Forgiving someone of their offense and not allowing your self to be in a position for them to continue that offense is two different things.

If I loan someone money and they don't repay it should I "loan" to them again or just give it to them since they won't pay it back? If someone hits me should I stick around them so they can hit me again?

I think that the verse 1Tim 6:5 applies here also.

The supreme court abuses their constutional authority and the lawmakers, (congress), our voice in government allow it.

Thomas Jefferson also had a lot to say on this matter. He saw a problem with the Judicary system as early as 1820.


A subtle corps of sappers and miners

----- To T. Ritchie, 1820

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a coordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet . . . We shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately taken. If they do, then . . . I will say, that "against this every man should raise his voice," and more, should uplift his arm . . .

Having found, from experience that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scarecrow, they consider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to public opinion . . . An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous„and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge, who sophisticates the law to his mind, by the turn of his own reasoning . . .

A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.


A usurping judiciary will become a despotism

----- To Jarvis, 1820

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ainpliare jurisdictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in once for life . . . The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

If the Federal judiciary is not checked, it will destroy democracy.

----- To C. Hammond, 1821

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression (although I do not choose to put it into a newspaper, nor, like a Priam in armor, offer myself its champion), that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government or another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. It will be as in Europe, where every man must be either pike or gudgeon, hammer or anvil. Our functionaries and theirs are wares from the same workshop; made of the same materials, and by the same hand. If the States look with apathy on this silent descent of their government into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron, and the blasphemers of man, as incapable of self-government, become his true historians.

Sinister procedure of the Supreme Court

----- To Pleasants, 1821

Another most condemnable practice of the Supreme Court to be corrected is that of cooking up a decision in caucus and delivering it by one of their members as the opinion of the court, without the possibility of our knowing how many, who, and for what reasons each member concurred. This completely defeats the possibility of impeachment by smothering evidence. A regard for character in each being now the only hold we can have of them, we should hold fast to it. They would, were they to give their opinions seriatim and publicly, endeavor to justify themselves to the world by explaining the reasons which led to their opinion.

To curb Federal judges, they should be appointed every six years

----- To Pleasants, 1821

[For the] difficult task in curbing the Judiciary in their enterprises on the Constitution . . . the best [remedy] I can devise would be to give future ommissions to judges for six years [the Senatorial term] with a re-appointmentability by the president with the approbation of both houses. If this would not be independence enough, I know not what would be . . .

The Judiciary perversions of the Constitution will forever be protected under the pretext of errors of judgment, which by principle are exempt from punishment. Impeachment therefore is a bugbear which they fear not at all. But they would be under some awe of the canvas of their conduct which would be open to both houses regularly every sixth year. It is a misnomer to call a government republican, in which a branch of the supreme power is independent of the nation.

----- To W. T. Barry, 1822

If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reformation and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable. Before the canker is become inveterate, before its venom has reached so much of the body politic as to get beyond control, remedy should be applied. Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years, and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct, at regular periods, under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipose between the general and special governments. We have erred in this point, by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both legislative Houses. That there should be public functionaries independent of the nation, whatever may be their demerit, is a solecism in a republic, of the first order of absurdity and inconsistency.

Since we are on the topic of Thomas Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptist Association let us look at the entire letter.  It is a preliminary draft of this letter. The portion that is italicised and in parathensis was omitted from the final draft because he did not want to "offend" his fellow party. It gives a more accurate account of what his intentions were in regards to the "wall of seperation".

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Are we not told in 1Tim 6:5 tp withdraw from those that are not of the brethern?

1Ti 6:5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.


If they are destitiute of the truth they are not brethern although they may portend to be.

Amen, JN.

Coming from the middle of corn country I have heard corn grow. I never thought of the relationship there to Christians growing. An excellant observation.

Thank you, Mike for your service to this country. It is due to people such as yourself that allows us to continue to be free to worship as we want. To support you and your family in prayer is the very least that I can do.



 

That depends upon what you are opening your mind to.

Welcome to the forum, Mike.

My prayers for your cousin, you and all the rest of her family. This is a tough thing to endure. I have added all of you to my daily prayer list.

I am in the central Illinois area. Forgive me for not giving more definite location than that, it is not wise for anyone to do so.

BTW I noticed that you have a .mil email address. Are you active duty or civil service?

Amen, Cris.

I think that Mat 5:44-48 applies here. We are taught to pray for our enemies. Does it do any good? That is up to them and the Lord. At least it does us good to pray for them. It keeps us from allowing hate to enter in so that we do not become hard hearted. It keeps us right with God in our hearts.

I'm wondering WWJD?  I seem to think He would rebuke them and walk away.

When Jesus was in the flesh, He did just that. He rebuked those that would not listen to Him (John 8 as one example) and left them knowing that He would deal with them much later in the end.

Is there scriptural evidence of such in the New Testament?

Are we to base everything on the New testament alone and throw away the Old Testament?

Read my other two posts above for an answer to this question. It lists New Testament verses also.

Your answer is in the verses prior to the one you gave.

1Pe 2:13  Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14  Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
1Pe 2:15  For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
1Pe 2:16  As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

Why are you directing these questions to me in particular? Is it because you have read something that I have posted that you disagree with?

I am familiar with the story of Kings Saul and David, what is your point?

Hi johhar,

Welcome to the forum.

Click on page one or page two of the thread then go to the bottom of the page that comes up. You will see a "pages" line just below the last post of that page. Click on the next number for that thread and it will take you to the next page of the same thread. The next button will only take you to the next thread.

I came across this Bible study this morning on this very subject. This is aimed primarily toward the unsaved but it is also applicable toward us that are.


IT’S YOUR ATTITUDE

By Cornelius R. Stam

Many people fear that they will never reach heaven.
Some try not to think about it, while others struggle to "be
good," hoping that they will finally "make it." Very few,
comparatively, are sure of heaven.
The real pity is that so few understand what it is that
keeps people out of heaven. If you are confused about this,
just remember that according to Scripture, it is not one’s
sins that keep him out of heaven, but his attitude.
God has made full provision for our sins. "Christ died for
our sins" (I Cor. 15:3) and "we have redemption through His
blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His
grace" (Eph. 1:7).
But God has made no provision for a self-righteous at-
titude. He gave the Law "that every mouth may be stopped
and that all the world may be brought in guilty before God"
(Rom. 3:19). Thus He does not want you to keep saying
things in your own defense. In fact, before you can know
God as your Savior, you must recognize Him as your Judge,
righteously condemning you as a sinner.
Often, when capital crimes are involved, the defendant’s
attorney will tell him: "It will be to your advantage to plead
guilty and to throw yourself on the mercy of the court."
This is especially true of us as sinners in the sight of a
holy God. If we will only plead guilty and cast ourselves
upon His mercy we will find Him more than gracious, for
He has already paid the penalty for our sins Himself.
Yes, unsaved friend, it will be to your eternal advantage
to plead guilty before God and to cast yourself upon His
mercy, "for the wages of sin is death, but THE GIFT OF
GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST
OUR LORD" (Rom. 6:23).

part two

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Complete pacifism is a non biblical position. Although being able to appeal to superficial arguments of conscience and quote the odd verse out of content - the whole spirit and thrust of pacifism is anti Christian. Pacifists may be sincere - but they are sincerely wrong.
A Christian, by definition, must be active - with his or her sleeves rolled up, being willing to get his hands dirty protecting the innocent, defending the defenceless and saving lives from unprovoked aggression. Christian love is not mere words and sentiments. True love shows itself in action. (1 John 3:18). If all Christians refuse to fight then it will leave the battle fields in the hands of men without a conscience.

Pacifism finds it's rots in HUMANISM. Despite some impressive but superficial Christian pretension, pacifism is humanism. In common with humanism, pacifism shares a false idea of man. It sees man as basically good. To the pacifist all people are just too good to kill. Neither rapists, murderers nor terrorists deserve to be stopped, in the view of the pacifist.
In contrast to this notion of people being basically good, the Bible teaches us that the heart of man is desperately wicked and deceitful;that they are quick to hurt and kill; they leave ruin and destruction wherever they go... everyone has sinned and is far away from God's saving presence. (Romans 3:15,23) Pacifists often display more concern for the aggressor than for the defender, more sympathy for the criminal than for his victim.

Our Lord Jesus may have been meek but He was never mild! His teaching was powerful, dynamic, direct and uncompromising. This tough carpenter from Nazareth was able to survive forty days fasting in the desert and forty lashes from the brutal Roman whip. He could walk hundreds of kilometers in the blazing heat of Palestine's inhospitable terrain and He could walk through a murderous mob with such a presence that no-one dared stop Him (Luke 4:28-30).
When Jesus saw how corrupt men were desecrating the temple with their money-grabbing greed, He made a whip, overturned their tables and drove them forcibly from God's House (Matthew 21:12-13).

Jesus told His disciples, "Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

When Jesus returns to this world it will be as the conquering King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Bible teaches us that the first time Jesus came as a Saviour - and all who turn from their sin and trust in Christ, following Him in obedience, are saved. But when Jesus comes again it will be as Judge - and all who have not repented and obeyed will be condemned and eternally punished. The Scripture warns us that when Jesus returns He will annihilate the forces of the false church and the Antichrist. We are told that rivers of blood will flow from the carnage of mankind's rebellion against Christ (Revelation 14:19-20).

"....... and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (Revelation 19:11,15,16).

Pacifism also has an unrealistic view of society. The reality of this world is that it is a fallen world, inhabited by sinful mankind in rebellion against the Creator. Idealistic fantasies about a world of peace and Utopia without war are cruelly false and dangerously deceptive. In the Bible we are warned that those who say 'Peace! Peace!' when there is no peace are 'loathsome' false prophets (Jeremiah 6:!4; 8:11). Jesus warned us that 'wars and revolutions' would increase (Matthew 24:6,7; Luke 21:9,10). We are warned in the scriptures that 'While people are saying 'Peace and Safety', destruction will come on them suddenly.' (I Thessalonians 5:3)

'PEACE' seems to be the modern equivalent of Baal worship. There is an irrational worship of peace. This selfish materialistic age has made an idol out of peace. 'Peace at any price' inevitably leads to tyranny and destruction - the peace of a graveyard.

People say that war is hell - but often peace is worse. More people died in the peace following the revolution in CAMBODIA than died in the entire war before it. Three-milion Cambodians (40% of the population) were slaughtered by Pol Pot's Marxist Khmer Rouge in the 'peace' following 1975. In fact, more people have been tortured, maimed and massacred in times of peace than in times of war during the last century!

Have we become so soft, decadent and self-seeking that we are no longer willing to risk our lives for anything? Is nothing worth fighting for? Do we have nothing worth defending? Do we care so little for others that we're unwilling to risk anything for their protection? Are we so engrossed in watching videos, in 'wine, women and song' that we can no longer tell the difference between right and wrong? Or don't we even care?

For centuries Christians have believed that there were worse things than war. For our ancestors death in battle was not the worst thing that could happen to them. An eternity in hell was. They did not fear death. They feared God. They realised that death for the Christian is not fatal. They had a clear belief in eternal life. Principles were more important then personal safety. Duty, honor, country, family and God meant more to them than selfish desires for peace and safety. And thank God for that because the faith and freedoms we enjoy were won and preserved by their blood, sweat and sacrifices.

The wise Christian does not seek to selfishly avoid the problems of this world, but courageously steps out in faith to be part of the solution. We should recognize that sinful man needs to be restrained by laws and by force, that liberty needs to be defended, that our freedoms came through, and often need to be maintained by hard fighting.

If all Christians became pacifists, would all non-Christians also become pacifists?
Not likely.

It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism - while the wolf remains of a different opinion. The Bible declares: 'Blessed are the peacemakers' - Matthew 5:9. NOT blessed are the pacifists! You have to make peace. It takes action. For the pacifists hoping for worldwide peace - Jesus said: 'Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.' (Matthew 10:34)