Christian Trump event left evangelical pastor 'absolutely terrified and horrified'

In a way I’ve tried to avoid it. For all the questions it answers, it raises questions anew. Challenging questions.

But I have never been more certain of anything than that Jesus and his disciples prophesied his return within the lifetimes of their hearers, well within the confines of the First Century.

Still grappling with the implications ...

 

And exactly why I don't have a problem worshipping with those with different political backgrounds.

What always got weird for me is when people start mixing faith and politics, you can't be a true Christian and support candidate A, B, or C. Of course, with Trump as a candidate, I found out that I do have that seem position as they did, just that my line was in a different place than theirs. It has been an interesting 6 years.

 

My take is that “render unto Caesar” does not entail voting for him or any alternative Caesar.

 

Indeed, scripture must be interpreted by other scripture. Hence we have Luke 22:36, which shows Jesus did encourage people to have swords. A person who carries a sword will only carry that sword if they know there exists a circumstance where they would use it. Ipso facto, your interpretation of the Garden of Gethsemane is incorrect. Peter was rebuked because that was not the right instance for the use of a sword. And Jesus had already told the disciples that He was to be crucified. He went to the cross willingly, and Peter was opposing the will of the Father.

There is ample New Testament evidence that Jesus considered Moses and the Torah to be authoritative scripture. Exodus 22:2-3 provides further evidence that some instances of self-defense are justified while others are not. And Jesus having been well learned in the Torah probably encouraged people to buy swords because he knew there were instances where self-defense is justified.

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" carries with it the duty to protect life wherever and whenever we can. Self-defense is part of that. Preserving our own lives is part of that. And not all self-defense necessarily leads to death. But self-defense is done with a weapon such as a sword or a gun.

Turn the other cheek from the Sermon on the Mount is about revenge for wrongs committed against us. It is a posture of mercy, grace, and love towards people who have sinned against us. It does not overthrow and supplant the duties involved with preserving our own lives and the lives of others that stem from the 10 commandments.

 

I always considered that a command few obey, or should in most cases.

 

One can conclude from the post that you were in the bathroom.

 

"Willingly"? I don't think that is the correct word to describe the situation.
_____________
Matthew 26:39 - And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”

Matthew 26:42 - Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.”
________________

In obedience to what he discerned to be the will of the Father he was praying.

 

What does ‘render unto Caesar’ entail ?

“Oh, you no, pay taxes, obey laws, otherwise proclaim and live for the Christ.”

So, no need to vote ?

“Aaaah! Are you kidding ??? Everything would break loose if we didn’t vote!!!”

 

Was he arrested or convicted?
Was he ever proven guilty of your ignorant claim?

 

Did I ever say anything different? No I didn't

 

I agree , self defense is justifiable when a person is attacked or in threat of a hostile person intent on doing harm. The commandment you cited, however is more correctly translated as 'Thou shall not murder. An entirely different situation.

 

Did I accuse you of such? I was just using your point to build on mine.

 

Agree. I think Jesus is showing his indifference to such trivial things.

 

Catholic theology recognizes the concept of "scandal"

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines scandal as “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death.” Our Lord militates against scandal, and even ties a curse to those who promote it: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt 18:6).
Scandal (theology)

 

But you do vote. My recollection is DL posting he did not vote.

 

I think it is both.

By saying "Not my will, but thine" He showed a willingness.

By praying to "let this cup pass" He is seeking an alternative.

My son will sometimes beg, "Dad, can I have 5 more minutes of video games" but is willing to put them away when the answer stays "no".

Its certainly a complex prayer in that garden, but one of sacrificial willingness in the end.

 

Sorry I misinterpreted what you wrote.

 

Which brings an interesting subject - murder is defined by the laws of man and can vary from society to society.

 

I used to read the King James, and so sometimes I unintentionally default to the King James rendering of that commandment. I actually view the King James rendering as an unfortunate choice of a word that has created a lot of confusion, and I agree with you here that the best word choice in the English language is murder, not kill.

I take the position that the civil case law throughout the Torah, which is grounded in the 10 commandments, shows a very expansive understanding of what it means to not murder. Putting down an animal that attacks a human is one example of this. Protecting your property so people are safe (i.e. building a fence on your roof in that time period). Basically, it entails the responsibility to protect our own lives and the lives of others. And it can be broken by both acts of omission or acts of commission.

The Westminster Larger Catechism has a very robust section that sweeps the entirety of scripture and details the myriad of ways each of the 10 commandments can be broken by both acts of omission and acts of commission. Even if you don't totally agree with the framework, they are approaching it with, it can be a very convicting read for someone who has never read it before. The 1st commandment starts at question 103. The 6th commandment starts at question 134. The 9th commandment is one of the most convicting parts in my opinion.

I don't view Catechisms the same way a Roman Catholic would. The only authority they possess is derived from where they agree with scripture. Where they disagree with scripture, they have no authority. Nonetheless, if you look back in the past, there are many incredibly wise teachers who had spiritual gifts that still edify the body of Christ years after they have departed from this world to be with the Lord.

 

Might the sword be a metaphor?