Christians - What do you think of this?

[Jakeiscrazy]

God has appointed our leaders for His purposes, and it is our Christian duty to be obedient wherever that obedience does not conflict with our duty to Him. And our primary duty to Him is to sow the Gospel, in the things we say, in the things we do, and in the way we live. If it serves His purposes for us to keep our guns, He will make it so.

What makes you think God appointed our leaders? Does God appoint all leaders? Did he appoint King George, or furthermore Saddam Hussein? Both of those tyrants claimed to have divine right. Who's to said in the event of a revolution that said leader is not destine by God to lead just such a rebellion? In such a case wouldn't your surrender be disobedience to God?

[Kreutz]

What makes you think God appointed our leaders? Does God appoint all leaders? Did he appoint King George, or furthermore Saddam Hussein? Both of those tyrants claimed to have divine right. Who's to said in the event of a revolution that said leader is not destine by God to lead just such a rebellion? In such a case wouldn't your surrender be disobedience to God?

I'm rusty on this one but God has "appointed" leaders directly, from the good (David, or Cyrus the Great) to the bad (Nebuchadnezzar with the express purpose of smashing by then very insubordinate Israel).

You have to remember the Jews of the time (like everyone else really) had a very deterministic worldview; religion for them really was intertwined with every aspect of life, from your rulers to your harvest to your battlefield success.

[Reverenddel]

Keep in mind that when God is called upon, he has three ways to go with your request:

No, because it's not in your best interest.
Yes in the manner you asked, because it's a reward, and in your best interest.
Yes in the manner he DEEMS, which is in the interest of teaching you a lesson.

I wanted to lose wait, prayed with truth in my heart, got a mild diabetes diagnosis. Lost alotta weight, stopped guzzling sugar, and carbs. Learned my lesson. Be careful for what you pray, and how you phrase it.

I'm reminded of the story of "The Monkey's Paw".

[TheGodfather]

Of all the names Jesus could have used to describe himself to his political leader (Pontius Pilate), He used the word "Truth".

And that's all I've got to say on the matter.

[mamabearCali]

I have to say that if we always obeyed our authority no matter what they did' it was our job to obey we would all be having tea instead of lunch and singing "God save the queen".

W have a social contract here in our country. It is not government by conquest, but instead govt by consent. Or social contract is the constitution. When that contract is violated repeatedly, then it becomes less and less valid. When it is entirely broken me one side has completely unbound itself to its side of the contract the other party is no longer held to it either. A govt that is willing to break the social contract and lie to me on a daily basis has no moral lock on being told the truth.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gunderwood]

What I meant to say was that our primary duty to God, while we are in this life, is to lead others to salvation thru Christ. Or, as Jesus put it, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." and "Love your neighbor as yourself".

In this we agree.

As it relates to your OP, being subservient to the governing authorities, even and perhaps especially in the face of oppression, puts us in a better position to get the attention of the lost, as ironic as that may sound.

An interesting premise, but it ignores the duty of Christians to resist evil. Obedience is required only when the laws are just and the rulers are performing their proper duty as assigned by God. Read Romans 13 or here's a good study on it: http://www.amazon.com/The-Establishment ... B002DMHA56 Or if you would like a more historical perspective on it, this is the sermon John Adams said was critical to the American Revolution: http://www.bluestockingpress.com/mayhews-sermon.htm

The idea that submission is required regardless of the evils of government would require Christians to effectively, although passively, approve of their governments actions. Not to mention the Bible is full of stories where godly characters disobeyed the civil government. I can easily propose the counter premise that standing for what is right and true in the face of government oppression, even if it may cost your life, would put you in a good position to "get the attention of the lost."

Regarding your above query, perhaps the outbreak of taxpayer-funded charity (now known as entitlements) is a result of our failure as Christians to love our neighbor as ourselves. Good people don't like to see others suffer, but most of us want someone else to solve the problem.

The irony here is not lost on me. The push for tax-funded "charity" came from the same group of Christians who thought it was their governments moral duty to stop alcoholism through prohibition. These christian socialists are the ultimate utilitarians, whereby they can justify outright theft of their neighbors property for whatever agenda fits their bill. The reality is that their god is the state and they will twist anything to meet their immoral an unethical desires.

[gfost1]

An interesting premise, but it ignores the duty of Christians to resist evil. Obedience is required only when the laws are just and the rulers are performing their proper duty as assigned by God. Read Romans 13 or here's a good study on it: http://www.amazon.com/The-Establishment ... B002DMHA56 Or if you would like a more historical perspective on it, this is the sermon John Adams said was critical to the American Revolution: http://www.bluestockingpress.com/mayhews-sermon.htm

The idea that submission is required regardless of the evils of government would require Christians to effectively, although passively, approve of their governments actions. Not to mention the Bible is full of stories where godly characters disobeyed the civil government. I can easily propose the counter premise that standing for what is right and true in the face of government oppression, even if it may cost your life, would put you in a good position to "get the attention of the lost."

Howdy,

Having yet to prayerfully consult with Him on the matter, there being more pressing concerns at this time, I am reluctant to press my position further. I would however like to part with some quotes from Adam Clarke's commentary on Romans 13, which may be read in its entirety here: http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... hapter=013

On Verse 1 Mr. Clark comments in part:

Nothing can justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler but overt attempts on his part to change the constitution, or to rule contrary to law. When the ruler acts thus he dissolves the compact between him and his people; his authority is no longer binding, because illegal; and it is illegal because he is acting contrary to the laws of that constitution, according to which, on being raised to the supreme power, he promised to govern. This conduct justifies opposition to his government; but I contend that no personal misconduct in the ruler, no immorality in his own life, while he governs according to law, can justify either rebellion against him or contempt of his authority. For his political conduct he is accountable to his people; for his moral conduct he is accountable to God, his conscience, and the ministers of religion. A king may be a good moral man, and yet a weak, and indeed a bad and dangerous prince. He may be a bad man, and stained with vice in his private life, and yet be a good prince. SAUL was a good moral man, but a bad prince, because he endeavoured to act contrary to the Israelitish constitution: he changed some essential parts of that constitution, as I have elsewhere shown; (see ACC for Ac 13:22;) he was therefore lawfully deposed. James the Second was a good moral man, as far as I can learn, but he was a bad and dangerous prince; he endeavoured to alter, and essentially change the British constitution, both in Church and state, therefore he was lawfully deposed. It would be easy, in running over the list of our own kings, to point out several who were deservedly reputed good kings, who in their private life were very immoral. Bad as they might be in private life, the constitution was in their hands ever considered a sacred deposit, and they faithfully preserved it, and transmitted it unimpaired to their successors; and took care while they held the reins of government to have it impartially and effectually administered.

Thus we are told that while we may rightfully be opposed to a lawless civil government, the deposition of said authority is to be done so lawfully.

In his closing notes on the chapter, Mr. Clark adds:

III. After what I have said in the notes, I need add nothing on the great political question of subordination to the civil powers; and of the propriety and expediency of submitting to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake. I need only observe, that it is in things civil this obedience is enjoined; in things religious, God alone is to be obeyed. Should the civil power attempt to usurp the place of the Almighty, and forge a new creed, or prescribe rites and ceremonies not authorized by the word of God, no Christian is bound to obey. Yet even in this case, as I have already noted, no Christian is authorized to rebel against the civil power; he must bear the persecution, and, if needs be, seal the truth with his blood, and thus become a martyr of the Lord Jesus. This has been the invariable practice of the genuine Church of Christ. They committed their cause to him who judgeth righteously. See farther on this subject on Mt 22:20, &c.

Regards,

George

[sambuh]

Haweraus has a good answer, not directly but sifting through his response you can see what he means... I'm not sure I would agree. The Catholic Church is pretty clear in regards to violence justified and not. I know this isn't a direct response to the question, but an interesting narrative

http://desperatetheologian.wordpress.co ... -hauerwas/

[sambuh]

God has appointed our leaders for His purposes, and it is our Christian duty to be obedient wherever that obedience does not conflict with our duty to Him. And our primary duty to Him is to sow the Gospel, in the things we say, in the things we do, and in the way we live. If it serves His purposes for us to keep our guns, He will make it so.

What makes you think God appointed our leaders? Does God appoint all leaders? Did he appoint King George, or furthermore Saddam Hussein? Both of those tyrants claimed to have divine right. Who's to said in the event of a revolution that said leader is not destine by God to lead just such a rebellion? In such a case wouldn't your surrender be disobedience to God?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. (Romans 13:1-7 ESV)

[mamabearCali]

These people do not rule by divine right, but by consent of the governed. Our founding document is the constitution. In that case i owe my loyalty and my obedience to the constitution, for that is the rule of law in our land. Obedience to an unconstitutional law is rebellion against the rule of law.

I will give taxes I am obliged to. I will give honor where honor is due. What I ill not do is rebel against the law of our land by colluding and appeasing those who wish to illegally usurp our laws.

Now setting all that aside, the right o kep and bear arms is a natural right one which govt may not out asunder and if one tries it, moral people have the responsibility to stand against the usurpation of natural rights, no matter the dictates of tyrannical leaders.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[sambuh]

These people do not rule by divine right, but by consent of the governed. Our founding document is the constitution. In that case i owe my loyalty and my obedience to the constitution, for that is the rule of law in our land. Obedience to an unconstitutional law is rebellion against the rule of law.

I will give taxes I am obliged to. I will give honor where honor is due. What I ill not do is rebel against the law of our land by colluding and appeasing those who wish to illegally usurp our laws.

Now setting all that aside, the right o kep and bear arms is a natural right one which govt may not out asunder and if one tries it, moral people have the responsibility to stand against the usurpation of natural rights, no matter the dictates of tyrannical leaders.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I agree. Well articulated