A Wake Up Call - God is Speaking to Us

[OBW]

Igzy,

I think that cynic is not the right term, but it is not far off. I am skeptical. Not in a "debunking" way, but in a "show me why it is so" kind of way. There is plenty of proof for a lot.

Originally Posted by Igzy

My feeling about the whole matter is this:

Originally Posted by Igzy

If what it takes to get people to pray is for someone to compare us to Israel and cajole us into believing we'll get a blessing much like we'd get if we had a contract with God like Israel and lived up to it--then I say more power to him.

The fact is if you obey God you will be blessed in many ways.

This is generally true. And it is the people who obey God who receive this benefit. And obedience starts with belief. Now blessing on the believers may spill over to those around them. That is a wonderful position to be in as a non-believer — getting some overflow of the blessings God is bestowing on His people.

And I agree that sometimes it is like when Paul referred to those who were preaching the gospel for the purpose of making the authorities angry and taking it out on Paul (who they had in prison). As Paul said, the gospel got preached.

My concerns (and skepticism) are not pointed at We the Believers waking up from our slumber and complacency and repenting and praying like we always should. It is at an overlay of belief that causes the repentance to be for the sins of others and the prayer to be perpetually aimed at problems others are having.

Surely we are to pray for others and for their problems. But that is not the primary thrust of our prayer and repentance. The primary thrust should be related to our worship of God, to prayer for his will and kingdom, for our needs, in repentance for our errors in conjunction with our forgiveness of those who have wronged us, and our prayer for deliverance from evil and temptation. Sounds somehow familiar.

And it does not include a prayer of repentance for errors that are not ours.

We each spent some of our lives engaged with a system that insisted that everything that was outside of their version of "truth" was a waste of time. Throwing that off is not simply accepting that nothing is a waste of time or a misdirection. If we are encouraged to truly follow a different error, then we become lead by someone building with wood hay and stubble. If my assessment of the thrust of this whole thing is correct, Cahn is building with those poor materials. Now we are not the builders but the building. The "tried by fire" problem will be his. But that does not mean that we should not see the error and turn back to the truth.

The truth is about us believing in and obeying Christ. The result in this life is the fulfillment of the righteousness of the law. That righteous fulfillment is not in a nation, but in His people. Everywhere. We are here thinking that we need to pray some blessing back upon the nation. What about all those poor Christians who don't live in America? What is their lot in life? To be sojourners in a "foreign" land, looking for that city whose builder is God. And that city is not America.

All of our energies dwelling on the history of chapels and addresses is an effort in myths and genealogies. It does not result in God's economy, but in disputes. The answer is not to teach God's economy, but to teach what was taught by Jesus, none of which even hinted at this kind of emphasis in mental, physical, and/or spiritual energies on obtaining a blessing for a secular nation.

But you are right. This is enough. You complain that I push back at what has been put forward. I think I have just as legitimate a complaint that it was ever put forward. So the answer is to just let it go? To step aside and let nonsense continue because someone got their feelings hurt?

Someone gets their feelings hurt every time there is a significant difference of opinion about any of the issues discussed here. That is not the basis for silence.

But I have said enough. If there are no ears to hear, then so be it.

I can assure you that there are many Christians outside of this nation that absolutely do not want to see us get what this effort seeks. It means a renewed sense of national pride leading our efforts to Americanize the rest of the world, including their Christian experience. Just like Lee set out to make Christianity in America (and the rest of the world) look like what they created in China. Fortunately he failed. For our sakes, I hope this effort does as well.

Not that we don't return to regular repentance and regular prayer. Even habitual prayer and willful repentance at set times. That is a must.

But I need to repent for me. My errors are not about America. How I live out this life that is now within me is my desperate need. Whether the laws of America allow prayer in public schools has nothing to do with it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Igzy,

I think that cynic is not the right term, but it is not far off. I am skeptical. Not in a "debunking" way, but in a "show me why it is so" kind of way. There is plenty of proof for a lot.
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]This is generally true. And it is the people who obey God who receive this benefit. And obedience starts with belief. Now blessing on the believers may spill over to those around them. That is a wonderful position to be in as a non-believer — getting some overflow of the blessings God is bestowing on His people.

And I agree that sometimes it is like when Paul referred to those who were preaching the gospel for the purpose of making the authorities angry and taking it out on Paul (who they had in prison). As Paul said, the gospel got preached.

My concerns (and skepticism) are not pointed at We the Believers waking up from our slumber and complacency and repenting and praying like we always should. It is at an overlay of belief that causes the repentance to be for the sins of others and the prayer to be perpetually aimed at problems others are having.

Surely we are to pray for others and for their problems. But that is not the primary thrust of our prayer and repentance. The primary thrust should be related to our worship of God, to prayer for his will and kingdom, for our needs, in repentance for our errors in conjunction with our forgiveness of those who have wronged us, and our prayer for deliverance from evil and temptation. Sounds somehow familiar.

And it does not include a prayer of repentance for errors that are not ours.

Do you agree with the teaching that Christians are going to rule over cities in the next age?

If you do agree then do you agree that Christians are being trained to rule in this age?

One other question, what part of "of the people, by the people and for the people" exonerates you from being responsible?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do you agree with the teaching that Christians are going to rule over cities in the next age?

If you do agree then do you agree that Christians are being trained to rule in this age?

One other question, what part of "of the people, by the people and for the people" exonerates you from being responsible?

I agree that there is an aspect of ruling in the next age. Or at least something that is best described as such.

But there is nothing in what I can read in scripture that indicates that our "efforts" here on earth are designed to train us for the age to come in that manner. I do not agree that we are simply being trained to "rule," especially in this age. In fact, I find plenty to tell me that we are not here for this world, to rule it or otherwise, other than to be salt and light, not movers and shakers.

As for the general statement that the government of the US is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" I do not find that I am responsible, but rather invited to participate. And even to the extent that I might take on responsibility with respect to some part of it, that does not make the "spiritual" aspect of that part my "responsibility" outside of my own personal exercise of spirituality.

Phrasing your argument as you did might work on the simpleminded. But it presupposes that Christians in America are being groomed to rule over cities. I guess all the rest of the poor Christian schmucks in the world are being groomed to rule over hovels and cattle stalls. They surely will never get the opportunity to be part of "of, by, and for the people," therefore lacking in training for ruling a city.

Or is it the character of those who will eventually rule rather than training in ruling that matters?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I agree that there is an aspect of ruling in the next age. Or at least something that is best described as such.

But there is nothing in what I can read in scripture that indicates that our "efforts" here on earth are designed to train us for the age to come in that manner. I do not agree that we are simply being trained to "rule," especially in this age. In fact, I find plenty to tell me that we are not here for this world, to rule it or otherwise, other than to be salt and light, not movers and shakers.

As for the general statement that the government of the US is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" I do not find that I am responsible, but rather invited to participate. And even to the extent that I might take on responsibility with respect to some part of it, that does not make the "spiritual" aspect of that part my "responsibility" outside of my own personal exercise of spirituality.

Phrasing your argument as you did might work on the simpleminded. But it presupposes that Christians in America are being groomed to rule over cities. I guess all the rest of the poor Christian schmucks in the world are being groomed to rule over hovels and cattle stalls. They surely will never get the opportunity to be part of "of, by, and for the people," therefore lacking in training for ruling a city.

Or is it the character of those who will eventually rule rather than training in ruling that matters?

Fair enough, in this age Christians are supposed to be Light and Salt, let's work with that.

I thought Cahn's message was both light and salt.

Please explain why it you thought it wasn't.

The United States has a constitution which explains how laws are made in this country. For 7 men to short circuit that and say that one of the inalienable rights mentioned in the constitution is the right to kill your baby and keep that private is outrageous. There is no "right to an abortion" in the constitution. Why isn't shining a light on this considered "light"?

Salt kills germs. Isn't creeping fornication a germ? Isn't a society that exterminates 50 billion babies a "germ". Why shouldn't a word against this be considered "salt"?

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Salt kills germs. Isn't creeping fornication a germ? Isn't a society that exterminates 50 billion babies a "germ". Why shouldn't a word against this be considered "salt"?

That wasn't the only part of his message but OK...how would YOU write the laws against fornication and abortion? Please give us something concrete to work with!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

It is cut and dry. There is no constitutional protection for abortion. Therefore the constitution is very clear, this is a matter for the States to decide. Each state should pass their own law. The Supreme court is not a legislative body, and the idea that abortion is protected by the constitution as a right to privacy is as ugly a lie as you could dredge up from the pit of hell.

Every state already has laws in place. If Roe ever were overturned, then all these state laws would once again be in effect.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I thought Cahn's message was both light and salt.

Please explain why it you thought it wasn't.

It doesn't qualify because it is not for the world, but for the church. But as such it is misdirecting us toward something that doesn't exist. It is aimed at eliminating certain sins from the public so that America can once again be blessed. (I disagree that the kind of position of being blessed ever existed, but that is his position.)

Salt and light is about us being God's image on the earth. Whether America is what Cahn thinks it ought to be, or is more like China in the darkest days of Communism, or Iran right now is totally irrelevant to us being salt and light.

If there is a need to repent and pray, it is for us to repent and pray concerning ourselves. We cannot repent for others or pray them into righteousness any more than we can pray them out of a Catholic purgatory. We can pray that the Spirit will work on people to open their eyes.

But if our goal is a blessed America, then it is a misguided goal. It makes America an idol. The idea seems so appealing. But it is making the improvement of our natural lives the center of our call to pray. If we get moved to pray beyond our own pitiful state, we should be praying for our willingness to live the justice that is commanded of us.

Instead, we are putting our prayer and efforts into fighting the sins of the world like abortions, gay marriage, etc. As I have said before, we are happy to suggest in song that they can come to God "Just as I Am" but we are otherwise going to insist that they straighten up or go to jail.

Now that is a position that exemplifies the Christianity that is demanding the return of the "Christian nation." It is not the Christianity that I believe we are called to by God and his Word.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

It doesn't qualify because it is not for the world, but for the church.

What? When the Lord said "let your light shine" that was for the church and not for the world? When He said to the disciples "you are a light set on a hill" that was for the church to see not the world? Likewise with the salt? You appear to have a completely different Bible from me. Did I misunderstand? Did you misspeak? Please explain.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

If there is a need to repent and pray, it is for us to repent and pray concerning ourselves. We cannot repent for others or pray them into righteousness any more than we can pray them out of a Catholic purgatory. We can pray that the Spirit will work on people to open their eyes.

You can't have it both ways. If you want the US to be a free democracy with a government by the people, for the people and of the people. Then the people must bear responsibility for that government and those laws. You and I are responsible for the laws of this land. Now, if like Ghandi you were light and salt you are not responsible for the actions of British imperialism. You are responsible for your response to those actions.

I have never suggested. nor did Cahn, that we are to repent on behalf of the director of Planned Parenthood. You have created this pathetic little straw man.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

My concerns (and skepticism) are not pointed at We the Believers waking up from our slumber and complacency and repenting and praying like we always should. It is at an overlay of belief that causes the repentance to be for the sins of others and the prayer to be perpetually aimed at problems others are having.

Surely we are to pray for others and for their problems. But that is not the primary thrust of our prayer and repentance. The primary thrust should be related to our worship of God, to prayer for his will and kingdom, for our needs, in repentance for our errors in conjunction with our forgiveness of those who have wronged us, and our prayer for deliverance from evil and temptation. Sounds somehow familiar.

I can't take on your whole post because I don't have time. But I do want to take issue with this because to me its exemplary of what to me seems an error you make sometimes.

I guess I would call it an error of categorization--calling something one thing for the sake of argument when it could just as easily been called something else. In this case you are categorizing prayer for others as some kind of penance in their name.

I do not see that our prays for others and their repentance is a secondary type of prayer, even if they seem to include this kind of proxy repentance. To me praying that God's kingdom come and praying for repentance in others are very much the same thing. Where is God's kingdom to come but in the hearts of people? Angels streaming from heaven in glory with the Son of Man is the ultimate result of the the kingdom coming. But I think when Jesus said pray that God's kingdom come he wasn't talking about that, he was talking about the hearts of people repenting and submitting to God.

Now if you meant that our prayers are no ultimate substitute for the repentance of others, I agree. But at the same time an attitude of heartbreak and prayer because of the sins of others is not a bad thing. In fact, the Bible depicts this as a practice of Job.

'When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would send and have [his children] purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, "Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts." This was Job's regular custom.' Job 1:5

But, again, I think your attitude toward prayer is a little wrongheaded. I think praying for people and their problems (their problems of sin) is top shelf stuff. Otherwise, what do you mean by "your kingdom come?" Angels streaming in glory? That sounds a little like the LRC spiritualized indifference you often decry.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

The truth is about us believing in and obeying Christ. The result in this life is the fulfillment of the righteousness of the law. That righteous fulfillment is not in a nation, but in His people. Everywhere. We are here thinking that we need to pray some blessing back upon the nation. What about all those poor Christians who don't live in America? What is their lot in life? To be sojourners in a "foreign" land, looking for that city whose builder is God. And that city is not America.

I just found some more time

I agree with this. God is not a respecter of people. He could just as easily use any other nation, group or individual. Whoever will may come.

Yet... the fact is it does happen in some places, groups or individuals... and not others. And when it does, God calls those involved... chosen.

So saying the USA is chosen is no different than saying the LRC is chosen. It depends on what you mean by it. On the one hand, whoever will may come. On the other hand, some do and some don't. And God says the one who do come are chosen. What does that mean? I like to think it means glory to God.

But if you come and then become lazy and corrupt again and then rest on your "chosen-ness," let alone your "uniqueness" () then that is folly and hubris. That's what the LRC did and that's what the USA has done.

It's an honor to be chosen by God, but that doesn't justify an attitude of arrogant entitlement.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

But you are right. This is enough. You complain that I push back at what has been put forward. I think I have just as legitimate a complaint that it was ever put forward. So the answer is to just let it go? To step aside and let nonsense continue because someone got their feelings hurt?

Someone gets their feelings hurt every time there is a significant difference of opinion about any of the issues discussed here. That is not the basis for silence.

But I have said enough. If there are no ears to hear, then so be it.

You just keep pushing back. That's okay. And I'll keep telling you when I think you are being too academic. Deal?

Originally Posted by OBW

I can assure you that there are many Christians outside of this nation that absolutely do not want to see us get what this effort seeks. It means a renewed sense of national pride leading our efforts to Americanize the rest of the world, including their Christian experience. Just like Lee set out to make Christianity in America (and the rest of the world) look like what they created in China. Fortunately he failed. For our sakes, I hope this effort does as well.

I disagree with your assertion that God has no words for nations as wholes. The OT is full of them.

I think you heard something he didn't say. I just see a man trying to speak to a nation as a nation about Biblical principles. I don't see a man trying to stir up nationalism.