Response to "Brother"

21 messages posted in selected forums
since your last session began:

PROVERBS	brother	2/17/00
sorry	brother	2/16/00
Re: Gary Bauer....BLECHHHH	David Mueller	2/16/00
Confused	Russ Warren	2/16/00
PUT SIMPLY	brother	2/16/00
Re: Guns, Canada, and Men	Jason	2/16/00
You see that	brother	2/16/00
What do I mean?	brother	2/16/00
EYE FOR EYE; TOOTH FOR TOOTH	brother	2/16/00
Idea of Holy War	brother	2/16/00
Why Pacifists Are Wrong	brother	2/16/00
In the Bible	brother	2/16/00
Keith	brother	2/16/00
Yikes	Gordan	2/16/00
Matthew 15:3?	Lurquer	2/16/00
ALRIGHT	brother	2/16/00
Go to	brother	2/16/00
Re: Don't you get it?	Kevin Craig	2/16/00
Don't you get it?	brother	2/16/00

My comments on "brother's" posts are on this side.

My first comment is a question: Brother, what are you defending? Why so much passion in defense of the State? What is your real goal? Do you want to rid the world of evil, or do you just want to appear pious and holy and righteous and Reformed?

I admit that my position is not "mainstream," and I'm sure you score points in the minds of some readers by repeating phrases from Romans 13 like a mantra. But I don't think you've done your homework. I wonder if you've read a single page on my Romans 13 website:

Vine & Fig Tree's Romans 13 Home Page

I used to believe the way you believe, brother, so I'm not unsympathetic. I criticize myself for believing as I believed as much as I'll be criticizing you. If you're ever in Southern California and you'd like to get together to study like the Bereans, the pizza and beer is on me.

The bottom line is: you have one passage (misinterpreted) and I have the whole Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does God command men to form a state, and nowhere in the Bible does God prohibit men from administering legitimate civil functions through the Free Market rather than socialism.

If you really want men to be Godly, and if you really want God's will to be done

on earth as it is in heaven, you will oppose all socialism and work to implement God's Law through voluntary associations. In short, you will become an earthly anarchist and give place to the cosmic Archist, Jesus Christ.

Date: February 17, 2000 12:14 AM
Author: brother
Subject: PROVERBS

Proverbs also proves Kevin false. Lets look at Proverbs 16.

"Kings detest wrongdoing, for a throne is established through righteousness" (16:12)

ALL kings? Every single king who has ever lived has detested wrongdoing?

Which version are you using? My version says:

Proverbs 16:12 It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness.

God UPHOLDS the righteous king

Yes, God promises that if a king is righteous, He will uphold him. Now, name that king.

Proverbs 16:10 A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgment.

"The lips of a king speak as an oracle, and his mouth should not betray justice"

Never? Everything the king says is inspired?

Proverbs 16:14 The wrath of a king is as messengers of death: but a wise man will pacify it.

Why would anyone want to "pacify" the king if he was divinely inspired?

God expects kings to uphold justice, precisely because THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE CREATED FOR.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

As you can see, governments and kings are NOT EVIL. But appointed by God specifically for the purpose of upholding justice through wrath and violence.

As you can see, pacifism does not hold up to the Word of God.

For some reason these verses from Proverbs don't seem to me to outweigh the rest of Scripture.

Date: February 16, 2000 10:49 PM
Author: brother
Subject: PUT SIMPLY

Date: February 16, 2000 10:43 PM
Author: brother
Subject: What do I mean?

What do I mean when I say that Keven is bypassing Romans 13? This is what I mean: "For he is God's minister TO YOU FOR GOOD. But if you do evil, be afriad; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to EXECUTE WRATH on him who PRACTICES EVIL"
Now what we see here is that the civil magistrate is not only a minister, but a minister TO US. He is a minister to the Christian. He is not only a minister to the Christian, he is a minister to the Christian FOR GOOD. It is a good ministry. It is a ministry that EXECUTES WRATH ON THOSE WHO PRACTICE EVIL.	Is Caesar a minister of God because he makes us feel secure about our material possessions, or is he a minister of God because as we submit to his evil we become more like Christ? Which is more important, becoming more like Christ (Eph 4:13), or securing our own "personal peace and affluence?" Is the emphasis throughout the Bible on (1) suffering patiently and contentedly and becoming more like Christ, or on (2) how wonderful the State is at protecting our property? ("Emphasis" nothing -- where is (2) even taught at all?)
If something is a good ministry, it is not opposed to God.	Assyria was a good minister. Assyria served God's purposes. Assyria was sent by God, and executed God's wrath (Isaiah 10:5-6). But Assyria was also opposed to God (Is. 10:7). Assyria was judged by God for being His minister. Judas Iscariot was opposed to God, but Judas did exactly what God predestined him to do, and thus served God's purposes (Luke 22:22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!). It would be difficult to imagine anyone doing a better job than Judas of being God's ordained betrayer.
"Therefore you MUST BE SUBJECT, not only because of wrath BUT FOR CONSCIENCE'S SAKE" See Paul is saying don't only be subject because you fear, but for the sake of your own conscience. Sinning against the state is violating the very law of God. God is BEHIND the state. "For this you pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing" The state is God's minister to ARREST EVIL. IT IS FOR THIS VERY REASON that we are to pay taxes, because by paying taxes we are helping to arrest evil. So you see the state, a good state, is appointed and liked by God... and God sees it as a legitimate instrument to destroy evil. It is a GOOD MINISTRY. The state, when bound by God's laws and justice, is a GOOD THING. This is what Kevin is bypassing.	"Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. 1 Corinthians 10:29 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for Me and thee. Matthew 17:27

Date: February 16, 2000 10:46 PM
Author: brother
Subject: You see that

my last point in this note complete undermine's Kevin's argument "why then do you vote for civil rulers who seek vengeance." We vote for and support the state PRECISELY BECAUSE we want the state to arrest evil and people who harm us! That is what Paul says in Romans 13. It is a good thing for us to desire that the state seek vengeance on evildoers. Let me requote the passage for you:	As brother writes below, God has always stated that we are not to seek revenge on those who harm us, but instead turn the other cheek and be kind to them. This is elementary Christian ethics.
Therefore you MUST BE SUBJECT, not only because of wrath BUT FOR CONSCIENCE'S SAKE" See Paul is saying don't only be subject because you fear, but for the sake of your own conscience. Sinning against the state is violating the very law of God. God is BEHIND the state. "For this you pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing"	"Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. 1 Corinthians 10:29
	*Notwithstanding, lest we should offend* them, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for Me and thee.** Matthew 17:27
The state is God's minister to ARREST EVIL. IT IS FOR THIS VERY REASON that we are to pay taxes, because by paying taxes we are helping to arrest evil. So you see the state, a good state, is appointed and liked by God... and God sees it as a legitimate instrument to destroy evil. It is a GOOD MINISTRY.
The state, when bound by God's laws and justice, is a GOOD THING.	No, the State serves God's purposes EVEN when it is evil and not bound by God's Laws.
It is NOT a good thing to take PERSONAL vengeance. IT IS a good thing to support the state to take vengeance.	"It is NOT a good thing to take PERSONAL vengeance. IT IS a good thing to 'vote' for someone to take vengeance FOR you. IT IS a good thing to hire a contract killer."

Date: February 16, 2000 09:37 PM
Author: brother
Subject: EYE FOR EYE; TOOTH FOR TOOTH

These are God's commands to the magistrates and judges during the time of Moses. You see, it is not that empires are inherently evil. Whether or not they are evil depends upon the gods they serve. The moabites and their kings were an evil empire, they worshipped Baal.
Ancient Israel was a godly empire in the sense that it outwardly and in its laws worshiped the true God.	You and I are not reading the same Bible. Ancient Israel was not a Godly empire. Not even outwardly did they worship God; they rebelled b asking for a State (1 Samuel 8) and worshiped the gods of other empires. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jeremiah 31:32
Where does the Bible say that EYE FOR EYE and TOOTH FOR TOOTH were mere ceremonial shadows? Where does the Bible say that EYE FOR EYE and TOOTH FOR TOOTH no longer need to be observed? No where that I can tell. God has always stated that we are not to seek revenge on those who harm us, but instead turn the other cheek and be kind to them.	If you are not to seek revenge, why are you allowed to "vote" or donate $$$ to the "campaign" of someone who promises to revenge your enemies? If our State is based on "consent of the governed," should Christians consent to institutionalized vengeance? Matthew 5:38-39 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: {39} But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. I agree that Jesus is using some level of hyperbole. But if "vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord" (Romans 12) is true, how can we "vote" for vengeance?
God also has always stated that civil government must take eye for eye and tooth for tooth.	You have a lot of homework to do with the "eye for eye" issue. You sling the phrase around very patriotically, but your slogan has little connection with reality. 'If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him; {20} 'fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him. Leviticus 24:19-20 No Christian nation on the planet enforces this law. The application of this law in Western civilization is that civil government must take no more than an eye for an eye. "The punishment must fit the crime." (And even with this adaptation, the State has failed miserably in carrying it out.)

You seem to completely ignore the fact that Abraham picked up arms and chased after the oppressors of Lot. You seem to completely ignore the fact that God wanted Israely to go and wipe out the people in the promised land, and God considered this activity on the part of His people neither sinful nor wicked. Would God contradict Himself?

I haven't "ignored" this fact. In fact, this account proves my point. Abraham did not "vote" for a State to carry out God's commands against kidnappers. He "took the law into his own hands." He did not tax his neighbors to finance his own body guards. See http://members.aol.com/VF95Theses/20.htm

Kidnapping is a capital crime. Killing Lot's kidnappers cleansed the land of bloodguiltiness.

For you to say that I "completely ignore the fact that God wanted Israel to go and wipe out the people in the promised land," is to give evidence that you have completely ignored all the links I have given. If you really want to study this issue rather than merely throw slogans around, check these links, and read what I wrote when I was "completely ignoring" this issue:

THESIS 49

Capital Punishment: Moral or Ceremonial? Q.4
Q. 11
Q. 35

Date: February 16, 2000 09:12 PM
Author: brother
Subject: Idea of Holy War

The Old Testament concept of Holy War implies Generals, Armies. Abraham was a general, king, and patriarch of his people.

Abraham warred against other kings when they took His nephew Lot.

Where do the scriptures say that these wars were nothing other than prefigurations of the work of Christ? The fact is they don't say it. Yes death atones for sin, whether it be the death of Christ or that someone dies and goes to hell. Both atone for the sins committed.

Simple mention that death of Cannan atones for their sins doesn't prove that this is ONLY a symbol.

The blood of bulls and goats does not really atone, nor does the blood of human beings. We do not shed the blood of a heifer in the case of an unsolved homicide (Deut 21:1-9) because only Christ's blood can cleanse the land. Why should we shed the blood of a human being (Numbers 35:33)?

Without the scriptural proof Kevin has no right to make this claim.

THESIS 49
Ezekiel 35:5-6; Deuteronomy 32:42-43 [NIV]; Judges 20:40; Isaiah 34:5-8; Jeremiah 46:10; Ezekiel 39:17-20; Zephaniah 1:7-8; Matthew 23:35 + Revelation 19:3, 17-18

Date: February 16, 2000 08:17 PM
Author: brother
Subject: Why Pacifists Are Wrong

1. They claim that the commands for capital punishment deal with blood sacrifice. Where is the scriptural proof for this? They have none.	Numbers 35:33 'So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. I have an entire website on this issue. Have you read any of it?
The book of Hebrews doesn't do away with the magistrate, it only does away with the TEMPLE system and Aaronic priesthood.	1. You cannot separate "magistrate" from priesthood in the Old Testament. 2. Hebrews talks about more than Moses. The altar built by Noah (Gen 8:20 - 9:6) was also abolished by Hebrews.
2. They must contradict themselves. They claim that God only uses evil empires to kill and punish evildoers. This would make Israel under Joshua an evil and wicked empire by obeying God's commands to kill the Cannanites!	God doesn't use only evil empires. Often He sends plagues. He would have done this had Israel been faithful. Exodus 23:27-30 "I will send My fear before you, I will cause confusion among all the people to whom you come, and will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. {28} "And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before you. {29} "I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the beast of the field become too numerous for you. {30} "Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased, and you inherit the land. And on occasion He did. Joshua 24:12 'I sent the hornet before you which drove them out from before you, also the two kings of the Amorites, but not with your sword or with your bow. You want all the credit to go to the State and to the military, but God wants the credit for Himself.
3. Romans 13 states that it is only EVILDOERS who should rightfully be fearing the state. If only EVILDOERS should be rightfully fearing the state, and not those who do good, how can one call the state itself evil? Don't evil institutions, or people, by nature harm good people? How many times must we read this in the Psalms.	Israel was told not to fear the kings of Canaan. Is that because those pagan kings were good? Name one State that has not done evil to good people. Romans 13:3 is misunderstood. Romans 12:9 -13:7 is talking about our relationship to evil doers. If we do good in the face of evil, we will have praise from God, but not necessarily the State. Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. (13:3) Not praise from the State; praise from the good. Just as it is said of the Proverbs 31 woman, Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates. Proverbs 31:31
All in all... Keith doesn't stand up to scripture. His theology places incredible burdens on passages, and wrests scripture outside of its intended meaning. He would make Jesus inconsistent when He defends capital punishment in Matthew 15.

Date: February 16, 2000 08:06 PM
Author: brother
Subject: In the Bible

do we see in Psalm 2 Patriarchs kissing the Son or Kings? KINGS KISS THE SON. They kiss the Son. What does this mean? Does this mean ending their kingdom and making it into an anarchy? Hardly! It means the kings pass the just laws of God.	Feminist scholars would be the first to say that the ancient kings were patriarchal. But why take their word for it? When a king "kisses" the son it means ending his own kingdom and putting himself and his subjects under God's Kingdom. Ending their own kingdom and making it a Theocracy, which unsubmissive kings think is ridiculous, and would just be "an anarchy." Kissing the Son means worshiping the Son (Hosea. 13:2; 1 Kings 19:18; ) and acknowledging His right to reign (1 Sam. 10:1), and turning one's arms over to the Son (Ps. 78:9; 1 Chr. 12:2; 2 Chr. 17:17 (where the verb "to kiss" in Ps. 2 is translated "to arm"); Gen. 41:40 (where it is translated "to rule")
Keith- God calls the Kings MINISTERS OF JUSTICE.	Where? Which verse of Scripture has this phrase ("minister of justice")? You're not dealing with the texts of Scripture, you're wallowing in humanistic phrases. Evil empires are ministers of God. The whole Bible is filled with accounts of evil men serving (ministering to) God (unwittingly, of course).
Justice has been revealed by God's Word. How are Kings working evil if they are simply dispensing this justice of God?	"Dispensing justice" is such a neat, sanitary phrase. It is nowhere found in Scripture. When God's "sanctified ones" (Isa 13:3) bring judgment, it is like The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle. Isaiah 13:4 Judgment by the sword is a horrifying day of rape, pillaging, and destruction. Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and He shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. Isa 13:9 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. Isa 13:16 And after God uses these sanctified tools of judgment, He destroys His "ministers" for the evil they did. Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed His whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks. Isa 10:12
Are the magistrates of ancient Israel EVIL because they are dispensing the justice of God? Is Joshua EVIL for slaughtering the Moabites in Canaan? HARDLY! Your theology is inconsistent. God does not contradict Himself like this.	The Magistrates in Israel did not "dispense justice," the made atonement. (But then, the magistrates outside Israel also were sanctified priests of God making atonement. Which leads me to suspect that for "brother," "dispensing justice" means "getting back at 'brother's' enemies.")

I see what you're saying in the 95 theses. However, if you reject capital punishment of the Mosaic economy I have to discount your theory. God intends for justice to be maintained. To the extent that God appointed judges over tens, over thousands etc etc... that can bolster the fact that God's ideal system works from the ground (family) upward. A patriarchal society is indeed quite ideal. Nevertheless, you do have to remember that hard cases were decided by judges who presided over thousands of people in ancient Israel. You can hardly call these individuals close family.	"Close family" is not a term I have ever used. The point is that all earthly government flows out of the family and any voluntary associations it creates.
IN addition, the death penalty was often assigned. IN addition, Moses was not a priest, yet Moses and Joseph were appointed by God to lead Israel into the tasks at hand, these men were in some sense national leaders, who also commanded the death sentence. I can see where you derive that Christ would be that Moses or Joshua now, and of course you're right. With Christ as King that is very good, but that does not mean that the civil magistrate has been done away, especially the kind described under Moses. Give me the scriptural proof of that. There is none. Jesus upholds civil punishments in Matthew 15:3. So I'd modify your understanding of an ideal patriarchal society, and include the allowance of capital punishment by appointed magistrates.	If you believe blood needs to be shed even after Christ shed His Blood, fine; go ahead and shed blood. I might try to stop you, but I'll cross that bridge if I ever come to it. The power of "capital punishment" was given to the Family, not the State, and nowhere taken from the Family and given as a monopoly to the State. APPENDIX A You speak of "appointed magistrates." Appointed by whom? If you "appoint" a magistrate to shed the blood of someone you believe to be polluting the land, what right do you have to hire a jackbooted thug to take money from me to pay for your system? Jesus upholds the entire Mosaic system (e.g., Matt. 8:4 + Lev. 13), including the shedding of blood for capital crimes. Are we obligated to obey the temple requirements today, as Jesus commanded? (Matt. 23:2-3)
The fact is, someone has to judge disputes. These people are the magistrates, the kind early Israel had before the Davidic kingdom. These have not been done away, unless you can claim to prove it from scripture.	"Someone has to judge disputes," and you ignore the plainest teachings of Scripture as to who is to do this. Find out here.

Exodus Chapter 18	I have an entire webpage on this passage. The passage is totally patriarchal, and is no justification for "the State." This was a temporary, pedagogical system. Moses' goal was to get the people out of their Egyptian slave mentality and back into patriarchal dominion, (which, by the way, this temporary system did not and could not accomplish).
Read verses 17. As you can see Moses was the civil government, judging disputes between individuals. Read carefully verse 23. GOD COMMANDED Moses to do this and that is why he did it.
God COMMANDED Moses to appointed JUDGES and MAGISTRATES to decide cases. When someone was found guilty God commanded them to BE PUT TO DEATH. See Exodus 22 for examples like witches.
What part of this isn't clear to you?	You would know that if you were reading my web pages. See Exodus 22

End The Wall of Separation Mailing List
Enter your e-mail address:

Browse the Theocracy Archive
An e-group hosted by eGroups.com

The Christmas Conspiracy

Virtue

Vine & Fig Tree

Paradigm Shift

Theocracy