NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I don't see the relevence of this to the topic at hand.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A second century view of Christians as earthly citizens
- Thread starter NaasPreacher (C4K)
- Start date
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Do you see them taking place in armed rebellion against Pharaoh? Of course not. They could not submit, so the left.
I still have not see any evidence of Bible support to attempt to over throw a government by violent means.
Were the believers referred to in the OP wrong to peacefully submit to the rule of a violent and tyrranical government?
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
Several posts are talking about whether or not it is ever going against Scripture to participate in rebellion against existing civil governments, since it is our duty to obey the prevailing civil law. My example is not the exact same thing, as the European powers were not participating in a rebellion, but taking over existing governments that were already here (native American tribes). That was my question to you. Was it not the duty of England, Spain, etc, to respect the existing civil authority in the New World. Granted, it was not a rebellion, but it was taking over another government, and in this case, for no reason, as the Indian tribes were not a threat to any European power. It could be that is a different issue than say the English colonists rebeling against England to form the USA.
It seems to be an endless cycle. We can argue all day about the revolution that formed this country, but at one point, all the existing countries in European countries rebeled against some authority, maybe indirectly going back to Rome.
Maybe I could rephrase the question this way. Do you believe that taking over other governments for no apparant reason than greed is as unScriptural as individual Christians participating in overthrowing the existing civil authority?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
The big question is this: are the government as leaders performing their God ordained duty to govern in a right manner, promoting peace and unity?
In the case of the Jews rebelling against the Seleucid Empire, the answer is most definantly no. Antiochus Epiphanes was slaughtering the Jews and persecuting them for their religion. If a woman had her son circumcised, he would have both mother and son killed. If one was found with the scriptures, he/she was killed and the book was cut to pieces. Antiochus put an idol in the temple and sacrificed a pig on the altar. The only reason the Jews rebelled was because the leader of the empire wasn't performing his God ordained duty. It was Antiochus' fault, he drove them to it.
When the Jews rebelled against Rome, they did so because they didn't like the Romans and didn't like have Gentiles ruling over them. They wanted to govern themselves. They had no justification for rebellion.
When the US rebelled against England, what was the English government doing? Were they being a good government, ruling in a right manner of their subjects? No. They were taxing them to death without giving them any representation. They were performing acts of barbarity without any consequences. The colonies rebelled because England was not carrying out her God ordained duty.
In the case of the Jews rebelling against the Seleucid Empire, the answer is most definantly no. Antiochus Epiphanes was slaughtering the Jews and persecuting them for their religion. If a woman had her son circumcised, he would have both mother and son killed. If one was found with the scriptures, he/she was killed and the book was cut to pieces. Antiochus put an idol in the temple and sacrificed a pig on the altar. The only reason the Jews rebelled was because the leader of the empire wasn't performing his God ordained duty. It was Antiochus' fault, he drove them to it.
When the Jews rebelled against Rome, they did so because they didn't like the Romans and didn't like have Gentiles ruling over them. They wanted to govern themselves. They had no justification for rebellion.
When the US rebelled against England, what was the English government doing? Were they being a good government, ruling in a right manner of their subjects? No. They were taxing them to death without giving them any representation. They were performing acts of barbarity without any consequences. The colonies rebelled because England was not carrying out her God ordained duty.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Was the Roman government that Paul wrote about in Romans 13 doing that? If not, why did he say submit?
Were the believers in the OP wrong in submitting to the government and having the testimony mentioned there?
Consider the plagues upon Egypt as the "violence" that convinced the Egyptians to let the Jews leave and, even so, at the last moment Pharaoh commanded them to come back. The Jews had been in captivity for several hundred years and did not have the means to mount an armed revolution. That was not God's plan for them. Later in their history they did gain great military might and they used it also according to God's plan for them.
I don't think there's a book - manual - on civil government formation and organization in the Holy Bible - that is not its purpose. All we have is various histories of what took place in Biblical times as well as general principles and specific precepts to follow today. It is clear in the Bible that civil government is a valid institution intended for man by God and that it has certain authority collectively not given to individuals singularly. It is clear in Romans 13 what the requirements are for Christians in their normal daily dealing with their civil government. However, it does not address what happens when Christians and non-believers decide it is time to establish a new civil government. It does not prohibit such action if the purposes are not self-serving for the individual but are, instead, for the implementation of justice in the general population.
The other perspective of Biblical wisdom is the duty of civil government and leader of civil government. We are given examples of "good" and "bad" Kings. It is clear they are expected to rule in the proper manner and, just as several Kings found out, are subject to God's wrath when they don't. Their is a duty of government to its "subjects" and the subjects will decide who and what will be their government. They ultimately will make changes if their existing government does not rule as it should. It is better that the process be peaceful than violent.
David and his band stood against Saul, the King of Israel for many years prior to his dimise. They were mostly on the defense as Saul pursued David. David had been told through Samuel that he would be King. David did still show respect, and even mercy to Saul, but he also did not fully subject himself to total obedience to Saul else he would has disbanded his own band of followers and surrendered himself to Saul. We do have to be careful not to read God's "approval" into the record of historical events. However, it's clear that God's plan for Israel included the rebellion of some Jews against other Jews in order to establish David as King.
No, as individuals, the early believers mentioned were right to peacefully submit to their civil government but they would have also been right to collectively form a new civil government of their own and would then have been bound to obedience to it.
Last edited by a moderator:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I appreciate the clarification of your viewpoint. I disagree totally, but now I can at least see where you get your thoughts. It does help to understand the 'other side' a little better.
Thank you.
Believe it or not I was once an advocate of political Christian activism.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Who are we to determine that? Their government was killing Christians. How can we say that they were in accord with God's purpose and any present government is not?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, we don't know exactly when Romans was written or when Nero first starting killing Christians so my statement cannot be proven absolutely.
However, Nero was emperor when the Roman brethren were told to submit to the governing authorities. Killing or not his government hardly fit the supposed conditions listed in the rest of the passage. The Holy Spirit well knew that, if the persecution had not started, it would in the next couple of years and still He inspired Paul to write 'Let every soul be subject to the higher powers (Nero), fro there is no power but of God, the powers that be (Nero) are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resists the power (Nero) resists the ordinance of God.
I contend that the Christians mentioned in the OP in the second century had the Biblical perspective on submission right. They submitted and left the results to the God who is able to sort things out for His glory.
Last edited by a moderator:
Romans was written from Corinth before Paul went to Jerusalem where he would be arrested and eventually shipped off to Rome. This was in the mid to late 50's AD. Nero's persecutions arose from the great fire of Rome in 64 AD.
Furthermore, that passage is not saying that Christians should not resist any king ever. That's a ridiculous position that people place on it. In the context there Paul says, "for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil." After which he says, "for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Obviously we see here what the ruler is ordained by God to do. The question then is not whether the man is godly or wicked, nor whether or not he worships God, but whether or not he is carrying out his God ordained role. Obviously Antiochus Epiphanes was not carrying out his God ordained role with respect to the Jews. King George and the English Government weren't to the colonies.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
And Nero was? Even if I accept your dating Nero was still a wicked vile ruler and yet Paul wrote to the church to submit to him. There is no getting around that fact.
Man does not have the authority to decide for himself if government is doing what God has it there for. Your view of King George is only an opinion. We are never promised that our government will ask us for permission before it taxes us.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not an opinion. God told us what government is ordained to do. If they fail to do these things, but are a terror to them that do good rather than evil, they are not a God-ordained government.
Nero was not doing those things when Paul wrote that. It's as simple as that. Paul's intention was not to make Christians pacifists, it was to state that we are not to rebel against government for any old reason. The Jews rebelled against Rome simply because they didn't like having gentiles rule over them. The colonial rebellion against England was not against scripture. That government was in clear violation of its God ordained duties, and after a long train of abuses, the colonials finally and reluctantly declared independance. It wasn't even their intention to engage in a violent fight against England, they would have been happy had England honored their declaration of independance.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Pretty clear we are not going to see eye to eye.
Thanks guys for a generally polite and mature discussion. I've spent more time here than I should have though and need to leave it for now.
Thanks guys for a generally polite and mature discussion. I've spent more time here than I should have though and need to leave it for now.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
You have to define "all lawful actions necessary"?
Bottow line: If the government of the United States of America passes a law demanding all citizens turn over their firearms to federal officials/declares martial law/suspends hebious corpus, freedom of speach and so on ....
Are Christians allowed to take up weapons and use force to re-establish their "rights"?
Answering this question "yes" or "no" will go a long way in making your views clear.
I'm am confident that scripture clearly forbids such violence by Christians.
Please answer this question.
Was God able to bring about the formation of the United States of America without violence?
What if God had intended the United States of America to be example to the world of Christians establishing a country, promoting Christian values, without the use of violence? That example would now be forever lost because men ignored the Word of God and substituted their own way (violence).
Had the U.S. not declared independence and rebelled, slavery would have been abolished decades earlier (when England abolished slavery). Tens of thousands of lives would have been spared.
If the founders had stuck with the Word of God, perhaps this country wouldn't have had to go through a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands. Perhaps this country wouldn't be pleagued with continuing violence, murders, immorality, abortions, and never ending wars.
Perhaps what you are calling a great "blessing" is only a shadow of the blessings God had intended had they followed the Word of God and not rebelled.
That is a solid biblical attitude.
That is not a biblical attitude, IMHO. In fact, Christians are warned not to take matters before civil authorities. (I Cor. 6)
???? Who has said a Christian should not be involved in civil matters or politics?
I have said Christians must oppose violence. I have said Christians should not look to the government to fix people's lives to conform to what we believe they should be. That will never work.
peace to you
raying:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
The big question is did God command Christians to use violence to make sure the governmental leaders governed in the right manner.
The answer is clearly no.
If I remember history correctly, the tax was about 3%.
peace to you
raying:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Apples and spinach.
Brother, may I please advise you not to assume you know what other people's motivations are.
#1: I am not renouncing nationalism.. I am renouncing violence.
#2 I am not renoucing violence because it makes me "feel spiritual". I am renouncing violence because Jesus renounced violence and God's Word teaches me that I (as a Christian) should renounce violence.
peace to you
raying: