A second century view of Christians as earthly citizens

[Dragoon68]

Like I've said, I don't especially like the tit for tat type of response because it's easy to get lost in it and it also can have the appearance of ripping apart a person's points. However, I'm going to answer your questions this way this time because I don't see a better way.

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.

Yes and no! The supreme law of the land starts with the Constitution which is a contract between the people, the State governments, and the Federal governments. Similar contracts exist for each State government and the people. Therefore, a law that is in violation of this contract is unlawful and, ultimately, should not be obeyed. However, I think due process should be followed which is exactly why, for example with the particular issue of arms, great organizations such as the NRA have been pushing for repeal of unlawful requirements imposed on the people. There is also a due process for changing the Constitution to clarify or modify the terms but that should be used very sparingly.

I don't think this particular issue is a situation that justifies immediate armed resistance against the government in America today because due process is still available and because we should exhaust that before we would - collectively not individually - decide to form a new government that would respect the contract. There's still a better way available.

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.

I'll ask another question first and then answer both: Was God able to bring about the exodus of Israel from Egypt without the use of violence?

Yes and yes! God is sovereign to do what He wills either by direction or by permission. He chose to apply violence - suffering, pain, and death - upon Egypt to convince them to release Israel from hundreds of years of captivity and servitude. He did it in escalating steps. He was patient but firm. He prevailed.

Why? Because it suited His purposes. It left us with a written record of what He is capable of doing - both in grace and in wrath. It shows that God carries the ultimate sword of justice and that delegation to man's civil governments is only minuscule by comparison.

Could America have been formed without revolution? Yes, if God had permitted it but just as He hardened Pharaoh's heart - and Pharaoh hardened his own heart - it was likewise so with the King of England. Ultimately, after long suffering and patient debate, there was no discernible recourse left to our people. They formed a new civil government to carry the sword of justice for them. This government then empowered an Army to fight a war of independence.

This was not a band of rebellious individuals acting for their own self interests. It was a legitimate civil government organized for the purpose of establishing a better system of justice and expanding the individual liberties of its citizens including a precious freedom of religious liberty.

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.

Slavery was on its way out before the war between the States and its unfortunate that this issue was caught up with States rights in such a manner that a war was fought between the States. I think slavery was wrong - it was almost prohibited at the time of founding but, unfortunately lingered on for a while. I think the loss of States rights was a terrible consequence of the war and one that significantly eroded our foundation which, never the less, still holds.

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?

Christians are encouraged to resolve civil differences with fellow Christians outside the civil courts when possible. That is a wise thing to do when it's possible. There is no prohibition against using the civil courts when necessary nor criminal courts for attaining justice from crimes. In fact, criminal justice is a duty of civil government that we should use verses personal revenge. Likewise, there is no prohibition against using the judicial process to seek redress from unlawful acts of the government.

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.

Yes, Christians should oppose violence. Christians, however, may engage in violence when it involves executing justice - or military service - under the authority of civil government. In such matters it is not the individual who is accountable but the institution of civil government. This, of course, holds true only if the person is acting lawfully.

Yes, I agree that Christians should not look to the government for their salvation as if it were a god. All power, however, comes from God and He has made it clear that civil government, when acting as it should, does provide benefit to society. Therefore, it is important that we seek to maintain a good civil government that operates within the confines of our contract and according to that which God intended. We must not let it decay to the point it becomes and instrument for evil. That, because of the corruptibility of mankind, is a never ending struggle.

 

[canadyjd]

Yes and no! The supreme law of the land starts with the Constitution which is a contract between the people, the State governments, and the Federal governments......

OK, even though you won't say it directly, you seem to believe that, at some point, Christians are justified in using violence for political purposes.

Do I understand you correctly?

I'll ask another question first and then answer both: Was God able to bring about the exodus of Israel from Egypt without the use of violence?

Yes and yes! God is sovereign to do what He wills either by direction or by permission. He chose to apply violence - suffering, pain, and death - upon Egypt to convince them to release Israel from hundreds of years of captivity and servitude.... Why? Because it suited His purposes. It left us with a written record of what He is capable of doing - both in grace and in wrath.

That is correct.

Could America have been formed without revolution? Yes, if God had permitted it but just as He hardened Pharaoh's heart - and Pharaoh hardened his own heart - it was likewise so with the King of England....

Here is where your reasoning is faulty, IMHO. You are comparing the founding of the U.S.A with Moses and the Hebrews coming out of Eygpt. There are several reasons why this is faulty logic.

#1. There is no covenant between God and the founders of this country, to give them this land.

The only convenant they had was the New Covenant found in the person of Jesus Christ. That covenant prohibits Christians from engaging in violence for political purposes. That covenant prohibits Christians from rebelling against their government.

#2. There is no direct prophecy concerning this nation, and God using this nation to further His purposes.

A better analogy would be that of the Hebrews chosing Saul for a King, rather than wait for God to appoint the King He had in mind. That caused the Hebrews much sorry and bloodshed.

Ultimately, after long suffering and patient debate, there was no discernible recourse left to our people.

That is simply untrue. They could have chosen to remain faithful to scripture and not rebel against the government and trust that God, in His own time, would free the nation peacefully.

They formed a new civil government to carry the sword of justice for them. This government then empowered an Army to fight a war of independence.

There is absolutely no basis in scripture for Christians to do this. In fact, such actions are directly contrary to the teachings of Christ found in the Word of God.

Christians are encouraged to resolve civil differences with fellow Christians outside the civil courts when possible. That is a wise thing to do when it's possible. There is no prohibition against using the civil courts when necessary nor criminal courts for attaining justice from crimes.

That is simply untrue. There is no condition of "when possible" given in scripture. The Apostle Paul tells Christians that it is shameful for them to take lawsuits (both criminal and civil) before secular courts. He tells them that it is better to be defrauded than to go before a secular court to seek justice.

In fact, criminal justice is a duty of civil government that we should use verses personal revenge.

Again, that is not what scripture says. The passage from Romans 12 says to leave room for God to take vengence, not the government.

Likewise, there is no prohibition against using the judicial process to seek redress from unlawful acts of the government.

Again, the passage from I Cor. is clear. It is shameful to go before a secular court for justice.

Yes, Christians should oppose violence. Christians, however, may engage in violence when it involves executing justice - or military service - under the authority of civil government.

That is just unbiblical, IMHO. You must show me a passage of scripture that tells Christians to engage in violence to seek justice. I don't believe you can do that, as it would be contrary to so much that Jesus taught.

peace to youraying:

 

[Dragoon68]

.... The Apostle Paul tells Christians that it is shameful for them to take lawsuits (both criminal and civil) before secular courts. He tells them that it is better to be defrauded than to go before a secular court to seek justice.Again, that is not what scripture says. ...

I don't completely agree your view of this scripture.

1 Corinthians 6:1-8 - "If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another - and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers."

The principles given herein are:

(1) Christians ought not "cheat and do wrong" against each other. We are not to make a mockery of justice by pursuing lawsuits against each other while we're, on the other hand, doing wrong to each other.
(2) Christians ought not bring "trivial" lawsuits against each other before the "ungodly". Trivial lawsuits are just that - frivolous matters that are more about petty bickering than any substantial wrongdoing. It is better to let these things go than to pursue them.
(3) Christians ought to resolve their "disputes" between themselves. The point here is that believers have the wisdom of the Lord to apply to their disputes and should be able to attain true justice - not legalism, technicalities, and the like but true honest and fair resolutions.

The precepts NOT given herein are:

(1) Christians can "cheat and do wrong" against non-Christians.
(2) Christians cannot bring serious lawsuits against each other before the courts of the civil government.
(3) Christians cannot seek justice for civil matters against non-Christians before the courts of the civil government.
(4) Christians cannot seek justice for crimes against them through the courts of the civil government.


Romans 13:4-5 - "... For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."

In fact, Romans 13 supports these principles and precepts because:

(1) It is made clear that he (the magistrate) is God's servant to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. It's God's intention that the civil government be used by believers and non-believers alike to the suppression of evil. This covers law enforcement and prosecution in the courts.
(2) Submitting to the authorities means cooperating with the execution of justice against criminal acts. Remember that in criminal court it is the State - not the victim - that makes the charges. The State seeks justice for the people in general as well as the victim. The victim does not attain vengeance but the State is God's agent for it in this temporal world. By cooperating with this we help restrain serious sinful conduct in the world for the benefit of all.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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).

So why did they disobey the command of Nero and not sacrifice to him and to idols? What disobedient Christians!

 

[Dragoon68]

Here is where your reasoning is faulty, IMHO. You are comparing the founding of the U.S.A with Moses and the Hebrews coming out of Eygpt. There are several reasons why this is faulty logic.

#1. There is no covenant between God and the founders of this country, to give them this land.

The only convenant they had was the New Covenant found in the person of Jesus Christ. That covenant prohibits Christians from engaging in violence for political purposes. That covenant prohibits Christians from rebelling against their government.

#2. There is no direct prophecy concerning this nation, and God using this nation to further His purposes.

No implication was being made that America has a covenant relationship with God as did the Jews. That's another whole issue!

The point made was that God was and is sovereign in all ages. He was behind America's founding - including the revolution - and has blessed our nation greatly. He has never stopped being God. The blessings to America are evident without doubt from the historical record of the times and all that's transpired since our founding. He didn't stop causing or allowing things to happen after Israel ran its course.

Where I think your logic may be faulty is with the distinction of individual Americans as subjects of the King of England verses the collective group of Americans as citizens of the USA which was declared independent for England by a duly constituted civil government. From that time forward American Christians were to be obedient to their new government and, thereby, obligated to defend it by force against England.

 

[RAdam]

I don't like violence at all. It really isn't a method I particularly like using.

However, this idea that the bible says Christians should be a bunch of pacifists is totally wrong. The bible never tells me that I have to sit by idle while atrocities are occuring. It does tell me to leave as peacably as I can. It tells me to respect my leaders. It tells me to be under authority to them. It also tells them what they are supposed to do. Their ordination of God goes hand in hand with the tasks He ordained them to perform. A leader ordained of God is ordained to be a terror to evil men, not to good, and to execute judgement and benefit the righteous. That is a God ordained government/leader.

I guess Christians shouldn't have gone over to fight the Nazis in WWII, according to the view of some here.

 

[Dragoon68]

OK, even though you won't say it directly, you seem to believe that, at some point, Christians are justified in using violence for political purposes.

Do I understand you correctly?

No, you have not understood correctly nor have you restated my points correctly. I don't see much to be gained by hashing this particular issue over and over again.

 

[canadyjd]

1 Corinthians 6:1-8.....
The principles given herein are: ....(2) Christians ought not bring "trivial" lawsuits against each other before the "ungodly". Trivial lawsuits are just that - frivolous matters that are more about petty bickering than any substantial wrongdoing. It is better to let these things go than to pursue them....The precepts NOT given herein are:.....(2) Christians cannot bring serious lawsuits against each other before the courts of the civil government.(3) Christians cannot seek justice for civil matters against non-Christians before the courts of the civil government.

Paul defines the "trivial" matters in the passage. They are the "things of this life".

That includes everything in this world.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

No, you have not understood correctly nor have you restated my points correctly. I don't see much to be gained by hashing this particular issue over and over again.

I am only attempting to understand your position.

Do you believe Christians are allowed, according to scripture, to use violence for political purposes? To use violence to achieve justice? To use violence to attain or secure personal freedoms (speech, assembly, bearing arms, etc)?

peace to youraying:

 

[Dragoon68]

Paul defines the "trivial" matters in the passage. They are the "things of this life".

That includes everything in this world.

peace to you

That is an incorrect conclusion! The two phrases can not be complete equivalents. The phrase "things of this life" refers to the future when the saints will judge the world. It is used to compare - not equate - with the "disputes". It means that if we will be able to do that in the future surely we can judge "trivial cases" in the present. The words mean what they mean in the context they are used. The overall principle is to shame Christians who sue their fellow Christians in civil court over trivial disputes when these disputes should just be resolved privately, heard and judged by the Church, or just put aside altogether. This message is in no way a precept that all civil and criminal cases involving Christians are to be exclusively handled in this manner.

 

[Dragoon68]

I am only attempting to understand your position.

Do you believe Christians are allowed, according to scripture, to use violence for political purposes? To use violence to achieve justice? To use violence to attain or secure personal freedoms (speech, assembly, bearing arms, etc)?

peace to youraying:

Refer to the my second and third paragraphs in post 101. I think I was clear enough about it and see no reason to add anything more right now.

 

[canadyjd]

That is an incorrect conclusion! The two phrases can not be complete equivalents. The phrase "things of this life" refers to the future when the saints will judge the world. It is used to compare - not equate - with the "disputes". It means that if we will be able to do that in the future surely we can judge "trivial cases" in the present. The words mean what they mean in the context they are used. The overall principle is to shame Christians who sue their fellow Christians in civil court over trivial disputes when these disputes should just be resolved privately, heard and judged by the Church, or just put aside altogether. This message is in no way a precept that all civil and criminal cases involving Christians are to be exclusively handled in this manner.

I disagree.

Paul gives a principle that Chrisitans shouldn't use secular courts to resolve their issues. The word "trivial" is used to discribe the "the things of this life" as compared to the things that Christians shall judge in heaven.

Paul is not giving a prohibitiion against bringing "trivial" matters before secular courts while allowing "non-trivial" matters before a secular court as you are maintaining. That defeats the purpose of his argument that Christians will judge the most serious cases in heaven. It also leaves undefined the meaning of "trivial", allowing everyone to insert their own definition, according to their own bias, which is what you are doing.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Refer to the my second and third paragraphs in post 101. I think I was clear enough about it and see no reason to add anything more right now.

If you had been clear, I would not have asked again.

Why are you unable to simply answer directly?

Do you believe Christians are allowed, according to scripture, to use violence for political purposes? To use violence to achieve justice? To use violence to attain or secure personal freedoms (speech, assembly, bearing arms, etc)?

A simple yes or no will be a valuable help in understanding your position. BTW, answering "yes" and "no", is not a direct answer.

peace to youraying:

 

[Dragoon68]

I disagree.

Paul gives a principle that Chrisitans shouldn't use secular courts to resolve their issues. The word "trivial" is used to discribe the "the things of this life" as compared to the things that Christians shall judge in heaven.

Paul is not giving a prohibitiion against bringing "trivial" matters before secular courts while allowing "non-trivial" matters before a secular court as you are maintaining. That defeats the purpose of his argument that Christians will judge the most serious cases in heaven. It also leaves undefined the meaning of "trivial", allowing everyone to insert their own definition, according to their own bias, which is what you are doing.

peace to youraying:

Okay, then we disagree and let's just leave it at that!

 

[Dragoon68]

If you had been clear, I would not have asked again.

Why are you unable to simply answer directly?

Do you believe Christians are allowed, according to scripture, to use violence for political purposes? To use violence to achieve justice? To use violence to attain or secure personal freedoms (speech, assembly, bearing arms, etc)?

A simple yes or no will be a valuable help in understanding your position. BTW, answering "yes" and "no", is not a direct answer.

peace to youraying:

I think I've explained my position well enough - not the way you want me to but the way I want to. I don't think there's anything unclear about my explanation. We just disagree. Wouldn't it be better to just acknowledge that and move on else we start moving to the realm of "trivial disputes"?

I'll try one more time: The answer is both "yes" and "no" because it depends on the situation - mostly whether or not it is an individual decision to rebel against the civil government who's authority God has ordained over us ("no" is the answer in this case) or a collective decision to establish a new civil government with authority God has ordained over us that requires the former to be removed ("yes" is the answer in this case). In firs case the participants are rebels but in the secone they are patriots. Our founders were patriots and may God bless them for their courageous deeds accomplished by God's grace.

 

[canadyjd]

...I'll try one more time: The answer is both "yes" and "no" because it depends on the situation - mostly whether or not it is an individual decision to rebel against the civil government who's authority God has ordained over us ("no" is the answer in this case) or a collective decision to establish a new civil government with authority God has ordained over us that requires the former to be removed ("yes" is the answer in this case). In firs case the participants are rebels but in the secone they are patriots.

So, in your view, if the participants had lost the revolution and Britian had remained in control, then God didn't ordain the rebellion and they are rebels. But.... since the participants won the revolution, God ordained the new government and they are patriots.

In your view, Chrisitan conduct doesn't depend on what scripture says, it depends on who wins the war. Scripture doesn't revel God's will... the outcome of the war reveals God's will.

Our founders were patriots and may God bless them for their courageous deeds accomplished by God's grace.

So, if you win with violence, God is for you and blesses you. If you lose, then God has not shown you His grace.

That is no different than any false notion of "gods" that has been around for thousands of years.

You have a very secular view of things. And yes, we are going to profoundly disagree.

peace to youraying:

 

[Dragoon68]

So, in your view, if the participants had lost the revolution and Britian had remained in control, then God didn't ordain the rebellion and they are rebels. But.... since the participants won the revolution, God ordained the new government and they are patriots.

In your view, Chrisitan conduct doesn't depend on what scripture says, it depends on who wins the war. Scripture doesn't revel God's will... the outcome of the war reveals God's will. So, if you win with violence, God is for you and blesses you. If you lose, then God has not shown you His grace.

That is no different than any false notion of "gods" that has been around for thousands of years.

You have a very secular view of things. And yes, we are going to profoundly disagree.

peace to you

Yes, we are going to "profoundly disagree". I think I'll try to hold my tongue regarding your inaccurate comments concerning my views and also concerning our nation's revolution. It's no longer a worthwhile discussion when someone starts misquoting and twisting my views.