A Flawed Approach to Romans 13?

[Zaac]

Right. Rome had an emperor who was considered "the source of all law" so "he" was the "higher power" at that time. Fast forward to today in the USA, we do not have an emperor who is considered "the source of all law" so neither the president nor congress are the "higher power" here. The U.S. constitution is the "higher power".

Nice attempt again to obfuscate. But the Scripture says HE is God's minister. The Constitution is not God's minister to do good. The Scripture says 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.

The US Constitution is not a he. It is not God's minister. It does not bear a sword in vain. It is not an avenger.

Scripture is clearly referring to rulers and authorities as PEOPLE.

The only time any duly elected magistrate in our system of government has the legal authority to do anything is when it is in accordance with the constitution. The law governs the government. If a magistrate acts outside of his legal authority he or she is usurping power that is not rightly their's. That's called tyranny and it is a crime against all of us.

You're talking to the wind and will simply have to try this with someone else. Rulers and authorities are people and it really doesn't make much sense to try to confuse folks otherwise.

What is the greatest commandment?

The one that Christ said is the Greatest.

 

[poncho]

Interesting. But THAT is NOT what Scripture says. Scripture explicitly says HE. It is referencing PEOPLE, not documents.

Nice attempt again to obfuscate. But the Scripture says HE is God's minister. The Constitution is not God's minister to do good. The Scripture says 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.

The US Constitution is not a he. It is not God's minister. It does not bear a sword in vain. It is not an avenger.

Scripture is clearly referring to rulers and authorities as PEOPLE.



You're talking to the wind and will simply have to try this with someone else. Rulers and authorities are people and it really doesn't make much sense to try to confuse folks otherwise.



The one that Christ said is the Greatest.

Can't admit yer wrong huh? You're not only looking at scripture out of context with the rest of the scriptures you're also trying to apply ancient Roman law to modern times. I can't make it any plainer. We do not have a ruler or rulers. We do not have an emperor.

We have elected public servants. Rome had a ruler, we have public servants. The constitution is a contract between the people and the govt (our servant) so long as the govt abides by the contract it is practicing good governance. When it no longer abides by that contract it is tyranny and it then becomes our duty as good citizens to to use the tools God and the founders blessed us with to oppose it.

Can someone explain to Zaac why I asked him what the greatest commandment is?

 

[righteousdude2]

Thanks Zaac....

....I can always count on you to be interesting, entertaining, solid as a rock on your stands, inflexible, and just the opposite of most on the board!

However, you have not answered my question as to illegal immigrants, especially those proclaiming to be believers. Are they not committing a sin by being here against the laws of this country?!

And is it really a sin for people to protest against this government when they force down our throats, laws that go against our moral fortitude, upbringing and more importantly faith?

Just as those who feel they deserve, let's say, to marry someone of the same gender, don't those who oppose that, have the right to voice their displeasure? Why is one not a sin, while the other [opposing it] is??

If gays can protest for equal rights, and illegal's can protest to be made legal citizens, while circumventing the system our forefathers put in place to maintain law and order when it comes to immigration [while living here on fraudualent drivers licenses, social security cards and whatever else is needed to make them appear legal]; Why can't we voice our disapproval without being called homophobes and conservative legalists who are racist at heart?

Just where do there rights begin and our rights end? You have failed to address this!? And I for one would like to know that if Romans 13 is commanding us to be respectful and follow the laws of the land we live in, WHAT EXEMPTS illegals from following the same Biblical laws? What EXEMPTS our leaders from ignoring the values and morals of the majority for the sinful desires of a few?

 

[Zaac]

Can't admit yer wrong huh?

No need to when I'm not. :laugh:

I understand that this whole civics thing is your wheelhouse. But that Scripture ain't got nothing to do with the Constitution or any document. It speaks DIRECTLY to rulers and authorities as people.

But if it helps yall to sleep at night so that you can feel good yet again about disobeying a command of God, go right ahead.:thumbs:

 

[Zaac]

....I can always count on you to be interesting, entertaining, solid as a rock on your stands, inflexible, and just the opposite of most on the board!

I know what I know and there's no need to break, bend, or shift when God has delivered the truth. I have to look at things from a Biblical perspective. There's too much skewing of Scripture by folks in the church due to people's politics.

However, you have not answered my question as to illegal immigrants, especially those proclaiming to be believers. Are they not committing a sin by being here against the laws of this country?!

I didn't miss it. I didn't read it on purpose cause as I said, there was no need for me to go past the first part.

And is it really a sin for people to protest against this government when they force down our throats, laws that go against our moral fortitude, upbringing and more importantly faith?

No one said we couldn't protest against the government. As was said in the other thread, with acknowledgment of Jesus Christ and His word.

Just as those who feel they deserve, let's say, to marry someone of the same gender, don't those who oppose that, have the right to voice their displeasure? Why is one not a sin, while the other [opposing it] is??

Who said that was a sin? Is gay marriage in accordance with God's commands?

If gays can protest for equal rights, and illegal's can protest to be made legal citizens, while circumventing the system our forefathers put in place to maintain law and order when it comes to immigration [while living here on fraudualent drivers licenses, social security cards and whatever else is needed to make them appear legal]; Why can't we voice our disapproval without being called homophobes and conservative legalists who are racist at heart?

You'd have to ask the people who are calling you that for taking those positions.

Just where do there rights begin and our rights end? You have failed to address this!?

Because THIS has nothing to do with submitting to authority.

And I for one would like to know that if Romans 13 is commanding us to be respectful and follow the laws of the land we live in, WHAT EXEMPTS illegals from following the same Biblical laws?

Has someone told you to be respectful and follow a law that causes you to disobey God? If not, what's the problem?

What EXEMPTS our leaders from ignoring the values and morals of the majority for the sinful desires of a few?

So NOW the majority rules? Yall need to make up your minds.

 

[poncho]

No need to when I'm not. :laugh:

I understand that this whole civics thing is your wheelhouse. But that Scripture ain't got nothing to do with the Constitution or any document. It speaks DIRECTLY to rulers and authorities as people.

But if it helps yall to sleep at night so that you can feel good yet again about disobeying a command of God, go right ahead.:thumbs:

Your first point is correct Zaac. Romans 13 is addressing people who lived under a ruler. Not people who have a legal binding contract with their servant government as we have. You aren't just comparing apples to oranges you are claiming that apples are oranges.

An apple is not an orange.

Your second point? There is no point involved it's just more deflection.

 

[Zaac]

Your first point is correct Zaac. Romans 13 is addressing people who lived under a ruler. Not people who have a legal binding contract with their servant government as we have. You aren't just comparing apples to oranges you are claiming that apples are oranges.

Really. Scripture clearly delineates the rulers and authorities as people and I call them that. You say the Scripture is talking about the Constitution but I'm the one calling the apples are oranges? :laugh:

You're being ludicrous.

Your second point? There is no point involved it's just more deflection.

Your calling it a deflection is a deflection.

Scripture clearly makes known that it is talking about PEOPLE. If it floats your boat to believe that the Constitution is sitting over you in authority and ruling over you, ain't no skin off my nose.

But the Scripture speaks of APPLES, not your oranges.

 

[poncho]

No need to when I'm not. :laugh:

I understand that this whole civics thing is your wheelhouse. But that Scripture ain't got nothing to do with the Constitution or any document. It speaks DIRECTLY to rulers and authorities as people.

But if it helps yall to sleep at night so that you can feel good yet again about disobeying a command of God, go right ahead.:thumbs:

Really. Scripture clearly delineates the rulers and authorities as people and I call them that. You say the Scripture is talking about the Constitution but I'm the one calling the apples are oranges? :laugh:

You're being ludicrous.



Your calling it a deflection is a deflection.

Scripture clearly makes known that it is talking about PEOPLE. If it floats your boat to believe that the Constitution is sitting over you in authority and ruling over you, ain't no skin off my nose.

But the Scripture speaks of APPLES, not your oranges.

So then we agree that Romans 13 is adressing those who live under a ruler who was the highest earthly authority of that time who's word was considered law.

I never claimed Romans 13 was addressing the constitution that's something you are making up in your own mind.

Everyone here understands that the constitution wasn't around in the first century. Just as eceryone here except for you understands that we do not have rulers who's word is law in our system of government. In our system the govt is the servant and all the "people" who make it up are our servants. We are ruled by law not by men and no man or group of men are above that law.

It's not that hard to comprehend.

 

[Zaac]

So then we agree that Romans 13 is adressing those who live under a ruler who was the highest earthly authority of that time who's word was considered law.

I never claimed Romans 13 was addressing the constitution that's something you are making up in your own mind.

Sure you did. You took out all the people and stuck in Constitution.

"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

Everyone here understands that the constitution wasn't around in the first century. Just as eceryone here except for you understands that we do not have rulers who's word is law in our system of government.

It doesn't matter that they aren't the source. Romans 13 isn't addressing the source. It's addressing the PEOPLE doing the ruling over others.

In our system the govt is the servant and all the "people" who make it up are our servants. We are ruled by law not by men.

Again, if anthropomorphising the Constitution floats your boat, go for it. But that Scripture still speaks to PEOPLE as the rulers and authorities. When the Constitution or any other inanimate object starts doing this: 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.

let me know.

It's not that hard to comprehend.

Sure isn't. I'm dealing with the words on the page and you're inserting what you want to in order to meet your own needs. I fully comprehend.:thumbsup:

 

[Revmitchell]

Zaac is just here to stir you guys up. Probably should just let it go.

 

[righteousdude2]

Please answer one question....

I know what I know and there's no need to break, bend, or shift when God has delivered the truth. I have to look at things from a Biblical perspective. There's too much skewing of Scripture by folks in the church due to people's politics.



I didn't miss it. I didn't read it on purpose cause as I said, there was no need for me to go past the first part.



No one said we couldn't protest against the government. As was said in the other thread, with acknowledgment of Jesus Christ and His word.



Who said that was a sin? Is gay marriage in accordance with God's commands?



You'd have to ask the people who are calling you that for taking those positions.



Because THIS has nothing to do with submitting to authority.



Has someone told you to be respectful and follow a law that causes you to disobey God? If not, what's the problem?




So NOW the majority rules? Yall need to make up your minds.

Do you consider yourself to be a part of the Emergent Church? Your answer would explain a lot!

 

[Zaac]

Do you consider yourself to be a part of the Emergent Church? Your answer would explain a lot!

I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, defined by Him, not by some human construction. The only movement that I am a member of was commissioned almost 2000 years ago by HIM.:flower:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, defined by Him, not by some human construction. The only movement that I am a member of was commissioned almost 2000 years ago by HIM.:flower:

Except when it comes to the illogical defense of the most ungodly man every to hold the White House hostage. Then all bets -- and beliefs -- are off.

By the way ...

 

[Zaac]

Except ...

There's no exception.

I'm not a diehard, angry, pretend to be evangelical Christian whose willing to support a man who is 100% against Jesus Christ as my candidate of choice for President.

As I've said on numerous occasions, when it comes to God's word, I'm much more conservative than the majority on this board.

When you deal with what the words on the page say, it clears up confusion and contradiction.

PEOPLE, Stop being so angry:flower:

 

[sag38]

I've read some of this thread. If you guys would ignore Zaac, his trolling and misapplication of scripture he would have no audience to preach his tripe too. Put this false teacher on ignore. Don't cast your pearls before the............

 

[poncho]

There's no exception.

I'm not a diehard, angry, pretend to be evangelical Christian whose willing to support a man who is 100% against Jesus Christ as my candidate of choice for President.

As I've said on numerous occasions, when it comes to God's word, I'm much more conservative than the majority on this board.

When you deal with what the words on the page say, it clears up confusion and contradiction.

PEOPLE, Stop being so angry:flower:

Nope, we'll be angry all we want.

Obama ain't Caesar and neither are you. Nowhere in the bible does it say we have to obey Zaac. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Zaac]

Nope, we'll be angry all we want.

Then be angry. You continue to be angry and I'll continue to point out the disobedience.

Obama ain't Caesar and neither are you. Nowhere in the bible does it say we have to obey Zaac. :smilewinkgrin:

Just another excuse to disobey God's command. Scripture confirms Scripture. And the integrity of the whole makes it clear that the rulers and authorities are people.

So continue in the wickedness. God will pass judgment just as He has before.

 

[Revmitchell]

Obama is 100% against Jesus Christ. The only angry person I see is Zaac.

 

[Zaac]

I've read some of this thread. If you guys would ignore Zaac, his trolling and misapplication of scripture he would have no audience to preach his tripe too. Put this false teacher on ignore. Don't cast your pearls before the............

Oh gosh. Now Sag has weighed in. Must retreat!!!:smilewinkgrin:

Just more of the same from folks in the church who want to talk about what Obama is doing wrong, but refuse to deal with their disobedience against God concerning Obama and those rulers and authorities God has placed.

 

[Zaac]

obama is 100% against Jesus Christ.

If he doesn't know Christ, then he most certainly is. But Scripture doesn't say the rulers and authorities have to be Christ followers to warrant our submission.