Putin smarter than some on AFF

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I will have more time later today to answer Esias' long post in more detail.

However, you are making a point here that he also made, so I will address it now.

By your line of reasoning in Matthew 28:19, we don't need any earthly civil governments at all. Jesus has all authority. However, it really does not matter. Matthew 28:19 cannot be used to justify your puppet master claims. We are not robots.

Talk about straw men arguments! Talk about "extreme teaching"! Who said we are robots, or anybody is a robot? If you are suggesting "if Jesus has all authority and ordains all human governmental rulers then ergo we are all robots" then you are not making any sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, neither his nor my line of reasoning goes "Jesus has all authority therefore we do not need earthly civil governments at all". That is both a non sequitur (conclusion does not follow from the premises) and a straw man (nobody argued that). The fact Jesus has all authority does not mean we have no need of earthly civil governments, it simply does not follow.

Your view appears more and more like Deism, though you seem intent on denying the claim. Deism supposes that God set the universe up, and established natural laws (laws of nature), and then left the universe to "carry on its own", thus there is no Providence, there is only natural forces, causes, and human will which determine natural and human events. That's Deism, and your view sounds really close to it.

Either Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth, or He doesn't. If He does, then all other authorities are subordinate to His own, exist at His pleasure and by His permission, and He does as He pleases with them... just like Daniel said in the Old Testament. If on the other hand rulers can appoint themselves and acquire power and authority independently of God, then God is not much more than a pearl-clutching old lady screaming at the kids to get off her yard.

God, however, is a bit more than that. He is the SUPREME BEING. The Sovereign of the Universe. He sets up, He casts down, He kills and makes alive, He forms entire nations and gives them power and wealth and when they displease Him He casts them down and evicts them from their land and even drives them into extinction. He feeds the birds - each and every single one - and clothes the lillies - each and every single one - and puts food on your table and mine and Trump's and Putin's as well.

Psalms 75:4-7 I said unto the fools, Deal not foolishly: and to the wicked, Lift not up the horn: (5) Lift not up your horn on high: speak not with a stiff neck. (6) For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. (7) But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Talk about straw men arguments! Talk about "extreme teaching"! Who said we are robots, or anybody is a robot? If you are suggesting "if Jesus has all authority and ordains all human governmental rulers then ergo we are all robots" then you are not making any sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, neither his nor my line of reasoning goes "Jesus has all authority therefore we do not need earthly civil governments at all". That is both a non sequitur (conclusion does not follow from the premises) and a straw man (nobody argued that). The fact Jesus has all authority does not mean we have no need of earthly civil governments, it simply does not follow.

Your view appears more and more like Deism, though you seem intent on denying the claim. Deism supposes that God set the universe up, and established natural laws (laws of nature), and then left the universe to "carry on its own", thus there is no Providence, there is only natural forces, causes, and human will which determine natural and human events. That's Deism, and your view sounds really close to it.

Either Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth, or He doesn't. If He does, then all other authorities are subordinate to His own, exist at His pleasure and by His permission, and He does as He pleases with them... just like Daniel said in the Old Testament. If on the other hand rulers can appoint themselves and acquire power and authority independently of God, then God is not much more than a pearl-clutching old lady screaming at the kids to get off her yard.

God, however, is a bit more than that. He is the SUPREME BEING. The Sovereign of the Universe. He sets up, He casts down, He kills and makes alive, He forms entire nations and gives them power and wealth and when they displease Him He casts them down and evicts them from their land and even drives them into extinction. He feeds the birds - each and every single one - and clothes the lillies - each and every single one - and puts food on your table and mine and Trump's and Putin's as well.

Psalms 75:4-7 I said unto the fools, Deal not foolishly: and to the wicked, Lift not up the horn: (5) Lift not up your horn on high: speak not with a stiff neck. (6) For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. (7) But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.

Apparently you don't know what Deism is.

You know, to me, this is one of those topics brothers should agree to disagree on in a Christlike manner. But truthfully, I see all the red flags here of an extremist teaching, mainly by the way you address others who don't agree with it. Furthermore, you took one exception to the rule of John Locke out of context, thus turning his entire treatises on their heads.

No, sorry. I do not necessarily think God chooses the mayor of Poison Well, Nevada or the Justice of the Peace of Yellow Knife, Yukon. I think he instituted the idea of civil government. Some kings in the Bible were specifically raised up by God. In other nations, God seemed to raise up a form of government, such as in the United States, and expects to seek his guidance in choosing our own leaders wisely. If you think that is Deism, you don't know what Deism is.

I am in bed sick and don't feel like arguing today. But if you search the scriptures, you'll find obvious cases of leaders rising against the will of God. Therefore, it is not safe to assume that every Josef Stalin that comes down the pike is ordained by God.

But again, WHO CARES? Why is this such an essential teaching to you guys?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Apparently you don't know what Deism is.

de·ism
ˈdēˌizəm,ˈdāˌizəm/Submit
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

Sounds like I was right. And your arguing against Providence sounds like Deism to me.

You know, to me, this is one of those topics brothers should agree to disagree on in a Christlike manner. But truthfully, I see all the red flags here of an extremist teaching, mainly by the way you address others who don't agree with it.

I think you have a doctrine that you cannot support from the Bible and don't like to be told that you are in error. It was YOU who began with snarky comments when you were challenged on your silly statements. And now you are sounding more like some SJW snowflake with your talk of "red flags" and "extremism" all because some people don't agree with you? lol

Furthermore, you took one exception to the rule of John Locke out of context, thus turning his entire treatises on their heads.

I took nothing out of context. I quoted and gave the source link to his Synopsis on romans (chapter 13) which explained DIRECTLY his affirmation that God ordains ALL political authority, all magistrates everywhere. I even included the bit about how he believed Paul does not address how any individual comes into a position of authority, and pointed out by his own words that he thought Paul and Jesus chose not to meddle with the subject and thus said nothing about the "how". Which by the way proves YOU don't understand Locke.

Locke's first Treatise on Government was an apologetic and polemical work against a then-current idea that only monarchy was approved by God, and that the king had a divine prerogative to rule because monarchy was established by God when He made Adam Sovereign monarch over the earth, and further all rulers descended from Adam and therefore all monarchy is paternal, and hereditary, and finds its basis in the nature of fatherhood and the family.

Have you even read Locke? I have. I think you do not understand him, and furthermore I proved it.

No, sorry. I do not necessarily think God chooses the mayor of Poison Well, Nevada or the Justice of the Peace of Yellow Knife, Yukon. I think he instituted the idea of civil government. Some kings in the Bible were specifically raised up by God. In other nations, God seemed to raise up a form of government, such as in the United States, and expects to seek his guidance in choosing our own leaders wisely. If you think that is Deism, you don't know what Deism is.

Yes, yes, we know what your position is. You have stated and re-stated it many times. I never said you WERE a Deist, I said your view sounds like Deism to me. In any event, repeating your claim does nothing but establish what you believe, and everyone reading this thread knew that a day or two ago.

But, you have offered no Scripture, no reasonings, not even a simple syllogism to support your position. You just repeat your claim over and over.

I am in bed sick and don't feel like arguing today. But if you search the scriptures, you'll find obvious cases of leaders rising against the will of God. Therefore, it is not safe to assume that every Josef Stalin that comes down the pike is ordained by God.

I did search the Scriptures, and I posted several of them, which totally and utterly refute your unbiblical view that God is not really and truly the King of kings and Lord of lords, that He does not really and truly ordain leaders.

I am sorry you are in bed sick and I hope you get to feeling better.

But again, WHO CARES? Why is this such an essential teaching to you guys?

Precisely because it bothers you and so many other people to think that God might actually be in charge, therefore I'll hammer on it until you people either convert or apostasize or drive me away by force.



Seriously though, Western Civilization is going down the tubes specifically because of sin. God is and has been bringing judgment upon us and will continue to do so until we repent. Arguing against the Providence of God and his Sovereignty is no way to repent.

The Gospel that Jesus and the apostles preached is the Gospel OF THE KINGDOM. A Kingdom has a King, Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth, He is the Sovereign King (Psalm 2) and the church's entire mission is to TEACH ALL NATIONS, teaching them to obey Christ in all things. That includes teaching everyone from the dog catcher to the Dalai Lama, from the high school principal to the pope, from the president of the local water board to the President of the United States, that GOD ALONE IS SOVEREIGN.

Man is too full of himself, and WILL eat Divinely dished out humble pie.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

de·ism
ˈdēˌizəm,ˈdāˌizəm/Submit
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

Sounds like I was right. And your arguing against Providence sounds like Deism to me.



I think you have a doctrine that you cannot support from the Bible and don't like to be told that you are in error. It was YOU who began with snarky comments when you were challenged on your silly statements. And now you are sounding more like some SJW snowflake with your talk of "red flags" and "extremism" all because some people don't agree with you? lol



I took nothing out of context. I quoted and gave the source link to his Synopsis on romans (chapter 13) which explained DIRECTLY his affirmation that God ordains ALL political authority, all magistrates everywhere. I even included the bit about how he believed Paul does not address how any individual comes into a position of authority, and pointed out by his own words that he thought Paul and Jesus chose not to meddle with the subject and thus said nothing about the "how". Which by the way proves YOU don't understand Locke.

Locke's first Treatise on Government was an apologetic and polemical work against a then-current idea that only monarchy was approved by God, and that the king had a divine prerogative to rule because monarchy was established by God when He made Adam Sovereign monarch over the earth, and further all rulers descended from Adam and therefore all monarchy is paternal, and hereditary, and finds its basis in the nature of fatherhood and the family.

Have you even read Locke? I have. I think you do not understand him, and furthermore I proved it.



Yes, yes, we know what your position is. You have stated and re-stated it many times. I never said you WERE a Deist, I said your view sounds like Deism to me. In any event, repeating your claim does nothing but establish what you believe, and everyone reading this thread knew that a day or two ago.

But, you have offered no Scripture, no reasonings, not even a simple syllogism to support your position. You just repeat your claim over and over.



I did search the Scriptures, and I posted several of them, which totally and utterly refute your unbiblical view that God is not really and truly the King of kings and Lord of lords, that He does not really and truly ordain leaders.

I am sorry you are in bed sick and I hope you get to feeling better.



Precisely because it bothers you and so many other people to think that God might actually be in charge, therefore I'll hammer on it until you people either convert or apostasize or drive me away by force.



Seriously though, Western Civilization is going down the tubes specifically because of sin. God is and has been bringing judgment upon us and will continue to do so until we repent. Arguing against the Providence of God and his Sovereignty is no way to repent.

The Gospel that Jesus and the apostles preached is the Gospel OF THE KINGDOM. A Kingdom has a King, Jesus has all authority in heaven and earth, He is the Sovereign King (Psalm 2) and the church's entire mission is to TEACH ALL NATIONS, teaching them to obey Christ in all things. That includes teaching everyone from the dog catcher to the Dalai Lama, from the high school principal to the pope, from the president of the local water board to the President of the United States, that GOD ALONE IS SOVEREIGN.

Man is too full of himself, and WILL eat Divinely dished out humble pie.

Again, there are instances in the Bible where people rose to power against the will of God. That means God did not put them there. Rebellion against God put them there. Thus , it goes without saying that the will of man plays into this.

And no, you did take Locke out of context. Else his treatises are contradictory mass of babbling.

I caution brother. You are falling into error, and your biggest error is your attitude. When you falsely accuse brothers of believing that God is not in control, or say thatt hey are "afraid" God is in control, you are slipping into extremism. No, I do not buy into your teaching. You use scripture out of the context it was intended. You've proven nothing except you are hermeneutically weak.

[Originalist]

Treaatises of Locke:

The First Treatise is focused on the refutation of Sir Robert Filmer, in particular his Patriarcha, which argued that civil society was founded on a divinely sanctioned patriarchalism. Locke proceeds through Filmer's arguments, contesting his proofs from Scripture and ridiculing them as senseless, until concluding that no government can be justified by an appeal to the divine right of kings.

You believe every ruler has a divine right to be in power. Locke refuted this.

The Second Treatise outlines a theory of civil society. Locke begins by describing the state of nature, a picture much more stable than Thomas Hobbes' state of "war of every man against every man," and argues that all men are created equal in the state of nature by God. From this, he goes on to explain the hypothetical rise of property and civilization, in the process explaining that the only legitimate governments are those that have the consent of the people. Therefore, any government that rules without the consent of the people can, in theory, be overthrown.

You believe the complete opposite of what is emboldened concerning his second treatises.

And since I'm not feeling well, I'll be lazy , typing only a few lines, and still win this argument.

In the Book of Judges,"Israel had no king. Each man did what he considered to be right" (Judge 17:6) This was the form of government God chose for them. In all reality, God was their king. In I Samuel they rejected God as their king and abandoned the form of government that God had desired for them to live under, instead demanding a monarchy. God hearkened unto them, giving them a king, while making it clear this was not his will. God even chose their kings for a time after this warning. Later we no longer see God being sought concerning ascendency to the throne of Israel and Judah.
This incident alone blows your theory out of the water, though you will bot accept it. GOD'S WILL DID NOT HAPPEN. He did not raise up the monarchy.


Hosea 8:4 where in speaking about Israel the Bible says:

"They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not; of their silver and gold have they made them idols that they may be cut off."

I could go on.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You believe every ruler has a divine right to be in power. Locke refuted this.

And this shows me you either have no reading comprehension, or are intellectually dishonest, or perhaps under a bad fever from your illness. In any event, there is no further need to discuss anything with you..

Good day.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And this shows me you either have no reading comprehension, or are intellectually dishonest, or perhaps under a bad fever from your illness. In any event, there is no further need to discuss anything with you..

Good day.

Hey brother. There can only be one superior intellect on AFF. I hope to attain to your great heights one day. Until then, pray for us inferior plebes that God would be merciful.

Thanks!