Rosa Parks, dead at 92

Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good.

If the government is not a minister of God to thee for good, then it is not ordained of God! Hitler loved to use Romans 13 to keep the Christians under his rule. I find it very upsetting to hear those who would say that our founders were sinning by refusing to obey the laws of England, or that the Christians who fought against Hitler were sinning by doing so, or that anyone who stands up to an unconstitutional law is sinning by doing so.

 

Amen, Brother JGrubbs!

 

She followed federal law.
Which has more authority?

 

By the way -

Before I accept on face value your claim that you are only objecting on biblical grounds - answer me regarding Corrie Ten Boom and every other Christian in the world who has ever refused to follow tyrants.

 

If you are a Baptist in America then according to you, you are a result of sin. So you had better quit sinning and cease being a Baptist.

If your attitude were allowed to prevail at the time we would not have any Baptist churches in America today.

According to you all early Baptist preachers in America were sinning and as a result Baptists in America are in sin. At one time it was illegal to be a Baptist preacher in America. </font>[/QUOTE]That may all be true. But it may not. I think Craig does bring up a good piece of scripture that I want to treat consistently, even when it appears to oppose things I think are good like the things you mentioned.

All of us are eager to use this scripture when it supports our view of what is right about our governments and laws. But how does it apply to situations where we do not feel our government and laws are right. Do we cast it aside?

I don't have any easy answers to this but I thank Craig for keeping us honest by bringing up a very relevant God inspired, authoritative and trustworthy piece of scripture that we can struggle with.

We can honour Rosa Parks and still struggle with the theological implications of her honourable action. The same with all honourable folks who have rebelled against a God ordained but sinful government.

When Paul wrote these words, the government actively persecuted him and other Christians.

[ October 26, 2005, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

I think a law which mandates that a black person must give his bus seat to a white person is an abominable law. I think racisim of any sort is an absolute abomination and one of the most twisted mentalities.

I think the laws of segregation were a blot on this nation, and on white southern Baptists (note the lower case "southern") especially since many of them supported these laws.

The fact still remains that the Bible commands us to obey the law. The only exception I find is when the law commands us to disobey God. There is no disobedience to God in giving up your bus seat to another person.

Christianity is not about fixing society or demanding our civil rights. It is about upholding the gospel of Jesus Christ to a sin cursed world.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Why are there protests at abortion clinics? Why do we sign petitions for an ammendment concerning marriage? Why do we contact our representatives on any issue at all?

This government encourages active participation. Wouldn't it be sinful not to vote? Wouldn't it be against the "government" if we didn't give our views?

 

Canadyjd speaks my mind.

 

Thanks Johnv

 

When Paul wrote those words he was actively disobeying the law by preaching the gospel of Christ.

 

There is one theme in this thread I find very disturbing. It's not about Rosa Parks being a good or bad person (I don't know anything about her beyond this incident) nor about bus seating (anyone who pays their fare is deserving of a good seat on a first come, first serve basis - regardless of their race, skin color, sex or anything else). What I find disturbing is a lack of discernment or rightly dividing the word.

1. Thou shalt worship no other gods.
2. Preach the gospel to every creature.
3. Thou shalt not kill.
4. Stay in your seat and stand up for your rights.

Can we not see that there is a difference in disobeying the law in order to obey a command of God, and disobeying the law in order to stand up for our rights? If not, shame on us!

 

I don't believe Paul in Romans 13 made this distinction when it came to submitting to God ordained authority, but maybe rightly dividing the word will lead to this conclusion.

 

Rosa Parks had GOD GIVEN rights as a HUMAN BEING!
God Gave them to her. For her not to stand for them would be wrong. Well in her case she didn't stand for her rights she sat!

Maybe I am wrong, but I am noticing that most, if not all, that condemn Rosa in this thread is also KJVO. That amazes me considering King James was the one that denied our Baptist forefathers their rights, and lives. I guess though, we should have just obeyed ol' king James and became anglican! After all there is no commandment from God to not be anglican, so our baptist forefathers should have submitted to the tyranny of King James!

Amazing. I am totally baffeled that in 2005 we are still debating what Rosa did.

I guess racism is still rampant in some Baptist camps.

I guess when speaking of racism, secondary seperation doesn't apply! What double-standards.

 

Gold Dragon, I'm not sure as to what point you're making. While Romans 13 is clear in teaching obeying authority, it is not the totality of the New Testament teaching on the subject - Peter for example, clearly states that "We ought to obey God rather than men." Sometimes we must make that choice. Numbers 1-3 in my post above are commands of God. We must obey them even if it means disobeying the law. Number 4 is not a command of God.

Tinytim, as to "God-given rights": (1) Standing up for what one may perceive as his or her "GOD GIVEN rights as a HUMAN BEING" is not equal to obeying a direct command of God and is subordinate to rather than overriding of the law; and besides that (2) Paul has some clear teaching in I Corinthians 8-10 that we may defer EVEN OUR CHRISTIAN RIGHTS (not duties) in dealing with our brothers and sisters and for cause of the gospel.

BTW, which scripture or scriptures teach that we are to "stand up for our rights"?

 

You are saying that she had no right to sit there. Why?

Are you saying that she had no right to that seat because she was black or a woman?

The law was wrong, it was an ungodly law. rooted in racism which is sin.

Are we to uphold ungodly laws?

Daniel was given the right to pray by God, he stood for his rights.
Peter was given the right to preach the gospel by God, he stood for his rights.
Rosa was given the right to be treated as a human being, and she stood for her rights.

If someone was to break down your door and take what was rightfully yours, would you fight back? Would you press charges? Of course, anyone would. Why? Because you are protecting your rights. Rights that were given to you by your creator.
Rosa was protecting what was rightfully hers.
A right that was given to her by God.

To say she was wrong is to say she didn't have a right to sit there. That is racism.

When you deny a person a seat because of the color of their skin, that is racism and that is sin.
We are commanded to fight against sin, aren't we?

 

To answer you in the simplest of terms:
Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.

The white guy was trying to steal her seat.

 

Jesus even alluded to protecting what is yours when he said in Luk 11:21, "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:"
She was protecting what was rightfully given to her by God and the Federal Government.

 

Look up events in Baptist history in the early years of our country when they tried to start a state religion. </font>[/QUOTE]I meant that those rebellions may or may not be sins. I don't deny the history.