Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Hi Keith, I'm a deacon at Eythorne Baptist Church so take a bit of spare time here and there to study Biblical, and non Biblical, stuff to better have a more complete understanding and knowledge of the faith which I profess and the various bits and pieces of odd stuff that people are frequently mislead by and which are used to try and undermine the potential for faith in those who are seeking.
Alexander's group is unknown, as a group, to me. As for the Queen - she is not acknowledged by Anglicanism as the supreme under shepherd of the Church of England (I say under shepherd because the Shepherd is Jesus and He is supreme head of the Anglican Church, as acknowledged by the Anglican Communion, teaching and statement of faith) but is instead its temporal head in matters of the world and politics. In matters spiritual and doctrinal, Anglicanism looks to its Arch Bishops and governing Synod on earth.
Biblically it is clear that all authority on earth is God given, as He is absolutely sovereign in all things. No one gains a position of power, influence or authority without being raised by God and just as He raises them, so He can remove them. The Bible says it better than I do, but Alexander's disrespect of the Queen runs counter to Biblical teaching and the faith which he professes:
Col_1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Tit_3:1 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,
Guest 904- Registered: 21 Mar 2013
- Posts: 312
"Estate of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called the gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families; for a king is truly parens patriae, the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.
Kings are justly calls gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth; for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destroy, make war or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none, to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both soul and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, they have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. They have power to exalt low things and abase high things, and make of their subjects, like men at the chess, -- a pawn to take a bishop or a knight -- and to cry up or down any of their subjects, as they do their money. And to the King is due both the affection of the soul and the service of the body of his subjects. . . .
I would wish you to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of grievances:
First, that you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft: tractent fabrilia fabri, -- to meddle with that were to lessen me. I am now an old king; for six and thirty years have I governed in Scotland personally, and now I have accomplished my apprenticeship of seven years here; and seven years is a great time for a king's experience in government; therefore there should not be too many Phormios to teach Hannibal: I must not be taught my office.
Secondly, I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received them from my predecessors, possessing them more majorum; such things I would be sorry should be accounted for grievances. All novelties are dangerous as well in a politic as in a natural body, and therefore I would be loath to be quarreled in my ancient rights and possessions; for that were to judge my unworthy of that which my predecessors had and left me.
And, lastly, I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by settled law, and whereunto (as you have already had a proof) you know I will never give a plausible answer; for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them."
The causes and reasons for the English Civil War are many and complex, but this speech by James I to Parliament laid the foundations of conflict that came to a head 30 years later.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
James 1's speech the supreme example of an earthly ruler attempting to supplant God's authority on earth - oddly his family was removed from power until they had made themselves a little more humble within a few years. When Nebuchadnezzar indulged himself similarly in Biblical times, he lost his mind and reason for some time and was not restored to power until he acknowledged a greater power, in the God of Daniel, than himself. Earthly rulers NEVER learn even though the lessons are plain and written for all to read.
There is Biblical provision for how one acts in the face of a ruler who so obviously tries to supplant the authority of God with his own and sets himself in place of God. Obedience to God is always the believer's highest priority, even though failure of such obedience is more common than success because the standard is so tough.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Post 161:
an attempt to bully someone into worshiping a mortal person as "head of the Church".
"but Alexander's disrespect of the Queen runs counter to Biblical teaching and the faith which he professes."
Typical commissar approach.
I don't disrespect Mrs. Windsor as a normal person, simply will not be bullied or coerced into worshiping a private family as "spiritual head" of the Church I am a member of.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
no one is asking you to alex.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
most of the above has gone over my head but reading the piece by the james chap it seems a simple case of being power drunk and genuinely believing that he was the right hand man to the almighty.
even in the latter part of the twentieth century i have read of hereditary peers believing they were appointed by god.
Guest 904- Registered: 21 Mar 2013
- Posts: 312
howard mcsweeney1 wrote:it seems a simple case of being power drunk and genuinely believing that he was the right hand man to the almighty.
James I and, to a certain extent, Charles I, represented the most extreme case of ruling by divine right, but for generations previously our monarchs believed they were appointed by God and not subject to the laws of man. It was only the growing awareness of Parliament over the course of the latter 16th and early 17th centuries that it was called in question.
Like most people Howard, you are judging history from a modern perspective, the average person of the time would accept the notion of divine right as well as their place in the pecking order of society....
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Where exactly in post 161 did I say "Alexander, the Queen is Spiritual Head of the Church and you MUST worship her and her alone"?
If you can point me to the bit where I urge you to "Queen Worship" please, then I would acknowledge same and cease to comment.
Equally - where on earth in what I posted did I even say that the Queen was the acknowledged spiritual head of Anglicanism.
Quite simply I DID NOT.
What I said is that the Bible teaches unambiguously that respect should be given to the authorities that God has placed over us and that to refute that that authority existed was to refute Biblical teaching in this regard. As a self professed faithful follower of Christ, it is not meet to refute what Christ Himself taught with regard to earthly rulers and authorities.
Howard, James I tried to set himself in place of God on earth and used a rather self serving interpretation of scripture to justify his over exalted sense of self. He and his family soon had their authority removed and tempered as a result.
Guest 756- Registered: 6 Jun 2012
- Posts: 727
Thank you for your clear and concise replies Neil. Better still, they are non-judgemental.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, if you wish to believe the queen rules by divine right, you are free to continue doing so.
However, I don't believe the queen rules by divine right, and yet this is not disrespect towards a private family.
Not to revere a private person as being above other people does not mean being disrespectful towards that person.
In fact, I recognise elected people as holding the post to which they have been elected for a set period of time, and don't acknowledge non-elected people as head of Church or State.
As for divine right of God, I doubt you are in the position of God to decide who God has decided to place or not to place in any position of authority in England.
Perhaps you think you know, but perhaps God thinks otherwise.
So you cannot be speaking for God on that one!
As far as I'm concerned, the Windsors are celebrities, promoted by the media and the Establishemnt. Not by divine right.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
with all due respect may i suggest that you re-read paragraph 2 of post 161 before you make wild allegations against fellow members?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I'm not making any wild allegations against fellow members, Howard.
I'm defending my own Christian Faith.
I don't have to be told that I am being disrespectful towards a person by not recognising them as my head or as the head of the Church to which I belong.
Neil's paragraph was about me.
I have the right to practice the Christian Faith without having wild allegations made against me.
If they are made, I have the right to defend myself.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Neil
could I thank you for the clear answer and correcting alexander,
I think we share the same view as regards the Queen.
What you have said, I have been saying since post 1
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Fair enough, Keith, there seems to be a misunderstanding whether the queen is the head of the Church of England, or what title she holds there.
The only correction I was interested in is that by considering all people equal in regards to human stature before God, I am not being disrespectful. Because that really is a wild allegation.
Under English Law I have the right to defend myself against allegations.
It is also good to know, Keith, that you have realised and acknowledged that I am a member of the English Church.
Thank you!
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
All people are, before the throne of God, equal and I did not say any different Alexander. However, here on earth, God, in his absolute sovereignty, grants to some, authority over others and instructs all to respect the authority that He has granted.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Of-course I understand what you are stating here, Neil.
However, I believe in the democratic election of people for set and limited periods of time.
On campaigning for election, a person can state their points ant their cause.
A hereditary non-elected mortal person, on accepting their role, puts themselves in the firing line.
So, what happens if a person is convinced, and believes, that a non-elected person is not by divine right holder of a title, or of titles, that are attributed to them?
Where does it state that God has granted the house of Windsor authority over other people?
Suppose God has decided to change things, and take this authority away?
Can anyone prove the opposite? And if so, with whose authority?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Let's suppose, Neil, I had a vision in which I saw that the queen is not acknowledged in High as the head of British institutions.
If so, then I am content and satisfied with my stance, and shall not change it.
After all, it comes from High!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
In post 161, Neil wrote:
"As for the Queen - she is not acknowledged by Anglicanism as the supreme under shepherd of the Church of England"
and further:
"but is instead its temporal head in matters of the world and politics."
The official website of the British monarchy states:
"The Sovereign holds the title 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'."
And also:
"In his or her coronation oath, the Sovereign promises to maintain the Church."
Neil also states that the queen has this position by divine right.
I dispute this!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I think alexander Neil has confirmed it all for me,
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
That's fine with me, Keith.
I'll go back to my English Church.
Usually I release information about the English Church on my website, and that's where it belongs.
I'll keep to that