kingdom is not part of Israel; or Rome; or Constantinople; or England; or America; or Europe; or the United Nations. God has designated these kingdoms as “beasts†in Daniel and Revelation, and that He would destroy all of these Kingdoms by the sword of His mouth and establish a New (heavenly) Jerusalem that would govern the affairs of mankind.

And yet Jesus consistently taught that his kingdom, the kingdom of God, had arrived then and that he was inaugurating it.

This is my personal belief. If you do not share my view, that is fine. Your denial of my Christian views does not in any way make their reality any less. You do not offend, threaten or intimidate me in anyway by your denial. You are free to develop any philosophy you wish; incorporating any government you wish to into your own brand of Christianity. This type of ideology has always happened, and always will happen, until Christ returns.

Again, you are insulting--"my Christian views" vs "your own brand of Christianity." It could very well be that my views are correct and yours are not but that has yet to be determined.

For me personally, I wish to stick to the gospel message and the tradition of the Church that was taught in the first centuries immediately after Christ, before the Church fell into darkness after Emperor Theodosius made the Roman Catholic Church the only legal church of Christendom (The Edict of Theodosius). This is my personal view. I hope it does not offend you. I trust that after suitable research into the subject you will likely amend your views as I had.

You wish to stick to what you think is the gospel message and to traditions and teachings which may or may not have been correct. Error was in the Church from the earliest of times and it is fallacious to argue that the earlier we go in Christian history, the more correct we will be in belief and practice.

I don’t know what else I can say (other than to simply agree with you) that will appease you. My comments have been misrepresented by you as though I intended to insult you by teaching and sharing what the Bible teaches. I hope you learn to not be so easily offended.

I wasn't offended and I am not at all easily offended. It is one thing to teach others what you think the Bible says, it is another to insult your readers or listeners in the process.

 

[Asyncritus]

If Chrtistians would look to the first Christans as commentaries rather than these modern "theologians" they would see what Christianity really is. I suspect however, that many would leave the faith because it is not the easy believism that is preached today. They took Jesus' words seriously, if a man is not willing to forsake all he cannot be my disciple.

Why waste time looking at them rather than at the NT itself?

I've found that the NT is extremely clear on every important point, and not open to much doubt apart from the dust raised by the theologians who have nothing better to do than sit on their behinds writing claptrap instead of getting out there and preaching the gospel Christ taught.

The commission to the apostles didn't include writing too many tomes of tripe.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


So why drink muddied water instead of at the fountainhead?

 

[Free]

Why waste time looking at them rather than at the NT itself?

I've found that the NT is extremely clear on every important point, and not open to much doubt apart from the dust raised by the theologians who have nothing better to do than sit on their behinds writing claptrap instead of getting out there and preaching the gospel Christ taught.

The commission to the apostles didn't include writing too many tomes of tripe.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


So why drink muddied water instead of at the fountainhead?

Being that we're 2000 years out, the water is muddied no matter which way you look at it. Even the verses you posted and your statement that theologians should be "getting out there and preaching the gospel Christ taught," presume many things, including knowing just what the gospel is as given in the Bible, what it means to baptize, what is meant by "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" and just who they are, what are all the things that are commanded to be observed and what is meant by the "end of the world".

So, despite your derogatory comments about theologians, they are most necessary in helping us to understand what Scripture means when it says such things, and many more things. Not to mention that without them we wouldn't have an English translation by which to "support" such derogatory comments.

 

[Butch5]

Why waste time looking at them rather than at the NT itself?

I've found that the NT is extremely clear on every important point, and not open to much doubt apart from the dust raised by the theologians who have nothing better to do than sit on their behinds writing claptrap instead of getting out there and preaching the gospel Christ taught.

The commission to the apostles didn't include writing too many tomes of tripe.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


So why drink muddied water instead of at the fountainhead?

First of all, you don't have the fountain head, you have some "Theologian's" interpretation of copies of the fountain head. The earliest text we have are copies from about 400 AD. "ALL" of the Ante-Nicene writers had copies much closer to he source. Some had the very writings of the apostles’ themselves.

Are you fluent in koine Greek? They were.

Are you well versed in 1st century middle eastern culture? They were, they lived in it.

Are you able to ask questions of the apostles themselves? Some of them were?

There are many reasons to read their writings and get a better understanding of what was taught in the first century.

The idea that one can reject all of this background information is seen in the plethora of denominations in the church today. Christians think they can read the Scriptures with a western mindset and walk away with a complete understanding of a 1 st century middle eastern culture.

 

[Tri Unity]

So, despite your derogatory comments ...

You suggest that everyone who doesn’t have your view is insulting and derogatory. Perhaps you are flying too close to the flame? You say plenty that could be construed as insulting, but others are not so quick to jump on you and magnify your shortcomings. You should learn to do this yourself before removing the speck from your brother’s eye.

 

[Free]

You suggest that everyone who doesn’t have your view is insulting and derogatory. Perhaps you are flying too close to the flame? You say plenty that could be construed as insulting, but others are not so quick to jump on you and magnify your shortcomings. You should learn to do this yourself before removing the speck from your brother’s eye.

While it wasn't directed at you so you should have left it alone, especially since you are new, I will requote the pertinent part:

"and not open to much doubt apart from the dust raised by the theologians who have nothing better to do than sit on their behinds writing claptrap"

That is derogatory and my calling it out has nothing to do with it disagreeing with my view. If I have ever insulted anyone in this thread on the basis of disagreement, then please, point it out, as I do not believe I have done so at all. There are good and proper ways of discussion and debate and insulting others is not a way to go about things.

 

[Free]

First of all, you don't have the fountain head, you have some "Theologian's" interpretation of copies of the fountain head. The earliest text we have are copies from about 400 AD. "ALL" of the Ante-Nicene writers had copies much closer to he source. Some had the very writings of the apostles’ themselves.

You must be careful here as you are close to undermining the Bible. The texts of the Bible have been shown to be extremely accurate and well preserved.

Are you fluent in koine Greek? They were.

Are you well versed in 1st century middle eastern culture? They were, they lived in it.

Are you able to ask questions of the apostles themselves? Some of them were?

There are many reasons to read their writings and get a better understanding of what was taught in the first century.

The idea that one can reject all of this background information is seen in the plethora of denominations in the church today. Christians think they can read the Scriptures with a western mindset and walk away with a complete understanding of a 1 st century middle eastern culture.

While I agree with your general point, we must be careful to not assume that theologians of today do not have a good understanding of early church writings, history of the culture and the early church, as well as a thorough understanding of koine Greek.

That isn't too say that there isn't error and certainly some are further from the truth than others, but we simply cannot dismiss what they have to say as they have a much more thorough knowledge than most of us can ever hope to have.

 

[Drew]

Christians think they can read the Scriptures with a western mindset and walk away with a complete understanding of a 1 st century middle eastern culture.

Totally agree. As much as it would be "nice and easy" to skip the hard work of trying to see the scriptures in their specific cultural context - and not in the context of the 21st century - we simply do not have that choice, if we are serious in our quest to understand the Bible.

 

[Drew]

"Mathew and Zacharias likewise resigned from being tax-collectors, so government jobs were refused on any level."

I have not read a lot of the recent posts, but I get the impression that you believe the Christian should distance themselves from involvement in government.

I would disagree with that. First of all, the fact that certain people resigned their "government" jobs (e.g. as tax collectors) is hardly strong grounds for drawing the general conclusion that Christians are to avoid involvement in government. There are any of a number of reasons why a person might leave government that do not entail that person believing that involvement in government is generally a bad thing.

But more importantly, the scriptures teach (I believe) that Jesus has been installed as the "true King" over this present world. And since He is a king, and we are His subjects, it is not merely permissible, it is arguably our vocation to seek to implement His Kingship in all ways possible. Obviously, working from within to transform the organs of governance would be included.

 

[Tri Unity]

Just a couple of comments on the quotes made earlier by Butch5:

“If any bishop uses the rulers of this world and by their means comes to be a bishop of a church, let him be deprived and suspended – together with all who communicate with him.” (Apostolic Constitutions - AD 50)

The Apostolic Constitutions should be read by every Christian! Christians only backslid once they departed from these instructions.

“This world and the next are two enemies…. We cannot therefore be the friends of both.” Clement of Rome… Second Clement (AD 80).

These sentiments of Clement were derived by the scriptures and were solemnly kept by all Christians for the next 200 years.

“Nor is there anything more entirely foreign to us than the affairs of state.” (Tertullian - AD 200).

For 200 years after Christ Christians refused “affairs ofthe state. This is a fact!

“It is not possible for anyone to enter into the kingdom of heaven who has not been turned away from the affairs of this world.” (Origen - AD 200 - 250).

Our test was to be tempted by the Kingdoms of this world, as Christ had been tested, and to reject them, as Christ had done.

“We have no country on earth. Therefore, we can disdain earthly possessions.” (Clement of Alexandria AD 195).

No possible room here for nationalism or patriotism!

“We should ever and a day reflect that we have renounced the world and are in the meantime living here as guests and strangers.” (Cyprian AD 220)

Christians were not part of any democratic process to give justice and human rights to the masses. This view of the world came from Augustine (City of God), and is completely out of step with Christianity of the first 3 centuries. Christians today have drifted a long way from the teachings of the bible. Christian involvement in Government affairs, along with their secularism, liberalism, and mantras of globalism, are the hallmarks of the antichrist, not Christ. This view of mine is the bible's teaching, and it was believed by all known Christians from the first 3 centuries after Christ. We today belong to the muddy waters, and we are all conceited to think we know better than the first Christians who practiced what the Apostles taught us. We are free to swim in muddy waters, but we only kid ourselves that we preach the same gospel.

 

[Tri Unity]

I've found that the NT is extremely clear on every important point...

I guess that's why there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations... the NT is extremely clear!

That's ok, we are all babes and naive. It takes a long time to break though the conditioning of the world and the fantasies of our minds. In a way, we all suffer from cultural schizophrenia from the god of this age. We cannot even be healed because we are in denial of our sickness. One step at a time...