Is Islam a demonic enemy of Christ and the church? Hinduism? Secular humanism?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Is it the mission of the church to turn enemies into friends by the preaching of the gospel?
Yes.
Is it the posture of Christians to love their enemies, both in word and deed?
Yes.
Does word and deed include Christians working to expose and oppose immorality and applying God’s moral law in various contexts of societal life for the restraint of societal sins?
Yes.
And does this use of the law compliment the mission of the church by showing God’s enemies their sin that they might repent and receive Christ and his righteousness.
Yes.
@Brian_Sauve You remember that time Paul, skilled in murdering people, went to the Areopagus and saw all of the pagan statues and said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious” then burned the entire place to the ground?
Yeah me neither.
@Brian_Sauve You can have rulers with a spine defend against militant Islam who aren’t Christian. History teaches you don’t need to presumptively baptize a nation as Christian to do so. Now let’s look at the scriptural evidence for imposing means other than evangelism on the church: ….
@douglaswils Agreed. Christian nationalism must assume either mass regeneration or mass nominalism. History tells us it ultimately leads to the latter, and then to liberalism, and apostasy.
"As it was not possible that the man who had once for all been conquered, and who had been destroyed through disobedience, could reform himself, and obtain the prize of victory; and as it was also impossible that he could attain to salvation who had fallen under the power of sin — the Son effected both these things, being the Word of God, descending from the Father, becoming incarnate, stooping low, even to death, and consummating the arranged plan of our salvation." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies
@JeffreyPWiesner Have you read his response post from a few days ago?
I’m not disagreeing with your distinction btw (I’m currently tired of hearing knowledge pitted against anything), but I could see why his emphasis would be where it is given the current state of things.
“This is the first lesson, to know the right way to the Kingdom of Heaven: and this consists in knowing the difference between the Law and the Gospel.”
—William Twisse
Remember, it’s teaching false doctrine that is divisive, not exposing it to protect the church’s unity in the truth.
“… watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught” (Rom 16:17).
The most important application in the sermon is always the application of Christ to the heart of a sinner. This doesn't mean we should avoid other kinds of applications, but the sermon as a distinct act within the liturgy isn't about marching orders for life per se. It is The Life Himself being preached into our hearts through the sacramental word. The application of Christ crucified is of the essence of apostolic preaching, and it's what makes our preaching today distinctly "Christian." Without this, we might give a lot of good or pious advice, but we won't raise the dead or nourish the faithful.
I wonder how many people who haven’t been to church in years—or maybe ever—decide to go this Sunday?
What the enemy intended for evil, God meant for good.