Dominion . . ?

[posthuman]

We must also realize the making of laws takes the legislation of morality. So a very important question any country must answer is who's morality?

Well any government enacts laws to keep the peace and promote common good. Things like murder and theft are prohibited and punished not so much out of moral obligation but pragmatic consideration of functioning societies.

But take for example, gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws. These things don't hurt anyone tangibly, and it's ridiculous to consider that homosexuality will cease to exist if it is prohibited. From a purely civic standpoint, allowing it is a question of promoting liberty. However from a moral standpoint, we know it is condoning evil.
So is the church obligated to seek governmental authority to prohibit it in the greater society, not just among those who name the name of Christ, but among the heathen?
This isn't the same question as voting ones conscience in a free democratic nation. We often hear such things phrased in such terms as 'the most important election in our generation' and 'our Christian duty to reclaim the country foe God' - - is that a real legitimate doctrinal stance or is that propaganda from a worldly party seeking the allegiance of a 'church voting bloc' - and even further are people legitimately 'called by God' to impose Christian moral standards on an unbelieving citizenry?

 

[luigi]

does the church have a duty/mandate to impose a veneer of outward righteousness on an unregenerate, unbelieving world through legislated ethical behaviour?

is it the appointed task of Christendom to take hold of governmental & legislative power and in so doing force the lost to act like they're not wicked?

would appreciate examples / justification from scripture and discussion of the theological underpinnings of your views; thanks!

According to the Word in Daniel 7, first comes the 10 horned beast, along with the little horn with its mouth speaking great things (a.k.a., the Antichrist), who will have the last dominion of Satan on the earth, before its dominion is taken away and the kingdom and dominion is awarded to the saints. So to answer your second question, I do not believe it is the the appointed task of Christendom to take hold of governmental and legislative power, because if it did so, it would then have to be in allegiance with the beast and Antichrist.

Daniel 7:26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. 27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

 

[Grandpa]

does the church have a duty/mandate to impose a veneer of outward righteousness on an unregenerate, unbelieving world through legislated ethical behaviour?

As the world gets less and less moral, yes. Certain outward righteous laws need to be imposed.

Murder, theft, the two biggies off the top of my head.

Then there are laws now enforcing recognition of IMMORALITY so we have to fight against that. (Abortion and Homo laws)


In my opinion someones morality is being imposed whenever a law is enacted. Its usually a very immoral person whose morality is being imposed. Which there are more of them than there are of us.


The Law is for the unrighteous... 1 Timothy 1:9

is it the appointed task of Christendom to take hold of governmental & legislative power and in so doing force the lost to act like they're not wicked?

No. Christendom can't even decide amongst itself whether they are fully under the Law of Moses or not.

It would be a disaster. You'd have half the christians against it and all the "heathens".

would appreciate examples / justification from scripture and discussion of the theological underpinnings of your views; thanks!

Civil law is trying to do the same thing as Moses Law. Its imposing "morality" on people so they will be "good" to each other.

Or at least less evil than they would normally be without the law.


In America, there are laws on freedom of religion. So if we attempt to pass laws based on our Christian Religion then we might be going against some other religious customs from other religions. Or even atheism.

So we would have to be careful of what laws we would impose and what laws we could follow ourselves and NOT impose on the rest of society.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Well any government enacts laws to keep the peace and promote common good. Things like murder and theft are prohibited and punished not so much out of moral obligation but pragmatic consideration of functioning societies.

But take for example, gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws. These things don't hurt anyone tangibly, and it's ridiculous to consider that homosexuality will cease to exist if it is prohibited. From a purely civic standpoint, allowing it is a question of promoting liberty. However from a moral standpoint, we know it is condoning evil.
So is the church obligated to seek governmental authority to prohibit it in the greater society, not just among those who name the name of Christ, but among the heathen?
This isn't the same question as voting ones conscience in a free democratic nation. We often hear such things phrased in such terms as 'the most important election in our generation' and 'our Christian duty to reclaim the country foe God' - - is that a real legitimate doctrinal stance or is that propaganda from a worldly party seeking the allegiance of a 'church voting bloc' - and even further are people legitimately 'called by God' to impose Christian moral standards on an unbelieving citizenry?

Well any government enacts laws to keep the peace and promote common good. Things like murder and theft are prohibited and punished not so much out of moral obligation but pragmatic consideration of functioning societies.

Is it pragmatic to all government? Does each government define murder the same? In Iran would you consider an honor killing an act of murder? In the US would abortion be considered murder?

But take for example, gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws. These things don't hurt anyone tangibly

I will refer to all sexual immorality in which LGBT is part of it. So are you sure that sexual immorality doesn't hurt anyone? Doesn't hurt society?

This isn't the same question as voting ones conscience in a free democratic nation.

Explain the difference?

are people legitimately 'called by God' to impose Christian moral standards on an unbelieving citizenry?

We are called to act and preach on such Biblical teachings. It would be unreasonable to say only an atheist, secularist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, etc should be able to impose their moral standards.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

But take for example, gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws. These things don't hurt anyone tangibly, and it's ridiculous to consider that homosexuality will cease to exist if it is prohibited. From a purely civic standpoint, allowing it is a question of promoting liberty. However from a moral standpoint, we know it is condoning evil.
So is the church obligated to seek governmental authority to prohibit it in the greater society, not just among those who name the name of Christ, but among the heathen?

The "lawless" have enacted laws which are completely contrary to God's law and, furthermore, relegate as "haters" those who warn of behavior that is abomination to God, calling the warning "hate speech".

What we see playing out in our society is laws being made so that the lawless can continue in their lawlessness, disobedience, ungodliness, sin, unholy, profane, murderous behavior.


Jeremiah 32:

35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

36 And now therefore thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence;

God brought judgment upon Israel because of the idolatry, the abomination of causing sons/daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech.

Does God wink at such behavior today? Does God turn a blind eye when a nation other than Israel does the same thing that caused God to bring judgment upon the apple of His eye?


I say pray for this nation, pray for those who are in authority.

1 Timothy 2:

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


Pray for those who are in authority to enact laws that will allow citizens to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

 

[Dino246]

Just before the MASSIVE AND CRIMINAL ELECTION FRAUD.

Get your head out of the sand. The world is much bigger than the United States.

 

[calibob]

is there a theological underpinning for this belief?

i mean if you were apostolic/dominion-theologist, then to my understanding, it would be clear the only way you can fathom 'the chosen one' losing an election is that Satan had deceptively *stolen* it from 'prophecy voters' -- and you'd believe it your mandate from God to overturn the results at any cost.

but you agree dominion theology is anti-Biblical, so i'm curious whether there are Biblical reasons for you to believe the 'massive fraud' story, or if it's purely political on your part.

thanks

I've never heard of dominion theology to be honest with you. I used to study Biblical Demonology while working nights at Melodyland Christian Center back in the Hal Lindsey days. Goodnight.

is there a theological underpinning for this belief?

i mean if you were apostolic/dominion-theologist, then to my understanding, it would be clear the only way you can fathom 'the chosen one' losing an election is that Satan had deceptively *stolen* it from 'prophecy voters' -- and you'd believe it your mandate from God to overturn the results at any cost.

but you agree dominion theology is anti-Biblical, so i'm curious whether there are Biblical reasons for you to believe the 'massive fraud' story, or if it's purely political on your part.

thanks

Ok, I just woke up and remembered to look up Dominion Theology. I think that it goes against end times prophecy. Many sincere Christians may believe the some way they can cause a change that will prevent the comming tribulation. IMO they are sincerely mistaken. Nobody or nothing will.

 

[calibob]

Well any government enacts laws to keep the peace and promote common good. Things like murder and theft are prohibited and punished not so much out of moral obligation but pragmatic consideration of functioning societies.

But take for example, gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws. These things don't hurt anyone tangibly, and it's ridiculous to consider that homosexuality will cease to exist if it is prohibited. From a purely civic standpoint, allowing it is a question of promoting liberty. However from a moral standpoint, we know it is condoning evil.
So is the church obligated to seek governmental authority to prohibit it in the greater society, not just among those who name the name of Christ, but among the heathen?
This isn't the same question as voting ones conscience in a free democratic nation. We often hear such things phrased in such terms as 'the most important election in our generation' and 'our Christian duty to reclaim the country foe God' - - is that a real legitimate doctrinal stance or is that propaganda from a worldly party seeking the allegiance of a 'church voting bloc' - and even further are people legitimately 'called by God' to impose Christian moral standards on an unbelieving citizenry?

I think I see what you are getting at. Taking a stand against faggotry won't stop it but the Lord knows our intentions. I don't think that it's wrong to take a last stand If we are sincere regardless if we lose.

Wouldn't it be more fruitful rather than trying to end the sinning to go after the sinners with Agape love?

Luke 15:10
In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

Luke 15:7
I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Angels-Rejoicing

 

[posthuman]

Ok, I just woke up and remembered to look up Dominion Theology. I think that it goes against end times prophecy. Many sincere Christians may believe the some way they can cause a change that will prevent the comming tribulation. IMO they are sincerely mistaken. Nobody or nothing will.

Another aspect of it is people who believe that we are currently in the 'millineal age' or the kingdom, and that Christ can't come back until all the world is under Christian government. This is usually the idea when you hear 'kingdom now' as a catch word.

Similar is 'the social gospel' or 'reclamation theology'

It's usually hand in glove with replacement theology ideas, and necessarily amillineal or post-millennial eschatology.

This is a big part of 'the apostolic movement' and 9 times out of 10 when you see Christians running for political offices, making a big deal out of being Christian as part of their campaign, I suspect this is a foundation of what they believe.

 

[posthuman]

Another aspect of it is people who believe that we are currently in the 'millineal age' or the kingdom, and that Christ can't come back until all the world is under Christian government. This is usually the idea when you hear 'kingdom now' as a catch word.

Similar is 'the social gospel' or 'reclamation theology'

It's usually hand in glove with replacement theology ideas, and necessarily amillineal or post-millennial eschatology.

This is a big part of 'the apostolic movement' and 9 times out of 10 when you see Christians running for political offices, making a big deal out of being Christian as part of their campaign, I suspect this is a foundation of what they believe.

I don't doubt that the majority of the 'evangelicals' who have the current president's ear hold these kinds of beliefs.
It seems to me to fit the thrust of the arguments they use to persuade Christians in general to support him. The whole, GOP = party of God and DNC = party of Satan advertising spiel.

Suffice to say I don't believe worldly political parties are so black and white - I don't want this thread to devolve into a bunch of bickering over those topics; I want to kind of keep focused on what the Churches role in worldly government is supposed to actually be, whether dominion theology is right and if not where it's wrong and why

 

[calibob]

Another aspect of it is people who believe that we are currently in the 'millineal age' or the kingdom, and that Christ can't come back until all the world is under Christian government. This is usually the idea when you hear 'kingdom now' as a catch word.

Similar is 'the social gospel' or 'reclamation theology'

Trying to keep up with so many Theologies gone astray seems like trying to track all of the pellets that a bird hunter loses after a shotgun blast even if he drops the bird. unless for the sake of food. I'd rather go target shooting with slugs or bullets and count the hits. Just sayin'.

Via con dios,
Cali

 

[posthuman]

Is it pragmatic to all government? Does each government define murder the same? In Iran would you consider an honor killing an act of murder? In the US would abortion be considered murder?



I will refer to all sexual immorality in which LGBT is part of it. So are you sure that sexual immorality doesn't hurt anyone? Doesn't hurt society?



Explain the difference?



We are called to act and preach on such Biblical teachings. It would be unreasonable to say only an atheist, secularist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, etc should be able to impose their moral standards.

Let me get back to you when I'm off work and can type a bit easier
Appreciate the thoughts and probing questions!

 

[calibob]

I don't doubt that the majority of the 'evangelicals' who have the current president's ear hold these kinds of beliefs.
It seems to me to fit the thrust of the arguments they use to persuade Christians in general to support him. The whole, GOP = party of God and DNC = party of Satan advertising spiel.

Suffice to say I don't believe worldly political parties are so black and white - I don't want this thread to devolve into a bunch of bickering over those topics; I want to kind of keep focused on what the Churches role in worldly government is supposed to actually be, whether dominion theology is right and if not where it's wrong and why

Amen and thank you.

 

[calibob]

Amen and thank you.

I think the Churches role in politics is to stay out of them. "Avoid the appearance of evil as a group or we will risk losing credibility, as a whole. Christianity is not and never should be a Political party. If we just vote and behave the way that Jesus would should be the way that we behave. The Son of God and his legion of angels certainly stopped the Crucifixion's of Christ and his followers, dethroned Herod and Caesar as well as humbled the Unholy Roman empire. Guess what folks? He and they didn't!

We weren't chosen to save the World and/or it's people. Jesus was and still is! John 12: 47"If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world."

 

[SoulWeaver]

Thinking about this all over again, and the question arises, what does such legislation achieve? What would the achieved actual merit be, in the eyes of its proponents?

Is it going to make people commit crime less? I would argue, no. I would argue that if people see something as justified in their own eyes, they will do it even more, and get creative about hiding it. Prohibition is a great historical example, alcohol consumption rose to record levels during prohibition. Not to say that consuming alcoholic beverage is necessarily sin, just giving an example of law giving a dramatic rise to forbidden behavior. "The motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members".

Is it going to make people attracted to faith? I would think the opposite would take place, people hate being told what to do and morality being externally imposed upon them, and the more something is imposed, the more it will be hated. Everyone must get to the realization personally, that sin is bad for them and everyone. But whenever Christianity was historically oppressed, something made people consider it, and it grew. People don't love the mighty, they love the underdog, and they might not know why, but many will prefer the oppressed because God's Spirit sided with them first.

The only perceived value that I can think might lie in what is normalized, and what system of values are children externally exposed to while growing up. But if a magnified world of crimes still lives in secrecy, I wonder how much is actually gained, and could this "morality" that is only externally adhered to, give rise to hypocrisy and normalization of skirting the law, because it's a "small thing" and "everyone does it". Just like most people don't honor speed limits because "everyone does it", and that's one example of breaking the law. People thus easily dismiss any law they personally deem unjustified, stupid or irrelevant, so again, I wonder what's the value. Thoughts?

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Let me get back to you when I'm off work and can type a bit easier
Appreciate the thoughts and probing questions!

Appreciate the good discussion. This is what I wish could happen more even if people disagree.

 

[calibob]

Thinking about this all over again, and the question arises, what does such legislation achieve? What would the achieved actual merit be, in the eyes of its proponents?

Is it going to make people commit crime less? I would argue, no. I would argue that if people see something as justified in their own eyes, they will do it even more, and get creative about hiding it. Prohibition is a great historical example, alcohol consumption rose to record levels during prohibition. Not to say that consuming alcoholic beverage is necessarily sin, just giving an example of law giving a dramatic rise to forbidden behavior. "The motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members".

Is it going to make people attracted to faith? I would think the opposite would take place, people hate being told what to do and morality being externally imposed upon them, and the more something is imposed, the more it will be hated. Everyone must get to the realization personally, that sin is bad for them and everyone. But whenever Christianity was historically oppressed, something made people consider it, and it grew. People don't love the mighty, they love the underdog, and they might not know why, but many will prefer the oppressed because God's Spirit sided with them first.

The only perceived value that I can think might lie in what is normalized, and what system of values are children externally exposed to while growing up. But if a magnified world of crimes still lives in secrecy, I wonder how much is actually gained, and could this "morality" that is only externally adhered to, give rise to hypocrisy and normalization of skirting the law, because it's a "small thing" and "everyone does it". Just like most people don't honor speed limits because "everyone does it", and that's one example of breaking the law. People thus easily dismiss any law they personally deem unjustified, stupid or irrelevant, so again, I wonder what's the value. Thoughts?

IOW; It's like what caused me to put this sticker in my Road Runners rear window;

I opposed the new law so much that I might as well have given COPs' the finger,
(I'm glad it was repealed)

That's what trying to legislate morality does!​

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Thinking about this all over again, and the question arises, what does such legislation achieve? What would the achieved actual merit be, in the eyes of its proponents?

Is it going to make people commit crime less? I would argue, no. I would argue that if people see something as justified in their own eyes, they will do it even more, and get creative about hiding it. Prohibition is a great historical example, alcohol consumption rose to record levels during prohibition. Not to say that consuming alcoholic beverage is necessarily sin, just giving an example of law giving a dramatic rise to forbidden behavior. "The motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members".

Is it going to make people attracted to faith? I would think the opposite would take place, people hate being told what to do and morality being externally imposed upon them, and the more something is imposed, the more it will be hated. Everyone must get to the realization personally, that sin is bad for them and everyone. But whenever Christianity was historically oppressed, something made people consider it, and it grew. People don't love the mighty, they love the underdog, and they might not know why, but many will prefer the oppressed because God's Spirit sided with them first.

The only perceived value that I can think might lie in what is normalized, and what system of values are children externally exposed to while growing up. But if a magnified world of crimes still lives in secrecy, I wonder how much is actually gained, and could this "morality" that is only externally adhered to, give rise to hypocrisy and normalization of skirting the law, because it's a "small thing" and "everyone does it". Just like most people don't honor speed limits because "everyone does it", and that's one example of breaking the law. People thus easily dismiss any law they personally deem unjustified, stupid or irrelevant, so again, I wonder what's the value. Thoughts?

When operating in any manmade system, it will have flaws and so many variables.

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
Thomas Jefferson

Society must decide where to draw the lines. We draw the line on murder but choose to regulate alcoholic beverages.

We try to outlaw the camals and regulate the gnats.

Instead of being severe on the knats while the camals are the true problem. Jesus spoke of this.


Matthew 23:24
New International Version
24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

The gnats are important just not as important.

So for those topics we struggle to regulate or discipline, the correctt route to solve them would not be to became a totalitarian but as Jefferson said to inform their discretion.

"Keepin it REAL"
is a scientifically proven, effective substance use prevention and social and emotional competency enhancing program designed to focus on the competencies linked to preventing substance use and abuse.

Evaluation studies demonstrate that kiR:

• Reduces rates of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use by as much as 45%
• Leads to discontinuation of use. Rates of discontinuing all substance use was 61% higher for program participants than for students who didn’t receive the program
• Leads to more realistic perceptions of peer use, increases anti-substance use attitudes, increases efficacy in resisting offers of substances, improves relationship skills, self-awareness, and responsible decision-making.

 

[Duskey]

We should purge evil by any means necessary. With love or bullets: I’m good with both.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

We should purge evil by any means necessary. With love or bullets: I’m good with both.

America likes drone strikes. The middle east has been a much different place the last 4 years.