Republican Party = Christianity; why?

[brakelite]

Great contributions from all so far on this thread. Great discussion.
Newlife, I agree that God's form of government must and can only be a theocracy, however that form of government can never be nor should man even attempt to establish such, in this world. God's government is God's kingdom, and as Jesus said, it doesn't belong here, and as you said, citizens of such are not of this world. Unfortunately, there are a vast number of well-meaning Christians who do not understand this principle. They strive to establish religious principles through civil legislation. Although I am loathe to bring this up because it engenders so much heated debate, I do believe Sunday laws are a prime example of this. We have such in our own country. Restricted trade on Sundays, some stores unable to sell certain products on Sunday, hours restricted in certain trading environments, etc. Also, legislation that enforces business closures on religious holidays are of a similar nature. Keeth posted a copy of some of Martin Luther's writings on this subject in another thread. I think Luther had it spot on when he said that the civil power oversteps its jurisdiction when it meddles with religion.
Daniel was the prime minister of Persia under 5 different emperors I think. What he did not do was use his power to demand religious devotion, nor did he demand secular authorities to support his religion.What he did do as a man of the true God was stay true to that God; and not allow the state to dictate how he should practice his religion. He was a minority, and as a result of his faithfulness the secular government changed its attitude and protected his minority religion...this was what God's desire is toward his people as far as secular authorities are concerned. Not enforce religious laws, just protect religious rights.

 

[newlife]

Brakelite, the people of Israel demanded a king so as to be like other nations. The Lord then had Samuel explain to His people what the consequences of having a king would be (1 Samuel 8:10-20). His people persisted in their demands for a king and God relented having Samuel anoint Saul as ruler over Israel, ie,king. (1 Samuel 10:1) It is apparent that God's perfect will for His people was not to have King. However God would continue to bless and protect His people with the caveat that they remained obedient to His will ( 1 Samuel 12:14-16). An ideal situation would be one in which a people were under a man led by God's Holy Spirit, eg, Moses, Samuel. However God I believe will bless any form of government if it is committed to His will and principles. There is nothing particularly sacred about a republican form of government. If a people and the government they elect is not adhering to God's principles they will not be under His covering.

What the majority of any nation thinks, believes or legislates may be contrary to the will of God. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate and narrow is the way , which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.- Matthew 7:13-14

 

[pom2014]

Brakelite, the people of Israel demanded a king so as to be like other nations. The Lord then had Samuel explain to His people what the consequences of having a king would be (1 Samuel 8:10-20). His people persisted in their demands for a king and God relented having Samuel anoint Saul as ruler over Israel, ie,king. (1 Samuel 10:1) It is apparent that God's perfect will for His people was not to have King. However God would continue to bless and protect His people with the caveat that they remained obedient to His will ( 1 Samuel 12:14-16). An ideal situation would be one in which a people were under a man led by God's Holy Spirit, eg, Moses, Samuel. However God I believe will bless any form of government if it is committed to His will and principles. There is nothing particularly sacred about a republican form of government. If a people and the government they elect is not adhering to God's principles they will not be under His covering.

What the majority of any nation thinks, believes or legislates may be contrary to the will of God. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate and narrow is the way , which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.- Matthew 7:13-14

Agreed, it was NOT the way God intended humans to be governed.

In the end that choice by men has caused NOTHING but war, strife and suffering.

But like always, God will give you enough rope. Whether you use it to secure or hang yourself remains with the user.

 

[newlife]

There have been great moves of God in the past and great revival,- Evan Roberts and the Welsh revival of the early 20'th century, Charles Finney, Savanarola, George Fox, Azusa Street to name a few. If there is no vast turning to God I believe that Christians will become increasingly marginalized and persecued if they seek to live true to the Gospel.

A theocracy of course is absurd within the context of countries like he US, the UK, France, Germany and Canada. My point was simply that there is nothing sacred about the majority and our salvation does not lie in representative democracy.(Countries like the US also have plutocratic and oligarchical characteristics which warp the democratic process.) We are rather sojourners and aliens in a land which is not our own, witnesses and ambasadors to another kingdom. We cannot isolate ourselves in fortressed communities but we need rather to be witnesses and evangelists to the unsaved, but also remain apart from the world system which will grow increasingly dark spiritually.

 

[StanJ]

There have been great moves of God in the past and great revival,- Evan Roberts and the Welsh revival of the early 20'th century, Charles Finney, Savanarola, George Fox, Azusa Street to name a few. If there is no vast turning to God I believe that Christians will become increasingly marginalized and persecued if they seek to live true to the Gospel. I fear there may be very spiritually dark times ahead.

A theocracy of course is absurd within the context of countiries like he US, the UK, France, Germany and Canada. We are rather sojourners and aliens in a land which is not our own, witnesses and ambasadors to another kingdom.

AMEN!

 

[brakelite]

There have been great moves of God in the past and great revival,- Evan Roberts and the Welsh revival of the early 20'th century, Charles Finney, Savanarola, George Fox, Azusa Street to name a few. If there is no vast turning to God I believe that Christians will become increasingly marginalized and persecued if they seek to live true to the Gospel.

A theocracy of course is absurd within the context of countries like he US, the UK, France, Germany and Canada. My point was simply that there is nothing sacred about the majority and our salvation does not lie in representative democracy.(Countries like the US also have plutocratic and oligarchical characteristics which warp the democratic process.) We are rather sojourners and aliens in a land which is not our own, witnesses and ambasadors to another kingdom. We cannot isolate ourselves in fortressed communities but we need rather to be witnesses and evangelists to the unsaved, but also remain apart from the world system which will grow increasingly dark spiritually.

Add to that list of countries Australia and New Zealand. I agree with all you have written, and that was my point also. Yet there is an even deeper truth many do not wish to admit. That is that regardless of party loyalties, there is a power over and above all that decides who and who isn't elected to the highest office. That power is an enemy to democracy, an enemy to republicanism, an enemy to the constitution. It rules the international intelligence community, the international banks, the fed. reserve, and owns many major corporations including most of Hollywood and the media. And it is not the Jews, Communism, nor Freemasonry, who are nothing but this power's puppets and tools.

 

[pom2014]

The enemy of democracy is numbers.

 

[aspen]

The enemy of democracy is numbers.

The only democracy that has ever existed was in a city state called Athens and it only lasted 40 years.

 

[aspen]

The enemy of democracy is a partisan press and an ignorant populace

 

[DogLady19]

The enemy of democracy is numbers.

The danger of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. When the majority of people in a country becomes derelict in their morals and responsibilities, the majority becomes dangerous.

As Aspen wrote, only one pure democracy ever existed, and it didn't last.

As for a republic, it also is only as good as the information provided to those who vote for their representatives, and the morality of the voters. Rome and the US became successful and powerful quickly because the people were informed and understood the importance of a social contract that protected liberty for all of its citizens. Once that happened, the informed and moral became too trusting and too complacent, and the greed-mongers stepped right in with the voters' blessings.

In the US, I think this is why our gov't has been able to become cloaked in secrecy, scandalous, corrupt and despotic. We looked at gov't as a savior, and we put too much trust in men.

I don't blame corrupt immoral politicians for the plight of our country. I blame those who blindly elected them. And political parties thrive on that blindness and misplaced trust.

"f the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws." -Noah Webster

 

[Born_Again]

IMHO, I think they should do away with electoral votes. We have the technology now where it is possible to tabulate every single vote. Is it not possible, that if they just counted votes as a whole, then they might have a different outcome? I was literally shocked when Obama got elected to a 2nd term.

But please steer back with me around to the OP. I think there is an expectation that Christian means republican. But its not that simple. Fundamentalist = Republican. That is a more accurate statement. Its not just Christian. I will share that I am an independent. And as far as religion, I am a follower of Christ. I follow His teachings, not that of a single solitary church set of rules. Christ wants the Church to be united. That doesn't go well with Republican, Democrat, Liberal, etc.... Each one of those would have their own sets of beliefs. There are Democrats and Liberals who surely call themselves Christians. They may even follow the teachings of Christ. But when it comes to their views of how things should be, that is where they are separated. Based on that common knowledge alone, Christian can surely not equal Republican.

BA

 

[DogLady19]

I am a follower of Christ. I follow His teachings, not that of a single solitary church set of rules. Christ wants the Church to be united.

That statement is "fundamentalist"... It really peeves me when the media decides to re-define words to suit their agenda. The GOP has nothing to do with fundamentalism. They don't follow Christ or His teachings and they do not unite anyone.

FUNDAMENTAL means "RELATED TO THE FOUNDATION" Your statement is related to the foundation of Christianity. Everything else is window-dressing...

Please do not help the media perpetuate stigma through the misuse of words!

Furthermore, political factions and are not founded in Biblical principles... It's like comparing apples to rattlesnakes!

 

[Born_Again]

Let me have a few more cups of coffee and do some reading and I will have a response for you. I prefer not to knee-jerk in my responses if I can help it! I will be back!

 

[DogLady19]

Let me have a few more cups of coffee and do some reading and I will have a response for you. I prefer not to knee-jerk in my responses if I can help it! I will be back!

Enjoy your coffee break! B)

 

[Born_Again]

That statement is "fundamentalist"... It really peeves me when the media decides to re-define words to suit their agenda. The GOP has nothing to do with fundamentalism. They don't follow Christ or His teachings and they do not unite anyone.

FUNDAMENTAL means "RELATED TO THE FOUNDATION" Your statement is related to the foundation of Christianity. Everything else is window-dressing...

Please do not help the media perpetuate stigma through the misuse of words!

Furthermore, political factions and are not founded in Biblical principles... It's like comparing apples to rattlesnakes!

The definition of fundamental its self and the definition / core of the fundamental movement are different. Not much, but they are...... Its a matter of what they did verse what it means.

At the creation of the Fundamentalist movement, it's principals, stated below, were and are what I believe. I do not argue the core values and teachings of fundamentalism.

1) The Bible is literally true. Associated with this tenet is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that is, without error and free from all contradictions.

2) The virgin birth and deity of Christ. Fundamentalists believe that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit and that He was and is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine.

3) The substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. Fundamentalism teaches that salvation is obtained only through God’s grace and human faith in Christ’s crucifixion for the sins of mankind.

4) The bodily resurrection of Jesus. On the third day after His crucifixion, Jesus rose from the grave and now sits at the right hand of God the Father.

5) The authenticity of Jesus’ miracles as recorded in Scripture and the literal, pre-millennial second coming of Christ to earth.



Now, these were created to counteract modernism. Okay, that's good! Modernism does terrible things to bend the laws of Christ to fit their own agenda. Before I go into my argument I would like to point, I do not watch the media. TV is not a huge thing for me as most things on TV today just distract us from Him and have us focus on more worldly things... Such as politics, sex, partying, etc.. So I don't feel that what I am about to say promotes any media agendas. What I am about to point is truth and very apparent and relevant when it comes to fundamentalist of today. (Not what was originally established in the movement.) So when I say fundamentalist, for the sake of this argument, I mean what is perceived by the world today.

Its not what fundamentalist believe as it is more what they do, or do not do. Fundamentalist hold strong to traditional church values. These are what has been engrained is us since we could understand what our parents were telling us to do. With this "value" system came how to dress, how to act, (and I'm not talking about acting like Christ), what is and is not acceptable. So in turn it came with a heavy price. Soon we were pinned against each other. "Atheists are bad", "Fight the gay community" and so forth... So what has happened there? Well, we were raised to see the worst in people. We shunned them because they were not like us.

What should have been taught? Love. Mercy, Compassion. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." What you don't see today of the Fundamentalist is love for the person. What the person does against Christ is the sin. You are to hate the sin, but love the sinner. And please don't bring West burrow Baptist into this. They are in a league/ universe of their own and those people are being led straight into the pit. If you recall, fundamentalism cause many to break off again into more denominations in search of more truth. This creating more religion. So now we have moved further from what Christ wants. I'm not saying fundamentalist is bad. I'm saying, more in a classical sense, it is the core values of fundamentalism that was started years ago that pushes the overly conservative traditions commonly associated with being a republican. And though, we stick to the fundamental teachings of the Bible, its not our version of fundamental that is seen. Its the Bible thumping fundamental that is portrayed as the face of Christianity and what would be "republican".

Look at it this way:

When you are facing judgment before Christ is He going to care about the shunning, the waged wars in His name, what you wore to church, how many tattoos you have etc..?

He will ask, Did you love me? Did you live as the embodiment of me? Did you tell others about me? Did you show your brothers and sisters my mercy and compassion?

When you get down to the "fundamentals" of it all, its about Christ, His love, His mercy, His compassion. Not a set of rules the Church felt you needed to follow. I have found, that if you live for Him and live for love, the rest falls into place. Because with love it is very difficult to sin. Therefore, you rarely break any commandments. And good news, when you do break them, He is there waiting to forgive you and move forward in His walk with you. Those are the fundamentals, not the Right-wing agenda. And before someone comes after me for that one, I am an independent. So no left wing attacks...

So yes, what I said in my previous quote was fundamental, just not what fundamental is viewed as today. Like yourself, I do not support organized religion. I don't need any other meditator between me and the Father other than Christ. I sure as heck don't need to pray to a saint or the Virgin Marry.

So once again, Christian does not equal Republican. That was my whole point!

But does any of this on this thread really matter when we have to face Him?

BA

 

[aspen]

This is a great discussion. I'm learning something every time I check this thread

 

[Born_Again]

I agree. I am thoroughly enjoying this! This is a good discussion.

 

[DogLady19]

The definition of fundamental its self and the definition / core of the fundamental movement are different. Not much, but they are...... Its a matter of what they did verse what it means.

At the creation of the Fundamentalist movement, it's principals, stated below, were and are what I believe. I do not argue the core values and teachings of fundamentalism.
...
5) The authenticity of Jesus’ miracles as recorded in Scripture and the literal, pre-millennial second coming of Christ to earth.

Now, these were created to counteract modernism. Okay, that's good! Modernism does terrible things to bend the laws of Christ to fit their own agenda. ...most things on TV today just distract us from Him and have us focus on more worldly things...

I think what the media calls "fundamentalism" should more correctly be called "legalism"...

1. The only time I have ever heard or seen the term "fundamentalist movement" it was a label placed on the group that opposed them, not by the members of the group. (stigma via misuse of words)

2. Your points 1-5 are indeed the fundamental principles of Christianity, NOT some so-called "movement"...

3. The term "modernism" is also being misused (stigma via misuse of words). You and I are currently discussing this issue on something resulting from modernism. It has not done anything "terrible" to "bend the laws of Christ" ... even luddites can distort the Word of God to their own agenda! LOL It has nothing to do with being modern or being part of modern culture.

Your feelings about TV are between you and God. You cannot say that TV is bad for everyone. The use of modern communications devices are matters of personal preference, or God's specific direction for YOUR life.
TV, automobiles, music, clothing, etc are all of a cultural nature, and not part of the fundamentals of Christianity. Should we all dress like they did in Jesus' day to avoid bending the laws of Christ??? :huh:

4. As soon as anyone declares that any modernity is sinful, they have moved out of the realm of fundamentalism and into the oppressive realm of legalism.

"Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall... I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean... So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God." Romans 14:4-22

 

[DogLady19]

I think what the media calls "fundamentalism" should more correctly be called "legalism"...

1. The only time I have ever heard or seen the term "fundamentalist movement" it was a label placed on the group that opposed them, not by the members of the group. (stigma via misuse of words)

2. Your points 1-5 are indeed the fundamental principles of Christianity, NOT some so-called "movement"...

3. The term "modernism" is also being misused (stigma via misuse of words). You and I are currently discussing this issue on something resulting from modernism. It has not done anything "terrible" to "bend the laws of Christ" ... even luddites can distort the Word of God to their own agenda! LOL It has nothing to do with being modern or being part of modern culture.

Also, immorality (and its broad acceptance in society) has been around since the beginning of civilization... nothing "modern" about it!

Your feelings about TV are between you and God. You cannot say that TV is bad for everyone. The use of modern communications devices are matters of personal preference, or God's specific direction for YOUR life.
TV, automobiles, music, clothing, etc are all of a cultural nature, and not part of the fundamentals of Christianity. Should we all dress like they did in Jesus' day to avoid bending the laws of Christ??? :huh:

4. As soon as anyone declares that any modernity is sinful, they have moved out of the realm of fundamentalism and into the oppressive realm of legalism.

"Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall... I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean... So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God." Romans 14:4-22

 

[Born_Again]

Then I suggest you read up on the roots of fundamentalism. Your reply tells me you are going based on a basic knowledge of the word "fundamental". In religious history, it is clearly labeled as a movement.

God Bless,

BA