Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums

Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/index.php)
-   Christianity (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Why All Christians should be Monarchists (http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9373)

Tyburn 04-02-2012 10:11 PM

Why All Christians should be Monarchists
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCc28TTX_Ig

:laugh: It holds up if you start with Christ the King and make the Apostles Kings of the early church, then Romanism, The Orthodox split with Byzantium, still monarchic, and the Protestant Reformation with the Church of England/Anglicanism

Not sure I'd 100 percent aggree its a pre-requisit for BEING Christian...but its an interesting challenge to those who thing that Republics or Democrasy is the best way forward....after all, lest we forget that the power of the vote freed Barabas :mellow:

VCURamFan 04-02-2012 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyburn (Post 188198)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCc28TTX_Ig

:laugh: It holds up if you start with Christ the King and make the Apostles Kings of the early church, then Romanism, The Orthodox split with Byzantium, still monarchic, and the Protestant Reformation with the Church of England/Anglicanism

Not sure I'd 100 percent aggree its a pre-requisit for BEING Christian...but its an interesting challenge to those who thing that Republics or Democrasy is the best way forward....after all, lest we forget that the power of the vote freed Barabas :mellow:

But it was a provincial governor that abdicated that choice to the people and King Herod who commanded all baby boys be murdered in an attempt to kill Christ.

NateR 04-03-2012 01:33 AM

The Apostles weren't kings, they were stewards, there is a huge difference.

As Christians, Christ is our King. No one other king on this planet has any legitimate authority.

PRShrek 04-03-2012 06:24 PM

1 Samuel 8:6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king."

Tyburn 04-05-2012 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NateR (Post 188201)
The Apostles weren't kings, they were stewards, there is a huge difference.

As Christians, Christ is our King. No one other king on this planet has any legitimate authority.

The argument is that Christ AS King annoints the ruller. Ergo when a Monarch is crowned they have been annointed, called to rule, in the same way a priest is called to minister. You will no doubt have heard the term "Ordination" in the church relating to the church recognising a persons "calling"

The argument is that when GOD decided to set up a Monarchy in Israel, THAT was HIS chosen form of Government, a Government based on his own rule...which is NOT democratic.

Now I know some of you will go on about how GOD didnt want to set up a Monarchy...however, if you look at Jewish history before that, ever since Moses was called, Ever since the Exodus, there has always been ONE ruller of the nation. They may be called different things, and the Monarchs power may not be 100percent across the board, but each time the nation sinned GOD "raised up" someone who could streer the nation back on course, and that was never a Government. It was a "Judge" or it was a "king"

So the argument logically follows, that if GOD has ordained someone to Rule, what does it say if you reject that person? Have you not be default rejected GOD?? It would appear that you make a similar mistake to the Jews who Rejected Christ...and that was taken by The Lord as a Rejection of the entire Trinity.

You may not aggree, but its a VERY valid argument, and sooooo many Christians would do well to focus on the fact that GOD is not some President that has to listen to his people. In terms of GOD, you do not lead, and you are not incharge. Its frightfully simple, a clear heirachy. THAT is part of his Nature for he couldnt be GOD if he was not all powerful, and singular wholistically.

Now, that type of Governing is polar opposite to almost everything the western world claims is morally good. Yet that is how it is. In essence, Christ is not ellected, is under no obligation to serve his people, has absolute power, and govens on his own, under his own regulations.

Imagine the horror of some Christians when Christ returns and takes authority of Jerusalem sometime into the future. There will be no vote, and there will be no choice for the inhabitants.

IF He serves it is because he wants to, not because he has to
IF He invites it is because he wants to, not because he has to
If he shows any mercy, or Freedom, it is by his personal choice alone.

VCURamFan 04-05-2012 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyburn (Post 188411)
The argument is that Christ AS King annoints the ruller. Ergo when a Monarch is crowned they have been annointed, called to rule, in the same way a priest is called to minister. You will no doubt have heard the term "Ordination" in the church relating to the church recognising a persons "calling".

The argument is that when GOD decided to set up a Monarchy in Israel, THAT was HIS chosen form of Government, a Government based on his own rule...which is NOT democratic.

Now I know some of you will go on about how GOD didnt want to set up a Monarchy...however, if you look at Jewish history before that, ever since Moses was called, Ever since the Exodus, there has always been ONE ruller of the nation. They may be called different things, and the Monarchs power may not be 100percent across the board, but each time the nation sinned GOD "raised up" someone who could streer the nation back on course, and that was never a Government. It was a "Judge" or it was a "king"

So the argument logically follows, that if GOD has ordained someone to Rule, what does it say if you reject that person? Have you not be default rejected GOD?? It would appear that you make a similar mistake to the Jews who Rejected Christ...and that was taken by The Lord as a Rejection of the entire Trinity.

You may not aggree, but its a VERY valid argument, and sooooo many Christians would do well to focus on the fact that GOD is not some President that has to listen to his people. In terms of GOD, you do not lead, and you are not incharge. Its frightfully simple, a clear heirachy. THAT is part of his Nature for he couldnt be GOD if he was not all powerful, and singular wholistically.

Now, that type of Governing is polar opposite to almost everything the western world claims is morally good. Yet that is how it is. In essence, Christ is not ellected, is under no obligation to serve his people, has absolute power, and govens on his own, under his own regulations.

Imagine the horror of some Christians when Christ returns and takes authority of Jerusalem sometime into the future. There will be no vote, and there will be no choice for the inhabitants.

IF He serves it is because he wants to, not because he has to
IF He invites it is because he wants to, not because he has to
If he shows any mercy, or Freedom, it is by his personal choice alone.

Dave, I think you’re making a mistake in your logic, but before I address it, I want to make sure that I’m fully understanding your premises & argument. It may be that I’m keying in on something that you’re not actually trying to say & I don’t wanna start mindless arguing over something that’s not really an issue!! :laugh:


This is going to be a severely redacted version, mind you, but I’m just trying to get at the salient points. As I understand it, your argument is this:
  • God has always used a single person as His representative
    • First God called Judges for individual crises
    • Later God created a Kingship
  • If God calls that person to lead, then we should follow
  • Failure to follow God’s chosen leader equates to not following God
  • Failure to follow God is rebellion to be punished by damnation
Is that it, in its distilled version? Like I said, let me know if I got something wrong (broad-brush stuff, we can hit details next).

rockdawg21 04-05-2012 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyburn (Post 188198)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCc28TTX_Ig

:laugh: It holds up if you start with Christ the King and make the Apostles Kings of the early church, then Romanism, The Orthodox split with Byzantium, still monarchic, and the Protestant Reformation with the Church of England/Anglicanism

Not sure I'd 100 percent aggree its a pre-requisit for BEING Christian...but its an interesting challenge to those who thing that Republics or Democrasy is the best way forward....after all, lest we forget that the power of the vote freed Barabas :mellow:

Ok

PRShrek 04-05-2012 08:06 PM

Monarchy was not HIS chosen form of government; He gave them what they wanted as punishment because they wouldn’t shut up about it.

Having one leader is similar in some ways to having a king, but ‘similar’ is not ‘the same.’

Just because God is omnipotent and omniscient does not mean that having a royal despot pretending to be a god would be better for Christians than a Republic.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.