Change, or resistance: where is the line drawn?

[Jefferson]

Yet even at that, the disciples did not attempt the overthrow of the Government.

Of course not, because they would not have been under the authority of any other government while doing so.

Indeed, according to your scriptures it was after this that Paul--who definitely heard Stephen's speech, and may very well have heard Peter's--said "Obey the powers." And those powers that Paul advised Christians to obey was the empire of Rome--which not only tolerated abortion (nominally illegal, but widely practiced), but infanticide, ritualized murder in the forms of the gladiatorial games, and persecution of Christians.

Point being?

Even though that is treason?

Yes. We view German citizens who took our side in WW2 as heros, not criminals.

Jefferson, I propose to you that Rom 13 forbids even this kind of action, because you are still resisting the Government that was ordained by God. Treason is resistance, my friend.

During a war everyone resists some "God ordained" government. It is up to each person which authority he decides to put himself under.

Further, I will remind you that when Peter decided to obey God rather than man, he cheerfully took the punishment for disobeying the decree of the Sanhedrin.

Of course he did, because there was not another nation that was at war with Rome to prevent such persecution.

When Peter said "We must obey God,rather than men," he did not try to prevent the Sanhedrin from sinning. Instead, he only prevented himself from sinning. Yet you would resist evil people who sin--placing your own wisdom above even that of Jesus Christ, who was the One who said "Do not resist the evil man?"

See my comments above in this post.

Jefferson, I say that if you take action to implement an Enyartian monarchy, you are disobeying the words of Jesus Christ himself. I say that if you do this, you are resisting the ordinance of God by attempting to overthrow the Government--because that is the only way an Enyartian monarchy will ever be implemented in this country.

If I were to attempt to do that today you would be exactly right because there is no other government today at war with the U.S. that is desiring to stop our genecide of the unborn.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

We view German citizens who took our side in WW2 as heros, not criminals.

Oh, on a personal level, I quite agree--but the point is not what we view these people as--the point is what your scriptures would say about these people.

During a war everyone resists some "God ordained" government. It is up to each person which authority he decides to put himself under.

Only in wars that are intended to overthrow a government. If the war is just to grab land from that government, then even this reed would not stand. However, I will also note that this is the logic behind some Christian conscientious objectors--they do not wish to be involved in the overthrow of giovernments.

Of course he did, because there was not another nation that was at war with Rome to prevent such persecution.

I fear your knowledge is incomplete. In the very time interval that Peter was supposed to have uttered his statements, Rome was under attack from the Parthians in the east. If all it took was a country at war, according to your logic, the Christians should have attatched themselves to the Parthian cause.

If I were to attempt to do that today you would be exactly right because there is no other government today at war with the U.S. that is desiring to stop our genecide of the unborn.

If another country--even a "Godly" country--were to invade the United States, and you assisted them, you would still be guilty of "resisting the powers."

 

[Jefferson]

Oh, on a personal level, I quite agree--but the point is not what we view these people as--the point is what your scriptures would say about these people.

I see the scriptures as agreeing with my view on this.

Only in wars that are intended to overthrow a government.

I agree.

I fear your knowledge is incomplete. In the very time interval that Peter was supposed to have uttered his statements, Rome was under attack from the Parthians in the east. If all it took was a country at war, according to your logic, the Christians should have attatched themselves to the Parthian cause.

Wrong. I stated: "Of course he did, because there was not another nation that was at war with Rome to prevent such persecution." (emphasis added) The Parthinian cause was not to thwart the persecution of Christians.

If another country--even a "Godly" country--were to invade the United States, and you assisted them, you would still be guilty of "resisting the powers."

Only if that other country invaded for ungodly reasons.

 

[Flipper]

In the U.S. Constitution.

This would be the same Constitution that you and Bob don't much care for because of its insistance on representative government?

Oh the horrible irony.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I see the scriptures as agreeing with my view on this.

Jefferson, I must disagree, based on the clear meaning of the text. However, I also think we've both reached a "hard break" in where we stand--sort of a line in the sand, where we're willing to consider what's on that side. but adamant about what's on this side.

Nonetheless, it's been a productive and fruitful conversation. I have a greater understanding of your views on these issues. I could wish that Bob Enyart had had the time to enter this thread, but between his family, church, radio program, and the additional time constraints of BR X, I understand that time is not available.

Thank you, Jefferson--and to all of you who have participated. And no, this post doesn't mean the thread is closed--I welcome further input.

 

[Yorzhik]

And the difference is....? If there is a government that is Christian wouldnt they have to have Christian principles? But my point is that Christians wouldnt agree on what Christian principles are and why wish for a Christian government instead of a theocratic rule set forth by God?

It wouldn't matter if the gov't was muslim if it enacted Christian principles.

This is a strange comment! Isnt change commenced in Christianity on an individual level? Was the purpose of evangelism to reach out to people with a sword and a judicial system? I dont think so.

We're talking about much more than change, but the principles of good gov't as well. But even beyond that, if the gov't is based on Christian principles, then understanding the nature of God is much easier.

 

[Yorzhik]

I honestly cannot think of one. Come to think of it, I can think of no Christian principles that can be successfully implemented at the state level. One cannot legislate faith or hope, least of all love. One cannot legislate loving God with all one's heart, mind, and strength, nor loving one's neighbor as one's self.

Right. There are things that can only be implemented on an individual level. Just as there are things that can only be implemented on the state level. My point was that you said "Perhaps that's because Christian Principles are much easier to implement on an individual level than on a state level." and I took it that your use of the word 'easier' meant that its contrariwise application from the other direction would also be true. I realize now you were using hyperbole. Which is fine.

However, there are taxes. That isn't implementable on the individual level. There is purgery, that in one sense can be implemented on both levels (this is the kind of thing I thought you were referring to) and in another sense can only be implemented on the state level. Laws against stealing - both levels. I guess the point would be that Christian principles exist for both individuals and governments, whereas you appear to think that only the principles that apply to individuals exist.

That may be the problem, Yorzhik--how could you be assured that the ruler would truly be "righteous?" What is to prevent the ruler from claiming the name Christian, yet falling under Rom 3:10?

You would know the righteous ruler by the rules he implements. The righteous ruler would implement righteous rules, and the unrighteous ruler would implement rules that were not righteous. To whatever extent the ruler implements righteous rules would be to the extent that the people would have cause to rejoice. And this would apply regardless of the name the ruler applied to himself.

And your use of Rom 3:10 here is entirely mis-applied. Even people that aren't all that righteous can do righteous things. That is what applies in this situation. Rom 3:10 refers to a standard for salvation.

Yorzhik, can you even consider the immensity of the task to get all of the Christians of the United States to agree on any single major doctrine? Christians cannot decide between themselves what the Bible means, or how it should be applied. How do you expect that they can get together to form a government?

If the ruler applies Christian principles with the bible as the standard, then it doesn't matter what the Christians think.

And if that happens, then we have the situation where the Government has collapsed, and the question of resisting the government becomes moot.

For the most part, you've got it right.