Prayer is the key to the Christian's victory. Though He was God in the flesh, Jesus prayed often. He taught His disciples to pray, saying, "Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." We pray for God's kingdom and will to come and be done. Wouldn't that fit well with praying that godly men get elected to office? With praying that we might be godly men who could worship God and faithfully keep the sheep?
Paul exhorted us to pray for our rulers: "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." I Timothy 2:1-4. It is peaceful living under a godly civil government that is most productive of a Christian civilization. Godly authority supports, protects, and encourages law abiding citizens and punishes the law breakers. In this way, God's justice is mirrored in the civil realm, and Christians (law abiding) advance, while the wicked (law breakers) are retarded in their success.
We pray to understand, we pray to see God's power change the world, we pray so that we change to become more in the image of Christ. In this way, we prepare for leadership. And in the meantime, we serve those we are around. If we are promoted, it is merely for more advanced service so that we are better shepherds. It is not solely or primarily for our benefit, even though becoming like Christ and serving His people is always an honor and privilege. Paul had this attitude in Philippians 1:23-6:
"For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith; That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again."
Even though it was to his benefit to depart and dwell with Christ, he was willing, no, anxious, to abide with God's people and encourage them. Prayer acknowledges that there is a higher power, a higher authority, an appellate court above all human courts, if you will. The Christian politician knows that he need not compromise to accomplish half God's purpose. He can always appeal to the King of the universe, the Supreme Court of the universe to undo the injustices, and to grant success to the chosen politician who stands upon the truth of God's word. Such is prayer.
Monday, March 24, 2014
The Victory of The Christian 1
The model politician in the bible is King David. Before becoming King, he was chosen by God, anointed by the prophet Samuel, the Spirit of God came upon him, he took the opportunity to claim victory for Israel and the God of Israel against a seemingly invincible enemy, he won enormous victories for Israel and King Saul, and he was persecuted to the point of having to escape his own nation because the jealous king was intent upon killing him. Did he orchestrate any of this by consulting with his campaign managers and analyzing polling data? Did he choose to become king? Did he compete and scramble in competition with King Saul to claim his kingship after being anointed king by Samuel? Did he fight to defend himself against King Saul when he was facing death at Saul's hand? The answer is no to all of the above.
So, how did he become king? It was not by any humanly orchestrated means that King David became King. Nevertheless, we can still learn alot about David. First is his faith in God, meaning he did not consider himself fit for the job of King but knew if God wanted him in that position, then it would happen. In other words, why would David need to orchestrate what God already ordained? Why would he advance himself to become something for which he didn't think he was even fit? Why would he jeopardize his life, his soul, and his future by harming God's chosen king?
You say modern politics is different and you have to promote yourself. Is modern politics that different? Is God no longer able to advance a person to a chosen position? Or does God not care anymore about who serves in politics? Back then, God set up a theocracy, and now things are different. So what God sets up is not as good as what we can set up? Secularism is better than theocracy? Human government is better than God's? Which is it going to be?
But what if a group of people, the church, maybe, got the vision for God's government, run by God's men? First, they would need to know and understand God's method of civil government. Second, they would have to pray for God's men to become elected officials. Third, they would have to apply their faith to the process of getting elected. Lastly, they would have to apply their faith to being a governing official.
First, what are the principles, the standards for governing civilly? Before he even knew that he would become king, David began as a worshipper of God and faithfully keeping his father's sheep. He ended worshipping God, faithfully keeping his father's sheep, and instructing his son how to continue in the right way. He had the five elements of covenant down pat. Worshipping God, the sovereign and the authority over even the king - elements 1 and 2, sovereignty and hierarchy. He kept the law of love, guiding the sheep - element 3, law. He accepted God's discipline and sanctions upon him and his sin as what was true and just from his God's hand - element 4, sanctions. And he passed along instructions to keep God's covenant people going, keeping the continuity of godly rulership - element 5, succession or inheritance.
"Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying, I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man; And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself: That the LORD may continue his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel." I Kings 2:1-4.
David spoke right out of the law of Moses because he was a man after God's own heart. How else would we know that he loved God? "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." I John 5:2-3.
So how do we pray for these godly elected officials? That is for the next post.
So, how did he become king? It was not by any humanly orchestrated means that King David became King. Nevertheless, we can still learn alot about David. First is his faith in God, meaning he did not consider himself fit for the job of King but knew if God wanted him in that position, then it would happen. In other words, why would David need to orchestrate what God already ordained? Why would he advance himself to become something for which he didn't think he was even fit? Why would he jeopardize his life, his soul, and his future by harming God's chosen king?
You say modern politics is different and you have to promote yourself. Is modern politics that different? Is God no longer able to advance a person to a chosen position? Or does God not care anymore about who serves in politics? Back then, God set up a theocracy, and now things are different. So what God sets up is not as good as what we can set up? Secularism is better than theocracy? Human government is better than God's? Which is it going to be?
But what if a group of people, the church, maybe, got the vision for God's government, run by God's men? First, they would need to know and understand God's method of civil government. Second, they would have to pray for God's men to become elected officials. Third, they would have to apply their faith to the process of getting elected. Lastly, they would have to apply their faith to being a governing official.
First, what are the principles, the standards for governing civilly? Before he even knew that he would become king, David began as a worshipper of God and faithfully keeping his father's sheep. He ended worshipping God, faithfully keeping his father's sheep, and instructing his son how to continue in the right way. He had the five elements of covenant down pat. Worshipping God, the sovereign and the authority over even the king - elements 1 and 2, sovereignty and hierarchy. He kept the law of love, guiding the sheep - element 3, law. He accepted God's discipline and sanctions upon him and his sin as what was true and just from his God's hand - element 4, sanctions. And he passed along instructions to keep God's covenant people going, keeping the continuity of godly rulership - element 5, succession or inheritance.
"Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying, I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man; And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself: That the LORD may continue his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel." I Kings 2:1-4.
David spoke right out of the law of Moses because he was a man after God's own heart. How else would we know that he loved God? "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous." I John 5:2-3.
So how do we pray for these godly elected officials? That is for the next post.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
The Circle Square Debate
As I've viewed the debate over “homosexual marriage” since attending law school thirty years ago, it has appeared to me that the hundreds and thousands of law school review articles and debates in the press and pronouncements of the courts are like a shell game. However, just recently, I've noticed a pronounced difference between a real-life shell game and the marriage debate. The shell game is much fairer. In the shell game, the gamer and the mark (the one to be fleeced by the sleight of hand of the gamer) at least begin on solid footing, for the gamer shows the mark the three shells and the pea, which is supposed to be placed under one of the shells and then uncovered by the mark after the mark watches the gamer scramble the three shells. However, in the homosexual marriage debate, you never see the pea, and there’s only one shell. The mark has to ask himself, “Was there ever a pea at all?”
Consider the following debate as exemplary of the evolution of the homosexual marriage debate. This is a mirror of the legal debate, and you better believe that it rises no higher than the shrill scream of a person who wants their way no matter what. It is between the circle person, who is anti-homosexual marriage, and the square person, who is pro-homosexual marriage. For the sake of space on the written page, we’ll name them Pro-Circle and Pro-Square.
Pro-Square: “Do you believe that there’s a difference between circles and squares?”
Pro-Circle: “Well, yes, of course, there’s a difference.”
Pro-Square: “You’re a bigot!”
Pro-Circle: “Why do you call me a bigot? The difference is self-evident; squares have four corners, and circles have none. It has been that way for eons of time in practically every society that has ever existed.”
Pro-Square: “Well, there you have it. You prove you’re a bigot by excluding squares from the definition of circles!”
Pro-Circle: “So, let me get this straight. To say that a square is not a circle is bigotry, and to say that the definition of circle should include squares is what you’re all about. Am I right?”
Pro-Square: “You’re correct. I am loving and tolerant, and you are a bigot, sir.”
Pro-Circle: “But a square is not a circle; it has never been one and can never be one.”
Pro-Square: “Bigot! Prove that a square is not a circle.”
Pro-Circle: “But I already stated the self-evident, geometrical proof that a square has four corners, and a circle has no corners but only a smooth, equi-radius curve for a boundary.”
Pro-Square: “But they both have boundaries and they’re both shapes, correct?”
Pro-Circle: “Yes, but . . .”
Pro-Square: “There! You’re a bigot, as I told you before. Squares should be equivalent to circles.”
Pro-Circle: “But it’s not bigotry; it’s the very definition of a circle to exclude shapes that have corners, like squares.”
Pro-Square: “I have demanded before that you prove that the square shape is not included within the definition of circle. And you have failed miserably.”
Pro-Circle: “Uh . . .”
Pro-Square: “There, you see, you have absolutely no defense for your intolerant and hateful exclusion of squares from the definition of circle. In fact, every time you open your mouth, you simply prove further and further that you are a hateful bigot because you believe in excluding squares from the definition of circle!”
Pro-Circle: “But I’m not a bigot, and I don’t hate you. I simply believe there’s a difference between the two shapes.”
Pro-Square: “I’m not convinced. You make me feel excluded and hated and discriminated against because you won’t accept that squares are equivalent to circles. You are a hateful, intolerant, bigot. This is becoming intolerable even talking to you. Have you no shame for excluding squares from the definition of circles?! You are despicable!”
Pro-Circle: “Whoa, let’s slow down here. I don’t hate you and never intended to make you feel discriminated against. It’s just that circles and squares have always been defined as different. I know, I know, you disagree. Here’s a question for you. What about triangles? Can’t they be circles if it’s intolerant and hateful to say squares are not circles, then surely it would be intolerant and hateful to say that triangles are not circles too, right?”
Pro-Square: “There you go, degrading yourself and your argument by bringing up that tired triangle argument. You truly are a most miserable, despicable hater, if you’re going to bring triangles into this discussion.”
Pro-Circle: “Hold on, you’re the one that said it’s hateful to leave squares out of the definition of circles. Why aren't you a hater for leaving triangles out? I don’t get it.”
Pro-Square: “No, you don’t get it!”
Pro-Circle: “Is that your comeback?”
Pro-Square: “It’s not a comeback. Your argument is too disgusting to be even entitled to a comeback.”
Pro-Circle: “Okay. Where do we go from here?”
Pro-Square: “I’ll tell you where we go; you get rid of your antiquated hateful definition of circle and include squares. That’s where we go, and you better do it fast, or I’ll sue you so quick, it’ll make your head spin!”
Pro-Circle: “Would that be a circular spin or a square spin?”
Pro-Square: “Don’t be cute, bigot.”
Pro-Circle: “I’m sorry, that was uncalled for. I’ll go back to logical arguments for your sake. Answer me this. When did the thousands of years of human history and geometry and logic suddenly become hateful and bigoted?”
Pro-Square: “First of all, you have totally missed it. Second, that history, as you call it, proves what I've been saying all along.”
Pro-Circle: “I would think that it would help my argument about defining circle as a no-corner shape.”
Pro-Square: “No, it proves you’re a fundamentalist, fanatical, backward hateful bigot who agrees with the persecution we Pro-Squares have suffered under.”
Pro-Circle: “Oh. I’m stumped. There’s something wrong here, and I’m trying to put my finger on it.”
Pro-Square: “You see, you can’t even come up with a logical defense for your discriminatory, bigoted definition of circle. Just give it up.”
Pro-Circle: “Well, it just seems as if changing the definition of circle might be a dangerous thing. I can’t prove it because no society has ever done it. I wonder what kind of geometry and architecture we’d have, what effect it might have on language and understanding of what shape is being discussed, and just leaving out something as important as corners in the definition of squares seems, well, dishonest in some deep, fundamental way.”
Pro-Square: “Oh, now you’re going to bring in the religious aspect aren't you? I thought you religious people believed in a loving God and loving your neighbor and all that stuff. How does defining a circle in order to purposely exclude squares live up to your religion. Hypocrite!”
Pro-Circle: “Um, I don’t think it’s purposeful exclusion really. But I think you've missed my point. It’s a radical change in something important, and our society hasn't really determined what the consequences of the change may be.”
Pro-Square: “The future will be better because we Pro-Squares won’t feel excluded any longer, and we’ll provide a broader, more inclusive society. What are you afraid of? It’s not like you won’t have circles any more; you still get to keep your no-cornered shapes, as you call them.”
Pro-Circle: “But not three-cornered shapes, right?”
Pro-Square: “Well, not yet.”
Pro-Circle: “Wait, I thought you said earlier that my mention of triangles as perhaps being entitled to being included in the definition was utterly disgusting to the point it didn't even deserve a response?”
Pro-Square: “Society might evolve to the point that triangles are also not excluded, I don’t know. We’ll just have to see.”
Pro-Circle: “You’re right. I don’t get it. It seems that you still can have squares without defining them as circles, and we wouldn't have the problems I’m concerned about. It also seems that you don’t really have a good answer to what I've said, but you basically continue to accuse me of having no argument and hating you as if I were trying to get you to change the definition of square, which I have not attempted to do once in this argument. Also, it seems that there’s no such thing as right and wrong anymore; values just evolve. One day squares are not circles, the next they are. One day, triangles are not circles, but one day they might be. I still don’t think I’m a bigot, and you certainly haven’t convinced me that squares are the same as circles, but it looks like you've got the power players behind you – the president, the courts, the media, who also agree with you. They also think that squares should be included in the definition of circle. I guess I’ll just have to go along with the crowd.”
Pro-Square: “I see you’re still stuck in the dark ages, but I warn you that unless you fully come around and reject out of your mind that bigoted, hateful definition of circle, we will hunt you down and render you powerless to resist or say a peep in opposition to our cause to make squares the equals of circles.”
Pro-Circle: “My, that is so tolerant and liberty-loving. I guess you don’t need an argument, do you?”
Consider the following debate as exemplary of the evolution of the homosexual marriage debate. This is a mirror of the legal debate, and you better believe that it rises no higher than the shrill scream of a person who wants their way no matter what. It is between the circle person, who is anti-homosexual marriage, and the square person, who is pro-homosexual marriage. For the sake of space on the written page, we’ll name them Pro-Circle and Pro-Square.
Pro-Square: “Do you believe that there’s a difference between circles and squares?”
Pro-Circle: “Well, yes, of course, there’s a difference.”
Pro-Square: “You’re a bigot!”
Pro-Circle: “Why do you call me a bigot? The difference is self-evident; squares have four corners, and circles have none. It has been that way for eons of time in practically every society that has ever existed.”
Pro-Square: “Well, there you have it. You prove you’re a bigot by excluding squares from the definition of circles!”
Pro-Circle: “So, let me get this straight. To say that a square is not a circle is bigotry, and to say that the definition of circle should include squares is what you’re all about. Am I right?”
Pro-Square: “You’re correct. I am loving and tolerant, and you are a bigot, sir.”
Pro-Circle: “But a square is not a circle; it has never been one and can never be one.”
Pro-Square: “Bigot! Prove that a square is not a circle.”
Pro-Circle: “But I already stated the self-evident, geometrical proof that a square has four corners, and a circle has no corners but only a smooth, equi-radius curve for a boundary.”
Pro-Square: “But they both have boundaries and they’re both shapes, correct?”
Pro-Circle: “Yes, but . . .”
Pro-Square: “There! You’re a bigot, as I told you before. Squares should be equivalent to circles.”
Pro-Circle: “But it’s not bigotry; it’s the very definition of a circle to exclude shapes that have corners, like squares.”
Pro-Square: “I have demanded before that you prove that the square shape is not included within the definition of circle. And you have failed miserably.”
Pro-Circle: “Uh . . .”
Pro-Square: “There, you see, you have absolutely no defense for your intolerant and hateful exclusion of squares from the definition of circle. In fact, every time you open your mouth, you simply prove further and further that you are a hateful bigot because you believe in excluding squares from the definition of circle!”
Pro-Circle: “But I’m not a bigot, and I don’t hate you. I simply believe there’s a difference between the two shapes.”
Pro-Square: “I’m not convinced. You make me feel excluded and hated and discriminated against because you won’t accept that squares are equivalent to circles. You are a hateful, intolerant, bigot. This is becoming intolerable even talking to you. Have you no shame for excluding squares from the definition of circles?! You are despicable!”
Pro-Circle: “Whoa, let’s slow down here. I don’t hate you and never intended to make you feel discriminated against. It’s just that circles and squares have always been defined as different. I know, I know, you disagree. Here’s a question for you. What about triangles? Can’t they be circles if it’s intolerant and hateful to say squares are not circles, then surely it would be intolerant and hateful to say that triangles are not circles too, right?”
Pro-Square: “There you go, degrading yourself and your argument by bringing up that tired triangle argument. You truly are a most miserable, despicable hater, if you’re going to bring triangles into this discussion.”
Pro-Circle: “Hold on, you’re the one that said it’s hateful to leave squares out of the definition of circles. Why aren't you a hater for leaving triangles out? I don’t get it.”
Pro-Square: “No, you don’t get it!”
Pro-Circle: “Is that your comeback?”
Pro-Square: “It’s not a comeback. Your argument is too disgusting to be even entitled to a comeback.”
Pro-Circle: “Okay. Where do we go from here?”
Pro-Square: “I’ll tell you where we go; you get rid of your antiquated hateful definition of circle and include squares. That’s where we go, and you better do it fast, or I’ll sue you so quick, it’ll make your head spin!”
Pro-Circle: “Would that be a circular spin or a square spin?”
Pro-Square: “Don’t be cute, bigot.”
Pro-Circle: “I’m sorry, that was uncalled for. I’ll go back to logical arguments for your sake. Answer me this. When did the thousands of years of human history and geometry and logic suddenly become hateful and bigoted?”
Pro-Square: “First of all, you have totally missed it. Second, that history, as you call it, proves what I've been saying all along.”
Pro-Circle: “I would think that it would help my argument about defining circle as a no-corner shape.”
Pro-Square: “No, it proves you’re a fundamentalist, fanatical, backward hateful bigot who agrees with the persecution we Pro-Squares have suffered under.”
Pro-Circle: “Oh. I’m stumped. There’s something wrong here, and I’m trying to put my finger on it.”
Pro-Square: “You see, you can’t even come up with a logical defense for your discriminatory, bigoted definition of circle. Just give it up.”
Pro-Circle: “Well, it just seems as if changing the definition of circle might be a dangerous thing. I can’t prove it because no society has ever done it. I wonder what kind of geometry and architecture we’d have, what effect it might have on language and understanding of what shape is being discussed, and just leaving out something as important as corners in the definition of squares seems, well, dishonest in some deep, fundamental way.”
Pro-Square: “Oh, now you’re going to bring in the religious aspect aren't you? I thought you religious people believed in a loving God and loving your neighbor and all that stuff. How does defining a circle in order to purposely exclude squares live up to your religion. Hypocrite!”
Pro-Circle: “Um, I don’t think it’s purposeful exclusion really. But I think you've missed my point. It’s a radical change in something important, and our society hasn't really determined what the consequences of the change may be.”
Pro-Square: “The future will be better because we Pro-Squares won’t feel excluded any longer, and we’ll provide a broader, more inclusive society. What are you afraid of? It’s not like you won’t have circles any more; you still get to keep your no-cornered shapes, as you call them.”
Pro-Circle: “But not three-cornered shapes, right?”
Pro-Square: “Well, not yet.”
Pro-Circle: “Wait, I thought you said earlier that my mention of triangles as perhaps being entitled to being included in the definition was utterly disgusting to the point it didn't even deserve a response?”
Pro-Square: “Society might evolve to the point that triangles are also not excluded, I don’t know. We’ll just have to see.”
Pro-Circle: “You’re right. I don’t get it. It seems that you still can have squares without defining them as circles, and we wouldn't have the problems I’m concerned about. It also seems that you don’t really have a good answer to what I've said, but you basically continue to accuse me of having no argument and hating you as if I were trying to get you to change the definition of square, which I have not attempted to do once in this argument. Also, it seems that there’s no such thing as right and wrong anymore; values just evolve. One day squares are not circles, the next they are. One day, triangles are not circles, but one day they might be. I still don’t think I’m a bigot, and you certainly haven’t convinced me that squares are the same as circles, but it looks like you've got the power players behind you – the president, the courts, the media, who also agree with you. They also think that squares should be included in the definition of circle. I guess I’ll just have to go along with the crowd.”
Pro-Square: “I see you’re still stuck in the dark ages, but I warn you that unless you fully come around and reject out of your mind that bigoted, hateful definition of circle, we will hunt you down and render you powerless to resist or say a peep in opposition to our cause to make squares the equals of circles.”
Pro-Circle: “My, that is so tolerant and liberty-loving. I guess you don’t need an argument, do you?”
The Victory of Christian Civilization 2
As I mentioned in another post, there are some things you can't compromise. For example, innocent human life, the definition of marriage, the identity of the true sovereign who judges nations, etc. But how does that translate into practical politics in the give-and-take, say, of the legislative process? When discussing the matters that cannot be compromised, there are two diametrically opposed positions.
First position: The standard politician asserts that he can work things out with the opposing side, reach across the aisle, reach a compromise. You can't compromise on a dead baby, unless you want the wrath of God. So, do we have to settle for God's wrath upon our nation, or is there another way?
Second position: There is another way. The representative in the government of a group of people, if he is a believer, is also a representative of the living God, the true sovereign. He can stand for the truth and not compromise. God sees that and will orchestrate heaven and earth to bless that believer's efforts. However, God cannot bless something that would contradict His word, i.e., the killing of some innocent babies to achieve a winning piece of legislation that a majority can agree to.
The believer who compromises denies that God can give victory over the enemies of God's law. He also gives up on the jurisdiction he represents, giving them over to the wrath of God's judgment upon a people giving up on His law. The believer who stands for the truth no matter what receives the following support in the invisible realm:
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war." Revelation 19:11. "And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh." Revelation 19:19-21.
The beasts of the Old Testament were the political rulers who trampled the earth and God's people. It doesn't identify just one person in history, although it might ideally represent one particular political personage or position of the first century - those persecuting the infant Church of Jesus Christ.
The Greek word translated as The Revelation in Revelation 1:1 is apocalypse.
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: . . . ."
The Greek word, apokalypsis, means:
1. laying bare, making naked
2. a disclosure of truth, instruction
1. concerning things before unknown
2. used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all
3. manifestation, appearance
From Blue Letter Bible, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, at http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G602&t=KJV, accessed on March 1, 2014.
So, when we read in Revelation about Jesus Christ riding on a white horse and destroying His enemies, it is a revealing, an unveiling of who He is, not a revealing of what will happen in the future. Do you really think He sits in the most powerful position in the universe, that of God Almighty, and does nothing to advance His kingdom? At least, you have to believe that God the Father cares enough about the sacrifice of His Son that He advances His cause.
To think otherwise is to be like the people Jesus spoke to about His Father working. They appeared to think that upon finishing the sixth day of creation, God just sat down to rest for all eternity. But that was a complete misconception, according to Jesus. "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." John 5:17.
Therefore, your cause that you are called to work for His kingdom, He will work to uphold it, even if that means gathering the armies of heaven together as a conquering commander and going to war against your enemies.
The verb form of the word, apokalyptÅ, is translated "reveal" 26 times in the New Testament. The revelation of who Jesus Christ really is, the conquering King of this earth and the entire universe, is revealed in the New Testament, the hearts and minds of believers by the Holy Spirit, and in history before the watching eyes of unbelievers, who see the crucified one destroy the idols they have exalted and avenge His saints, whom they have persecuted. I think He can handle the American Congress or your state's legislature or governor or courts or whatever is acting as God's enemy.
First position: The standard politician asserts that he can work things out with the opposing side, reach across the aisle, reach a compromise. You can't compromise on a dead baby, unless you want the wrath of God. So, do we have to settle for God's wrath upon our nation, or is there another way?
Second position: There is another way. The representative in the government of a group of people, if he is a believer, is also a representative of the living God, the true sovereign. He can stand for the truth and not compromise. God sees that and will orchestrate heaven and earth to bless that believer's efforts. However, God cannot bless something that would contradict His word, i.e., the killing of some innocent babies to achieve a winning piece of legislation that a majority can agree to.
The believer who compromises denies that God can give victory over the enemies of God's law. He also gives up on the jurisdiction he represents, giving them over to the wrath of God's judgment upon a people giving up on His law. The believer who stands for the truth no matter what receives the following support in the invisible realm:
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war." Revelation 19:11. "And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh." Revelation 19:19-21.
The beasts of the Old Testament were the political rulers who trampled the earth and God's people. It doesn't identify just one person in history, although it might ideally represent one particular political personage or position of the first century - those persecuting the infant Church of Jesus Christ.
The Greek word translated as The Revelation in Revelation 1:1 is apocalypse.
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: . . . ."
The Greek word, apokalypsis, means:
1. laying bare, making naked
2. a disclosure of truth, instruction
1. concerning things before unknown
2. used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all
3. manifestation, appearance
From Blue Letter Bible, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, at http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G602&t=KJV, accessed on March 1, 2014.
So, when we read in Revelation about Jesus Christ riding on a white horse and destroying His enemies, it is a revealing, an unveiling of who He is, not a revealing of what will happen in the future. Do you really think He sits in the most powerful position in the universe, that of God Almighty, and does nothing to advance His kingdom? At least, you have to believe that God the Father cares enough about the sacrifice of His Son that He advances His cause.
To think otherwise is to be like the people Jesus spoke to about His Father working. They appeared to think that upon finishing the sixth day of creation, God just sat down to rest for all eternity. But that was a complete misconception, according to Jesus. "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." John 5:17.
Therefore, your cause that you are called to work for His kingdom, He will work to uphold it, even if that means gathering the armies of heaven together as a conquering commander and going to war against your enemies.
The verb form of the word, apokalyptÅ, is translated "reveal" 26 times in the New Testament. The revelation of who Jesus Christ really is, the conquering King of this earth and the entire universe, is revealed in the New Testament, the hearts and minds of believers by the Holy Spirit, and in history before the watching eyes of unbelievers, who see the crucified one destroy the idols they have exalted and avenge His saints, whom they have persecuted. I think He can handle the American Congress or your state's legislature or governor or courts or whatever is acting as God's enemy.
The Victory of Christian Civilization 1
Victory of Christian Civilization? What are you talking about? Those are the questions of those ignorant of history and utterly oblivious to the bible's inevitable march to victory of God's covenant people. It is a long-neglected portion of scripture. Psalm 2 states it quite plainly.
"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Psalm 2.
How do we know when Christianity has overcome the secular and pagan and godless ideologies of the day. Because we can argue them better in debates?
Here's one way. I won't say it's the only way or even the most important way, but it is a biblical way.
"Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you. But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" Deuteronomy 4:1-8.
So, God's law, given to and adopted by a people, is evidence of great wisdom in that people, and it attracts others to that people's God.
"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Psalm 2.
How do we know when Christianity has overcome the secular and pagan and godless ideologies of the day. Because we can argue them better in debates?
Here's one way. I won't say it's the only way or even the most important way, but it is a biblical way.
"Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you. But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" Deuteronomy 4:1-8.
So, God's law, given to and adopted by a people, is evidence of great wisdom in that people, and it attracts others to that people's God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)