A second century view of Christians as earthly citizens

[targus]

Let's just go ahead and name a few of "those who teach that Christians must be obedient to an evil government...." that we must "beware of".

Jesus Christ
Apostle Paul
Apostle Peter

Our citizenship is in heaven, first foremost and always.

If you believe scripture, then you must believe that all nations will go after the anti-christ and will persecute Christians. These United States of America will not be spared and it is foolish to do violence attempting to prevent something that God has already revealed in His Word will come to pass.

peace to youraying:

Is such obedience absolute?

What should a Christian in China do in regards to China's one child abortion law?

 

[Dragoon68]

Let's just go ahead and name a few of "those who teach that Christians must be obedient to an evil government...." that we must "beware of".

Jesus Christ
Apostle Paul
Apostle Peter

Our citizenship is in heaven, first foremost and always.

If you believe scripture, then you must believe that all nations will go after the anti-christ and will persecute Christians. These United States of America will not be spared and it is foolish to do violence attempting to prevent something that God has already revealed in His Word will come to pass.

peace to youraying:

You ignored that big old "AND" didn't you?

 

[Dragoon68]

When Paul wrote that we should "be in subjection to the governing authorities" (Rom 13:1) Nero was the leader of Rome. He was far worse than anything we know today. So we should beware of those who neglect or reject the commands of Scripture (see also 1Tim 2:1-2, Titus 3:1-2, 1Peter 2:1-17, etc).

You also ignored that big old "AND" didn't you?

 

[Martin]

Beware of those who teach that Christians must be obedient to an evil government imposed over them AND yet somehow not be loyal enough to their own nation to protect, defend, and secure the government which they designed, empowered, and are accountable for.

I did not ignore the "and", I just chose only to respond to the first part of your statement. You stated, very clearly, that we should "beware of those who teach that Christians must be obedient to an evil government imposed over them". I pointed out, in my reply to you, that Christians are commanded to be obedient to any and all government that they live under. The only time we have permission to disobey government is when government asks us to disobey God. In such situations we, like Daniel and the Apostles, must obey God rather than man. However we must also be prepared to face the consequences of such actions (persecution). Other than that, we are to be obedient to government and respectful towards our leaders. Paul, and Peter, taught us that while living under the reign of one of Rome's most brutal Caesars (Nero).

"yet somehow not be loyal enough to their own nation to protect, defend, and secure the government which they designed, empowered, and are accountable for."

Part of the problem here is your wording. Are you targeting Christians who are not in the military? Or are you targeting Christians who don't believe in using political activism to return government to its original form? It's just not clear from your wording. If the meaning is the later, and must assume it is, then we have yet another difference. Neither Jesus, Paul, nor Peter (etc) took up the cause of Rome. They did not use political activism to try to make Rome a more "Christian empire" (whatever that is). As Christians we are not called to "reclaim the culture" or "return America to small government", no matter how noble those things are. Our mission is to live for Christ as individuals and as a church, evangelize the lost and disciple the saved. Our political beliefs must be (a) secondary to each of those things and (b) must be in agreement with each of those things. Therefore our focus needs to be on our Biblical mission and our approach to politics (and to all of life) must be in agreement with our Christian confession. Too many Christians have fallen into sin by disobeying the Word of God on this matter.

Again, I'm not clear on your specific point in the second part of your statement. I'm just responding to what it seems like you are saying.

 

[Martin]

What should a Christian in China do in regards to China's one child abortion law?

They should do what Moses' mother and sister did and rescue children from perishing (Ex 2:1-10). This is a case of obeying God rather than men. We are permitted to disobey government only when obeying government means being disobedient to God. We should never disobey God in order to obey government. When the two contradict, we should always obey God (as Daniel and the Apostles did). However notice that none of these men/women formed political action groups or played the political game. They just obeyed God and, as Charles Stanley puts it, left all the consequences to Him (regardless of what that meant). Too many American Christians today seem to trust in politics and political action groups. This, however, will result in failure (as it always has). We are not of this world, neither is our mission or message, and we should not expect this world to see or do things the way we do. Our focus should be on obeying God, not trying to get government to do what we want.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I did not ignore the "and", I just chose only to respond to the first part of your statement. You stated, very clearly, that we should "beware of those who teach that Christians must be obedient to an evil government imposed over them". I pointed out, in my reply to you, that Christians are commanded to be obedient to any and all government that they live under. The only time we have permission to disobey government is when government asks us to disobey God. In such situations we, like Daniel and the Apostles, must obey God rather than man. However we must also be prepared to face the consequences of such actions (persecution). Other than that, we are to be obedient to government and respectful towards our leaders. Paul, and Peter, taught us that while living under the reign of one of Rome's most brutal Caesars (Nero).

"yet somehow not be loyal enough to their own nation to protect, defend, and secure the government which they designed, empowered, and are accountable for."

Part of the problem here is your wording. Are you targeting Christians who are not in the military? Or are you targeting Christians who don't believe in using political activism to return government to its original form? It's just not clear from your wording. If the meaning is the later, and must assume it is, then we have yet another difference. Neither Jesus, Paul, nor Peter (etc) took up the cause of Rome. They did not use political activism to try to make Rome a more "Christian empire" (whatever that is). As Christians we are not called to "reclaim the culture" or "return America to small government", no matter how noble those things are. Our mission is to live for Christ as individuals and as a church, evangelize the lost and disciple the saved. Our political beliefs must be (a) secondary to each of those things and (b) must be in agreement with each of those things. Therefore our focus needs to be on our Biblical mission and our approach to politics (and to all of life) must be in agreement with our Christian confession. Too many Christians have fallen into sin by disobeying the Word of God on this matter.

An excellent post - too often pragmatism and human reasoning win out in the area of politics. This is why the quote about the second century church stuck out to me.

 

[NiteShift]

I did not ignore the "and", I just chose only to respond to the first part of your statement. You stated, very clearly, that we should "beware of those who teach that Christians must be obedient to an evil government imposed over them". I pointed out, in my reply to you, that Christians are commanded to be obedient to any and all government that they live under. The only time we have permission to disobey government is when government asks us to disobey God. In such situations we, like Daniel and the Apostles, must obey God rather than man. However we must also be prepared to face the consequences of such actions (persecution). Other than that, we are to be obedient to government and respectful towards our leaders. Paul, and Peter, taught us that while living under the reign of one of Rome's most brutal Caesars (Nero).

"yet somehow not be loyal enough to their own nation to protect, defend, and secure the government which they designed, empowered, and are accountable for."

Part of the problem here is your wording. Are you targeting Christians who are not in the military? Or are you targeting Christians who don't believe in using political activism to return government to its original form? It's just not clear from your wording. If the meaning is the later, and must assume it is, then we have yet another difference. Neither Jesus, Paul, nor Peter (etc) took up the cause of Rome. They did not use political activism to try to make Rome a more "Christian empire" (whatever that is). As Christians we are not called to "reclaim the culture" or "return America to small government", no matter how noble those things are. Our mission is to live for Christ as individuals and as a church, evangelize the lost and disciple the saved. Our political beliefs must be (a) secondary to each of those things and (b) must be in agreement with each of those things. Therefore our focus needs to be on our Biblical mission and our approach to politics (and to all of life) must be in agreement with our Christian confession. Too many Christians have fallen into sin by disobeying the Word of God on this matter.

Again, I'm not clear on your specific point in the second part of your statement. I'm just responding to what it seems like you are saying.

We do not live under Nero, or any emperor or tyrant. Our elected officials work for us. When they take our country into directions we do not want to go it is our right to make our displeasure known to them, both at the ballot box and through our right to freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. Yep, we have to obey the laws that do not conflict with God's laws. I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested otherwise. And frankly, it seems a little presumptuous to be lecturing fellow believers in what their focus must be. They know it already.

 

[Martin]

We do not live under Nero, or any emperor or tyrant. Our elected officials work for us. When they take our country into directions we do not want to go it is our right to make our displeasure known to them, both at the ballot box and through our right to freedom of assembly and freedom of the press.

I never said that we did not have that right. My point was, and is, that it is not our Christian responsibility. As Christians our focus should be on the things of God, not on the things of earth. As a result, we should never allow our earthly actions to cast doubt/shame on our Christian testimony. Far too many Christians have compromised themselves by saying things they should not and holding an unChrist-like attitude (because of politics). We should not do this. Our focus should be on obeying God, not winning elections.

Yep, we have to obey the laws that do not conflict with God's laws. I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested otherwise. And frankly, it seems a little presumptuous to be lecturing fellow believers in what their focus must be. They know it already.

If modern Christians, generally speaking, know what their priorities should be it does not show. Far too many Christians will walk on fire for political candidates, or freeze for football games, but they will not inconvenience themselves for serious Bible study (or a long sermon, etc). Priorities are seen in actions, not words. How many Christians will go door-to-door for a political candidate, but not for Christ? How many Christians will openly talk about their political candidate or favorite team, but not of Christ? This is a major problem. So, no, I don't think it is "presumptuous" to be pointing this out (or lecturing, as you put it). I see this as a much needed message in our day of easy believism, greasy grace, and political activism.

 

[NiteShift]

I never said that we did not have that right. My point was, and is, that it is not our Christian responsibility. As Christians our focus should be on the things of God, not on the things of earth. As a result, we should never allow our earthly actions to cast doubt/shame on our Christian testimony. Far too many Christians have compromised themselves by saying things they should not and holding an unChrist-like attitude (because of politics). We should not do this. Our focus should be on obeying God, not winning elections.

Well Martin, I have seen you praising those candidates that you approve of, and stating who you will or will not vote for, so there's no point in arguing that no true believer should take part in or discuss such things.

I see this as a much needed message in our day of easy believism, greasy grace, and political activism.

So what is hard believism supposed to look like? Jesus said "my yoke is easy".

At any rate, I don't mean to put you down. You apparently are a good Christian and you probably have attempted to do more to further the Kingdon than many of us. I say that in all seriousness.

 

[billwald]

for those proud of their red wagon

from http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/index.htm



Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

 

[billwald]

>Originally Posted by Dragoon68

>Beware of those who teach that Christians must be obedient to an evil government imposed over them AND yet somehow not be loyal enough to their own nation to protect, defend, and secure the government which they designed, empowered, and are accountable for.

GOOD OBSERVATION! God expects us to use the brains he gave us and not excuse bad decisions under the excuse of blind obedience. After all, King David and his men ate the showbread.

 

[Dragoon68]

I did not ignore the "and", I just chose only to respond to the first part of your statement. You stated, very clearly, that we should "beware of those who teach that Christians must be obedient to an evil government imposed over them". I pointed out, in my reply to you, that Christians are commanded to be obedient to any and all government that they live under. The only time we have permission to disobey government is when government asks us to disobey God. In such situations we, like Daniel and the Apostles, must obey God rather than man. However we must also be prepared to face the consequences of such actions (persecution). Other than that, we are to be obedient to government and respectful towards our leaders. Paul, and Peter, taught us that while living under the reign of one of Rome's most brutal Caesars (Nero).

"yet somehow not be loyal enough to their own nation to protect, defend, and secure the government which they designed, empowered, and are accountable for."

Part of the problem here is your wording. Are you targeting Christians who are not in the military? Or are you targeting Christians who don't believe in using political activism to return government to its original form? It's just not clear from your wording. If the meaning is the later, and must assume it is, then we have yet another difference. Neither Jesus, Paul, nor Peter (etc) took up the cause of Rome. They did not use political activism to try to make Rome a more "Christian empire" (whatever that is). As Christians we are not called to "reclaim the culture" or "return America to small government", no matter how noble those things are. Our mission is to live for Christ as individuals and as a church, evangelize the lost and disciple the saved. Our political beliefs must be (a) secondary to each of those things and (b) must be in agreement with each of those things. Therefore our focus needs to be on our Biblical mission and our approach to politics (and to all of life) must be in agreement with our Christian confession. Too many Christians have fallen into sin by disobeying the Word of God on this matter.

Again, I'm not clear on your specific point in the second part of your statement. I'm just responding to what it seems like you are saying.

Clearly, Martin, you did ignore the "AND" by taking only the first part of the my comment which, by itself, has a different meaning. You and I know that!

It is my observation that people are using God's word to justify indifference to our duty to manage our own government - the one that we established over-selves by the the grace of God. We do not have a King put over us by some far away "authority". We have a government composed of our representatives. We do have a Christian duty to obey our "civil government" and we ALSO have a Christian duty to make sure that government operates within the limits and according to the contract we established from its start. When people invoke the truth of God's word - particularly as it is written in Romans - they often do so for purposes other than to uphold His word and often to justify the "change" they wish to impose upon the rest of us. God gave us this great gift of liberty - including self governance - and we'd better take seriously the responsibility to take care of it. That means opposing the "change" that is contrary to our original intentions. That opposition needs to be within the limits of our laws and God's laws but we are not under an obligation to blinding sit by and watch our nation decay based on a total misunderstanding of Romans 13.

 

[Martin]

Well Martin, I have seen you praising those candidates that you approve of, and stating who you will or will not vote for, so there's no point in arguing that no true believer should take part in or discuss such things.

Of course I have not said, nor do I believe, that Christians should not vote or support candidates. The issue I am referring to is Christians behaving badly in the name of politics and getting their focus off Christ and His Word. Btw, I don't believe in "hard believism". By "easy believism" I refer to the name-it, claim-it, have everything you want, you can live like the devil and still enter heaven, perversion of Christianity.

 

[Martin]

It is my observation that people are using God's word to justify indifference to our duty to manage our own government - the one that we established over-selves by the the grace of God.

I'm not aware that we have a Christian duty to any nation. Other than to obey the laws and show respect, the New Testament does not require anything else of us. Should Christians vote? I believe so, but it is not a Biblical command.

When people invoke the truth of God's word - particularly as it is written in Romans - they often do so for purposes other than to uphold His word and often to justify the "change" they wish to impose upon the rest of us.

I'm really not sure what you are talking about when you refer to "the change they wish to impose". I invoke Romans 13, and other such verses, to show how Christians should behave towards their leaders (be they good or bad).

God gave us this great gift of liberty - including self governance - and we'd better take seriously the responsibility to take care of it.

I agree. But I also believe that is very much secondary to our (Christians) main missions in this life. Focusing too much on America and politics causes us to take our eyes off of what is eternally important.

 

[Dragoon68]

I'm not aware that we have a Christian duty to any nation. Other than to obey the laws and show respect, the New Testament does not require anything else of us. Should Christians vote? I believe so, but it is not a Biblical command.



I'm really not sure what you are talking about when you refer to "the change they wish to impose". I invoke Romans 13, and other such verses, to show how Christians should behave towards their leaders (be they good or bad).




I agree. But I also believe that is very much secondary to our (Christians) main missions in this life. Focusing too much on America and politics causes us to take our eyes off of what is eternally important.

This illustrates the problem! On the one hand I hear some fellow Christians saying the Lord commanded them to be obedient to civil government and yet on the other hand the same ones say we have no duty to the very civil government we established, own, and are responsible to preserve for the benefit of others. We have no duty to humbly obey a leader who acts outside the limits of the power we have given them. We have, in fact, a duty to oppose such a leader - albeit by lawful means - for the benefit of other believers and non-believers alike that live under the same freedom as we do. We need to get a much better understanding of the meaning of Romans 13 relative to the various governments that have existed as well as the one we now have. We need to understand that we, the people, are the government in the USA or have we yielded all power to a Emperor or King some time since God so graciously permitted us to be free of such tyranny? If this is not true then we'd better go crawling back to the King of England, beg his forgiveness, and put ourselves under his every command.

 

[NiteShift]

Your concern about red wagons

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities...

Proud is also a colloquialism meaning "Glad", as in "I am proud to see you".

... that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

I have no trouble at all recognizing the Grace of God, or recognizing a gift when I see it. And when I have received a gift I do not spend my adult life denigrating it and teaching others to sneer at it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We have, in fact, a duty to oppose such a leader - albeit by lawful means - for the benefit of other believers and non-believers alike that live under the same freedom as we do.

Where do you find that we have that duty?

We need to get a much better understanding of the meaning of Romans 13 relative to the various governments that have existed as well as the one we now have. We need to understand that we, the people, are the government in the USA or have we yielded all power to a Emperor or King some time since God so graciously permitted us to be free of such tyranny? If this is not true then we'd better go crawling back to the King of England, beg his forgiveness, and put ourselves under his every command.

Paul wrote these words under Nero's rule. Did it apply to those Christians alive at that time?

 

[saturneptune]

This illustrates the problem! On the one hand I hear some fellow Christians saying the Lord commanded them to be obedient to civil government and yet on the other hand the same ones say we have no duty to the very civil government we established, own, and are responsible to preserve for the benefit of others. We have no duty to humbly obey a leader who acts outside the limits of the power we have given them. We have, in fact, a duty to oppose such a leader - albeit by lawful means - for the benefit of other believers and non-believers alike that live under the same freedom as we do. We need to get a much better understanding of the meaning of Romans 13 relative to the various governments that have existed as well as the one we now have. We need to understand that we, the people, are the government in the USA or have we yielded all power to a Emperor or King some time since God so graciously permitted us to be free of such tyranny? If this is not true then we'd better go crawling back to the King of England, beg his forgiveness, and put ourselves under his every command.

I believe you are correct, and think the mindset you are talking about comes from the fact that 90% + on this board never served one day.

 

[Bob Alkire]

This illustrates the problem! On the one hand I hear some fellow Christians saying the Lord commanded them to be obedient to civil government and yet on the other hand the same ones say we have no duty to the very civil government we established, own, and are responsible to preserve for the benefit of others. We have no duty to humbly obey a leader who acts outside the limits of the power we have given them. We have, in fact, a duty to oppose such a leader - albeit by lawful means - for the benefit of other believers and non-believers alike that live under the same freedom as we do. We need to get a much better understanding of the meaning of Romans 13 relative to the various governments that have existed as well as the one we now have. We need to understand that we, the people, are the government in the USA or have we yielded all power to a Emperor or King some time since God so graciously permitted us to be free of such tyranny? If this is not true then we'd better go crawling back to the King of England, beg his forgiveness, and put ourselves under his every command.

I agree with you here.

Way back when, I was in school I noticed that professors who served in WWII as well as those who served in the front lines where very different in their view on our duty to our nation. Most of the front liners there were the ones who saw and fought the move to the left in theology and politics and about three fourth of the WWII vets were right along and the one who didn't serve were about three fourth were shall we say open minded about our duty to our country. I feel it is my duty to follow God and do all in the power He gives me all I can for others to have what so many of the past have had in this country, perfection, no but a good government that allows opportunity for all.

Also keep in mind many of the first century and early centuries Christians were slaves. As slaves it might have been years since they had been to their home country and seen their family, so their new family of faith in Christ and new country ever where it was seemed great to them. Many of us are closer to our family at our fellowship hall than we are with our family of birth.

 

[Dragoon68]

Where do you find that we have that duty?



Paul wrote these words under Nero's rule. Did it apply to those Christians alive at that time?

Come back home and be both the salt and the light to this world in which we are living. In so doing you will be a good Christian and a good American citizen. Or, on the other hand, let all that's been gained at such a high price slip away from us and our descendants. Then, perhaps, they can abide by Romans 13 under the rule of a tyranny while they dream of the liberty their forefathers had by the grace of God through the blood, sweat, and tears that were given. Romans 13, my friend, illustrates how Christians are to be subject to civil government but it does not define what is the best civil government they can enjoy nor does it limit their quest to attain it. We've already fought and won that battle - all we've got to do now is appreciate what we have, understand God gave it to us, and do our very best to keep it.