"Yet Jeroboam the son of Nebat, the servant of Solomon the son of David, rose up, and rebelled against his lord."
Greetings, everyone.
Peace, mercy, and grace be with you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
As the bugs get worked out, and I get more used to the different paradigm, the 3.0 experience is improving.
I must say how humorous it is to see how people react to change. It's not just a Pleo phenomenon; it's also something you can see on Facebook.
I began using Facebook two major upgrades ago. I remember how many complaints there were after the first major upgrade. Then everyone got used to it. And then there was the second major upgrade, and lo and behold, many people started complaining about it and wanting to go back to the "old" Facebook, the very same Facebook regarding which they complained when it came out! And now, how many people are still complaining? Take it to the bank: when Facebook makes its next major upgrade (and, no doubt, it will), people will complain and want the "old" Facebook back, this very Facebook concerning which they complained not too long ago.
I suppose it is this general human tendency to appreciate what is constant or routine or the like and to be resistant to change that leads some people to believe only in the KJV. Balance in all things, right? :D
After a 1.3 year hiatus, and working for a couple hours a day for the past week, my notes on Tertullian have been digitized. Now I can get on with Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and then start Origen!
It's coming up on the Fourth of July. And we have a new Pleo. Why not start it out with some good old fashioned controversy? (tongue firmly in cheek)
I will begin with reposting today's Spiritual Manna:
For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Ephesians 6:12).
As Paul concludes the Ephesian letter, he encourages the brethren to resist the powers of evil through the use of the image of war. This passage has been used and abused ever since!
Paul does well at making clear that our conflict is not against "flesh and blood." Some of the greatest travesties in human history involve men declaring that they were going out and fighting human wars in the name of Christ. Jesus and the Apostles never validated such conduct. We do not see any command or example that would justify any Christian taking up arms in the name of his faith in order to fight with his fellow man.
When believers in Christ start believing that their conflict is with flesh and blood (and this is by no means limited to actual physical war-- it can also refer to conflict with governments, human institutions, and the like), the Enemy wins a double victory. First, since the believers are fighting against the wrong "enemy," the real enemy-- the spiritual forces of darkness-- have the upper hand in keeping the souls they've won along with gaining a few believers' souls along the way. Furthermore, by alienating souls from Christ or by killing them, potential recruits for the Lord's cause are lost. This is a sad state indeed!
Nevertheless, despite the abuse of the image, the idea that we are at war with the spiritual forces of darkness in the heavenly realm is a potent one indeed. When we consider the vast power of our true Enemy, we recognize that we are not going to be able to stand against him alone (cf. Jeremiah 10:23). We are going to need all the help we can get, and that is why Paul encourages believers to be "strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might" (Ephesians 6:10). It is only through Christ that we will be able to overcome.
We also recognize that a state of war demands certain perspectives and attitudes. Just as soldiers must be properly trained and equipped for battle, we also must have a proper understanding of God's word and must wear the armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-18). Just as soldiers fighting alongside each other develop bonds that endure for as long as life continues and are far deeper than most can understand in order to stay alive and keep one another alive, so also Christians are to have tight bonds in the faith, working together in order to stay spiritually alive and to keep each other spiritually alive (Hebrews 10:24-25, Galatians 6:1-3). Just as soldiers on the front lines must be constantly vigilant and singlemindedly devoted to the task before them, so Christians are to be vigilant against the schemes of the devil and devoted to God's purposes (Ephesians 6:10-18, 1 Peter 4:7).
Yet, in the end, this is no ordinary war. We have not been instructed to make some great forward advance against the enemy. Instead, we are charged to "stand firm" (Ephesians 6:11, 13-14). We are to hold our ground-- perhaps not to advance, but certainly not to run away!
We see this situation illustrated in the book of Revelation. Jesus encourages the brethren of the seven churches of Asia, providing understanding of the rewards waiting for those who "conquer" (Revelation 2-3). We are allowed to see that a great and mighty beast has arisen to stand against the believers and to persecute them-- the Roman Empire (cf. Revelation 13-18). John does not leave us in doubt as to who stands behind this beast, inspiring and empowering him-- it is the dragon, Satan, our enemy (Revelation 13:3-5). What were the Christians to do?
Notice that there is no scene in which the believers take up arms and fight the beast. In fact, we do not even see the brethren protesting the beast! Instead, the believers are more concerned to fight the power behind the beast-- Satan, the great dragon-- and they fight him and overcome him "because because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony; and they loved not their life even unto death" (Revelation 12:11)! Believers stand firm, trusting in Jesus Christ, holding fast to the message of God, even to the point of death. That is how they fought the spiritual war with the evil one!
Jesus is the one who will come and cast the beast and the dragon into the lake of fire; sure, great armies follow Him, but they follow without weapons, and are spectators for the event (Revelation 19:11-20:10). Jesus will advance and destroy the power of evil; we must stand firm.
Let no one be deceived: we are in the midst of a great and terrible spiritual conflict. It is not a conflict in which we asked to participate, nor would we ever desire to have such a conflict. Nevertheless, the conflict has gone on long before our time and very well may continue long after we have passed on. Let us arise and fight the good fight of faith, keeping in mind with whom we are to fight and with whom we are not to fight (cf. 2 Timothy 4:7). Let us stand firm against the spiritual forces of darkness while doing all that we can to persuade those deceived by those powers to come out and join the Lord's side. Let us stand firm, holding fast to the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony, doing all things, so that we may have the victory!
---------------------
I recognize that I have made my non-standard political views known before. Sometimes I have done that rather foolishly based on a personal irritation about some issue, person, or event taking place. In general, however, my concern is a lot less about my personal political perspective and a lot more regarding the relationship between American politics and the Kingdom, specifically, how Christians approach politics and political issues.
Based upon the events of the past year, my wife and I have all but decided to no longer actively participate in the political process of the country. This is mostly because we have seen how greatly detrimental politics have proven to the Kingdom and the purposes of God therein.
When I did some studying and thinking for this edition of Spiritual Manna, three things hit me like bricks:
1. "Flesh and blood" would include governments and political personages. Our conflict is not with such.
2. If our conflict is not with such, and we spend our time in conflict with such things, we are not only wasting our own time, but causing great difficulty: we're not allocating all of our resources to our real fight, and it is giving the enemy the advantage.
3. The way that John portrays the conflict involving the dragon, the beast, and the saints in Revelation.
#3 is the key to answering the question that invariably comes up with #1 and #2: "granted, we do not fight against flesh and blood, but if governments or other organizations are acting in Satan's interests and do Satan's bidding, should we not stand up, protest, and fight them in any way we can?"
As the post above indicates, John recognizes that the beast (whom I believe represents the Roman Empire; the facts here are the same regardless of one's view of the beast) is powered and inspired by Satan and wages war against the saints (Revelation 13:3-7). Here we have an institution of man that is Satanically powered and driven. What does John expect the believers to do?
Stand up and fight against the beast? John says no such thing.
Stand up and protest the beast? Again, no such thing.
And [our brethren, v. 10] overcame [the accuser, v. 10] because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony; and they loved not their life even unto death (Revelation 12:11).
The book of Revelation is all about how the saints will conquer (Revelation 2-3, 21-22). The victory of the saints, however, is in Jesus Christ. They conquer when they trust in the blood of the Lamb, hold fast to the word of their testimony, and be willing even to die for their belief. It is left to Jesus to cast the beast and Satan into the lake of fire in Revelation 19-20. He's the one with the weapon; the army behind Him just watches.
While the Roman Empire breathed fire against the religion of Christ, persecuted The Way, and promoted all kinds of ungodliness, Jesus instructs His followers to stand firm against Satan. This is because the real conflict is not with the manifestation of Satan's power (Rome) but with the source of the power (Satan). Paul was to go and preach the Gospel to the representatives of the Roman Empire (Acts 23:11). This is the very same Empire, and the distinction is not about a change of heart in Rome. Instead, it highlights how our fight is not with our fellow man but against the spiritual powers of darkness!
And this is my great and serious concern that is not getting any less great or any less pressing: are we really thinking about who our fight is really against?
I hear in so many quarters all kinds of fear-mongering about our future. I've been told that because of the "gay agenda," a day may come on which churches and/or preachers may be taxed or fined for preaching against homosexuality. I've been told that because of the growing influence of Islam that all kinds of laws are going to be changed to accommodate that religion. I've been told that because of these things and all kinds of other agendas, this nation will never be the same, and the faith will be challenged.
And to all of this I ask:
Were we called to wrestle with homosexuals or with the one who promotes homosexuality?
Were we called to wrestle with Muslims or the one who inspired that religion?
Were we called to live in fear of the government or to stand firm against the methods of the evil one who might be powering the government?
Perhaps we need to start thinking about this in entirely different ways.
When Christians malign a given political party, and have nothing but invective for its participants and supporters, 52% of the voting population of the country is being written off and alienated from hearing the truth. Any Christian who "dares" to vote in a democratic way is made to feel quite uncomfortable among his or her own brethren-- can you possibly imagine how that would make an unbeliever, or someone interested in the truth, feel? What do you think God feels when He sees someone who has interest in the Gospel turned away, however consciously or unconsciously, not because of the truth of the Gospel but because of the political platform/political paradigm of those who profess His name? Whom are we fighting?
Homosexuals have souls. Muslims have souls. So do Hollywood types, liberals, politicians, scientists, and every other human being with whom you can find some area of disagreement. If representatives from such groups hear messages from the pulpits, bulletins, blogs, and other forms of communication from Christians, will they be led to understand the Gospel of Christ or alienated because they are being attacked? Whom are we fighting?
I recognize that there are many good brethren who do not overly involve themselves in political affairs, vote according to their consciences, and do not make it an issue within the Kingdom. Bless your souls. Keep it up. You understand whom we are really fighting.
On the other hand, I am quite worried that there are many other brethren who spend far too much time and far too many resources advocating for political ideologies regarding a nation that will not last and which ultimately cannot save anyone. They allow themselves to be influenced by people who have agendas and allow those people to color their perspectives of others. How does this really benefit the Kingdom? If we allow forces in our society to poison our minds toward our fellow man for whom Christ died and who desperately need to hear and understand His message, should we continue to listen to those forces? What about Paul's exhortation to think on that which is good and holy (Philippians 4:8)? What about having speech that edifies and that does not tear down (Ephesians 4:29)? Is God really honored by strings of invectives against a certain set of politicians when it is manifest that the entire system is really corrupt, full of sinful people, and extremely imperfect, especially since God said we are to honor our rulers and the first century Christians had a whole lot more justification to inveigh against their rulers, yet did not do so?
I do not want anyone to read this post and come away with the idea that I am pushing any particular political ideology. I have no such desire. Instead, I desire for all of my brethren to transcend political ideology, to have the understanding to see how various forces want to rile us up in order to promote their particular platform, and to judge all things by the standard of the Kingdom and our true conflict.
To modify a statement of Jesus: what can we possibly gain if we win the whole world politically but the message of the Kingdom is not promoted, or lost in the process? Will all of that effort save anyone?
Let us fight the real fight, and not get suckered into expending our energy toward ends that cannot really profit. Only Satan wins when we are divided or divide based on earthly considerations.
May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits.
ELDV
Peace, mercy, and grace be with you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
As the bugs get worked out, and I get more used to the different paradigm, the 3.0 experience is improving.
I must say how humorous it is to see how people react to change. It's not just a Pleo phenomenon; it's also something you can see on Facebook.
I began using Facebook two major upgrades ago. I remember how many complaints there were after the first major upgrade. Then everyone got used to it. And then there was the second major upgrade, and lo and behold, many people started complaining about it and wanting to go back to the "old" Facebook, the very same Facebook regarding which they complained when it came out! And now, how many people are still complaining? Take it to the bank: when Facebook makes its next major upgrade (and, no doubt, it will), people will complain and want the "old" Facebook back, this very Facebook concerning which they complained not too long ago.
I suppose it is this general human tendency to appreciate what is constant or routine or the like and to be resistant to change that leads some people to believe only in the KJV. Balance in all things, right? :D
After a 1.3 year hiatus, and working for a couple hours a day for the past week, my notes on Tertullian have been digitized. Now I can get on with Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and then start Origen!
It's coming up on the Fourth of July. And we have a new Pleo. Why not start it out with some good old fashioned controversy? (tongue firmly in cheek)
I will begin with reposting today's Spiritual Manna:
For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Ephesians 6:12).
As Paul concludes the Ephesian letter, he encourages the brethren to resist the powers of evil through the use of the image of war. This passage has been used and abused ever since!
Paul does well at making clear that our conflict is not against "flesh and blood." Some of the greatest travesties in human history involve men declaring that they were going out and fighting human wars in the name of Christ. Jesus and the Apostles never validated such conduct. We do not see any command or example that would justify any Christian taking up arms in the name of his faith in order to fight with his fellow man.
When believers in Christ start believing that their conflict is with flesh and blood (and this is by no means limited to actual physical war-- it can also refer to conflict with governments, human institutions, and the like), the Enemy wins a double victory. First, since the believers are fighting against the wrong "enemy," the real enemy-- the spiritual forces of darkness-- have the upper hand in keeping the souls they've won along with gaining a few believers' souls along the way. Furthermore, by alienating souls from Christ or by killing them, potential recruits for the Lord's cause are lost. This is a sad state indeed!
Nevertheless, despite the abuse of the image, the idea that we are at war with the spiritual forces of darkness in the heavenly realm is a potent one indeed. When we consider the vast power of our true Enemy, we recognize that we are not going to be able to stand against him alone (cf. Jeremiah 10:23). We are going to need all the help we can get, and that is why Paul encourages believers to be "strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might" (Ephesians 6:10). It is only through Christ that we will be able to overcome.
We also recognize that a state of war demands certain perspectives and attitudes. Just as soldiers must be properly trained and equipped for battle, we also must have a proper understanding of God's word and must wear the armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-18). Just as soldiers fighting alongside each other develop bonds that endure for as long as life continues and are far deeper than most can understand in order to stay alive and keep one another alive, so also Christians are to have tight bonds in the faith, working together in order to stay spiritually alive and to keep each other spiritually alive (Hebrews 10:24-25, Galatians 6:1-3). Just as soldiers on the front lines must be constantly vigilant and singlemindedly devoted to the task before them, so Christians are to be vigilant against the schemes of the devil and devoted to God's purposes (Ephesians 6:10-18, 1 Peter 4:7).
Yet, in the end, this is no ordinary war. We have not been instructed to make some great forward advance against the enemy. Instead, we are charged to "stand firm" (Ephesians 6:11, 13-14). We are to hold our ground-- perhaps not to advance, but certainly not to run away!
We see this situation illustrated in the book of Revelation. Jesus encourages the brethren of the seven churches of Asia, providing understanding of the rewards waiting for those who "conquer" (Revelation 2-3). We are allowed to see that a great and mighty beast has arisen to stand against the believers and to persecute them-- the Roman Empire (cf. Revelation 13-18). John does not leave us in doubt as to who stands behind this beast, inspiring and empowering him-- it is the dragon, Satan, our enemy (Revelation 13:3-5). What were the Christians to do?
Notice that there is no scene in which the believers take up arms and fight the beast. In fact, we do not even see the brethren protesting the beast! Instead, the believers are more concerned to fight the power behind the beast-- Satan, the great dragon-- and they fight him and overcome him "because because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony; and they loved not their life even unto death" (Revelation 12:11)! Believers stand firm, trusting in Jesus Christ, holding fast to the message of God, even to the point of death. That is how they fought the spiritual war with the evil one!
Jesus is the one who will come and cast the beast and the dragon into the lake of fire; sure, great armies follow Him, but they follow without weapons, and are spectators for the event (Revelation 19:11-20:10). Jesus will advance and destroy the power of evil; we must stand firm.
Let no one be deceived: we are in the midst of a great and terrible spiritual conflict. It is not a conflict in which we asked to participate, nor would we ever desire to have such a conflict. Nevertheless, the conflict has gone on long before our time and very well may continue long after we have passed on. Let us arise and fight the good fight of faith, keeping in mind with whom we are to fight and with whom we are not to fight (cf. 2 Timothy 4:7). Let us stand firm against the spiritual forces of darkness while doing all that we can to persuade those deceived by those powers to come out and join the Lord's side. Let us stand firm, holding fast to the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony, doing all things, so that we may have the victory!
---------------------
I recognize that I have made my non-standard political views known before. Sometimes I have done that rather foolishly based on a personal irritation about some issue, person, or event taking place. In general, however, my concern is a lot less about my personal political perspective and a lot more regarding the relationship between American politics and the Kingdom, specifically, how Christians approach politics and political issues.
Based upon the events of the past year, my wife and I have all but decided to no longer actively participate in the political process of the country. This is mostly because we have seen how greatly detrimental politics have proven to the Kingdom and the purposes of God therein.
When I did some studying and thinking for this edition of Spiritual Manna, three things hit me like bricks:
1. "Flesh and blood" would include governments and political personages. Our conflict is not with such.
2. If our conflict is not with such, and we spend our time in conflict with such things, we are not only wasting our own time, but causing great difficulty: we're not allocating all of our resources to our real fight, and it is giving the enemy the advantage.
3. The way that John portrays the conflict involving the dragon, the beast, and the saints in Revelation.
#3 is the key to answering the question that invariably comes up with #1 and #2: "granted, we do not fight against flesh and blood, but if governments or other organizations are acting in Satan's interests and do Satan's bidding, should we not stand up, protest, and fight them in any way we can?"
As the post above indicates, John recognizes that the beast (whom I believe represents the Roman Empire; the facts here are the same regardless of one's view of the beast) is powered and inspired by Satan and wages war against the saints (Revelation 13:3-7). Here we have an institution of man that is Satanically powered and driven. What does John expect the believers to do?
Stand up and fight against the beast? John says no such thing.
Stand up and protest the beast? Again, no such thing.
And [our brethren, v. 10] overcame [the accuser, v. 10] because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony; and they loved not their life even unto death (Revelation 12:11).
The book of Revelation is all about how the saints will conquer (Revelation 2-3, 21-22). The victory of the saints, however, is in Jesus Christ. They conquer when they trust in the blood of the Lamb, hold fast to the word of their testimony, and be willing even to die for their belief. It is left to Jesus to cast the beast and Satan into the lake of fire in Revelation 19-20. He's the one with the weapon; the army behind Him just watches.
While the Roman Empire breathed fire against the religion of Christ, persecuted The Way, and promoted all kinds of ungodliness, Jesus instructs His followers to stand firm against Satan. This is because the real conflict is not with the manifestation of Satan's power (Rome) but with the source of the power (Satan). Paul was to go and preach the Gospel to the representatives of the Roman Empire (Acts 23:11). This is the very same Empire, and the distinction is not about a change of heart in Rome. Instead, it highlights how our fight is not with our fellow man but against the spiritual powers of darkness!
And this is my great and serious concern that is not getting any less great or any less pressing: are we really thinking about who our fight is really against?
I hear in so many quarters all kinds of fear-mongering about our future. I've been told that because of the "gay agenda," a day may come on which churches and/or preachers may be taxed or fined for preaching against homosexuality. I've been told that because of the growing influence of Islam that all kinds of laws are going to be changed to accommodate that religion. I've been told that because of these things and all kinds of other agendas, this nation will never be the same, and the faith will be challenged.
And to all of this I ask:
Were we called to wrestle with homosexuals or with the one who promotes homosexuality?
Were we called to wrestle with Muslims or the one who inspired that religion?
Were we called to live in fear of the government or to stand firm against the methods of the evil one who might be powering the government?
Perhaps we need to start thinking about this in entirely different ways.
When Christians malign a given political party, and have nothing but invective for its participants and supporters, 52% of the voting population of the country is being written off and alienated from hearing the truth. Any Christian who "dares" to vote in a democratic way is made to feel quite uncomfortable among his or her own brethren-- can you possibly imagine how that would make an unbeliever, or someone interested in the truth, feel? What do you think God feels when He sees someone who has interest in the Gospel turned away, however consciously or unconsciously, not because of the truth of the Gospel but because of the political platform/political paradigm of those who profess His name? Whom are we fighting?
Homosexuals have souls. Muslims have souls. So do Hollywood types, liberals, politicians, scientists, and every other human being with whom you can find some area of disagreement. If representatives from such groups hear messages from the pulpits, bulletins, blogs, and other forms of communication from Christians, will they be led to understand the Gospel of Christ or alienated because they are being attacked? Whom are we fighting?
I recognize that there are many good brethren who do not overly involve themselves in political affairs, vote according to their consciences, and do not make it an issue within the Kingdom. Bless your souls. Keep it up. You understand whom we are really fighting.
On the other hand, I am quite worried that there are many other brethren who spend far too much time and far too many resources advocating for political ideologies regarding a nation that will not last and which ultimately cannot save anyone. They allow themselves to be influenced by people who have agendas and allow those people to color their perspectives of others. How does this really benefit the Kingdom? If we allow forces in our society to poison our minds toward our fellow man for whom Christ died and who desperately need to hear and understand His message, should we continue to listen to those forces? What about Paul's exhortation to think on that which is good and holy (Philippians 4:8)? What about having speech that edifies and that does not tear down (Ephesians 4:29)? Is God really honored by strings of invectives against a certain set of politicians when it is manifest that the entire system is really corrupt, full of sinful people, and extremely imperfect, especially since God said we are to honor our rulers and the first century Christians had a whole lot more justification to inveigh against their rulers, yet did not do so?
I do not want anyone to read this post and come away with the idea that I am pushing any particular political ideology. I have no such desire. Instead, I desire for all of my brethren to transcend political ideology, to have the understanding to see how various forces want to rile us up in order to promote their particular platform, and to judge all things by the standard of the Kingdom and our true conflict.
To modify a statement of Jesus: what can we possibly gain if we win the whole world politically but the message of the Kingdom is not promoted, or lost in the process? Will all of that effort save anyone?
Let us fight the real fight, and not get suckered into expending our energy toward ends that cannot really profit. Only Satan wins when we are divided or divide based on earthly considerations.
May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits.
ELDV
mea uxor :
ipse est
filia :
filia :
filius :
consobrina in lege :
consobrina in lege :
consobrina secunda in lege :
consobrina secunda in lege :
consobrinus in lege :
consobrinus in lege :
frater in lege iunior :
matertera in lege :
amici in Indiana :
dator pluviae :
proprius subsidium Christianii :
ex australes est :
facens cibum bonum :
periculans :
ursa curae gothikae :
vir magnus :
ager petrasi :
ager petrasi :
ager petrasi :
agri :
auctor :
beneficus :
canis in Chillcothe :
captiuncultricans :
civitas coniungens ipsi :
columbo :
data :
dissidium saxum :
exemplorator miria :
flindes iutem ea :
ignis comis :
in oberlino :
in pretio recto erat :
montes amat :
orator in Daytono :
orator in urbe coniunctionis :
patiens :
pecus :
pretium :
puella papilionis :
schola antiqua :
septentrione vico iugui :
septentrione vico iugui :
septentrione vico iugui :
silva laci :
terra cinis :
uxor dati :
vapor :
viola dulcis :
vir nuntii :
aspecta ex planatano :
caput casei :
caput casei :
caput casei :
caput casei :
cogitis in reis his :
cursor :
domina catuli :
discipulus in schola Biblia meae erat :
dominus casei :
elephantus infans :
fides venti ludes :
filius oratoris in Peorio :
filius oratoris in Rockfordo :
filius oratoris in Rockfordo :
frater amicae meae :
habitat in Rochella :
habitat in Rockfordo :
in tecto meo laboravit :
in tecto meo laboravit :
in terra plana est :
in terra plana est :
magistra Bibliae scholae filiae meae erat :
mater ad omnes :
mergulus-ersheim :
non saxum astrum :
orator in Elgin :
orator in Iolieto :
orator in Sera-Porto :
parva lux muscae ignis :
petens verita :
proprius :
pugnans mali :
risus flagelli :
Rochella erat, nunc in Rantoulo est :
sonus furorque :
una quae facebat nuntios :
uxor domini casei :
uxor oratoris in Sera-Porto :
uxor viri glacis :
vir glacis :
ad australem ebat :
administrator :
adsentator :
aestas :
amica meae uxoris :
amica uxoris meae :
apis melis :
arcam habet?
aurora :
avia :
bereanus cardia :
bereanus cardia :
bellator Dei :
bullae :
campus cedri :
campus cedri :
campus cedri :
campus cedri :
cardinalis :
doctor Graecae :
duca vicaria :
dulcis pisum :
dux :
eh :
ex diei in Rantoulo :
ex diei in Rantoulo :
ex diei in Rantoulo :
ex diei in Rantoulo :
exploderens :
filia qui discipula est :
filios trios ea :
filius oratoris in Rockfordo :
habitat in urbe peccati :
hanerans parva :
hortans :
in Canada habitat :
in Mississippi est :
in Tennesseea est :
in terra septentrionali :
libania :
magna et caeruleus :
mater patientis :
mater qui magistra est :
memento mori :
musicus :
nebula draconis :
nomen par XXXIII praefecto est :
non clementia :
nubens amico felei mei :
nunc in Finlanda est :
nunc in Finlanda est :
observans :
orator in Floridia erat :
orator in silvis Pennarum :
orator in Tenneseea :
orator inter agres frumentorum :
orator in Texiis :
parva agna :
pater ei celerem currem habet :
pater qui magister est :
prouerbia XXXI :
pupillus :
rotam capes :
spectrum :
tenens libri :
tergum butyri :
tergum butyri :
tergum butyri :
terra altior :
terra altior :
theologicus :
titan :
una quae patiens est :
uxor oratoris amicus :
uxor oratoris in Indiana :
uxor pupilli :
vir ei celerem currem habet :
vir fundi :
virgo duo :
vox parvae :
alius smelserus :
alius smelserus :
canes amat :
dicet Hispanum :
dominus calamitatis :
Dominus cum ea es :
fides :
fidis amat :
habitat in Montana :
imber Februarii :
in indice Martis :
inventrix :
magister :
Maria in Texiis :
mater oratoris in Daytono :
meditatus bene :
orator in Alabama :
orator in Europa centris :
orator in Europa orientalis erat :
orator in Mempho :
orator in Venezuela :
rosa :
servus Iesi :
sinus veris :
unus qui morosus :
ursae duodecim :
uxor oratoris in Guatemala :
vir latrunculis :
vita maximi :
confirmans :
contemplativus :
cygnus :
dens :
habitat in Massachusettas :
iurisconsultus :
leges amor :
mater felicitas et frusti :
orator ad australem Americam :
orator in Indiana :
oscula pluviam :
pater creatoris redundantiae :
prior caput casei :
uxor oratoris in Iolieto :
viam creat :
dicet in Biblia :
I do have a question though. I've had this debate with Christians before who are planning to get involved in politics or military. Most of the time, they will argue that they ultimately chose their path in life with spiritual motives in mind. That is, they would join the military and politics not to "make a difference" (and thus continue a pointless struggle against the beast) but to "serve", which to me seems to be somewhat the embodiment of Christian behavior.
So my question, while not directly the subject of your post, is "What is the difference between someone who chooses to be involved in government / military for selfless reasons vs. someone who chooses to undertake any secular job at all for selfless reasons?"
Ugh. If I start getting tense whenever I talk about politics, maybe it is time to just let it all go.
If we lived in the first century, however, and brethren wanted to get involved in Roman politics, or the Roman military, would we be so sympathetic to the logic or the argument?
One could use that line of logic to justify going to bars, adult stores, etc., and trying to "serve" and get people to turn from such things and follow Christ. Is it really profitable or wise?
In all of these circumstances: what are you going to do when you are called upon to compromise your faith? Because it seems as if it is going to happen at some point. And, therefore, should we put ourselves in a position where we're more likely than not going to have to compromise our faith, or should we avoid it altogether?
While political views and efforts do not have to place a barrier between us and others, it often does because of the attitudes expressed.
Does not 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teach that Scripture is sufficient to equip the man of God for "every good work?" Therefore, where, in Scripture, do we get the idea that using political means to advance God's purposes is a "good" and "beneficial" work?
Is this not the very argument we raise to those of the institutional persuasion, establishing that while orphan's homes and colleges may be "good works" by man's definition, they are not the work of the church, because God has not so burdened that organization? That, since God has been silent about the church engaging in such work, it is not "good" for the church to do so?
"Good and beneficial works" in any political sphere are transient-- they may not even last beyond the next few election cycles, let alone when Jesus returns. When the world is destroyed, those "good and beneficial works" will also be destroyed (2 Peter 3:9-11). So I again ask: even if Christians could, somehow, get everything they believed codified into American law, how would that really advance the purpose of God's Kingdom? How would that, in and of itself, lead people to follow Him?
Therefore, what should we really be spending our time and energy doing? Which is the greater and more important responsibility-- attempting to reform or speak out against the beast, or promoting God's Kingdom and His eternal reign? Who is our real enemy? Sorry; the "evil individuals" with their "evil agenda" are not our enemies. The "spiritual forces in the heavenly places" behind such are the real enemies (Ephesians 6:12); the "evil individuals" stand in the same state of deception that we once stood in, and it is our obligation as Christians to show them the light of the Gospel, not argue against their politics (Ephesians 2:1-18, Romans 1:16, Matthew 28:18-20).
One of Satan's greatest victories has been to keep Christians much more worried about "liberal" policies than with him. He has induced Christians to use their energies toward transient legislation and not toward passionately preaching God's Word to every soul. He has been successful at alienating Christians from large segments of the population, and to get the Christians to believe that such is fine and dandy, because "they" are the ones who want to "eradicate 'our' way of life." More people in this country are scared of the threat posed by the "gay agenda" and the Muslims than by Satan's methods and devices.
I don't want to play into the Devil's hands or his playbook. And it is really hard not to do so in America.
And I would again direct you to the example of Revelation, where John makes it fairly clear that the Christians were not to fight the beast but the dragon, and their means of fighting was to stand firm for the truth, to hold fast their confession, and die if necessary. Paul is aware that earthly authorities would stand in the way of the Gospel, and yet he still told the brethren that our conflict was not against flesh and blood, but against the spiritual powers of darkness (Ephesians 6:12). We cannot have it both ways, believing ourselves justified in fighting against flesh and blood because said flesh and blood is acting according to Satan's power. Paul and John certainly did not accept that logic.
Any political belief that would directly contradict Biblical teachings or compromise them should get us to think deeply about political participation in general, and that's a line of thought that too few consider.
However, at the same time, that does not mean we should assert ourselves deliberately INTO such situations. However, at the same time, I think it calls to mind the "remain as you are" mentality of 1st century Christianity in regards to not upsetting the social applecart. The conversion and change of a Christian is spiritual, NOT social or political. It does little-to-no good to waste one's life attempting to stop "evil" politicians and "evil" laws when the bible does not speak much, if at all in regards to the necessity of a government's laws being equal to God's laws.
That said however, I would further note as a caveat that knowing whether 1st century brethren wanted to get involved in politics or military is largely an argument from silence. I realize you are probably better versed in the history than I am, but I do not see anything in the bible on this subject that is necessarily conclusive. Even if that were the case, I ask again--what's the difference between becoming involved in politics / military vs. becoming involved in any secular job?
It is recognized that the Scriptures don't have a lot to say about it. I don't think that such can be so easily brushed aside with a "they didn't have participatory democracies then," since (a) many cities did have such participatory democracies and (b) Roman citizens were not entirely bereft of ability to be engaged in political influence. When rulers are mentioned, the universal message is to obey them. The fact that the Christians were not to protest the beast but to stand firm against the dragon is quite telling.
As to becoming involved in military or politics versus secular jobs, the same principles apply: while there are temptations to sin in any job environment, will the job require you to compromise your faith and conviction in order to accomplish the task at hand? This is generally the reason given why it's not the best idea for a Christian to be an exotic dancer, casino owner or dealer, bartender, or to work a sales or marketing job that requires duplicity and dishonesty. In terms of politics and military, the Christian should consider oaths that are being taken, for one. For politicians, concerns involve duplicity, lying, coercion, contentiousness, strife, slander, and other such things that often take place in campaigns and on the floor of the legislature. For the military, concerns would involve being called upon to kill fellow image-bearers of God.
What if one were a conscientious objector, or (as rare and unlikely as this sounds) an honest politician? To work in sales does not require that one be dishonest, but that does not meant it doesn't attract dishonest people. That is true of many business-type professions. The question in ANY line of work is whether one will do it "as to the Lord" or not? There are some things one can inherently NOT do "as to the Lord" because God forbade them, or forbade things inherently tied up in said career choice. And there are some things that are an either-or situation. It's worth pointing out, I think, that even preaching can be a dishonest and covetous profession if abused. But surely the abuse of a thing will not make the thing itself wrong? (Dare I quote the abused institutional catchphrase?)
Killing someone in the military role is a sensitive subject, and there are many other supplementary questions regarding the ethics of such things. (Would it be right or wrong, for instance, to use deadly force to protect one's family? One's children? Some see this as expanded as a national scale in regards to their military role). However, I personally could never involve myself in the military for that reason because I fail to equate active military engagements with the clear biblical commands to love one's neighbor. For anyone who desires to join the military, I would always urge them beforehand to use caution, discernment, and most importantly, prayer, in their judgment of that decision.
I am not trying to argue definitive, black-and-white answers on the question of being in politics or the military, but instead relying on the principle of profitability. Politics and the military, however, are more toward the "more challenging to do while a Christian" end of the spectrum than the "less challenging to do while a Christian" end.
I tend to be a bit "radical" on the ethics of the "killing" argument (I don't see any justification for doing so even in a self-defense context, considering that "violence is not the answer!"), and can appreciate your sentiments.