|
Post by randy on Jun 24, 2021 3:50:52 GMT
I tend to view "Christians" and the "Church" as all those who simply claim to believe in Christ as their spiritual life. They are not always consisting of those who completely make the transition to the "new birth."
People can follow the "knowledge of Christ" without making a complete commitment to him from the heart. They may mean well, but unless they completely commit to Christ, they are basically men living in their carnal nature who only sometimes obey Christ's word. They are not fully transformed.
The Church thus consists of all kinds of Christians who are in process of determining whether they will complete their "Salvation" with a complete transfer of power, from their carnal selves to Christ himself, who would endow them with a completely new spiritual nature.
I don't know if this definition appeals to you? Most Christians I know define the "Church" as the "glorious Bride of Christ" as if transported into the future, all of the "Christians" who didn't make it are now cut off.
I believe both definitions of "Church" are used in the Bible. It tends to refer to a church as simply a gathering of those who profess faith in Christ, whether they become the future glorious Bride or not.
The ideal is also presented when in the future those who prevail in their faith and are spiritually made new become "glorified." This is how the Bible views the *future Church.* Let me know what you think?
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jun 25, 2021 7:36:12 GMT
Yes Randy the understanding of the words Christian and Church have been seen as both wonderfully positive on the one hand, and evil and corrupt on the other. When looking at the history of the church, we see at the beginning a powerful spiritual movement of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, who were guided, and empowered, by The Holy Spirit. The word church is ekklesia which is from the Greek words kaleo; to call, and ek meaning out. Thus, the word means "the called out ones." In other words the early church was called out of the world in order to live a life separated from the sin of the world, and dedicated onto God.
The early Christians were people who had experienced forgiveness of their sins leading to renewed lives. Their experience was to such a degree that they were willing to lay down their lives rather than deny Christ. Things changed after the Roman Emperor Constantine brought the church into the government. From that time on the purity of the Gospel was mixed with the standards of the world bringing with it powerful positions for Church leaders which led to corruption. History shows that as national churches became more powerful, invaded nations were christianized at the point of the sword.
So what defines a Christian? To most people today a Christian is someone who believes in God and attends Church a few times a year. This needless to say does not meet The Bible definition of a believer. As you stated so rightly Randy, a Christian should be dedicated to Christ and experience new life, that is to be born again of The Spirit. If one has truly had the experience of forgiveness they will naturally desire to follow Jesus, The One who laid down His life in order that we should be saved. The True Church is not a building or denomination, it is made up of born again believers in Jesus Christ. People who have experienced God’s Love and forgiveness consequently they desire to share the Gospel of Jesus. Anyone can claim that they are Christian, however only God knows the heart. As Scripture states: “You shall know them by their fruits.”
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jun 27, 2021 4:57:46 GMT
Yes Randy the understanding of the words Christian and Church have been seen as both wonderfully positive on the one hand, and evil and corrupt on the other. When looking at the history of the church, we see at the beginning a powerful spiritual movement of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, who were guided, and empowered, by The Holy Spirit. The word church is ekklesia which is from the Greek words kaleo; to call, and ek meaning out. Thus, the word means "the called out ones." In other words the early church was called out of the world in order to live a life separated from the sin of the world, and dedicated onto God. The early Christians were people who had experienced forgiveness of their sins leading to renewed lives. Their experience was to such a degree that they were willing to lay down their lives rather than deny Christ. Things changed after the Roman Emperor Constantine brought the church into the government. From that time on the purity of the Gospel was mixed with the standards of the world bringing with it powerful positions for Church leaders which led to corruption. History shows that as national churches became more powerful, invaded nations were christianized at the point of the sword. So what defines a Christian? To most people today a Christian is someone who believes in God and attends Church a few times a year. This needless to say does not meet The Bible definition of a believer. As you stated so rightly Randy, a Christian should be dedicated to Christ and experience new life, that is to be born again of The Spirit. If one has truly had the experience of forgiveness they will naturally desire to follow Jesus, The One who laid down His life in order that we should be saved. The True Church is not a building or denomination, it is made up of born again believers in Jesus Christ. People who have experienced God’s Love and forgiveness consequently they desire to share the Gospel of Jesus. Anyone can claim that they are Christian, however only God knows the heart. As Scripture states: “You shall know them by their fruits.” Yes, this is true Christianity. However, my intent was to express not how evil it is that Christians gather together with all kinds mixed in, some staying with it, some faltering, and some falling away. This is the state of the church that God envisioned was necessary in order to eventually arrive at His bride, the glorious Church. So I'm not talking about the Glorious Church, as you are, but rather, about what the Bible meant by the word "church." And I do think it included sick churches, mixed churches, good churches, etc. They all are called to be Christians, providing an environment in which individuals can choose to move forward, or not. Of course, God didn't want churches to remain sick or mixed. But He certainly did expect that churches would be filled with all kinds, because He wants all to come to the knowledge of salvation. The State Church was indeed mixed, but I think it was better than the pantheon of gods ruling together with the pagan Caesars of the apostles' day. John seemed to described Rome as the Beast of Daniel, eventually developing into an Antichristian Empire. But when Rome was Christianized, it wasn't perfect, but I do think it's what God wanted, even if His wish was for Christians to mature and not remain weak and mixed. A Christian society, as imperfect as it is, does allow Christian testimony to flourish. It may become weak and diluted, and we know it did. However, I believe Christianity is a better basis for the political State than any other religion. It affords the opportunity for the individual to make a choice. No, to me the biblical definition of a "church" is an assembly of all those who profess it, at all levels of faith, whether not consummated in a rebirth, whether at an immature state, whether at a place of compromise, needing decision. God is bringing the sick to health, and the immature to maturity. The church, therefore, must include all of these.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jun 27, 2021 16:19:34 GMT
Randy we must remember that the word used in Scripture for church is “ekklesia” which means “called out ones” thus the church was meant for people who were, and are, called out of the world.
Yes the world soon crept into the original church making, as we both agree, a mix of beliefs diluting the original intent. That been said, I do not believe this was God’s intention. When we read Acts we can see how any who were not sincere were quickly exposed such as Ananias and his wife who were struck down dead because of their deception. The Biblical definition of the church is a pure community of born again believers. One is not a Christian unless they have experienced Salvation through the Atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The world cannot understand this because they have not experienced it. Consequently, they believe that anyone who calls themselves Christian are Christian. This of course is not the fact according to Scripture. Therefore God’s design for His church is not the world’s understanding of church. To the world we are a religion, to God we are called out of the world, set apart for His glory.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jun 29, 2021 6:12:39 GMT
Randy we must remember that the word used in Scripture for church is “ekklesia” which means “called out ones” thus the church was meant for people who were, and are, called out of the world. Yes the world soon crept into the original church making, as we both agree, a mix of beliefs diluting the original intent. That been said, I do not believe this was God’s intention. When we read Acts we can see how any who were not sincere were quickly exposed such as Ananias and his wife who were struck down dead because of their deception. The Biblical definition of the church is a pure community of born again believers. One is not a Christian unless they have experienced Salvation through the Atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The world cannot understand this because they have not experienced it. Consequently, they believe that anyone who calls themselves Christian are Christian. This of course is not the fact according to Scripture. Therefore God’s design for His church is not the world’s understanding of church. To the world we are a religion, to God we are called out of the world, set apart for His glory. Sorry, I'm going to have to partly disagree. I do agree on the ideal that the final state of the Church will be glorious, excluding all who fall short. But in the present age, God invites all to His assembly, and as such, there are all kinds of "Christians," some of whom will not make it in the end. In the meantime, all of these are part of the "church," as the Bible uses that term. You have only to consider the 7 churches in Asia that Jesus addressed in the book of Revelation. I'm certain that not all who were in those churches made it to eternal life. And yet they were all addressed as "churches." It's only an issue with me because if we want only "saved" people in the church, we may become critical and judgmental, running a litmus test on everybody. And we may push out those who simply have yet to arrive at a fuller meaning of "salvation." It's difficult, perhaps, to judge between those whose Christianity lacks depth and those who are fully saved. I don't think it's our job to push people into what we expect of Christians with respect to salvation. We can expect righteous behavior, but the matter of spirituality is between God and the individual.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jun 29, 2021 7:48:47 GMT
Randy, absolutely agree that spirituality is between God and the individual. For only God can read the intent of the heart. That the church has always been open to all who seek truth is a fact, and that many who are still learning may think of themselves Christian is obvious. That been said, according to the Bibles definition of a believing Christian, they have not yet arrived. Your reference to the churches in Revelation is a great example of the mixture of those calling themselves part of the church, opposed to actual believers. In the messages to those churches Jesus warns of the spiritual danger of tolerating those who do not believe sound Christian teachings.
As an example: “To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword. 13 I know where you live—where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, not even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives. 14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. 15 Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. 17 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.” Revelation 2:12-17 (NIV)
That God know there would be a great mix within the church is obvious from the letters to the churches in Revelation. Also these letters are a warning to all concerning what we tolerating among us.
This brings me to my point of what we call Church and Christian. I cannot see that calling a person Christian when it is clear that they are not is helpful because others may think that they are an example of Christian, giving a false impression of a Biblical Christian. The same goes for churches which do not teach sound Biblical doctrine. I fail to see how calling false teachings Christian because the majority like these teachings is according to God’s plan for the Church.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jun 29, 2021 18:51:06 GMT
Randy, absolutely agree that spirituality is between God and the individual. For only God can read the intent of the heart. That the church has always been open to all who seek truth is a fact, and that many who are still learning may think of themselves Christian is obvious. That been said, according to the Bibles definition of a believing Christian, they have not yet arrived. Your reference to the churches in Revelation is a great example of the mixture of those calling themselves part of the church, opposed to actual believers. In the messages to those churches Jesus warns of the spiritual danger of tolerating those who do not believe sound Christian teachings. As an example: “To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword. 13 I know where you live—where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, not even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city—where Satan lives. 14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. 15 Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. 17 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.” Revelation 2:12-17 (NIV) That God know there would be a great mix within the church is obvious from the letters to the churches in Revelation. Also these letters are a warning to all concerning what we tolerating among us. This brings me to my point of what we call Church and Christian. I cannot see that calling a person Christian when it is clear that they are not is helpful because others may think that they are an example of Christian, giving a false impression of a Biblical Christian. The same goes for churches which do not teach sound Biblical doctrine. I fail to see how calling false teachings Christian because the majority like these teachings is according to God’s plan for the Church. I do this, brother, because when someone professes to be a Christian, they may need time to certify their faith in a complete commitment. I've seen this throughout my life, in my own family and among friends and others in the many churches I've been in. They're not all phonies. And they all deserve a chance to fully understand what being a "Christian" means. Otherwise, I completely agree with you. We should not certify phony Christians as genuine Christians. I'm only talking about the difference between those who've made an initial commitment to living the Christian life, who I recognize are not yet completely there.
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Jun 30, 2021 17:37:01 GMT
I tend to view "Christians" and the "Church" as all those who simply claim to believe in Christ as their spiritual life. They are not always consisting of those who completely make the transition to the "new birth." People can follow the "knowledge of Christ" without making a complete commitment to him from the heart. They may mean well, but unless they completely commit to Christ, they are basically men living in their carnal nature who only sometimes obey Christ's word. They are not fully transformed. The Church thus consists of all kinds of Christians who are in process of determining whether they will complete their "Salvation" with a complete transfer of power, from their carnal selves to Christ himself, who would endow them with a completely new spiritual nature. I don't know if this definition appeals to you? Most Christians I know define the "Church" as the "glorious Bride of Christ" as if transported into the future, all of the "Christians" who didn't make it are now cut off. I believe both definitions of "Church" are used in the Bible. It tends to refer to a church as simply a gathering of those who profess faith in Christ, whether they become the future glorious Bride or not. The ideal is also presented when in the future those who prevail in their faith and are spiritually made new become "glorified." This is how the Bible views the *future Church.* Let me know what you think? There is a difference between what is called the church and the real church just like there was a difference with Israel when Paul said “not all Israel is Israel” obviously Paul wasn’t talking about a ethnic Israel but spiritual Israel because if it was ethnic Israel they would all be Israel. This is the same with the church there is people who claim to be the church and the true church the spiritual church. If we read 1 John we will see the true church as John perfectly explains. God knows this gives people grace and time to grow because the physical church is made up of people in different stages in their Christian walk. I know that because I wasn’t a part of the true church when I began to attend church. The difference is as John said is the fruit and the forgiveness of sin not just sin itself because we all continue to sin in our earthly bodies because we are inperfect. Its about our heart and if we have that heart God will change the desires of our heart about sin and help us overcome sin. Thus the true church is spiritual not physical that’s why some of the people Jesus named in the seven church’s in revelation were apart of the physical church not the spiritual church and this is also why there can’t be true Christian nations sure there can be so called Christian nations like the United States and Canada but they are not true spiritual Christian nations because a good percentage don’t believe in Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jul 3, 2021 6:05:46 GMT
I tend to view "Christians" and the "Church" as all those who simply claim to believe in Christ as their spiritual life. They are not always consisting of those who completely make the transition to the "new birth." People can follow the "knowledge of Christ" without making a complete commitment to him from the heart. They may mean well, but unless they completely commit to Christ, they are basically men living in their carnal nature who only sometimes obey Christ's word. They are not fully transformed. The Church thus consists of all kinds of Christians who are in process of determining whether they will complete their "Salvation" with a complete transfer of power, from their carnal selves to Christ himself, who would endow them with a completely new spiritual nature. I don't know if this definition appeals to you? Most Christians I know define the "Church" as the "glorious Bride of Christ" as if transported into the future, all of the "Christians" who didn't make it are now cut off. I believe both definitions of "Church" are used in the Bible. It tends to refer to a church as simply a gathering of those who profess faith in Christ, whether they become the future glorious Bride or not. The ideal is also presented when in the future those who prevail in their faith and are spiritually made new become "glorified." This is how the Bible views the *future Church.* Let me know what you think? There is a difference between what is called the church and the real church just like there was a difference with Israel when Paul said “not all Israel is Israel” obviously Paul wasn’t talking about a ethnic Israel but spiritual Israel because if it was ethnic Israel they would all be Israel. This is the same with the church there is people who claim to be the church and the true church the spiritual church. If we read 1 John we will see the true church as John perfectly explains. God knows this gives people grace and time to grow because the physical church is made up of people in different stages in their Christian walk. I know that because I wasn’t a part of the true church when I began to attend church. The difference is as John said is the fruit and the forgiveness of sin not just sin itself because we all continue to sin in our earthly bodies because we are inperfect. Its about our heart and if we have that heart God will change the desires of our heart about sin and help us overcome sin. Thus the true church is spiritual not physical that’s why some of the people Jesus named in the seven church’s in revelation were apart of the physical church not the spiritual church and this is also why there can’t be true Christian nations sure there can be so called Christian nations like the United States and Canada but they are not true spiritual Christian nations because a good percentage don’t believe in Jesus. Good example with the Rom 9 reference. I believe Paul is speaking of the glorious Church, just as he had been speaking of the promised Israel. But just as all Jews were considered a part of physical Israel, regardless of their place in the promise, so the NT Scriptures refer to the "church" in its physical sense, and not just in its spiritual sense. That's why Paul appeals to Christians to prove they're truly saved, because not all of them would be saved. The true spiritual Church, the glorious Church of the future, would be determined only by those who become truly spiritual Christians, and not just by those who physically join a church, or who claim, by external confession, to be "Christians." I don't think, then, that the idea of a Christian nation is rejected strictly on the basis that true Christianity is a spiritual Christianity. I think people are truly trying an external Christianity, at times, as they are determining whether or not they are going to follow through and become true, spiritual Christians. Until such time as all determine their eternal standing for or against Christianity, a nation can consist of an external Christianity, some of which is "true," and some of which is still in the "testing" stage. But I do think it important that a nation adopt Christianity, "external" or not, simply because Christian law, as long as it is being applied properly, is of greater value to the public than non-Christian law. Even people who are somewhere between "nominal Christian" and true spiritual Christian, provide a better place to be than in a pagan society or in an Islamic society.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jul 4, 2021 15:51:06 GMT
Randy, I would like to comment on your statement: “But I do think it important that a nation adopt Christianity, "external" or not, simply because Christian law, as long as it is being applied properly, is of greater value to the public than non-Christian law. Even people who are somewhere between "nominal Christian" and true spiritual Christian, provide a better place to be than in a pagan society or in an Islamic society.”
Although the principle of your statement may sound good, I would like to know what you mean by Christian law. In general, the law of western countries is loosely based on the Ten Commandments and is better referred to as democratic law drawn up for the benefit of all.
The history of so called Christian nations is very dark with injustice and bloodshed. As an example England under Henry the 8th. experienced the reformation when Henry broke from Rome. This entailed a change in law which made the practice of the Catholic religion unlawful and punishable by imprisonment leading to torture and death by a barbaric ritual of either, hanging until almost dead then cut into quarters, which was known as hanged drawn and quartered, while others were burned at the stake, all charged with heresy under Christian law.
After Henry died, his Catholic daughter Mary turned the religious law around and persecuted Protestants as heretics. When her sister Elizabeth came to the throne she once more reversed the religious laws persecuting Catholics. Under these laws the people were required to practice the Christian religion of the state. If any were found not attending Sunday services at the national church they would be arrested and tortured in an attempt to get them to renounce their religious allegiance. If the government and church men failed to accomplish their conversion, the heretic was publicly burned at the stake. All of this bloodshed was committed in a Christian nation under Christian law.
Then came the Hundred Years’ War when the Christian nations battled back and forth across Europe slaughtering Christians who did not agree with their version of Christianity. As I am sure you know the history of the inquisition and the crusaders. All these sad records of history were done in the name of Jesus Christ. For the victims of these dark days there would not be a difference if “living in a pagan society.”
Notwithstanding, it was during the reign of Henry that the Bible was translated into English by Tyndale who had fled to Europe from England. Tyndale begin to smuggle in copies of the New Testament printed in English. For the first time the common people had the opportunity of reading God’s Word in their own language. Sadly Tyndale was accused of heresy for translating the Scriptures into a common language and burned at the stake under Christian law. Later his translation would be used in the King James Version.
So what is Christian law? It was Jesus who said that we should love God with our whole heart and soul and love our neighbour as ourselves. This is something that we can only do as individuals. Consequently, Christianity is an individual relationship with The Lord, not a national religion.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jul 5, 2021 14:10:50 GMT
Christian law can be applied both individually and nationally, as can be seen in history. We can see this in OT Israel where God proscribed idolatry--any god other than Himself. We can also see this in modern democratic republics, where there have been national laws prohibiting murder, abortion, and homosexuality.
We may call national laws like this the product of secular humanism or the product of genuine Christianity, depending upon the moral presupposition involved. Secular Humanism is based on a utilitarian ethic, whereas Christianity is based upon a revealed ethic.
When you cite the failures of Christian nations, you cite only their failures--not their successes. The many successes of individual Christians in Christian nations must not be ignored nor neglected. Without the support of Christian states, these Christian works would never have been done, whether in the field of theology, science, and philanthropy.
The wars between different denominations of Christianity simply express the reality that Christianity fails, as all other human institutions fail. Sin is endemic in the human condition, and Christianity does not change that. It only modifies it, and successfully deals with it in an authentic Christianity.
But when Christianity becomes inauthentic it of course needs to be challenged. When it appears as pagan and non-Christian, then its sins must be exposed, and sometimes wars are needed to make a correction. None of this should be used to justify making paganism and Christianity equally valid in national Constitutions.
We should not just love individuals in our nation, but we should also love our nation. That is, we love trying to establish the best social and political system for our country as we can. We want our people to be blessed by God. So we want it to be as Christian as we can make it.
The best way for a country to be as Christian as it can be is by the nation's political leaders adopting a Christian Constitution. This doesn't guarantee it will be 100% Christian or beyond failing in the future. But nations can adopt Christian laws that serve the cause of the Gospel mission better than Islamic law or a pagan culture.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jul 5, 2021 15:35:27 GMT
Good answer in part Randy, now please explain what you consider Christian law to be.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jul 5, 2021 22:09:21 GMT
Good answer in part Randy, now please explain what you consider Christian law to be. Most of political law is based on a philosophical or religious presumption. Western values, which are based on Christianity, tend to underlie the sense of what is just for the community, in terms of the relationship between the leadership class and the people. And so, most Western Constitutions are based on a sense of trust between the leadership and the people, and the laws bear this out, utilizing distributions of power, checks and balances, etc. Criminal Justice reflects Christian laws by recognizing the biblical sense of man's sin nature, and the tendency of some to not change without punishment, or to not change at all, leading to the death penalty. Forgiveness is built into the law, also based on the Christian sense of repentance, recompense, and forgiveness. Laws that consistently oppose murder, including abortion on demand, would be Christian laws, as would be laws proscribing homosexuality. There can be an expression, generally, that pagan or non-Christian values should not be encouraged in public schools. If you want to see a biblical example of something akin to Christian Law, read the OT Law. It is theocratic in the true, spiritual sense of the word. It does not try to upset the apple cart by overthrowing a pagan majority in favor of a Christian minority. It does not try to drive the country to become adventuresome and overthrow other countries out of greed or hate. At its core, it begins with the presumption that there is only one true God and one true religion. There are cardinal rules governing this reality, but lots of flexibility in terms of structure and free choice. One thing that really does damage to a country built on Christian law, and that is the failure to erect a strong barrier between political rulers and ecclesiastical rulers. The two do not mix well. They may work well together, but they operate in two very independent spheres.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jul 6, 2021 7:57:45 GMT
Thank you for your response Randy. I particularly like where you wrote: “One thing that really does damage to a country built on Christian law, and that is the failure to erect a strong barrier between political rulers and ecclesiastical rulers. The two do not mix well. They may work well together, but they operate in two very independent spheres.” This of course has been proven down through history.
That the laws in most of Europe were based on The Bible is a historic fact. However, because the laws were based on the Bible dose not mean that the countries were Christian in the Biblical definition of Christianity. Firstly the nations were ruled by kings who made laws that gave them all of the privileges and power that they desired. This left the common man without rights or privileges. As time went on nations became secular thus ruling out Christian law because it did not apply to the majority. Some of these countries do still class themselves as a Christian nation with a national church, however, again they would not stand up to the standards of New Testament standards.
Non of this ignores the fact that good things have come out of these nations. That been said, we cannot ignore the evil and suffering these nations have imposed, not only on their own people, but also on other nations while still claiming to be Christian. This is why we must think twice before we call a nation Christian. To be Christian according to The Bible is to be under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jul 6, 2021 15:32:45 GMT
Thank you for your response Randy. I particularly like where you wrote: “One thing that really does damage to a country built on Christian law, and that is the failure to erect a strong barrier between political rulers and ecclesiastical rulers. The two do not mix well. They may work well together, but they operate in two very independent spheres.” This of course has been proven down through history. That the laws in most of Europe were based on The Bible is a historic fact. However, because the laws were based on the Bible dose not mean that the countries were Christian in the Biblical definition of Christianity. Firstly the nations were ruled by kings who made laws that gave them all of the privileges and power that they desired. This left the common man without rights or privileges. As time went on nations became secular thus ruling out Christian law because it did not apply to the majority. Some of these countries do still class themselves as a Christian nation with a national church, however, again they would not stand up to the standards of New Testament standards. Non of this ignores the fact that good things have come out of these nations. That been said, we cannot ignore the evil and suffering these nations have imposed, not only on their own people, but also on other nations while still claiming to be Christian. This is why we must think twice before we call a nation Christian. To be Christian according to The Bible is to be under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I agree we need to be careful what we call a "Christian nation." One of my most frequently expressed burdens has to do with exposing false claims that the eschatological Kingdom has already come. This is the danger of the "theocracy," that it would claim to be God's Kingdom on the earth without the dangers of false Christs and false prophets. Until these are completely destroyed, God's Kingdom is not to be thought of as having come yet. And I completely agree that even so-called "Christian nations" would not therefore meet the definition of "true Christianity" in the sense that there is a majority number of those born again and practicing obedience to Christ. I personally define a "Christian nation" in a much more libertine way, which would explain our difference in the use of the term "Christian nation." I see a "Christian nation" not as a majority of practicing born again Christians, but rather, as a 90% number in the nation *claiming* to be Christian. There will always be a minority of genuine Christians until Christ's Kingdom actually comes. I think the number of genuine Christians in good churches is much higher than in a "Christian nation." Most of our church should be genuine, practicing Christians. But again, I define "church" and "Christian" more loosely than you might. I define them as people who simply *claim* to be Christian, some of whom are on a spiritual journey and have not yet made a definitive decision to completely yield to Christ or not. Christianity involves those who are deciding if they want to occasionally obey God and live by their own independent judgment most of the time. Or they are deciding if they want to follow Christ completely, putting their independent carnal ways completely to death. This is, I believe, the present state of the Christian nation, the church, and Christianity. And I use these terms as such because that is the reality. It does me little good, personally, to attack the "Christian state" as if I prefer a "neutral" state, which is impossible. If we are so cynical as to think a Christian Constitution is impossible for our State, I wonder what we are testifying to the world that is possible? But if our nation has fallen on hard times, and the majority have already turned against Christianity, then I wouldn't fault you for not proclaiming the Gospel of the "Christian state." It wouldn't be practical. We are proclaiming the Gospel of a coming Kingdom--not one that is here yet. Again, I am not suggesting we should have a "national church!" I'm only suggesting we have a *national religion.* Institutional Christianity should be disestablished politically, to allow many denominations. It is unnecessary to build Christian unity on one large centralized bureaucracy. In fact, it can hinder Christian ministry and Christian expression. I'm not saying this should be mandated, but only that it be given guaranteed freedom.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jul 6, 2021 15:45:20 GMT
Once again I thank you for sharing Randy. We each must continue to share The Gospel as The Spirit leaders, for only He knows who will be drawn into The Kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by mfox on Jul 7, 2021 2:01:29 GMT
There is a difference between what is called the church and the real church just like there was a difference with Israel when Paul said “not all Israel is Israel” obviously Paul wasn’t talking about a ethnic Israel but spiritual Israel because if it was ethnic Israel they would all be Israel. This is the same with the church there is people who claim to be the church and the true church the spiritual church. If we read 1 John we will see the true church as John perfectly explains. God knows this gives people grace and time to grow because the physical church is made up of people in different stages in their Christian walk. I know that because I wasn’t a part of the true church when I began to attend church. The difference is as John said is the fruit and the forgiveness of sin not just sin itself because we all continue to sin in our earthly bodies because we are inperfect. Its about our heart and if we have that heart God will change the desires of our heart about sin and help us overcome sin. Thus the true church is spiritual not physical that’s why some of the people Jesus named in the seven church’s in revelation were apart of the physical church not the spiritual church and this is also why there can’t be true Christian nations sure there can be so called Christian nations like the United States and Canada but they are not true spiritual Christian nations because a good percentage don’t believe in Jesus. Good example with the Rom 9 reference. I believe Paul is speaking of the glorious Church, just as he had been speaking of the promised Israel. But just as all Jews were considered a part of physical Israel, regardless of their place in the promise, so the NT Scriptures refer to the "church" in its physical sense, and not just in its spiritual sense. That's why Paul appeals to Christians to prove they're truly saved, because not all of them would be saved. The true spiritual Church, the glorious Church of the future, would be determined only by those who become truly spiritual Christians, and not just by those who physically join a church, or who claim, by external confession, to be "Christians." I don't think, then, that the idea of a Christian nation is rejected strictly on the basis that true Christianity is a spiritual Christianity. I think people are truly trying an external Christianity, at times, as they are determining whether or not they are going to follow through and become true, spiritual Christians. Until such time as all determine their eternal standing for or against Christianity, a nation can consist of an external Christianity, some of which is "true," and some of which is still in the "testing" stage. But I do think it important that a nation adopt Christianity, "external" or not, simply because Christian law, as long as it is being applied properly, is of greater value to the public than non-Christian law. Even people who are somewhere between "nominal Christian" and true spiritual Christian, provide a better place to be than in a pagan society or in an Islamic society. But the church is spiritual within our bodies and the church is only those who God knows is the true church or who will be the true church
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jul 7, 2021 5:15:31 GMT
Good example with the Rom 9 reference. I believe Paul is speaking of the glorious Church, just as he had been speaking of the promised Israel. But just as all Jews were considered a part of physical Israel, regardless of their place in the promise, so the NT Scriptures refer to the "church" in its physical sense, and not just in its spiritual sense. That's why Paul appeals to Christians to prove they're truly saved, because not all of them would be saved. The true spiritual Church, the glorious Church of the future, would be determined only by those who become truly spiritual Christians, and not just by those who physically join a church, or who claim, by external confession, to be "Christians." I don't think, then, that the idea of a Christian nation is rejected strictly on the basis that true Christianity is a spiritual Christianity. I think people are truly trying an external Christianity, at times, as they are determining whether or not they are going to follow through and become true, spiritual Christians. Until such time as all determine their eternal standing for or against Christianity, a nation can consist of an external Christianity, some of which is "true," and some of which is still in the "testing" stage. But I do think it important that a nation adopt Christianity, "external" or not, simply because Christian law, as long as it is being applied properly, is of greater value to the public than non-Christian law. Even people who are somewhere between "nominal Christian" and true spiritual Christian, provide a better place to be than in a pagan society or in an Islamic society. But the church is spiritual within our bodies and the church is only those who God knows is the true church or who will be the true church That's true. I distinguish between the true Church, the Bride who is to be glorified, and the current state of the church, which is an assembly of *professed* believers. We have to let them remain as "Christians" and as part of the "church" until such time as they decide to completely commit to Christ or not. So I'm using, essentially, two different definitions for "church," one mixed and one pure. And I do this in order to understand how the bible uses the term. It seems to me that this is how the word "church" is used, in both ways? Rev 3.1 “To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead... 5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels. 6 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
1 Tim 3.15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth... 4.1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
|
|
|
Post by foxjj on Jul 10, 2021 15:59:26 GMT
You do well to use the church in Sardis as an example of a mainly luke warm church Randy. At the time of John writing the message from Jesus, Sardis was a wealth Roman town. Consequently, some of the people who called themselves members of the church there were members in name only, therefore Jesus gave them a warning to throw off their lukewarmness by waking up and repent or their name will be blotter out of the Book of Life. Whiles on the other hand, Jesus promised His genuine followers of Justified believers, that their names will never be blotter out of the book of life. These promises are to all who call themselves Christian down through history.
As a side note, there are no Christians in Sardis today, which as you may know is in Turkey.
Here is the full warning to the church in Sardis: “To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. 4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels. 6 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (Revelation 3:1-6 NIV)
|
|
|
Post by randy on Jul 10, 2021 16:26:36 GMT
You do well to use the church in Sardis as an example of a mainly luke warm church Randy. At the time of John writing the message from Jesus, Sardis was a wealth Roman town. Consequently, some of the people who called themselves members of the church there were members in name only, therefore Jesus gave them a warning to throw off their lukewarmness by waking up and repent or their name will be blotter out of the Book of Life. Whiles on the other hand, Jesus promised His genuine followers of Justified believers, that their names will never be blotter out of the book of life. These promises are to all who call themselves Christian down through history. As a side note, there are no Christians in Sardis today, which as you may know is in Turkey. Here is the full warning to the church in Sardis: “To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. 4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels. 6 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (Revelation 3:1-6 NIV) This is so true for me! I was raised in the Lutheran Church. And though I talked with God *every day* and attended church *every week,* I did not know God as Lord of my life. I thought just living a moral life was all He required of me. I never knew He could be more involved in our lives. When I got into the Jesus People movement, and in Charismatic circles, I began to recognize that the Holy Spirit wants to draw near to us all the time. And I came to realize that God's presence was conditioned on our obedience to the voice of God in our conscience. And so, I began a walk with God, quite different from my 16 years prior. I recognized that God wanted me to testify to Him concerning His presence in our lives and concerning our need for holiness. My conversion roughly coincided with the Jesus People movement. But I got a lot of my teaching from Watchman Nee, who was from China. I was still living with my parents, and I eventually had to inform them that I wasn't happy being a Lutheran any longer. I told them God gave me a Scripture, that our Lutheran Church had the "name of being alive, but was dead." I didn't want to attend a dead church, particularly if I had no input and no means of addressing the condition of the church. I met with the pastor, but he showed no understanding of the Holy Spirit except to say that he once felt the Holy Spirit in a particular sermon he preached. And he gave me a book called "Faith, Hope and Love," which was all about letting "love" make us tolerant. And he completely rejected my request to address the congregation. I shouldn't have been surprised, since I was only a teenager. But I was confirmed as a Lutheran, and a capable speaker. So I left the Lutheran Church, and joined the charismatic church of a former Lutheran pastor who had been kicked out of his Lutheran denomination for teaching the gifts of the Spirit, including the speaking in tongues. I differ in some of my doctrines from Charismatics and Pentecostals, but I do share with them their enthusiasm for the Holy Spirit. I do not consider nominal Christianity, such as I was in the Lutheran Church, to be adequate Christianity, even though I would still address them as "Christians." It is a genuine Church, but not a full practicing church, as could be seen over time. As the world around it descended into the abyss, the Lutheran Church went with it. More and more compromises developed as the world pressed for more open displays of sin. So when I mention "churches" and "Christians" the terms are used in a nominal sense at times, and at other times in their more valid sense as born again practicing Christians. Christians in churches can be "Christians in churches" without being born again simply because they profess themselves to be such. Profession is only half the way to a more adequate Christianity. Acts 18.26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.I've discovered that many Christians in many different denominations do understand this "more adequate Christianity." It's not something cornered by any particular denomination. But it helps if a denomination gives more space to true practicing Christianity without compromise. I think every denomination has its institutional defects, requiring that the individual look to God even more than to the institution.
|
|