Romans 13

[TrailerparkTrash]

Sorry, can't agree to any of the above that you wrote. You've taken most verses out-of-context and have not applied proper hemeneutics to others. I stand by what I wrote above as properly biblically interpreted but not easy to accept. Again, go look at how Christ was treated by government. Even look at how Paul was treated. But, you can believe as you choose.

God bless,

[billvau]

[TrailerparkTrash]

For example, you wrote:
"Psalm 82:4 even cites an obligation to protect those who are in danger: 'Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.'”

So, what does this verse mean in context? Who is it applied to- in context?

Here's a meme that I just saw on Facebook. Please don't make it yours in practice: "I can do all things through a verse taken out of context."

God bless and have a blessed day of worship,

Bill

Bill, try not to weaponize the Bible. Seems like you do it frequently.

[billvau]

Bill, try not to weaponize the Bible. Seems like you do it frequently.

Oh my, personal attack instead of just answering the question. I asked seriously because this is a seriously difficult subject as it is completely counter to worldly thinking. And, you respond with an attack. Honestly, that tells us about you, not about me - and certainly says nothing about God's word properly interpreted.

Please respond to the questions instead of turning on the person.

God bless,
Bill

[socal m1 shooter]

I think Romans is a difficult book, one which I prefer to look at with the help of good commentaries. Recently I just read through it again, and as a result bought RC Sproul's commentary.

Regarding the comment in post #18, I fail to see how this is obedient to the very clear command from Ephesians 4:

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

The NIV reads "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."

Regarding Romans 13, there are many issues raised in this thread. Since it is on CG, "The Home of the California Firearms Owner's Resistance," and I have thought about this every time I read the passage in question, how does it pertain to firearms laws, particularly the nutty laws we have here in California?


The colonists who rebelled against Britain had a nuanced argument for their side.



It is safe to say that the American patriots who fought against England were fully convinced that they had biblical precedent and scriptural justification for their rebellion. Although their view of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 is a faulty interpretation (there are no provisos concerning obedience in those passages), it was the popular preaching of the day. At the same time, the self-defense argument (number 3, above) is a convincing and substantial rationale for war.


Even if the American Revolution was a violation of Romans 13, we know that the patriots acted in good faith in the name of Christian freedom, and we know that, in the ensuing years, God has brought about much good from the freedom that was won as a result.

In America today, many who would self-identify as Christians tend to conflate sentiments of patriotism with Christianity, and it blurs the line between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of America. There is a cultural appreciation for resisting tyranny in any manner that people choose to define tyranny, which cuts across the political spectrum. So on the right, for example, you have gun owners here in CA who were quite ready to defy the standard capacity magazine ban before the injunction was set in place, and on the left you have people who have defied drug laws for decades. On any given day, you can go out on the freeways and find people from anywhere on the political spectrum who drive at whatever speed seems good to them, many well above the posted limits.

As an aside, I'm sure we all know committed Christians who avoid any external Christian identifiers on their cars (bumper stickers, whatever) because they admit that their driving is a poor witness, and they routinely drive above the posted limit. Possibly some are even here on this forum. I think that God himself could send angels to drive at the posted limits around southern CA and they would be unable to keep a count of the number of middle fingers, angry glares, and four-letter words directed at them for being obedient to the law. I'd probably be among the guilty.

We all pick and choose what commands we will obey, even when it comes to Biblical commands, and we will all stand to give an account one day.

But some comments from thoughtful people who have immersed themselves in the word of God may be helpful.

The principle stated in verse 1 raised many questions which the following verses amplify and explain. This verse seems to preclude the possibility of a believer having any part in rebellion or revolution. What about it? James Stifler cites the examples of Cromwell and Washington. Both of those men led a revolution. Stifler offers no solution. I am not sure I have one either, but I am going to do the best I can to solve this. The believer has opposed bad government and supported good government on the theory that good government is the one ordained of God. The believer is for law and order, as over against lawlessness. He is for honesty and justice, as over against corruption and rank injustice. At great moments of crisis in history-- and that's where we are today-- the believers have had difficult decisions to make.

I want to briefly give you my viewpoint, and I believe that it will coincide with history. During these last days, which I believe we are in right now, lawlessness abounds. The believer must oppose it; he must not be a part of it, even when it is in his own government. We need to beware of those who would change our government under the guise of improving it. Remember John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod, Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, James, the brother of John, was slain with the sword of Herod, and Paul was put to death by Nero. Yet Paul says, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation" (v. 2). Therefore, Christianity never became a movement to improve government, help society, or clean up the town. The gospel was the power of God unto salvation of the individual. [...]

What is the Christian to do? My business is to get out the Word of God, and my business is to obey the law. That is what Paul is saying here. Christianity is not a movement to improve government or to help society clean up the town. It is to preach a gospel that is the power of God unto salvation which will bring into existence individuals like the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and gave us a government of laws.

He goes on for several pages; I've just provided a snippet here. As time permits I will add some commentary from RC Sproul.





I think you will find a lot of common ground.

[TrailerparkTrash]

Oh my, personal attack instead of just answering the question. I asked seriously because this is a seriously difficult subject as it is completely counter to worldly thinking. And, you respond with an attack. Honestly, that tells us about you, not about me - and certainly says nothing about God's word properly interpreted.

Please respond to the questions instead of turning on the person.

God bless,
Bill

[billvau]

"Bill, try not to weaponize the Bible. Seems like you do it frequently." - That's an attack, sorry.

[TrailerparkTrash]

This is the first time I’ve seen an easy resignation from an argument. Facts are always difficult to refute in debate.

[billvau]

Proverbs 26:4-5

[wpage]

The gist of romans is to not be a rebel. Romans suggests anti is not recomended. However, the American Revolution for example is a righteous movement against oppression.

The original Christians without a name at the time called the "way". May have been labeled as rebels by Roman leaders. However again oppressive goverment is not what Romans referd to.

[WASR10]

I believe that the Scriptures clearly teach in numerous passages that God rules in the affairs of men. He does so by what we may refer to as "providence." I believe that in Romans it is clear that God expects the Christian to be obedient to the Government he lives under, so long as it is a Government that encourages good behavior and not a Government that encourages evil.

God does not ever desire us to live in contradiction to our Christian convictions.

"But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge…" - Acts 4:19

We must always be ready to obey God in spite of the consequences! In Romans 13:1-7, God has told us to obey the leaders of our nation. However, if they command us to do something that is against God’s will, then we must put God first. When the apostles were commanded by the rulers to stop preaching about Jesus, they said:

“We must obey God rather than men.” - Acts 5:29

The scriptures make it abundantly clear that God desires His people first to be obedient to Him. So what if one’s government passes laws contrary to God’s Word? What should be done when the righteous find themselves living in an unrighteous society? Does one’s responsibility toward their government change depending upon who is in office or which party is in charge? The faithful Christian understands that he must show respect toward an instituted government. He strives to be a model citizen and is a shining example of Christianity. He gives honor to the ruler and seeks to be perpetually obedient to the civil magistrates. He is not, however, blindly obedient to the civil magistrates. There are situations when the Christian not only may disobey but actually must disobey the civil magistrates. Whenever a civil government requires one to do what God forbids or forbids one to do what God commands, then that person has an obligation to God to disobey the government in that point.

Daniel refused to bow down and worship king Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3). Instead he maintained his faith in God and accepted the consequences from the king. Esther, at great risk of her life, went before king Ahasuerus to stand up for the Lord’s people (Esther 5). When the rulers commanded Peter and John to cease preaching and teaching in the name of Jesus they responded, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye."

We, as Christians, need to work within the laws of this land to make sure that Christian principles are not legislated away. We need to pray for our government officials that they may fulfill the tasks that God has given them; to be ministers of God for good (Romans 13:4). When electing leaders we need to carefully consider the moral character of the candidate above all other factors such as race, gender and even political affiliation. But regardless of who is in office we need to give honor to the position when honor is due.

God has determined to leave it up to certain governments to pass laws that allow their citizens to defend themselves, and those governments allow citizens to use guns to defend themselves. Where are we?

[damon1272]

If you're looking in the Bible for a consistent program for how to respond to the prevailing government, you'll be sorely disappointed.

If your government oppresses you, you have Biblical precedent for:

Mass emigration
Hostile Takeover of new lands
Genocide
Killing of newborns (well, you can say God did it)
Joining up with the ruling government
Rising up against the ruling government

Paul had a different objective then Jesus. Jesus was an insurrectionist hoping to take back the throne of David from the hands of Rome and the ruling authorities (who were appointed by Rome). He failed & was executed for his crime.

Paul was trying to spread some of the teachings of Jesus but had a very different idea of Jesus, owing to the fact that he never actually met the guy. Paul needed followers. But he would have been executed too if he gave the same message as Jesus. So he changed things a little, making Jesus into "The Christ." The Christ was more spiritual and had a spiritual message, not one about the here and now. This was more palatable to Rome. I don't think Paul was disingenuous about this, though. I think he honestly believed it.

Either way, his objective was different than Jesus's -- convert Romans into Christians. To do that, you have to fly under the radar of Roman suspicion. So telling people to submit to the authorities is just good wisdom. It keeps people from starting fights and having the whole movement killed in its infancy.

I'd say the same applies today. If the authorities confront you on something, just comply. Things get ugly fast if you resist.

I, I just, I just don't know where to begin with the ridiculous failure of a post that this is.

[Volksgrenadier]

Pretty simple, really. Enemies, foreign and domestic.

[RAMCLAP]

It alwys cracks me up at how the atheist types hate Him and He is such a nothing to them that they can't sut up about Him. They have institutes dedicated to the proof of His non-existance. So, they still can't shut up about Him. There must be something there. Torment must suck.

[JeffC]

Paul spent the first 12 chapters laying out the glories of the Gospel and how God is sovereign over all. Back in the day when Romans 13 was written Christians were not concerned with being citizens of Rome. They were concerned with being citizens of heaven and under God's authority alone. Paul reminded them to work under the current system for the good of all.

Does not a father have authority over his family? A boss over his employees? What should a child or wife do if the father becomes abusive? What about the employee who works under an abusive employer?

Furthermore Romans 13 lays out the limits of god ordained government powers. Is states the magistrates has power over civil matters and that it is not a terror to good works. If the government becomes a terror to good works and goes beyond civil issues, the government is not ordained by God.

Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation


Finally- Our government is based on the US Constitution. the Constitution is the highest authority of the land, not the god forsaken asshats in political offices.