Help w/ Romans 13

[Guest jckduboise]

This is the bottom line Copper Scroll. There are consequences for rebellion against authorities. It may be imprisonment. It may be death. Are you willing to take such a chance because you do not like the way a particular government is acting? America can trace it's roots to a rebellion against the British government. In choosing to rebel, our forefathers took a chance on being killed and many men did lose their lives. As it turns out, the rebellion was successful, which tells me that God decided to raise up a new nation here. Then later on there was a rebellion led by the southern states when they desired to leave the union. They also knew that the consequences could mean death, and many brave men lost their lives in a losing cause. Apparently, it was not God's will for the union to be divided at that time in our nation's history.

I guess what it comes down to is if you are going to go against the government, you had better be sure it is the will of God, or it will be at your own peril. At this time, I see no reason to lead such a revolt, but as I have said in other posts, I would support a rebellion against the federal judges when they mandate that each state keep abortion legal. Not only would I support the states one by one passing and enforcing laws that violate the unconstitutional decrees of the Supreme Court, but would be in favor of leaving the union if necessary. I would rather not see things come to that, but am sempathetic to the actions of Christian Exodus and if Roe vs Wade is not overturned, I would even consider moving to South Carolina to help in their efforts.

Do what you feel is right in your conscience Copper Scroll, but if it is to go against the authorities understand there will be a price to pay for that decision. There have been many people that have refused to pay taxes because they believe income taxes to be illegal and have gone to prison for that decision. While I question the way the amendment allowing such taxation was enacted, the fact is it has been upheld and there is nothing we can do about it. My advise is to try to live at peace with everyone including the government whenever possible. It must be in an extreme case when rebellion would be in order.

To further your comments. Jesus told his disciple to catch the fish and take the coins from it's mouth to pay for both of their taxes. We are to give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God.

I feel that the only time I would be granted the okeydokey from God to break a law of our government is if that law goes against the laws of our Father.

[Catsmeow]

What makes all of this difficult to accept is that I know that earthly authorities are men and women; they are not God. So why should I submit to their commands and sit in their judgment as if they were God, especially when their own wickedness is evident?

Copper, this is hard question...I've wondered it myself, in all honesty. During the Lewinsky scandal during the Clinton era, I remember teaching 4th grade at a Christian school. One of my little students expressed how they felt such "shame" (having heard about the president's affair).

*( out of the mouthes of babes...).

When innocent children are troubled by this dilemna, how much more are we, as adults?

We recall that the Lord Jesus lived under Roman occupation yet did not rebel against the laws of Caesar, (Render unto God that which is God's and render unto Caesar that which is Caesars).

Perhaps, it is our duty to obey those laws which do not conflict with God's moral laws and otherwise honor the laws of the land, in which there is no conflict.

[tah]

Do what you feel is right in your conscience Copper Scroll, but if it is to go against the authorities understand there will be a price to pay for that decision. There have been many people that have refused to pay taxes because they believe income taxes to be illegal and have gone to prison for that decision. While I question the way the amendment allowing such taxation was enacted, the fact is it has been upheld and there is nothing we can do about it. My advise is to try to live at peace with everyone including the government whenever possible. It must be in an extreme case when rebellion would be in order.

I am pretty much with you here in all you said , I just cut if down to "save space"..I just would not move to another state..

Well..Unless the Lord spoke to me to do so..

There is a scripture in the old Testament that I heard many many years ago and it always comes to my mind when this subject comes up..

1Sa 8:1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.

1Sa 8:2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba.

1Sa 8:3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.

1Sa 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Now why did God say that?.....my opinion...

God had set up an order of things and because the peoples hearts were not right with God and they would not be ruled over by Him He gave them their king...

Note that they did not ask for God to come set things straight....they wanted a king...

Sounds familiar...

We need to be going to God first about our government and then obeying Him in all its concerns..

And Romans 13 is part of that guide...

Am I going to catch some flack over this? probably....

[Copper Scroll]

Thank you all for your responses. You've given me much to think about. God bless you all.

[Smalcald]

Well when is revolt against a government acceptable for a Christian? Is it ever acceptable?

[Copper Scroll]

Well when is revolt against a government acceptable for a Christian? Is it ever acceptable?

I should think about this more--but from what I've gained here so far, a political revolt is acceptable when:

1. the Christian is being ordered by authorities to do something that is evil.

2. chances are that the revolt will be successful.

Now, with #1, there is a lot of room for interpretation. Is being commanded to so something that is evil the same as being kept from doing something that is good? If so, then it okay to revolt whenever the authorities do something that is wrong--because then it would be a good thing to stop them. And, in that case, I guess it would be okay to revolt when the authorities fail to do something they are supposed to do. All of this may be a stretch though--and does at least appear to go against Romans 13.

#2 is weird to me as a principle, because it is appears to go against having principles. It is completely pragmatic, though, and has probably (quietly) been the rule through historical power shifts. Bet on the team that'll win--not the one you love.

[Guest NewPilgrim]

Acts 4:1 Now as they spoke to the people, the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, 2 being greatly disturbed that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 3 And they laid hands on them, and put them in custody until the next day, for it was already evening. 4 However, many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.

5 And it came to pass, on the next day, that their rulers, elders, and scribes, 6 as well as Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the family of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. 7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, "By what power or by what name have you done this?"

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.'* 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus. 14 And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. 15 But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, 16 saying, "What shall we do to these men? For, indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17 But so that it spreads no further among the people, let us severely threaten them, that from now on they speak to no man in this name."

18 So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." 21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done. 22 For the man was over forty years old on whom this miracle of healing had been performed.

Peter and John give us a prime example of how to behave under a corrupt government or corrupted legal proceedings. The apostles in many cases, though they did not rebel against the government in terms of an uprising or revoluition, did defy the corrupt facets of the government and stood firm in their righteousness and were persecuted and murdered for it. We might read the passage from Romans again with these things in mind

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Though defiant the apostles were righteous in deed. what became of them in this instance?

Acts 4:21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done.

Gods justice is not always done, is not always succesfully and honorably performed by government and oft times the "defiant" one will be the device by which the government is rebuked and corrected, but men will sometimes be punished for even righteous deeds but we should have neither fear nor regret of it, because such deeds still glorify God and will still, in Gods oft mysterious will, be a tool by which the injustice of the government will be exposed or dealt with by Gods own hand.

[LadyRaven]

I never get a good answer when I raise questions about this scripture. Can someone help me out?

Romans 13:1-7:

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

I have always found this passage at least a little troubling. According to this passage, even people living under wicked rulership should just submit themselves--follow its laws and directives without question--however oppressive and evil that government is. This passage seems to excuse governmental wrongdoing and condemn the idea of revolution.

What if a revolution is successful (as many have been) and a new "authority" is established? Once, the rebellious party is in power, then their rebellion (I suppose) is okay--because then they would be the authorities which God establishes (v. 1 above). But up until that point, they are wrong for resisting those currently in power. This is difficult for me to sort out.

Traditionally there are 4 variations of interpretation of that section of scripture. What is even more confusing is when that was written the person in power in Rome was Nero. Now if you substitute Nero for the places where it says government or authority, you have something that makes little sense....Thus you have to balance it with other scriptures which allow for disobedience to the authorities. The mixing of those scriptures have led to these four common views of how to see authority:

1. Divine Right of Kings: This verse is taken very literally, the citizen must obey all laws unless they directly contradict the laws of God, because the king or authority says so. If the Government says to wear orange, everyone must do so cause nothing in scripture says that we shouldn't wear orange. IF the government says we are all to be athiests, obviously one does not do this because it's against scripture. However, in this view, you might take a bold stand if your religion was against the law, but one would not rebel.

2. Theonomy/Reconstructionist: This is the ideal for a Christian government, and the government in the Millenium. The practical side is divided here, some believe that we are free to disobey any government who does not hold to this ideal, others hold to a practical application which says obey as long as your conscience or the laws of God do not tell you otherwise. This view would allow for uprisings, such as the American Revolution, in the right context.

3. Anabaptist?pacifist View: the state is part of the system of this world, the kingdom of satan. Submission in the context of Romans 13 is passive, though sometimes unavoidable conflicts will occur. During those times you do what is right and if you get caught you submissively allow yourself to be led to your punishment.

4. Freedom Of Conscience: Submission to the state is passive here also, the state being part of the kingdom of the world. Romans 13 is seen as a pragmatic treatise, this is what you do if you want to avoid trouble. however, there is no absolute view as to when it is proper or allowable to rebel against the government, it is left to the individual conscience. This is the second view which would allow uprisings such as the American Revolution.

Theonomists who believe that at some point a authority has forfeited his right to obedience will then out of practicality abjure to the freedom of conscience view because it becomes up to the situation and personal belief when it is ok to rebel. This is where I stand right now. I personally am a theonomist, which operates currently under the freedom of conscience view. IE, I believe the current government is not at all what Romans 13 describes, thus the authorities are not ENTITLED to my allegience. Further, it is in violation of it's own legal documents and thus is an illegal government. When do I obey laws and when will I rebel? that is up to my conscience which has been taught by scripture and is in submission to the word of God. I will rebel in self defence and in defence of my family for one, and in defence of the ultimate legal authority of this nation (the constitution and founding documents) and in defense of my faith.

[st. Worm]

quote:

2. Theonomy/Reconstructionist: This is the ideal for a Christian government, and the government in the Millenium. The practical side is divided here, some believe that we are free to disobey any government who does not hold to this ideal, others hold to a practical application which says obey as long as your conscience or the laws of God do not tell you otherwise. This view would allow for uprisings, such as the American Revolution, in the right context.

Actually classic theonomy is a very legalistic system that believes the OT laws and punishments of Moses are still applicable today for society. It believes these laws should be a blue print for all governments. Some extremists in this movement (Gary North) even believe stoning is still appropriate today. Obviously this movement blurs the distinctions between the church and the state and the law and the gospel. Although they laud the Law of God, in reality, theonomists have a very shallow view of the Law and are completely blown off course by their overemphasis on the third use of the law. I consider this movement to have the potential of being a Christian version of the Taliban. Obviously anyone who has examined the lives of people like Rushdoony and North see the hypocrisy.

[LadyRaven]

quote:

2. Theonomy/Reconstructionist: This is the ideal for a Christian government, and the government in the Millenium. The practical side is divided here, some believe that we are free to disobey any government who does not hold to this ideal, others hold to a practical application which says obey as long as your conscience or the laws of God do not tell you otherwise. This view would allow for uprisings, such as the American Revolution, in the right context.

Actually classic theonomy is a very legalistic system that believes the OT laws and punishments of Moses are still applicable today for society. It believes these laws should be a blue print for all governments. Some extremists in this movement (Gary North) even believe stoning is still appropriate today. Obviously this movement blurs the distinctions between the church and the state and the law and the gospel. Although they laud the Law of God, in reality, theonomists have a very shallow view of the Law and are completely blown off course by their overemphasis on the third use of the law. I consider this movement to have the potential of being a Christian version of the Taliban. Obviously anyone who has examined the lives of people like Rushdoony and North see the hypocrisy.

The statement you made is about as stereotypical as saying "Baptists believe it's a sin for women to wear pants." Just as there are a wide variety of baptist theological systems, there are a wide variety of Theonomic/Reconstructionist systems. The two biggest are what we within the system refer to as big T and little t theonomy and Big R and little r reconstructionism. There are people who believe that we are to force Romans 13 and the OT system on the current system (Big T and R) and those who are not as legalistic (some variation of little t, r or maybe bTlittler or big R little t). Practically it comes down to those who don't think we need to force the issue at this moment have to figure out what we do with the ideal...There are those who see it as an ideal but do not believe it is necessary for us to do so at this point, but maybe it will be later on. There are those who believe that the Millenial reign of Christ will have a variation of the OT legal system applied and thus don't see practical application for secular systems. Nobody, however, who is a theonomist will tell you that the OT laws are wrong. God made them, therefore they have to be righteous, whether you believe they should be applied today or anytime in the future or not.

Personally I am a little t and little r theonomist/reconstructionist. I believe that any perfect system would found itself on the law(s) of God in some fashion. I don't believe that it is an obligation for a secular government. I do believe some variation of Biblical rule would be necessary for any government which called itself Christian or professed to be in covenant with God. But I don't necessary believe that until the millenium it should exist, it is more of a future ideal than anything I am supposed to be creating at the moment. I do believe the millenial reign will have at least some foundations similar to the OT laws, even if they are modified. I also hold to the view that any government is subject to its own laws and once it has violated them, it is an illegal government...and that if a government wanted the respect and obedience necessary in Romans 13, it would also behave in a manner consistent with Romans 13 or it is not entitled to said submission. Hence our government now is illegal and not entitled to the submission asked for in Romans 13.

All this being said, I was merely attempting to give an overview of 4 different ways of seeing that same verse. Each system has consequences which go beyond Romans 13 and beyond anything I mentioned. My application was very focused due to the question being asked. Thus what I said stands...A theonomist/recon view would interpret Romans 13 in an idealistic or philosophical manner rather than a more literal one. IE, in an ideal world where God is followed and man has reconstructed his thinking to fit into God's system, ....(insert the text for Romans 13). In that world, a theonomist would hold that it would be a sin for man or a group of men to rebel against the sitting government. If that government is not voluntarily subject to the laws of God, a theonomist/recon could a) rebel and make the government such b) work within the government to guide it into partial conformity or c)abjure...its illegal, only go along with whatever suits your conscience, the government is no longer entitled to the contents of Romans 13. I am chosing c. Thus you will never find any quotes from Rushdoony or North in anything I write.