Applying God's Word to Politics

[GWH]

A Christian in office may lawfully wield the state’s sword as a magistrate, but he may not call that sword Christian love, because love “worketh no ill to his neighbour” (Rom 13:10); his civil authority is legitimate, but it is not the church’s vocation, and if he tries to baptize killing as a Christian act, he collapses the categories God kept distinct — magistrate_sword for rulers, disciple_nonretaliation for the church. Joshua’s conquest was a unique covenant act, not a church pattern.

You make the categorical error of blaming God for enforcing the just consequence of sin instead of the sinner,
although tulipists have no problem with God damning them to hell; go figure.

 

[GWH]

In 2018, before the then POTUS pulled the USA out of the Iran deal regarding nuclear weapons development, Iran was in compliance and not building any nuclear weapons. Once that deal was null and void, Iran might have moved towards development, whether they actually did is debatable, but they clearly enriched uranium more than had been allowed under the deal. So, who was the brilliant POTUS who opened the door for Iran's actions?

Tariffs are a tax on the American people they are ultimately paid by the consumer. Further, applying tariffs almost universally has led, predictably to counter tariffs, which is actually strengthening China's economic power by driving other nations to seek better deals with China in response to the USA's tariff actions

The Democrats are not for murdering babies in the womb, rather they are for allowing the parents to decide whether or not to have an abortion based on their personal religious beliefs, it is called Freedom of Religion and is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. We do not know when human life begins, nor do we have a legally set recognition of life existing prior to birth, so the charge of murder is an opinion, not a fact.

And crime has been falling for years, the decline began before Trump took office either time, how do you justify that a continuing pattern is the result of Trump's specific decisions. Also, the rates of specific crimes might be higher in Democratically led cities, but the overall crime rates are very similar regardless of what party runs a city.

Are you aware of some study that indicates that all communists in the USA are Democrats? Such an approach would actually be very bad for the communists if they wish to gain control. Rather dividing their supporters between the two parties and actively using that official separation to sow dissension would be a much more practical approach, and personally I suspect the communists would be aware of it.

As for tax cuts, you do realize don't you that the historic record indicates that the economy does better with higher tax rates, especially on the wealthiest, than it does with lower tax rates. The tax cuts under Reagan, some 40 years ago, were supposed to stimulate the economy and benefit all groups, but to date have only greatly increased the wealth differences between the wealthiest 10% and the bottom 90%, and even between the top 1% and the next 9%. More tax cuts are not changing that trend.

In 2018 Iran was enriching uranium for making nuclear weapons, and we had no idea how far along they were because US inspectors were not allowed in all sites, but we now know they were far along in developing missiles and drones--much more than we have Patriots and lasers to defend against them, thanks to the stupidity of Obama and Biden administrations.

Tariffs are a tax only if they do not cause enough economic growth to offset them, which the Trump policies are doing despite Dem opposition.

The vast majority of U.S. cities with the highest per-capita murder rates are run by Democratic mayors, especially crime committed by illegal aliens invited into the US by the Biden Administration.

The only communists who would support the Maga movement must be spies and saboteurs.
I agree that taxes should be designed to promote the welfare of the lower classes, which the Trump bill did/does.

For good investigative reporting on this topic, see nataliegwinters.substack.com

 

[GWH]

No one seems to care to apply God's Word to othe previous post. I guess they would rather continue in fantasy.

I responded to you in post#1,590 but did not get a reply.

 

[Burn1986]

I agree that those are minor issues, but what about major ones?

Yeah you can, sure. I have my opinions on parallels between the US, Revelation 18, Babylon, and the Roman Empire.

So, I guess go ahead and allow God to give you insight on the political kingdom right now.

 

[OMC]

You make the categorical error of blaming God for enforcing the just consequence of sin instead of the sinner,
although tulipists have no problem with God damning them to hell; go figure

You’re mis‑locating the moral agent, brother; Scripture never treats God’s enforcement of justice as “ill” (Gen 18:25; Ps 9:8; Rev 16:7), but always treats sin as the cause of judgment (Rom 6:23), so calling God the problem is a category error, and your jab at tulipists doesn’t fix it because the issue isn’t who “has no problem with damnation,” but that God’s right to judge (Rom 2:5–6) never becomes the believer’s right to blame Him for consequences He explicitly assigns to human rebellion (Rom 1:18–32).

 

[GWH]

You’re mis‑locating the moral agent, brother; Scripture never treats God’s enforcement of justice as “ill” (Gen 18:25; Ps 9:8; Rev 16:7), but always treats sin as the cause of judgment (Rom 6:23), so calling God the problem is a category error, and your jab at tulipists doesn’t fix it because the issue isn’t who “has no problem with damnation,” but that God’s right to judge (Rom 2:5–6) never becomes the believer’s right to blame Him for consequences He explicitly assigns to human rebellion (Rom 1:18–32).

In case unbiased readers see this, I hope they understand that tulipists say some sinners are denied the ability to repent,
but God elects to favor a few others with forced faith.

 

[OMC]

In case unbiased readers see this, I hope they understand that tulipists say some sinners are denied the ability to repent,
but God elects to favor a few others with forced faith.

Your description—“denied ability” and “forced faith”—is not how Scripture speaks. It’s how you summarize the system you oppose.

 

[Churchgoer]

Your description—“denied ability” and “forced faith”—is not how Scripture speaks. It’s how you summarize the system you oppose.

Why would God create some lily in the fields, and some big trees in forests?
Amazing, isn't it?

I think we can never fully grasp God's sovereignty and man given responsibility, when we see God, we will figure out how both work together for God.

 

[GWH]

Your description—“denied ability” and “forced faith”—is not how Scripture speaks. It’s how you summarize the system you oppose.

What Scripture opposes is this:

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation (contradicting Deut. 30:19, Matt. 7:7, 23:37).

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement/condition such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell (contradicting Eph. 2:8-10).

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls (contra John 3:16, Rom. 3:21-5:1).

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved (cf. Matt, 23:37, 2Thes. 2:10-13).

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy/blasphemy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved (cf. Heb. 6:4-6, Matt. 12:31).

 

[GWH]

Why would God create some lily in the fields, and some big trees in forests?
Amazing, isn't it?

I think we can never fully grasp God's sovereignty and man given responsibility, when we see God, we will figure out how both work together for God.

The question tulipists prompt is why God would cause only some to be saved (see the previous post).
That is what y'all apparently fail to grasp.

 

[OMC]

What Scripture opposes is this:

T – total depravity, meaning souls are unable to exercise sufficient MFW to seek salvation (contradicting Deut. 30:19, Matt. 7:7, 23:37).

U – unconditional election, meaning that souls need not satisfy a divine requirement/condition such as faith or repentance, but God chooses to save some while damning the rest to hell (contradicting Eph. 2:8-10).

L – limited atonement, meaning that Christ died to pay the penalty of sin only for elect souls (contra John 3:16, Rom. 3:21-5:1).

I – irresistible grace, meaning that elect souls cannot resist or refuse God’s will for them to be saved (cf. Matt, 23:37, 2Thes. 2:10-13).

P – perseverance of the saints, meaning that the elect cannot repudiate their salvation and commit apostasy/blasphemy, because God perseveres in keeping them saved (cf. Heb. 6:4-6, Matt. 12:31).

The point stands: your five‑line summary is not a caricature but the actual doctrinal claims of TULIP when stated in plain language, and Scripture contradicts each claim directly in context —
Total Depravity (as moral inability) collapses under God’s repeated commands to choose life (Deut 30:19), seek, ask, knock (Matt 7:7), and under Christ’s lament over those who refused His gathering (Matt 23:37), proving capacity;
Unconditional Election (salvation without any revealed condition) contradicts Paul’s explicit statement that salvation is “through faith” and that faith is the condition God requires (Eph 2:8–10), not an optional accessory;
Limited Atonement contradicts the universal language of Christ dying for “the world” (John 3:16), “all” (1 Tim 2:6), and providing justification for all who believe (Rom 3:21–26), not a subset;
Irresistible Grace contradicts Jesus’ own testimony that people resist God’s will (Matt 23:37) and Paul’s warning that people “receive not the love of the truth” (2 Thess 2:10–13), proving grace can be refused;
Perseverance of the Saints (as guaranteed non‑apostasy) contradicts the real warnings to believers about falling away (Heb 6:4–6) and Christ’s statement that blasphemy against the Spirit is possible (Matt 12:31).
In other words, your list is simply the system stated plainly, and Scripture plainly opposes each point.

 

[OMC]

The question tulipists prompt is why God would cause only some to be saved (see the previous post).
That is what y'all apparently fail to grasp.

God does not “cause only some to be saved”; He offers salvation to all, and some refuse it.

 

[GWH]

The point stands: your five‑line summary is not a caricature but the actual doctrinal claims of TULIP when stated in plain language, and Scripture contradicts each claim directly in context —
Total Depravity (as moral inability) collapses under God’s repeated commands to choose life (Deut 30:19), seek, ask, knock (Matt 7:7), and under Christ’s lament over those who refused His gathering (Matt 23:37), proving capacity;
Unconditional Election (salvation without any revealed condition) contradicts Paul’s explicit statement that salvation is “through faith” and that faith is the condition God requires (Eph 2:8–10), not an optional accessory;
Limited Atonement contradicts the universal language of Christ dying for “the world” (John 3:16), “all” (1 Tim 2:6), and providing justification for all who believe (Rom 3:21–26), not a subset;
Irresistible Grace contradicts Jesus’ own testimony that people resist God’s will (Matt 23:37) and Paul’s warning that people “receive not the love of the truth” (2 Thess 2:10–13), proving grace can be refused;
Perseverance of the Saints (as guaranteed non‑apostasy) contradicts the real warnings to believers about falling away (Heb 6:4–6) and Christ’s statement that blasphemy against the Spirit is possible (Matt 12:31).
In other words, your list is simply the system stated plainly, and Scripture plainly opposes each point.

Well, I am mainly to blame for this discussion drifting from the OP, so let us get back on track here and those who are so inclined discuss tulip further on the thread for that purpose, which is Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture. Sorry, and thanks.

P.S. to OMC, "He offers salvation to all, and some refuse it" is the MFWist belief. (See you on the other thread?)

 

[OMC]

Well, I am mainly to blame for this discussion drifting from the OP, so let us get back on track here and those who are so inclined discuss tulip further on the thread for that purpose, which is Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture. Sorry, and thanks.

P.S. to OMC, "He offers salvation to all, and some refuse it" is the MFWist belief. (See you on the other thread?)

Not likely as you have already demonstrated that you place your authority over that of the scripture. We agree with many things because you write truth at those times. Other times not so much and I respond to those as I must. However, if you are willing to have those conversations without accusing me of being part of a system, which no one has proven, then I would enjoy the talk.