Baptist Missionary on Politics: Using The Bible Like a Catholic

Doctrine matters.  

The best way to help people is giving them the truth.  The truth is not merely limited to the Gospel and salvation.  Yes, this is primary.  But other truths are necessary to help people after they have gotten saved.  Basic human thinking and logic require us to ask simple questions like: Who is speaking?  Who is being addressed?  When is this about?  What are we talking about?  What is the context?  

If we stick to these simple questions, you will be able to sort out a bunch of the junk put out by modern Christians.  Even “high ranking” Christians like a King James only missionary.  

This article was posted on FB by a guy I know of.  We have many mutual friends.  But although many Independent Baptists want to see people get saved, some, like this brother, teach that political involvement is a good thing.  They act like they search the Scriptures, but unfortunately, they end up using the Scriptures no differently than a Catholic looking to prove a doctrine that he already believes.

I don’t want to ruin this man’s ministry and in fact you could even say that I am “For him.”  Nevertheless this article is demonstrably factually incorrect and unbiblical.  That wouldn’t be a big deal except that he is encouraging something Christians are told to stay away from.  “No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.” 2Ti 2:4   (Political involvement is not good for a Christian: even if the author never technically defines what he means)  Using the simple questions from the first big paragraph above, we will show that this brother is wresting the Scriptures to his own destruction.  More importantly, his bad doctrine will hurt other Christians.  For their sake, I write this article.

As usual, my comments are in bold.  

Begin article.

Psalms 33:12 – Blessed [is] the nation whose God [is] the LORD; [and] the people [whom] he hath chosen for his own inheritance. True, but this is 100% not talking about America.  If you believe otherwise than you are like a cannibalistic Catholic seeing his Eucharist in John 6.  It ain’t there, folks.

TRUTH:  For some strange reason, some Christians ‘think’ that it is Biblical for Christians ‘not’ to vote or to be involved in politics?

It is said that millions of Christians will stay home and NOT vote?  It is said that no one really knows if your vote is counted or not.  People don’t like the “deep state” but the “deep state” are the people who are counting your votes…  Why trust them to give an honest tally?  

If you are not active to vote, to help pass laws that promote Godly rule, then you are allowing for bad rulers and poor laws to be passed that hinder worship.  Wouldn’t it be God that allows it?  Or is He somehow not powerful enough to overcome the lack of a few votes?  When you allow the bad to happen then you are part of the bad that you allowed. The mistaken assumption here is that these things will happen against God’s will.  We should think like God and you shouldn’t think that God is up in heaven hoping that more Christians vote so that Christians can not have to live under a “bad ruler”.  

Now, if you allow the bad to be voted in (abortion), then DO NOT complain about the bad that they create.  Assuming that anyone’s vote is ever counted…  After all, you allowed it by staying home and making excuses that the Bible does not support Politics. What the heck does “support Politics” mean???  This is lazy writing, but dumb Christians gobble it up… sad.  

Your whole Bible is political. It contains the following words:  Captains, Commandments, Dukes, Government, Govern, Governors, Nations, Judges, Kings, Kingdoms, King’s Counsellors, Laws, Lawgiver, Princes, principalities, powers, Rule, Rulers, Sceptre, Thrones, and Higher Powers,  This somehow means that we should vote and run for office???

The 2nd coming of God is political.  He will destroy all governments and set up a rule, His Kingdom.  We live BEFORE THE 2ND COMING.  Duh!!!

You can’t speak of politics ‘without’ the Bible.  Didn’t Plato?  There are prophecies of a ‘coming’ kingdom and a ‘coming’ ruler the Anti-Christ and another Ruler who will rule in Righteousness for a 1,000 years.  These prophecies deal with politics and you can’t separate them from your Bible.  This actually proves my point.  These are FUTURE things.  Therefore they don’t apply to daily living for the Christian in 21st Century America.  

If you’ve been taught that politics are not in the Bible, then why did God use Joseph to stand before a King?  What in the world does this have to do with the Church Age?  Plus, look at this deceptive wording.  Who teaches that politics are not in the Bible?  That’s ridiculous.  The point is that Church Age saints shouldn’t involve themselves in politics.  Nice spin tho…

If you’ve been taught that politics are not in the Bible, then why did God use Moses to stand before a King?  What in the world does this have to do with the Church Age?  Do you think Moses should have “involved himself” in Egyptian politics?  Is that what you are saying???

If you’ve been taught that politics are not in the Bible, then why did God use Judges like Samson to fight for a Kingdom?  What in the world does this have to do with the Church Age?

If you’ve been taught that politics are not in the Bible, then why did God use the Prophet Samuel to stand before Kings?  What in the world does this have to do with the Church Age?

If you’ve been taught that politics are not in the Bible, then why did God have books named 1 Kings and 2 Kings?  Because in the OT, God did have his people spend time in the political realm.  How are you a missionary and you don’t know that???

If you’ve been taught that politics are not in the Bible, then why did God use Queen Esther to stand before a King?  What in the world does this have to do with the Church Age?

If you’ve been taught that politics are not in the Bible, then why did God use Mordecai to stand before a King?  What in the world does this have to do with the Church Age?

If you’ve been taught that politics are not in the Bible, then why did God use Daniel to stand before a various Kings?  What in the world does this have to do with the Church Age?

If you’ve been taught that politics are not in the Bible, then why did God use Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to stand before a King?  What in the world does this have to do with the Church Age?  They were eunuchs.  Should we be eunuchs, too?

If you’ve been taught that politics are not in the Bible, then why did God use John The Baptist to preach against the King?  Preaching against a King is not the same as voting or getting involved in politics.  If you think they are the same that you have an intelligence issue…  Plus, I’d like to hear these brothers preach against the sins of Trump.  Not a lot of that coming out of the political Baptists’ camp.  But there’s plenty of sin to talk about if you are honest…

If you’ve been taught that politics are not in the Bible, then why did God use the Apostle Paul to stand before Kings?  Paul also stood before demoniacs.  Does that mean we should get involved with demons?  Have at it, brother…

All through the Bible Israel was a ‘KINGDOM’ that was governed by laws of God for the other nations to witness the Rule of God.  And they lost that kingdom in Lamentations 5:16, “The crown is fallen from our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned!” Don’t you read your Bible?  That kingdom is gone, friend. In fact, in Matt 4 and Luke 4 we see that the Devil himself is in charge of the “kingdoms” at this time.  

We as Christians are supposed to be a nation that exalts God through God’s laws and not just those created by man.  Good luck finding verses that say that, brother.  

Now, it is an election year.  Both parties have a representative of their party that are not worthy of the position that is created by God.  But just as God used FLAWED men in the Books of the Kings, God will use FLAWED men in our nation.  But God somehow is incapable of using Biden?  God can only use Trump?  Come on.  Use your brain.  

Now, get out and vote for the one who is the closest to the Bible.  Ok, then you want us to vote for a third party???  Or a write-in candidate.  I’ve voted for my pastor in the past.   The one who stands with Israel, the Church, the Country, and not for abortion, and sexual perversions.  Trump has no problem with sexual perversion and his record shows it.  He is also Pro-Rome.  He is a horrible person and a horrible candidate.  Vote if you’d like.  There is nothing wrong with it.  Voting won’t change anything though.  God will be able to handle things no matter who sits in the Oval Office.  He’ll take care of you no matter what.  Even if you are an idiot.

End Article.

I’ve heard a lot of ridiculous justifications for political involvement over the years.  This is the most poorly worded and poorly thought out thing I’ve ever read about politics from a supposed Bible Believer.  Turn your brain on.  I know you love your country.  There is nothing wrong with that until it goes too far.  It becomes an entanglement.  What does the Bible say about that? 

No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.” 2Ti 2:4

Do you want to please God or live a comfortable life?  That is the issue.  If you are being biblical, the answer is obvious.

6 thoughts on “Baptist Missionary on Politics: Using The Bible Like a Catholic

  1. The vast bulk of “Christians” are wrapped up in the world. One topic I like to throw in is usury. It’s a sin to accept interest on a loan. Period. That means Christians cannot participate in the economy when it involves usury, and since nearly everything is wrapped up in usury, that puts us in a tough situation. How deep do you take it? Go read scripture about what Christ expects of us. Christians should not be soldiers, lovers of money, or put trust in princes and men. We’re called to chastity, love of God, love of neighbor, and to give expecting nothing in return.

    Most people want to justify worldly living, Republican politics, globalized economics, nuclear missiles, and all the rest. This isn’t Christianity, but is a twisting of scripture to fit their lifestyle and worldly view. The vast bulk of “Christians” are pathetic baptized pagans who don’t follow a word of Christ. This isn’t for us to sort out, but just know that the vast bulk of people are lost and most want to be in hell rather than follow Christ.

    Calling a Catholic a cannibal is insane. You won’t find a single Christian for the first 1000 years who didn’t believe they were eating the true Body & Blood of Christ. Christ promised to be with the church forever, and if every single Christian held a false belief on the Eucharist, this means the church disappeared. You can’t find one branch of Christianity, whether in Egypt, Rome, Asia Minor, Moscow, or Ireland who didn’t hold a belief in the literal Body & Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

    Like

    1. Two things need to be addressed here.

      First, usury is allowed. The rules against usury are for contracts between Jews in the Old Testament. Outside of that, usury is allowed, see Deut 23:20. Are you a Jew? Are you in the Old Testament which ended after the death of Christ (Heb 9:15-20)? I hope that you are honest enough to admit that these regulations aren’t for Gentiles today.

      Second, according to the Roman Church’s own words, Catholics are cannibals. If you eat human flesh, then you are a cannibal. Unless the “eucharist” isn’t real flesh… As far as finding people that didn’t practice the cannibalism of the mass, you need to understand the power that the Papists had. If you rejected the mass, then they killed you. These are facts of history. There were many groups during the Roman Catholic DARK AGES that rejected cannibalism. Out of the Waldensians, Cathars, Albigensians, Lollards, Paulicians, Bogomils, etc there were groups of people that rejected all the heresies of the wicked popes and Satanic Curia of Rome. None of them ran anti-Biblical church states and therefore had their history written by their dishonest persecutors. If you are dishonest enough to torture and kill a “heretic”, then you are dishonest enough to lie about what that heretic believed. History is written by the history writers. Give the devil in Rome his due, he is a good historian….

      Bible Believers reject the blasphemous cannibalism of the mass. “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63. Either you believe the Bible or Pope. Your call. Your eternal destiny hinges on your choice.

      Like

  2. “First, usury is allowed. The rules against usury are for contracts between Jews in the Old Testament. Outside of that, usury is allowed, see Deut 23:20. Are you a Jew?”

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

    Christ came to fulfill the law, not to abolish everything and replace it completely. All Christians believed usury was a sin (i.e. any interest on a loan to anyone is a sin) until the antichrist Renaissance papacy started to allow for usury (Leo X, Alexander VI, Clement VII). Even the reformers were against usury. Martin Luther wrote heavily against usury. To claim they were all wrong is a wild claim since this belief was unanimously held and is still held by Catholics and Protestants. I’m not sure what group you belong to, but it’s truly not Christianity to reject such a basic and widespread teaching. Can you find any example in the first 1500 years where Christians said usury isn’t a sin? I’ve seen nothing but condemnation against usury for the first 1500 years.

    Some Protestants go further and further from the truth each day. If they don’t find explicit condemnation by Christ, that it must be allowed, even if all Christians held unanimous belief for nearly 2000 years. All Protestant women covered their heads until the 1960s per 1 Cor, but today you hear nothing but excuses why women don’t need to cover their heads. All Christians believed you should be married once only, and that second marriages were tolerated at best, but are discouraged. With liberal Protestants, marriage today has become a free-for-all for perversity, and they see no limits to divorce and remarriage.

    With nothing but personal interpretation and excuses, everyone will come up with their own religion and beliefs and things will become more fractured by the day. The Trinity isn’t explicit in scripture, and the anti-trinitarians use scripture to prove their point. Contraception isn’t in scripture. The words of Christ end up becoming whatever you want them to be, hence why there have been hundreds of various heresies and believing all kinds of things about the nature of Christ.

    Usury is a bizarre example, because condemnation against it was unanimous, even among various heretical groups. I’ve never seen one group prior to the Renaissance say usury isn’t a sin.

    Like

    1. Thank you for asking me to respond to your questions and then not reading what I wrote. You have now been selected to be made a public example of a LYING CATHOLIC WHO CAN’T READ. Look for the replies to your ridiculous comments in upcoming blog post.

      Stay tuned! Don’t touch that dial!

      Like

      1. “then not reading what I wrote” which parts? You wrote a great number of various things. I can’t respond to everything. This is a comment section, so I’m not going to write an entire essay to debate all of your points. Writing in caps, “LYING CATHOLIC WHO CAN’T READ” is rude and doesn’t address what I wrote. I’m not sure what points were lies, but feel free to post what you said, then what I said, and explain how it’s a lie. Calling someone names and making assertions is not how to make an argument.

        My comment was regarding usury. I said the entire church until the 1500s regarded interest as a sin. You say usury is not a sin. There’s not one Christian writer for 1500 years who said usury isn’t a sin. I’m only asking you to address this one topic of usury. Instead, you WRITE IN ALL CAPS that I’m a liar, and that you’re going to make a public example of me.

        If you’re going to write a piece on me, you may as well know my position. I believe Vatican II is a false council. Furthermore, I reject much that occurred in the Renaissance, such as probabilism and blind papal obedience, but I have a large list of items that I reject, such as “going through the motions” of indulgences without true amendment of life by following Christ’s commandments. So, if you’re going to attack me, don’t bother attacking a strawman, but instead address what the church taught prior to the Renaissance. I don’t think Francis is pope, I totally reject the Vatican II and Renaissance church as false. Quoting a theologian doesn’t mean anything to me, as that isn’t church teaching.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s