David :
Comments in Blue BF below.
What can you tell me about Jesus returning in ca 70 AD ? Never have
heard of that one.
The question comes to mind : If no-one saw him how does anyone know he
returned then ?
The Adventists had a similar problem in 1844 - 45. The solution of the 7th
Day people
was to say that Jesus had cleansed the temple in Heaven , that they had
the date right
but mistook his return as earthly when it was heavenly. But at least Ellen
White saw it.
Well, not my view, needless to say, but their view.
Anyway, I'm curious about Christ 70 : AD version, if you can tell me more.
Billy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
11/23/2011 9:45:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]
writes:
Interesting little piece from Reconstructionism land. (Or, as I call it,
la-la land.)
David
"Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned
upon by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who expresses an idea contrary to
basic liberal dogma is preaching 'hate.' How shallow these people are."—
Neal Boortz
Do Christians Want a Theocratic or a Secularist State? Or Neither?
by John Hendryx
Until the Lord Jesus Christ returns and establishes justice (Rev 6:16, 17;
11:18) by trampling down his enemies in the great winepress of His wrath
(Rev 14:19, 20), Christians are to advance the kingdom of God through
proclaiming his word with love and persuasion. Aside from the secularist
hysteria
about the dangers of Christian theocracy, the vast majority of Christians
actually have no more interest in establishing a theocratic Christian
state, than in establishing a purely secularist state. Both are equally
loathsome to us. Here is why. The secularist mullahs are just as dangerous as
the
Christian ones. Too much power in the hands of anyone, including certain
denominations of Christians, is dangerous because man is corruptible. That is
why limited government and a balance of power is a reasonable idea, because
it understands the sinful limitations of human beings, whether they be
secularist, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.
Even though Christians know the only truth, they also know themselves too
well as sinners to be without the restraint of law or a balance of power.
So when Christians speak of separation of church and state we include all
ideas under this umbrella, including secularism. One thing many secularists
fail to realize though, is that neither they nor their ideas are religiously
neutral. Yet they seem to have convinced themselves that they are
neutral....even though (ironically) the secularists want to vigorously impose
their own moral code on society, ideas which have both affirmations and
denials
about the nature of good and evil. [ This could be worked with, even if not
how they might most prefer ] Even in the face of this obvious truth, the
secularists amazingly still want to exempt themselves from the separation
of church and state clause. It is amazing to me that they do not see how
very exclusionary of all other ideas this is and leaves power in the hands of
secularists alone. They think, "others are forbidden to speak in the public
square because they are religious but WE CAN because we are not
religious." But if, on the other hand, we understand the separation clause
more
broadly, wherein all views are included under the separation of church and
state
(that is NO religion can be established, including secularism) then ALL
religions and worldviews can speak freely in the public square and compete in
the free market of ideas... That is closer to true liberty. Remember, we
live in a secular country, not a secularist country.
To establish the most just form of government, because of our sin nature,
Christians should seek laws which glorify God and His Law, but should
promote this in a context of limited government with checks and balances and a
rule of law so as to promote the most good by avoiding the tyranny of any
one group, including his own. Let's say Christians did get power. Which
Christian denomination will you trust to impose laws on the USA? If you know
yourself and the nature of man well, you will answer that none should have
such power. Consider: there are probably many Christian groups out there who
believe your brand of Christianity is heretical. As such, where under a
theocracy, the civil magistrate has the duty to execute (put to death) those
positively promoting a false religion publicly --- it is quite possible you
would be executed as a Calvinist or whatever brand of Christianity you
embrace. Which group of Christians, then, do you think are good enough to
transcend this kind of abuse of power? [Missouri Synod Lutherans] Given the
sinfulness of man, including Christians, who can implement biblical laws in a
perfectly just way. What restraints in law would you allow under such a
theocracy? It is much more complicated that many think. Yes I am in full
agreement with most of you that we need to actively promote laws that are more
biblical, but my point is that due to our sin, there must also be restraint
of power (whoever it is) through checks and balances. [ In that case you
have the Zen Buddhists act as Judges ] "Limited Government" in context here
simply means the opposite of tyranny, (i.e. theocracy and secularism)... both
totalitarian, while "limited" positively means we use laws to constrain
the dehumanizing capacity of human nature to exert power by establishing
checks and balances. Not the divine right of kings, not some mullah ruling
over
us, not the rule of priests or church, or dictator, oligarchy, left or
right winged dominionists or secularist mobocracy or any other dehumanizing
system of government. It is saying that due to the corruption of man, our
rulers all need to be under the laws limitations, checks and balances. The
U.S. was historically established as with a limited government in response to
the totalitarian government of the King of England and Europe's Divine
right of Kings. It was an experiment in LIMITED government as opposed to
tyranny.
To be clear I believe checks and balances are not, in themselves,
sufficient to guard a just form of government. They are not. I agree with the
Bible, the founding fathers and Greek and Roman philosophers as well, that
virtuous laws are the first requirement for freedom and a virtuous people a
prerequisite for checks and balances to be effective. Public policy must be
guided by God's Law. My point is not to exclude God's law from public policy,
for religious neutrality does not exist -- someone's religious ideas will
obviously be instituted. Currently we live under many of the dehumanizing
laws of secularism. My point was, rather, to say that the establishing of
God's laws in the public sphere must be done with GREAT care given the
limitations of man, under an environment of checks and balances ... not that
checks and balances had some kind of virtue in themselves. And that, when
thwarted, this is not the end of the world so we should not spend too much
time
fretting over it.
Our duty as Christian pilgrims in "Babylonian Exile" should be to "Build
houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and
have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in
marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number
there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to
which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if
it prospers, you too will prosper." - Jeremiah 29:5-7
Do I believe Christians should withdraw themselves from government? No.
Please so not mistake my intent to mean that I think Christian's should
abandon their principles while serving in government or at the ballot box. On
the contrary, we should work within the system God places us to glorify God
and His Law. [ spoken like a good Radical Centrist ] Consider Paul when he
appealed to Caesar (working within the oppressive system of the time) so
that he could proclaim Gospel (Acts 25:1-28:30). Christians are to be good
citizens by being actively involved in government and social justice and
should go out of their way to help the helpless. Since Christ's Kingdom is
already inaugurated, we are to advance it through the gospel and, AS A RESULT
OF
THE GOSPEL, social justice will be done. True conversion always results in
a heart which loves to help to poor. We are ambassadors of the Kingdom of
God. Through the gospel we are planting the seeds which God uses to create
citizens of his Kingdom in the here and now. But the main question we are
wresting with in this essay is not whether Christians should be involved in
government or service or in helping the poor (all important things) but
whether it is appropriate to set up a theocracy or not?
The Lord alone has the omniscience to judge right and wrong and do it with
absolute justice and equity when He comes. For now, while serving as good
citizens in the countries God has placed us in (Jeremiah 29:5-7), we are to
win people's hearts and minds through the gospel, which God uses to change
hearts, and which ALONE will make people eager to follow God's laws.
We conclude that all people, including Christians, are corruptible so we
need to always work toward laws that limit the powers of the government so
NO ONE GROUP (including ours) tyrannizes over the others. Currently secular
dominionists have a relative monopoly on power. Secularists and statists
use the power of the State to implement their worldview and make everyone to
live under their draconian laws. They define religion in a way that
excludes all views but their own and, as such, allow only their own views to
be
taught in K-12 education without challenge. True liberty allows all views to
speak in the public square, and the best, most persuasive and reasonable
ideas will prevail in policy. But we must remember. God can gather people
for his kingdom under any type of government. [ I donno about that, what
about Nazis and Commies ? Maybe some can be gathered , but many can be killed.
And these days in various Muslim countries, the Christian populations have
been decimated ] Some of the biggest revivals in world history have taken
place under the most inhospitable of regimes. Knowing God's sovereignty
over all, we can therefore, bare up under unjust laws with patience if and
when we have to. So we fear no man or law, for what can he do beyond kill our
body? Nothing.
Note: while most Christians believe something akin to what I have written
here, with sleight modifications perhaps, I do acknowledge that there are
tiny pockets of postmillenial Christians called theonomists or dominionists
who believe that even today the civil magistrate has the duty to execute
(put to death) those positively promoting a false religion publicly, OR
those who try to seduce someone away from worshiping the God of Abraham. [ WTH
? This is found in the Bible, where ? ] I hope you never again
conclude that one's eschatology does not matter. Look closely to see that
there
is a similarity between liberation theology on the left and theonomy or
dominion theology on the right. Both are over-realized postmillenial
eschatologies. They seem to overlook the most basic element in Christianity,
the fact
that Jesus underwent the death penalty for all who would believe; and
because of this, unbelievers benefit second hand because of His death for the
time being. We are never told in the NT to execute people for their
dishonoring of God. On the contrary, this is the time of God's patience where
he is
in-gathering people for himself while we proclaim the gospel to every
creature under heaven. This takes time and patience and the grace of God to
persuade people off of false beliefs. It certainly took many years for the
grace of God to work in me (while spreading false religion) before yielding to
Christ. What people did in Israel's theocracy (where God was directly
present and often directing their day to day affairs) is a picture of what
will
happen when Christ returns [ and with him will be the Queen of the South
and the righteous men of Nineveh ; Matthew 12 : 41 - 42 and a parallel in
Luke, and this does not mean anything ? I think not. ] and justly
tramples down His enemies in the winepress of his wrath. To think this is our
duty at the present moment is a critical error and misapprehension of the
nature of true Christianity.
Just as the Israeleocentric nature of Dispensationalism is a distraction,
so is the Politico-centric nature of theonomy a distraction from the gospel
of Jesus Christ. Both are over emphasized. Theonomists eschatology have
given them an over-emphasis on the politics of this world, where Jesus had no
such emphasis. I frequently receive some of their newsletters and in the
vast majority of their articles are about politics (not the Bible or
theology) and articles showing the inconsistencies or problems with political
liberals. Nothing wrong with talking about politics but it seems to have been
over-emphasized to the point of having replaced the gospel from what I have
seen. And by the focus of the writing, you would think that liberal
policies were the end of the world - as if God's kingdom were hurt one iota by
the
form of government we live under. Yes I agree we are to promote the most
godly government we can... but does this really make a difference in God's
eternal plan when it we are not successful? I believe Theocracy can only
exist if God chooses to directly impose and administer it. [ Except that
anyone can make this claim and how do you know if it is T or F ? Utah was a
Mormon theocracy for a while and any good LDS will tell you that God the
Father and Goddess the Mother wanted it that way. Or any of various
communities
in US history, the Shakers, the Universal Publick Friend, and many others
] The word is meaningless otherwise. No theocracy without_ Theo.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism_
(http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism)
Radical Centrism website and blog: _http://RadicalCentrism.org_
(http://radicalcentrism.org/)
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
