Marriage Licenses
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Marriage Licenses
Can anyone tell me why Christians should get a marriage license? The State, despite what politicians say, doesn't recognize the Lordship of Christ. Why do we need their permission? They divorce people who do not have a legitimate, biblical reason. There is no "law of the land" that requires people to get a marriage license in order to be together. We as Christians do not need their permission; marriage doesn't belong to the State. At best, they can only offer civil incorporation. Marriage belongs to God and is a prophetic event designed to correspond to the upcoming marriage feast of the Lamb. So why get a marriage license? Who needs the State? Check out the website www.jesusradicals.com and look through there if you dare!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_JohnBarbour
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:27 pm
- Location: McMinnville, OR
Dear Anon,
I like your spunk. You are tackling some tough issues. I took a brief look at the website Jesusradicals you referred to. What you are reacting to, I believe, is what I would call statism. Hegel, a 19th century philosopher espoused statism when he said, "the state is god walking upon the earth" Practically speaking this means our highest loyalty is to the state. In the 19th and the first part of the 20th century this meant Nationalism. For the last 50 years or so this loyalty has continued to drift toward an international statism or globalism centered in organizations such as the UN. By contrast ,The Bible is emphatic that God created not just the civil government (Genesis 9, Romans 13) but Family and Church government as well and that He is sovereign over all. "His Kingdom rules over all' (Psalm 103 ) Our first and primary loyalty is to Him not the state. Jesus' radical calls to discipleship reflect this same truth. "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:32-34) If you are saying is that we are to be loyal to Jesus above all else , then you are correct. I believe the website may have a misunderstanding about God's government
and the particular roles He has assigned to each. This is a deep subject and I can only briefly comment on it here:
1)God excercises His sovereignty through God ordained governments.
2)God has ordained the family as a government and there is a God ordained order.Children are to obey their parents for instance (Ephesians 6:1) and Parents are to teach their children (Deuteronomy 6, Ephesians 6:3,4)
3) God has ordained Church government (elders, bishops etc.)
4) God has ordained Civil government (Romans 13,1 Peter 2:13-15)
5) Each of these governments are responsible and accountable to God. They are responsible to obey His laws. Each has its own jurisdiction. Each are ordained with sanctions. The Family has the Rod, the Church has the Keys and the Civil Government has the Sword
The Jesus Radical website espouses anarchy and then defines it as without a ruler. Yet, this is contradictory. Is not Jesus , Himself our Ruler? Is He not the ruler of the Nations? and the Ruler of Our Churches and Families and indeed our own lives? I believe being a follower of Jesus and an anarchist is an oxymoron. On the particular topic of marriage. We know from scripture that God ordained marriage (Genesis 2 :23ff) What the question now boils down to now is: Is this a Civil or Ecclesiastical matter? Also, were the churches wise in becoming incorporated under their state's charters for tax exempt purposes? Lord willing I will try to attempt to answer this in a followup letter unless Steve has already done so. In the mean time You may want to look at the book In CEasar's Grip which is about this very thing. Gary DeMar has also written many excellent materials about God and government. You can find his books and articles at www.americanvision.org
In the name of the Prince of Peace, Jesus the Lord,
John Barbour
I like your spunk. You are tackling some tough issues. I took a brief look at the website Jesusradicals you referred to. What you are reacting to, I believe, is what I would call statism. Hegel, a 19th century philosopher espoused statism when he said, "the state is god walking upon the earth" Practically speaking this means our highest loyalty is to the state. In the 19th and the first part of the 20th century this meant Nationalism. For the last 50 years or so this loyalty has continued to drift toward an international statism or globalism centered in organizations such as the UN. By contrast ,The Bible is emphatic that God created not just the civil government (Genesis 9, Romans 13) but Family and Church government as well and that He is sovereign over all. "His Kingdom rules over all' (Psalm 103 ) Our first and primary loyalty is to Him not the state. Jesus' radical calls to discipleship reflect this same truth. "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:32-34) If you are saying is that we are to be loyal to Jesus above all else , then you are correct. I believe the website may have a misunderstanding about God's government
and the particular roles He has assigned to each. This is a deep subject and I can only briefly comment on it here:
1)God excercises His sovereignty through God ordained governments.
2)God has ordained the family as a government and there is a God ordained order.Children are to obey their parents for instance (Ephesians 6:1) and Parents are to teach their children (Deuteronomy 6, Ephesians 6:3,4)
3) God has ordained Church government (elders, bishops etc.)
4) God has ordained Civil government (Romans 13,1 Peter 2:13-15)
5) Each of these governments are responsible and accountable to God. They are responsible to obey His laws. Each has its own jurisdiction. Each are ordained with sanctions. The Family has the Rod, the Church has the Keys and the Civil Government has the Sword
The Jesus Radical website espouses anarchy and then defines it as without a ruler. Yet, this is contradictory. Is not Jesus , Himself our Ruler? Is He not the ruler of the Nations? and the Ruler of Our Churches and Families and indeed our own lives? I believe being a follower of Jesus and an anarchist is an oxymoron. On the particular topic of marriage. We know from scripture that God ordained marriage (Genesis 2 :23ff) What the question now boils down to now is: Is this a Civil or Ecclesiastical matter? Also, were the churches wise in becoming incorporated under their state's charters for tax exempt purposes? Lord willing I will try to attempt to answer this in a followup letter unless Steve has already done so. In the mean time You may want to look at the book In CEasar's Grip which is about this very thing. Gary DeMar has also written many excellent materials about God and government. You can find his books and articles at www.americanvision.org
In the name of the Prince of Peace, Jesus the Lord,
John Barbour
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
John Barbour
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
John,
People confuse anarchism with chaos. What I am fond of is Christian Anarchism, that is, there is no ruler that the Christian is responsible to except Christ. There are many Christians who have written in this vein and understood government in this vein. Leo Tolstoy, perhaps the greatest novelist and definitely the greatest Russian writer ever, is one who has written about what can be called Christian anarchism. There are Anabaptist writers, John Howard Yoder, Vernard Eller, and some other authors in this vein such as Jacque Ellul. In reference to Romans 13, I read it as a continuation of Romans 12 (duh). There is an essay on the website which is well written and I will post it for all to read, if they so choose. http://www.jesusradicals.com/essays/the ... mans13.htm
The thing that we should keep in mind is the witness of scripture. Romans 13 and I Peter aren't the only passages to consider. I Samuel 8, and the call for a king is a rejection of God, needs to be considered. God is our ruler, how can we have two masters? How can we, being citizens of the Kingdom of God, have allegience to any other? Another passage to consider is Luke 4 and the temptation of Christ. The Devil said that all of the kingdoms of this world were his. Christ didn't disagree with him, and later tells Pilate that his kingdom wasn't of this world. The Devil is called the god of this world, the prince of this world. I don't disagree that God sends nations against other nations. Babylon was used to punish Israel. But I don't think that leaves room for Christians to be nationalistic, especially in a country such as the U.S. which gives little regard for God. The founding fathers may have been somewhat Christian. Many were Deists. But all were children of the Enlightenment. There is no mention of Christ in the constitution. If Thomas Jefferson was a Christian (which I doubt) we couldn't eat with him because he was an adulterer and fornicator (he had kids with his slave, Sally Hemming). What I am getting at here is that the government is not our friend and we should and need to consider it a hostile enemy against the kingdom of God; it is true to say that I am not a Statist. I believe the only form of government that the scriptures support is monarchism -- the Kingship of Christ and him alone. The idea of Christian anarchism is simply this -- no other masters, no other lords, no other kingdoms and governments except Christ and the kingdom of God. Secular anarchism, the kind of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman, and Emma Goldman, espouse a "no masters, no gods" type of political philosophy. While I am sympathetic to their critique, it is misguided in that they also do not recognize the Lordship of Christ. I would appreciate any further comments. Thanks
People confuse anarchism with chaos. What I am fond of is Christian Anarchism, that is, there is no ruler that the Christian is responsible to except Christ. There are many Christians who have written in this vein and understood government in this vein. Leo Tolstoy, perhaps the greatest novelist and definitely the greatest Russian writer ever, is one who has written about what can be called Christian anarchism. There are Anabaptist writers, John Howard Yoder, Vernard Eller, and some other authors in this vein such as Jacque Ellul. In reference to Romans 13, I read it as a continuation of Romans 12 (duh). There is an essay on the website which is well written and I will post it for all to read, if they so choose. http://www.jesusradicals.com/essays/the ... mans13.htm
The thing that we should keep in mind is the witness of scripture. Romans 13 and I Peter aren't the only passages to consider. I Samuel 8, and the call for a king is a rejection of God, needs to be considered. God is our ruler, how can we have two masters? How can we, being citizens of the Kingdom of God, have allegience to any other? Another passage to consider is Luke 4 and the temptation of Christ. The Devil said that all of the kingdoms of this world were his. Christ didn't disagree with him, and later tells Pilate that his kingdom wasn't of this world. The Devil is called the god of this world, the prince of this world. I don't disagree that God sends nations against other nations. Babylon was used to punish Israel. But I don't think that leaves room for Christians to be nationalistic, especially in a country such as the U.S. which gives little regard for God. The founding fathers may have been somewhat Christian. Many were Deists. But all were children of the Enlightenment. There is no mention of Christ in the constitution. If Thomas Jefferson was a Christian (which I doubt) we couldn't eat with him because he was an adulterer and fornicator (he had kids with his slave, Sally Hemming). What I am getting at here is that the government is not our friend and we should and need to consider it a hostile enemy against the kingdom of God; it is true to say that I am not a Statist. I believe the only form of government that the scriptures support is monarchism -- the Kingship of Christ and him alone. The idea of Christian anarchism is simply this -- no other masters, no other lords, no other kingdoms and governments except Christ and the kingdom of God. Secular anarchism, the kind of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Berkman, and Emma Goldman, espouse a "no masters, no gods" type of political philosophy. While I am sympathetic to their critique, it is misguided in that they also do not recognize the Lordship of Christ. I would appreciate any further comments. Thanks
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_JohnBarbour
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:27 pm
- Location: McMinnville, OR
Dear Anon,
Hold on! Let me answer each statement separately,
1)"There is no ruler that the Christian is responsible to except Christ" This sounds pious and even like it may be Biblical but it is false. Hebrews 13:7 says "we are to Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation." God has placed rulers in the church that are his representatives. 1 Timothy 5:7: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." They must first prove that they can rule over their own families(1 Timothy 3:4,5) You mentioned Tostoy. This is something he failed to do. He was not a good father or husband (ruler in his household). God does not rule in the abstract. 'You do error not knowing the scripture". Get a concordance and look up rule, ruling, and ruler. There are also rulers in the civil sphere. Two Biblical examples are Joseph and Daniel. This is what Romans 13 is about. Sure it's a continuation of Romans 12. It continues with the practical ways we become "living sacrificesto God". One of those ways is by our submissive attitude toward governing authorities. We are to recognize them as servants "deacons" of God. They may be bad or unprofitable servants at times but they are God's ministers none the less and to resist them is to resist God. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." (Romans 13:3)
Obviously, if they are commanding you to do something contrary to God then they are violating their authority and you must obey the higher authority, God. "We must obey God rather than man", said Peter.
Ruling is also a spiritual gift. (Romans 12:88)
2)"Romans 13 and 1 Peter aren't the only passages to consider." You are absolutely correct. We must take the whole counsel of God. You mention 1 Samuel 8. Don't forget about Ruth 1:1 "Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled..." God was ruling his people through judges. There was a court system. I'm sure youv've heard of a Judge's "ruling". People were to govern themselves according to God's law but what if a controversy occurred? There were judges and priests. Moses himself, was a common law judge. (Exodus 18:13) These Judges even led in battle.
3) Two masters: Jesus is talking about serving Mammon (wealth, money etc) The Pharisees were lovers of money the text says. This has nothing to do with God's ordained chain of command. A child serves God by obeying his parents in the Lord. (Ephesians 6:1) Collosians 3:20 says, "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord." Slaves are even required to obey their earthly masters (v.5) Paul says, "If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed." (2 Thess. 3:4) Paul had authority as an apostle. Again, we cannot serve God in the abstract. Do you not believe that we are to exercise rule over our own selves? (Proverbs 16:23)
4)The Devil and Christ in Luke 4: Frankly, I don't see the connection except as an illustration of what I've been talking about. "The Devil said all the kingdoms were his". Well, the Devil is a liar. He usurped man's rightful rule given him in the Garden (Genesis 1:26-29)and pretends that He is the Lord, and indeed he is the "god of this world" the god of those in rebellion against Christ, "the spirit that works in the children of disobedience". But he is not the True King, Jesus is! and through His death,burial, resurrection, and ascension He has restored redeemed mankind to their original dominion.
5) Founding Fathers Deists: You have been misinformed. A study was made by M.E. Bradford back in the 80s which demonstrated conclusively that the founders were primarily Christian. Deism didn't really come into its own until after the French Revolution (an anarchical revolution by the way) when Napoleon sought to bring order to France after they had attempted to destroy Christianity and exalt the goddess Reason. It gave them a god to rally around but it was not the God of the Bible. The people of France found out how miserable anarchy is.
6)Thomas Jefferson: You are pretty hard on him. Don't you think? How do you know he didn't repent? You are looking at one chapter of his life.
Jefferson considered himself a Christian although he did despise Calvinism.
7)Yes, Secular anarchism is misguided. In fact it is false doctrine. It's what destroyed France, Russia, China, and countless other countries. Bringing them into a godless, miserable state. We must not heed their siren call. It came to America in the 50s and 60s through people like MLKing and Kinsey.
In Christ,
John Barbour
Hold on! Let me answer each statement separately,
1)"There is no ruler that the Christian is responsible to except Christ" This sounds pious and even like it may be Biblical but it is false. Hebrews 13:7 says "we are to Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation." God has placed rulers in the church that are his representatives. 1 Timothy 5:7: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." They must first prove that they can rule over their own families(1 Timothy 3:4,5) You mentioned Tostoy. This is something he failed to do. He was not a good father or husband (ruler in his household). God does not rule in the abstract. 'You do error not knowing the scripture". Get a concordance and look up rule, ruling, and ruler. There are also rulers in the civil sphere. Two Biblical examples are Joseph and Daniel. This is what Romans 13 is about. Sure it's a continuation of Romans 12. It continues with the practical ways we become "living sacrificesto God". One of those ways is by our submissive attitude toward governing authorities. We are to recognize them as servants "deacons" of God. They may be bad or unprofitable servants at times but they are God's ministers none the less and to resist them is to resist God. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." (Romans 13:3)
Obviously, if they are commanding you to do something contrary to God then they are violating their authority and you must obey the higher authority, God. "We must obey God rather than man", said Peter.
Ruling is also a spiritual gift. (Romans 12:88)
2)"Romans 13 and 1 Peter aren't the only passages to consider." You are absolutely correct. We must take the whole counsel of God. You mention 1 Samuel 8. Don't forget about Ruth 1:1 "Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled..." God was ruling his people through judges. There was a court system. I'm sure youv've heard of a Judge's "ruling". People were to govern themselves according to God's law but what if a controversy occurred? There were judges and priests. Moses himself, was a common law judge. (Exodus 18:13) These Judges even led in battle.
3) Two masters: Jesus is talking about serving Mammon (wealth, money etc) The Pharisees were lovers of money the text says. This has nothing to do with God's ordained chain of command. A child serves God by obeying his parents in the Lord. (Ephesians 6:1) Collosians 3:20 says, "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord." Slaves are even required to obey their earthly masters (v.5) Paul says, "If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed." (2 Thess. 3:4) Paul had authority as an apostle. Again, we cannot serve God in the abstract. Do you not believe that we are to exercise rule over our own selves? (Proverbs 16:23)
4)The Devil and Christ in Luke 4: Frankly, I don't see the connection except as an illustration of what I've been talking about. "The Devil said all the kingdoms were his". Well, the Devil is a liar. He usurped man's rightful rule given him in the Garden (Genesis 1:26-29)and pretends that He is the Lord, and indeed he is the "god of this world" the god of those in rebellion against Christ, "the spirit that works in the children of disobedience". But he is not the True King, Jesus is! and through His death,burial, resurrection, and ascension He has restored redeemed mankind to their original dominion.
5) Founding Fathers Deists: You have been misinformed. A study was made by M.E. Bradford back in the 80s which demonstrated conclusively that the founders were primarily Christian. Deism didn't really come into its own until after the French Revolution (an anarchical revolution by the way) when Napoleon sought to bring order to France after they had attempted to destroy Christianity and exalt the goddess Reason. It gave them a god to rally around but it was not the God of the Bible. The people of France found out how miserable anarchy is.
6)Thomas Jefferson: You are pretty hard on him. Don't you think? How do you know he didn't repent? You are looking at one chapter of his life.
Jefferson considered himself a Christian although he did despise Calvinism.
7)Yes, Secular anarchism is misguided. In fact it is false doctrine. It's what destroyed France, Russia, China, and countless other countries. Bringing them into a godless, miserable state. We must not heed their siren call. It came to America in the 50s and 60s through people like MLKing and Kinsey.
In Christ,
John Barbour
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
John Barbour
This discussion began with a question about marriage licenses, and has moved into one about anarchism. Both subjects are interesting to discuss, but, since the government has made no laws demanding that people obtain marriage licenses, or forbidding them to do so, submission to the laws of the land would seem to be an issue unrelated to the merits or demerits of such licensing.
I addressed the marriage license question several weeks ago in this forum, under Bud's question: "Biblical Marriages Today". It can be found at http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=114
Perhaps a new discussion on anarchism could be initiated under a heading suggestive of the topic.
I addressed the marriage license question several weeks ago in this forum, under Bud's question: "Biblical Marriages Today". It can be found at http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=114
Perhaps a new discussion on anarchism could be initiated under a heading suggestive of the topic.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
I would like to respond to the reply, then I will post another thread entitled "anarchism and government" for further discussion.
1) The idea of rulers in the body of Christ. Hebrews 13:7 was given as a text, but I think that it is the "those who led, who spoke the word of God to you and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith" It is not their position that makes them rulers; it is the word of God and especially the leaders conduct, or practice of the word of God which is what we are following. Further down in Hebrews 13:17 in the English it says "Obey your leaders" but the word Obey there, as I have looked into it, does not mean this "I'm the boss, you're the employee" kind of relationship. It should say, "Allow yourself to be pursuaded by or allow yourself to listen to" your leaders. Jesus said that the gentiles lord it over one anther, it should not be so amongst you. There is a difference between power over and power with. I encourage my friends and brothers, but I do not command them, even if I was their pastor (and I was for awhile). Romans 13: If Paul was saying that the civil government is so great and was advertising for them, than why was he killed as a criminal? Why was Christ put to death as a political prisoner? Nations may have their place and God may use them to punish sin, but not for the Christian. What do we have to do with them? Doesn't Paul say that his concern was the church, not the world. If Paul was a friend of civil authority, then why sneak out of Damascus? He was thus not being subject to the governing authority and violating his own words.
2) The reference to Ruth and ruling through judges. If we were to consider that time period applicable today, then we might as well look for Levites to rule over us also. There was a time when Judges did rule. It is to Israel's shame. They continually rejected God in favor of a man ruling over them. They told Moses that they don't want to hear from God and let God speak to Moses than to the people. What else is this except rejection of God? In the New Covenant Christ says that "You have one leader, WHO IS CHRIST" so in what sense is their other leaders? Any other church leader is only saying what Christ said to say and do. It is not the leader we are following but Christ. And besides that, the anointing is in us and we have no need for teachers, (but they are helpful for sure).
3)Parents do have authority over the children, because children are in trust to the parents. The children do not belong to the parents in the sense that they are owned, but they are given in trust and belong to God. Do you belong to your parents still? Are they master over you?
4) Christ did not deny that the kingdoms of this world belonged to the devil. He also affirmed that His kingdom was not of this world. I think he makes a distinction. We know that governments around the world are the source of persecution for Christians world-wide. It is not the kingdom of God that persecutes Christians, but the world governments. In what sense are they to be obeyed then?
5) Deism started long before the French Revolution. I did not say that all of the founding fathers were Deists. Some were Christians. George Washington was said to be Christian, but there is a contradiction in that he did own slaves, something that we abhor now. Bishop Francis Fenelon (1651-1715) was already responding to the Deists of his day, and that is well before the French Revolution. THere were Deists in France for sure, Voltaire chief amongst them, but Deism as a movement started in the late 1600's and carried through until the development of naturalism. THe social contract theorists, Locke, Rouseau, et al. could be said to be deists in some sense (Locke still left room for revelation) and Rouseau did say have an influence on the French Revolution. If the insinuation is that the French Revolution was bad because it got rid of the divine right of kings, and if the insinuation that any rebellion or revolution against any governing powers is wrong and sinful, then we should all be Catholic and live under a monarchy, because the anabaptists and protestant reformers all rebelled against the authority of the Catholic church, and the French revolution and American revolution were all illegitimate revolutions. I think that the bible shows that the only form of government that it endorses is monarchy -- the absolute Kingship of Christ, not any kind of puppet kings and lesser rulers who deny Christ.
6) Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson still had an affair with his slave-mistress Sally Hemming and had multiple children with her. How did he repent when he continued in it. And it doesn't bother me that Jefferson despised Calvinism -- he is not alone in that company as I also am a non-Calvinist, as was the early church until the time of Augustine the former Manichaen who became bishop of Hippo.
7) I don't understand the disdain for Martin Luther King Jr, and I think you are refering to the civil rights movement. That is a hard line to take, considering the civil government was not treating blacks fairly. SHould the civil government have continued with its segregation and Jim Crow laws of the South? Please clarify.
I appreciate the discussion, and it is done without malice or contempt. In Christ, Anon
1) The idea of rulers in the body of Christ. Hebrews 13:7 was given as a text, but I think that it is the "those who led, who spoke the word of God to you and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith" It is not their position that makes them rulers; it is the word of God and especially the leaders conduct, or practice of the word of God which is what we are following. Further down in Hebrews 13:17 in the English it says "Obey your leaders" but the word Obey there, as I have looked into it, does not mean this "I'm the boss, you're the employee" kind of relationship. It should say, "Allow yourself to be pursuaded by or allow yourself to listen to" your leaders. Jesus said that the gentiles lord it over one anther, it should not be so amongst you. There is a difference between power over and power with. I encourage my friends and brothers, but I do not command them, even if I was their pastor (and I was for awhile). Romans 13: If Paul was saying that the civil government is so great and was advertising for them, than why was he killed as a criminal? Why was Christ put to death as a political prisoner? Nations may have their place and God may use them to punish sin, but not for the Christian. What do we have to do with them? Doesn't Paul say that his concern was the church, not the world. If Paul was a friend of civil authority, then why sneak out of Damascus? He was thus not being subject to the governing authority and violating his own words.
2) The reference to Ruth and ruling through judges. If we were to consider that time period applicable today, then we might as well look for Levites to rule over us also. There was a time when Judges did rule. It is to Israel's shame. They continually rejected God in favor of a man ruling over them. They told Moses that they don't want to hear from God and let God speak to Moses than to the people. What else is this except rejection of God? In the New Covenant Christ says that "You have one leader, WHO IS CHRIST" so in what sense is their other leaders? Any other church leader is only saying what Christ said to say and do. It is not the leader we are following but Christ. And besides that, the anointing is in us and we have no need for teachers, (but they are helpful for sure).
3)Parents do have authority over the children, because children are in trust to the parents. The children do not belong to the parents in the sense that they are owned, but they are given in trust and belong to God. Do you belong to your parents still? Are they master over you?
4) Christ did not deny that the kingdoms of this world belonged to the devil. He also affirmed that His kingdom was not of this world. I think he makes a distinction. We know that governments around the world are the source of persecution for Christians world-wide. It is not the kingdom of God that persecutes Christians, but the world governments. In what sense are they to be obeyed then?
5) Deism started long before the French Revolution. I did not say that all of the founding fathers were Deists. Some were Christians. George Washington was said to be Christian, but there is a contradiction in that he did own slaves, something that we abhor now. Bishop Francis Fenelon (1651-1715) was already responding to the Deists of his day, and that is well before the French Revolution. THere were Deists in France for sure, Voltaire chief amongst them, but Deism as a movement started in the late 1600's and carried through until the development of naturalism. THe social contract theorists, Locke, Rouseau, et al. could be said to be deists in some sense (Locke still left room for revelation) and Rouseau did say have an influence on the French Revolution. If the insinuation is that the French Revolution was bad because it got rid of the divine right of kings, and if the insinuation that any rebellion or revolution against any governing powers is wrong and sinful, then we should all be Catholic and live under a monarchy, because the anabaptists and protestant reformers all rebelled against the authority of the Catholic church, and the French revolution and American revolution were all illegitimate revolutions. I think that the bible shows that the only form of government that it endorses is monarchy -- the absolute Kingship of Christ, not any kind of puppet kings and lesser rulers who deny Christ.
6) Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson still had an affair with his slave-mistress Sally Hemming and had multiple children with her. How did he repent when he continued in it. And it doesn't bother me that Jefferson despised Calvinism -- he is not alone in that company as I also am a non-Calvinist, as was the early church until the time of Augustine the former Manichaen who became bishop of Hippo.
7) I don't understand the disdain for Martin Luther King Jr, and I think you are refering to the civil rights movement. That is a hard line to take, considering the civil government was not treating blacks fairly. SHould the civil government have continued with its segregation and Jim Crow laws of the South? Please clarify.
I appreciate the discussion, and it is done without malice or contempt. In Christ, Anon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Re: Marriage Licenses
Heres my thoughts.Anon wrote:Can anyone tell me why Christians should get a marriage license? The State, despite what politicians say, doesn't recognize the Lordship of Christ. Why do we need their permission? They divorce people who do not have a legitimate, biblical reason. There is no "law of the land" that requires people to get a marriage license in order to be together. We as Christians do not need their permission; marriage doesn't belong to the State. At best, they can only offer civil incorporation. Marriage belongs to God and is a prophetic event designed to correspond to the upcoming marriage feast of the Lamb. So why get a marriage license? Who needs the State? Check out the website www.jesusradicals.com and look through there if you dare!
-Marriage belongs to God, not a godless state.
-The state has no right to 'permit' (what a license does) a man to marry.....that is Gods right alone.
-Since the 'state' isnt going out arresting folks who are living together with NO marriage covenant in place, they are not going to any sooner arrest this couple who is living together, but now has stood together before God and made a covenant to each other before our Lord and God.
- Ive asked lawyers about this situation and they basically laughed at me. No judge in the US even cares about a covenant made before God between a man and woman without a license.
Without it you are breaking no more laws than you were while living in sin...you simply will not receive state protections given to those with a license.
Cases such as your death benefits when you die....your wife could be robbed of that and much more when you pass.
Licensing is not *required* to be married before God.
It *IS* required to received any sort of protection for your union by the state and many other entities.
My non-negotiable opinion is that christians who make a marriage covenant before God without a state license ARE bound by that covenant....to say otherwise is to make a mockery of vows that God holds very seriously....
BUT....to not get a license is to put yourself, your wife and your children at great risk.
My wife and I made our covenant before God without a license to acknowledge that marriage is HIS alone.
then we "married" with a license to appease ceasar so that when I die my wife isnt left to the dogs.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Anon,
Are you saying there is no need to feel any pangs of conscience when I notice I am violating the speed limit? And can I go through red lights as long as no cars are coming? Kind of a pain, you know, to sit there at a red light when you could safely drive across.
Come to think of it, paying taxes is a drag too. Oops, someone named Jesus told some folks they ought to pay taxes to Caesar, of all things. What in the world was Jesus thinking?
foc,
Very well said!
Are you saying there is no need to feel any pangs of conscience when I notice I am violating the speed limit? And can I go through red lights as long as no cars are coming? Kind of a pain, you know, to sit there at a red light when you could safely drive across.
Come to think of it, paying taxes is a drag too. Oops, someone named Jesus told some folks they ought to pay taxes to Caesar, of all things. What in the world was Jesus thinking?
foc,
Very well said!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean