The Disciple and Politics

[Tri Unity]

If the teaching of Jesus and the apostles was immediately lost, that would mean that Jesus and the apostles were not able to establish the Christian faith or the Church.

Thank goodness the teachings were not lost!

Scriptures used to demonstrate non-government involvement.

Tertullian, On the Military Crowns, Chapter 11. “…I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians.”

“Do we believe it lawful for a human oath to be superadded to one divine (Mathew 5:33-37), for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ? (Mathew 5:33-37) Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? (Mathew 26:52) And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? (Mathew 5:40) And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? (Romans 12:19) And shall he keep guard before the temples which he has renounced? (1 John 5:21) And shall he take a meal where the apostle has forbidden him?” (1 Corinthians 8:10)

“Of course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with military service, their case is different, as in the instance of those whom John used to receive for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions, I mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and the centurion whom Peter instructs; yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer, and faith has been sealed, there must be …an immediate abandonment of it, which has been the course with many.”

The entire book of Tertullian is on this subject. The above quotations are just one small section of the book. His other books also deal with worldly involvement of sports and the Olympics, and many other government sponsored events. For those who think they know about the scriptures or the teachings of the church, and who have not explored these teachings that were handed down through the Apostles, they are not a trustworthy teacher, as they have not truly explored our Christian culture. It would be akin to a historian to have never read about the French Revolution, or the crusades; regardless of his specialty. Be aware of false teachers, our master warned us.

Tri

 

[Asyncritus]

[...]The point is that there has been disagreement right from the beginning, so going earlier does not necessarily mean more correct.

It all depends on how much earlier you do go.

The minute you start reading the 'fathers', as tri-unity and Butch are demonstrating, you encounter error of one sort or another.

The NT demonstrates that arguments and heresies were present even when the canonical books were being written. Just look at Galatians, Jude and Peter for example.

Why then, I ask, go any further down the line? The fathers' (and that's something Jesus explicitly said not to call anyone that: Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven) nonsense is as bad as yours or mine, so as I asked a while ago, why not go to the fountainhead, where the pollution is likely to be the least?

I didn't think that was too difficult to see.

So why do it?

 

[Asyncritus]

Thank goodness the teachings were not lost!

I'm afraid they were.

The great basic doctrines of the OT and the NT vanished from the earth pretty soon, and were replaced by the current major doctrines of the churches.

I don't want to start a war, but these are pretty well-documented changes:

The unity of God was replaced by trinitarianism

The subordination of the Son was replaced by trinitarianism, in which He is co-equal, co-eternal, co-substantial with the Father

The Kingdom of God which was to come on earth, was replaced by heaven going at death

The baptism by full immersion of a believer was replaced by infant sprinkling

The Promises of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were forgotten

The central role of Israel in the purpose of God vanished

The doctrine of the resurrection from the dead to judgment was replaced by immortal soulism , purgatory and eternal torment in hell

Heaven became the place of the righteous' reward instead of the earth

Justification by works, such as penances, self-torture, indulgences, and monasticism replaced justification by faith

The church as a spiritual entity was replaced by increasingly large and fancy buildings

The average believers were replaced by the clergy and its monumental hierarchical structures visible today

The inspiration of scripture was replaced by reliance on the works of theologians and 'scholars' in an amazing parallel to the Jews' own dependence on the 'traditions of the elders' - which Jesus roundly condemned.

To put it briefly, The biblical basic teachings were replaced by the philosophies of men almost in toto, and pretty soon at that.

I've no doubt Tri-unity can put dates on these shifts, from his extensive reading in church history.

But these are the deep reasons for my chronic mistrust of theologians - because these shifts were caused by their obfuscations, general stupidity and subservience to political pressures.

Oh, I've no doubt there are and were a few uncorrupted among them (I've seen a few encouraging signs that NT Wright may be seeing some doctrinal light), but those were few and far between. The majority were not - and the net result of their work is depressingly summarised above .

So why should I read them? Indeed, why should you?

 

[Asyncritus]

Many of the disciples had split off into geographical locations that still bear their unique perceptions till this day. Mark went to Alexandria; Peter went to Rome; and Asyncritus went to Persia. Asyncritus, along with Nicolas and Stephen, were among the seventy disciples.
Tri

I strenuously deny any such things!

 

[Butch5]

It all depends on how much earlier you do go.

The minute you start reading the 'fathers', as tri-unity and Butch are demonstrating, you encounter error of one sort or another.

The NT demonstrates that arguments and heresies were present even when the canonical books were being written. Just look at Galatians, Jude and Peter for example.

Why then, I ask, go any further down the line? The fathers' (and that's something Jesus explicitly said not to call anyone that: Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven) nonsense is as bad as yours or mine, so as I asked a while ago, why not go to the fountainhead, where the pollution is likely to be the least?

I didn't think that was too difficult to see.

So why do it?

As I've pointed out, you don't have the fountain head.

 

[Butch5]

All I have time for right now is this. The implication only effects you because you are presuming that Jesus and the apostles taught this, yet there has not been any substantial argument from the Bible to show that the Christian should not be involved in politics. As I pointed out previously, none of the quotes you provided from the ante-Nicene fathers quoted Scripture, which says a lot. I don't see it as a teaching of Jesus nor the Apostles so nothing has been lost.

2 Corinthians 6 clearly tells Christians to come out from among the world, not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. If one is in the government furthering the kingdom of America they are unequally yoked with unbelievers.

If you go look at those quotes that I posted in their respective books you'll find the Scripture references

 

[Grazer]

This whole "unequally yoked" passage gets used a lot and a lot of the times I don't see why.

If we're not engaging with the world, how are we supposed to spread the gospel? If we're not in politics, how are we supposed to make meaningful changes? God did not remain distant from the world, he came and made himself part of it. Jesus associated with everyone the Pharisees shunned. It seems to me that some Christians want to simply wash their hands of the world and let it destroy itself but I always thought we had to get our hands dirty, get involved with those who are not Christians and actually do some work in spreading the gospel.

 

[Butch5]

Me neither. There are very many teachings, though, that the church has gone astray with. From what I can tell, they began to compositely go astray from about 250 AD. I admire many authors after this time; but the most reliable authors are before this time.

The major doorway to apostasy developed (in my opinion) when the Church of Rome, in 255 AD, decreed that the gnostics were now admissible to communion (Eucharist) without being baptised or repenting. Bishop (pope) Victor became sympathetic with the gnostic Valentinians at an earlier date (about 180 AD), and had accepted their gnostic version of the Trinity (which became adopted by Rome, but disputed by Alexandria and Carthage). This problem escalated until Bishop (pope) Stephen had ruled that the entire church was to now allow gnostics into fellowship. Firmilian and Cyprian (and about 200 other bishops) had strongly opposed this (and ignored it), but it became canonized at the Synod of Arles in 314 AD. At the same time (Synod of Arles) the church had, for the first time, asked the government (secular powers) to intervene in church affairs. This poisonous event has still not been rectified; for the government, once it got its venom into the church, has continued to infect the church more and more, until today, we see ourselves as an extension of the government (or the government an extension of the church). The only possible way out of this nightmare is to retrace our steps before we were infected; and we can do that with the guidance of the Church Fathers.

Trying to educate brothers and sisters about this affair is very difficult, as there is a lot of resistance due to the church developing “club†beliefs that are passed down and supported from generation to generation. These club beliefs circulate so easily because the gospel has been watered down so much and diluted to make it palatable for gnostics, evolutionists and atheists. There are brothers who believe they are being faithful to God by supporting this corrosive system. They mean well, but they are actually working against God. This is similar to when Jesus came and He found the entire nation of “God’s people†wanting to crucify Him. God could not even convince His own people that they had gone astray.

As sad as this is, it is also exciting. It is what we are meant to expect to be the climate within the churches in the end-times. In God’s due time He will again release the Power of His Spirit and manifest the way, the truth and the life. We will see even greater miracles than were done in the first century. That is exciting! The end is nigh!

Hi Tri Unity,

That was insightful. I too realize the farther we get in time the more people began to go astray. That is why I give less weight to writers who are farther from the aposltes. This is where unanimity in time and geography become even more crucial.

 

[Butch5]

This whole "unequally yoked" passage gets used a lot and a lot of the times I don't see why.

If we're not engaging with the world, how are we supposed to spread the gospel? If we're not in politics, how are we supposed to make meaningful changes? God did not remain distant from the world, he came and made himself part of it. Jesus associated with everyone the Pharisees shunned. It seems to me that some Christians want to simply wash their hands of the world and let it destroy itself but I always thought we had to get our hands dirty, get involved with those who are not Christians and actually do some work in spreading the gospel.

Grazer,

We're not advocating disengaging from the world. We are to be out there engaging the world. However, were are to do that as the church not as members in the kingdom of darkness. Just look at history and you can see what has happened again, and again, and again, when Christians have tried to assert their influence through governments. It's been a disaster. Look at all of the wars and fighting just among the English Christians alone in the Middle Ages, one group of Christians killing another group of Christians. You had the same thing with the American Revolutionary and Civil wars. You had professing Christians on both sides killing each other. Whose side do you suppose God was on? I mean think about, you have two Christians fighting on opposing sides, one kills the other. He's killed one of God's people, to further the kingdom of darkness. How do you suppose God feels about that? Think back to Old Testament times, imagine you had hordes of Israeli soldiers fighting and dying to protect pagan temples. How do you think God would have reacted to the that? Do you suppose He would have said go get em boys? Or, do you think he would have brought down judgment on them? When one fights for any earthly nation he's defending one of the kingdoms of darkness. Is that how we are supposed to be engaging the world?

The problem is that many Christians, for whatever reason think it's their place to save the world. It's not, it's God's place to save the world. And, He doesn't need any help. The Scriptures are clear that God raises up and puts down nations. So, when one nation goes against another, they are going against a nation that has been instituted by God.

Let's use an example. Nation A declares war on Nation B, a Christian lives in Nation A and decides he's going to fight for his country and joins the war. He's now placed himself in opposition to God. Is that the place a Christian wants to be?

 

[Grazer]

Grazer,

We're not advocating disengaging from the world. We are to be out there engaging the world. However, were are to do that as the church not as members in the kingdom of darkness. Just look at history and you can see what has happened again, and again, and again, when Christians have tried to assert their influence through governments. It's been a disaster. Look at all of the wars and fighting just among the English Christians alone in the Middle Ages, one group of Christians killing another group of Christians. You had the same thing with the American Revolutionary and Civil wars. You had professing Christians on both sides killing each other. Whose side do you suppose God was on? I mean think about, you have two Christians fighting on opposing sides, one kills the other. He's killed one of God's people, to further the kingdom of darkness. How do you suppose God feels about that? Think back to Old Testament times, imagine you had hordes of Israeli soldiers fighting and dying to protect pagan temples. How do you think God would have reacted to the that? Do you suppose He would have said go get em boys? Or, do you think he would have brought down judgment on them? When one fights for any earthly nation he's defending one of the kingdoms of darkness. Is that how we are supposed to be engaging the world?

The problem is that many Christians, for whatever reason think it's their place to save the world. It's not, it's God's place to save the world. And, He doesn't need any help. The Scriptures are clear that God raises up and puts down nations. So, when one nation goes against another, they are going against a nation that has been instituted by God.

Let's use and example. Nation A declares war on Nation B, a Christian lives in Nation A and decides he's going to fight for his country and joins the war. He's now placed himself in opposition to God. Is that the place a Christian wants to be?

I take it then you don't believe Christians should serve in the military.

I accept that you don't believe that we are to disengage from the world but you'd be amazed the amount of people that have used those verses to suggest we can't be friends with unbelievers

 

[Drew]

Ps 72.8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
9 They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.
10 The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.
11 Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.

This text is not inconsistent with the otherwise clear Biblical teaching that Jesus is a presently installed king over all nations.

Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15 that Jesus must, yes, reign (note the clear kingship allusion) until all enemies are defeated. This means that during that reign, there will indeed be enemies - powers that will not submit and accept His kingship.

This should not surprise us. In many nations all around the world many citizens of various countries clearly do not acknowledge the legitimacy of their rulers.

The text says "all kings shall fall down before Him"

Well, indeed all kings will fall down before Him. But this does not mean that Jesus is not King right now, it only means that not everyone acknowledges or accepts this.

Again, this is not at all surprising and is consistent with Paul's belief that Jesus' kingship involves a process of defeating enemies.

 

[Drew]

Good scriptures. They demonstrate the greatness of God, and the vanity of the nations. Although Romans says that we are to pray for our rulers, for "the powers that be are ordained of God", that does not mean that we are to participate within governments, merely to pray for them that God may grant us peace to practice our faith.

I believe your logic is incorrect here. In Romans 13, Paul tells us to obey governments, but how, and please be precise, does it logically follow that we are not to participate in them?

You appear to be begging the question at issue.

Jesus is Lord? Yes or no? If Jesus is Lord, why is He only Lord over the personal interior lives of believers and not Lord over the very institutions that determine the way the world works? That seems like a very impotent, watered down version of lordship.

It helps to remember the culture in which the scriptures were written. To people of first century Palestine, Caesar was, yes, lord - that is how the term was used. We in the 21st century have constructed our own definition of what it means for Jesus to be lord - one where Jesus really only rules over our personal lives. Well, where does that come from? Clearly, the proper way to interpret "Lord" is not to re-work the original meaning.

To Paul and his contemporaries, the assertion "Jesus is lord" would mean only thing.

He replaces Ceasar.

 

[Drew]

We're not advocating disengaging from the world. We are to be out there engaging the world. However, were are to do that as the church not as members in the kingdom of darkness.

No one is suggesting joining the kingdom of darkness. The kingdom of God was initiated by Jesus over 2000 years ago - I am convinced that the scriptures are very clear on this. For some mysterious reason, 21st century believers re-define "kingdom" to narrow it down to some domain of private interior spirituality. That is not the way the way the concept would have been understood in Jesus' and Paul's time. If there was a kingdom, it meant that this present material order was subject to its authority.

I see no Biblical case whatsoever for the Christian to withdraw from participation in the very institutions that shape the way the world is run. Quite the contrary, I believe the Bible clearly establishes Jesus as the presently enthroned king over all nations and charges the church with implementing that kingship. I believe there are many scriptural arguments for, as I hope to show.

Not to mention the common sense argument: How does it make sense for a Christian to say "I love my neighbour" and yet withdraw from participating in the very institutions that play such a major role in determining how society is run.

 

[Butch5]

[/FONT]
No one is suggesting joining the kingdom of darkness. The kingdom of God was initiated by Jesus over 2000 years ago - I am convinced that the scriptures are very clear on this. For some mysterious reason, 21st century believers re-define "kingdom" to narrow it down to some domain of private interior spirituality. That is not the way the way the concept would have been understood in Jesus' and Paul's time. If there was a kingdom, it meant that this present material order was subject to its authority.

Agreed, Jesus is king over it, not Christians.

I see no Biblical case whatsoever for the Christian to withdraw from participation in the very institutions that shape the way the world is run. Quite the contrary, I believe the Bible clearly establishes Jesus as the presently enthroned king over all nations and charges the church with implementing that kingship. I believe there are many scriptural arguments for, as I hope to show.

Not to mention the common sense argument: How does it make sense for a Christian to say "I love my neighbour" and yet withdraw from participating in the very institutions that play such a major role in determining how society is run.

I'd be interested in seeing your arguments. It should be easily seen in the Scriptures that Jesus forced no one to follow him, yet Christians in government would do this very thing. When I was kid store had to close on Sunday because Christians had made it so. So unbelievers could not open their businesses and make a living. Do you suppose this won unbelievers to Christ. I suspect it caused resentment just as is usually the case when people are forced to do things they don't want to do.

 

[Asyncritus]

As I've pointed out, you don't have the fountain head.

You need to be careful here Butch5.

If all we 've got is muddy water, then we're in very deeeeeeep doo-doo!

It means we are at the mercy of anyone who cares to have voiced an opinion on any matter.

So can I ask you for your opinion about scriptural inspiration?

 

[reba]

[/FONT]
No one is suggesting joining the kingdom of darkness. The kingdom of God was initiated by Jesus over 2000 years ago - I am convinced that the scriptures are very clear on this. For some mysterious reason, 21st century believers re-define "kingdom" to narrow it down to some domain of private interior spirituality. That is not the way the way the concept would have been understood in Jesus' and Paul's time. If there was a kingdom, it meant that this present material order was subject to its authority.

I see no Biblical case whatsoever for the Christian to withdraw from participation in the very institutions that shape the way the world is run. Quite the contrary, I believe the Bible clearly establishes Jesus as the presently enthroned king over all nations and charges the church with implementing that kingship. I believe there are many scriptural arguments for, as I hope to show.

Not to mention the common sense argument: How does it make sense for a Christian to say "I love my neighbour" and yet withdraw from participating in the very institutions that play such a major role in determining how society is run.

Agreed! I really like your last paragraph. The scriptures are full of common sense.

Drew this small font is hard on old eyes....

 

[reba]

The Gospel, the message of God, started covering the earth a couple thousand years ago... Before that it was isolated, for the most part, with in the Israelite community. Is there a nation, land , continent, that the Gospel has not been heard?
Psa 47:7 For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.
Maybe to us it dont look like He is King but His Word says He is.

 

[Butch5]

I take it then you don't believe Christians should serve in the military.

I don't

I accept that you don't believe that we are to disengage from the world but you'd be amazed the amount of people that have used those verses to suggest we can't be friends with unbelievers

I'm sure it 's been used in attempts to justify all kinds of beliefs. My whole point is that Jesus and the apostles didn't participate in government, their successors didn't either and until about 325 the church was growing at an astounding rate. After 325 the church began to participate in the world and we see all of the problems that brought. In the beginning Christians died for the faith later they killed for it.

 

[reba]

Do we know they did not or do we think they did not. There is not a passage telling us to stay out.

 

[Butch5]

You need to be careful here Butch5.

If all we 've got is muddy water, then we're in very deeeeeeep doo-doo!

It means we are at the mercy of anyone who cares to have voiced an opinion on any matter.

So can I ask you for your opinion about scriptural inspiration?

That doesn't change the fact that we don't have the original autographs. The link we have between our copies and the originals are the Ante-Nicene writers.