Christianity and Politics?
Watch this clip from several of the speakers from the Fight, Laugh, Feast Conference in Tennessee. What is the definition of politics? Does Christianity have anything to say in this realm? Watch. Tell someone. Join us. Check out the website at the end.
You can get more at http://apologiastudios.com. Be sure to like, share, and comment on this video. #ApologiaStudios
You can partner with us by signing up for All Access. When you do you make everything we do possible and you also get our TV show, After Show, and Apologia Academy. In our Academy you can take a courses on Christian apologetics and much more.
Follow us on social media here:
I came here for the woody Harrelson thumbnail
I’m interested to see where this goes. In an ideal world, the message will be: “Religion has no place getting involved in politics”, but I suspect it’s likely to go the other way.
Edit: Yep, called it! This is about Theocracy, not Democracy – but of course it was always going to be that. 🤦🏻♂️
Dr. Ben Merkle: _”Politics is just ruling wisely in the civil sphere, _*_understanding how Jesus wants to rule our city, our state, our nation,_*_ in a wise and faithful way; distinct from the church, distinct from the family, it’s a [unintelligible] for the civil authority _*_as God-given obligation_*_ to act.”_
Gary Demar: _”In biblical terms, God government is over all things, and the “polis”, the city, the function of the civil magistrate, _*_is a delegated government, by God,_*_ which is a minister of God to do good and punish evil.”_
Gabriel Rench: _”… we want Christian communities, which will necessitate Christian politics.”_
@Shockwave _”Humans can no more create a Theocracy than they can raise themselves from the dead.”_ You are equivocating the meaning of Theocracy.
*Theocracy* _is a form of government in which a deity of some type is recognized as the supreme ruling authority, giving divine guidance to human intermediaries that manage the day-to-day affairs of the government._
Unless you think that God does not provide “divine guidance”, then a Theocracy is perfectly achievable.
@Blargleman The Skeptic I think Britannica provides a more precise and less generic definition of:
Theocracy: “government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican. See also church and state; sacred kingship.”
Of course a Theocracy is achievable, but it is not the same as Theonomy, and my comment you quoted had more to do with the distinction between a true theocracy and a false theocracy. An Islamic theocracy would be an example of a false theocracy, and under a false theocracy “divine guidance” is falsely claimed because “the Quran unashamedly calls Muhammad’s god the best liar and deceiver of them all!” Further every attempt by fallen mankind at a theocratic government has failed, even when and where the government started with the God of Scripture. This is evident in Biblical times with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, not once but twice. So there is also a difference between achievable and sustainable. Only God can create a true Theocracy and sustain it, but evidently it is not his will to do so here on planet earth, eh?
@Shockwave that definition offers nothing more than mine, but whatever…
I immediately spotted 4 standout problems with your claims:
1) Your own definition: There is no requirement for a real God, or a even a truthful one, in it anywhere, only that the officials are “regarded as divinely guided”. Your “truthful” comment is a No True Scotsman fallacy.
2) If the God of the Bible is omniscient and omnipotent, then he is necessarily “the best liar and deceiver of them all” as well.
3) Even if Allah is a “liar and deceiver,” the officials receiving his “lies and deceit” are in fact _”divinely guided”, as per YOUR definition. There is no requirement in that definition for the guidance to be truthful. Adding this in is also a No True Scotsman fallacy.
4) If “every attempt by fallen mankind at a theocratic government have failed”, how can the theocratic governments that you listed exist still. They have not failed (yet), and until they all do AND none replace them (since a single extant theocracy immediately falsifies your claim), your claim is demonstrably false.
@Blargleman The Skeptic
1. Neither you nor I provided our “own” definition, you quoted Wikipedia, I quoted Britannica. You are correct about neither definition requiring a real God per say, I mean the self proclaimed atheist would deny the validity of any and every Theocracy. So far as the definition is concerned, the difference between myself and the atheist is I deny the validity of all but one Theocracy, in Heaven, and a sovereign God capable of establishing Theocracy on earth, if he so chooses, even if for a time, according to his purposes.
2. Problem with your argument is it assumes God is not Holy, or that his attributes can contradict one another. It’s called a logical impossibility, God cannot contradict his own nature, it is not possible. Further in the Scriptures it is explicitly written “it is impossible for God to lie” Hebrews 6:18 A very similar argument is often posited by atheists with the simple question, “can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?” Same answer applies, God can do anything that is possible according to his nature which does not involve self-contradiction.
3. Again, not my definition, merely pointed out the insufficiencies of the generic Wikipedia definition.
4. Without any demonstration you assume those governments listed in the Britannica definition have not failed, I say that if those so-called Theocracies do not acknowledge Christ as Lord, they fail from the start, like Rome, kingdoms built on sinking sand sooner or later fail.
As for the “no true Scotsman fallacy” you have to assume a lack of purity in Heavenly government to make the claim.
@Shockwave 1. You selected a definition that you claimed was better than mine – therefore that is your _chosen_ definition (i.e. “yours”), and the one I have is my _chosen_ definition (i.e. “mine”). Easy.
2. My arguments avoid assumptions, as opposed to yours. In fact in making that claim, you demonstrate that you assume that God IS holy.
Further, is God omnipotent? In which case he can do anything, including lie. Or, is God unable to lie? In which case he can’t be omnipotent. A god that is constrained by ANYTHING (including his own nature) cannot be omnipotent, by definition. Your ad hoc fix for the “heavy stone problem”, fails to fix it, and thus fails to negate the “lying problem”.
3. You have a different, but functionally identical definition. You CLAIMED it was insufficient, but your example did not demonstrate that.
4. Your _chosen_ definition of “Theocracy” lists them as examples of Theocracies. Those governments are still the official governments of the countries that they govern. Even if you argue that they are _failing,_ that is not the same as “failed”. Ergo, they have not “failed”. You are again going with another No True Scotsman fallacy by redefining a Theocracy to only include _Christian_ Theocracies. Also, last time I checked, the Vatican is Christian, so even with your goalpost moving, there is still an extant theocracy in Rome. And therefore not all Theocracies have failed, even using your amended definition.
And finally you demonstrate that you have NO CLUE what a No True Scotsman fallacy is. Let me help:
*No true Scotsman,* or *appeal to purity,* _is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by _*_changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample._*_ Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule._
Separation of Church and State is an essential piece of the United States Constitution. Christianity has no place in politics or the government. We all need secular government without religious bias.
@Blargleman The Skeptic I understand there cannot be an official religion according to the constitution, but this has nothing to do about which you are complaining.
@Voice Vitality yeah, and the Supreme Court agrees that it is, in those cases I cited.
@Blargleman The Skepticso? What’s your point?
@Voice Vitality how is that not obvious? You are wrong and the level of condescension in my original reply was appropriate.
Anyway, I’m done with explaining things to a Dunning-Kruger fence post. Have a great life.
PS. NEVER represent yourself in court – it’s always a bad idea, and in your case you have demonstrated that know way less than you think you do.
@Blargleman The Skeptic and yet you fail to show how I’m wrong. I’m not saying that some of your examples were wrong, just weak. You failed to get to your point.
P.S. At the very least, I’m grateful for the opportunity to give you a history lesson. I hope it helps. Cheers
Can’t wait to hear about this topic.
Yes, I love this. For so long in my life have I heard people, even Christians, talk about how our faith is seperate from our politics, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Only God can objectively define what is morally good. Politics and justice inherently involve moral issues. Taking God out of politics means we can never be moral or just.
Can he though? Any morality that a god might define is _subject_ to his decisions, and is thus inherently *subjective,* by definition.
Further, what evidence do you have that such a thing as “objective morality” even exists?
Christianity explicitly has a totalitarian celestial dictatorship worldview.
Monarchies are totalitarian too. All the same thing.
@John Smith good thing to, since God is the perfect, just, righteous leader, not tempted, unlike sinful men who do not belong in the same position.
@John Calvin Reading the Bible, nothing about the god of the Bible would make me think he is perfect, intelligent, or moral. The god of the Bible unnecessarily directly murders or tells the Israelites to murder innocent children. Noah’s Flood was completely unnecessary. Why didn’t your god just stop the hearts of the evil men, instead of horribly and violently drowning innocent babies and animals in the process? Either your god is an idiot or cruel. He’s pretty perverted and weird if you ask me too, when he commands men to militate their genitals by cutting off the foreskin and asking Ezekiel to cook food using human feces as fuel. This is really the god you serve? He’s a pretty weird, pathetic, and petty god if you ask me.
@John Calvin Oh I’ll also add physical geography disproves a global flood ever took place which proves, and history and archaeology disproves the Exodus. This this proves the god you worship is false.
@John Smith John you have more ignorance than I have hours in the day to argue with you about. If God were to stop the hearts of all evil men you wouldn’t be alive to grumble and complain as if anythi g matters if all we are, are evolved societies of bacteria in an ultimately purposeless existence. God doesn’t need your approval or definition of any word. The democratic party loves killing some babies. 65,000,000 now. When God commanded the Israelites to wipe out a people, it’s because 1. They hated God and woukd have killed the Israelites if they could have, and 2. It’s because God owns everything. Your life is God’s to do with as He pleases. Be glad he’s letting your heart beat and mouth speak so He can be glorified when He makes an example of you one day. Of course Jesus may change you by His grace, but whatever the case God will be glorified.
Go watch some Jeff durbin debates debating atheists.
thanks for the distiction between politics and government even though I don’t remember your explanation
Poly stands for a bunch of people
Tics well we know that word “blood suckers”
A lot of blood suckers
Hahah i like that.
Surely you know that God appoints all rulers for judgment or blessing to a nation? Surely you must be aware that both candidates have serious policy and spiritual flaws along with their Lawlessness? There is no clear choice, and Trump has awarded us an open-ended COVID SOE which voids our constitutional “rights” and will soon pave the way for mandated contact tracing and the forced vaccine MotB.
The proper message is to get right with our Heavenly Father through confession and repentence, believe on Christ Jesus, pray without ceasing, and disciple others into Following the Way. Jesus died for our sins, not so we could vote in some Jesuit to stock the FEMA camps full of Christians who decline the MotB all the way to their deaths.
The way forward is obvious: first the resurgence of some mega “virus” happens, then the economy gets weaker with reparations and “stimulus” until it crumbles, bringing all the nations relying on the dollar as the global base currency to their knees also. Then come massive riots and societal decay. Next comes forced “law and order” all over the world to “fight the virus” and “reset the economy” and then the rest of Revelations occurs…Son of Perdition, mass slaughter of Christians being demonized and blamed for killing all the “sick” people since they will not take the GMO RNA Luciferase vaccine, plagues, famine, and destruction.
Everything happening in the mainstream is part of the promised Grand Delusion. It has been written for thousands of years.
REPENT & RECEIVE ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH CHRIST JESUS. WE HAVE NOT MUCH TIME LEFT. HE IS COMING QUICKLY!
David Platt has shown his ignorance of this issue.
All voting is violence. No King but Christ.
There is one passage in the entire Bible concerning politics (Romans 13:1-8). And it simply says to obey the wicked government because even it is a servant of God. Paul was not preaching about who to vote for, otherwise he would have been a politician. He was preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.
God made it all, owns it all!
All means all.
For those who never heard an for those who wanna share it.
HERE IS THE MILLMILLION-DOLLA. QUESTION: Will you go to Heaven when you die? Here’s a quick test: Have you ever lied, stolen, or used God’s name in vain? Jesus said, “Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” If you have done these things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart, and the Bible warns that one day God will punish you in a terrible place called Hell. But God is not willing that any should perish. Sinners broke God’s Law and Jesus paid their fine. This means that God can legally dismiss their case: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Then Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death. Today, repent and trust Jesus, and God will give you eternal life as a free gift. Then read the Bible daily and obey it. God will never fail you.
The signs of Jesus soon return are so strong now and the evidence is so clear that any person willing to accept the truth can see that the end of the world, as we know it, is near.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
Jesus paid the price for sinners. He has provided a way to spend eternity with Him and the Father. All you need to do is:
…Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved…
God has already done all the work.
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God;
not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Fully trust in Jesus alone as the payment for your sins. God is offering you salvation as a gift. All that you must do is accept it. Jesus is the only way of salvation
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
That being said, we must repent of our sins. While repentance is not a work that earns salvation, repentance unto salvation does result in works. It is impossible to change your mind truly and fully without that causing a change in action. In the Bible, repentance results in a change in behavior. Repentance, when properly defined, is necessary for salvation. Biblical repentance is changing your mind about Jesus Christ and turning to God in faith for salvation.
“Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
Turning away from sin is a sign of true repentance and a result of genuine, faith-based repentance towards the Lord Jesus Christ.
That’s why there is the need for separation of church and state keep your delusions to yourself.
@Doug Ehlen Sure it does look up the treaty of Tripoli and the Constitution. Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of any religion that includes All Religions Your free to practice any insane nonsense that you want but keep it out of government, out of the schools, and out of politics completely Constant Theocratic encroachments on a secular Government Is the reason for separation of church and state.
@David Hodge it was meant to keep government out of the church. It was meant to prohibit a state-run church
@Doug Ehlen Exactly the opposite it was meant to keep the church out of government. That is why the 1st pilgrims came to America to escape Government imposed church.
@David Hodge Correct on the reason they left for new world, but wrong on the relationship. The government was imposing their mandates on the church and it prohibited the free practice of religion. You just proved my point!
@Doug Ehlen Again incorrect it prohibited only the practice of Any other religion but Christianity and its dictates and doctrines. Thereby Prohibiting the free practice of religion As the individual sees fit. Hence the 1st amendment Which by the way is directly contradictory to your 1st commandment. The Constitution the bill of rights Are deliberately secular for this reason. In the old world the church and the state were one That is why we needed the establishment clause. This is why America cannot be deemed a Christian nation in any sense Anti establishment clause should have been worded exactly the opposite the separation of state and/or government from church completely.
I’m more confused now than before watching this video.