Upcoming Election

[mattrose]

Did Trump really say that? Try to sort the true statements from the fictional. If you get more than half of them right, let us know. I failed to do so.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washing ... -say-quiz/

I got exactly 50%

[Paidion]

Does a man have any moral obligation to obey a ruler who attains his position by brute force and was not put their by God?

I know what you are saying. Richard Wurmbrand (who was tortured in a Communist Romanian prison for 14 years) saw it the same way.

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering how you see this position as squaring with:

(Romans 13:1 ESV) Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

I don't claim to be able to harmonize the two positions; I have been struggling with it for years. However, I do know how Richard Wurbrand explained it, and will share that after I read your own thoughts on the matter.

[thrombomodulin]

Paidion,

So far as I am aware everyone's position encounters problems when applying this passage - including my own. I also do not claim to be able to harmonize this passage.

For my view one of several methods to alleviate the trouble is to place this statement in its historical context. It is through this passage alone that we are able to know that the Caesar who reigned at the time Paul was writing was appointed by God to rule. When Paul said "those [rulers] that exist" he was speaking in regard to his own time and place - not elsewhere. I do not object to limited submission to a ruler whom God has appointed to his position. My position is that no person should be regarded as a ruler who is authorized by God, and deserving of submission as per this passage, sans divine revelation that God has indeed authorized him to rule. I know of no modern ruler who can demonstrate such credentials.

I would like to make two related points:

1) The NT contains examples of disobedience to rulers so Paul's statements to submit to the ruler must contain various exceptions. How broad those exceptions are is open to discussion. I would consider those exceptions to be broader than most fellow believers.

2) Paul writing does not mandate establishing a ruler in this passage where one is lacking. If one should find himself in such circumstances as there is no ruler, then the content of the passage becomes irrelevant within such a situation.

Peter

[Paidion]

Richard Wurmbrand understood it in context:

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

Brother Wurmbrand wrote that, in verse 3, Paul described authorities that were instituted by God as being "not a terror to good conduct, but to bad." He said that in Communist countries (such as Romania, where he was imprisoned), the "authorities" were just the opposite. They were a terror to good conduct—to Christians, and applauded evil people. He also said that the authority who is "the servant of God" (verse 4) "carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer," whereas the so-called "authorities" in Communist countries, carry out their own wrath, on those who do right (the Christians). For these reasons, Wurmbrand thought it morally right to lie to the Communists. He had made up his mind he would never inform on another believer. When they tried to extract names of other Christians, by means of torture, if the torture got too bad, he gave them names. But they were names of disciples who either had died, or who had managed to get out of Romania.

[dwight92070]

Thrombomodulin,

You're welcome.

That's a good question about whether we need to submit to rulers who became such by brute force. My first thought is we should until they tell us to do something that violates God's word. But that would be the same for any ruler.

[robbyyoung]

Richard Wurmbrand understood it in context:

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

Brother Wurmbrand wrote that, in verse 3, Paul described authorities that were instituted by God as being "not a terror to good conduct, but to bad." He said that in Communist countries (such as Romania, where he was imprisoned), the "authorities" were just the opposite. They were a terror to good conduct—to Christians, and applauded evil people. He also said that the authority who is "the servant of God" (verse 4) "carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer," whereas the so-called "authorities" in Communist countries, carry out their own wrath, on those who do right (the Christians). For these reasons, Wurmbrand thought it morally right to lie to the Communists. He had made up his mind he would never inform on another believer. When they tried to extract names of other Christians, by means of torture, if the torture got too bad, he gave them names. But they were names of disciples who either had died, or who had managed to get out of Romania.

Hi Paidion,

I can understand and sympathize with brother Wurmbrand understanding, however, it isn’t tenable against the scrutiny of Yeshua’s example and full context of governing authorities. Here's the brevity of my opinion, to begin, Romans 13:1 does not suggest that the only authorities Christians should be in subjection to are YAHWEH honoring/fearing governments. Yeshua’s example most definitely dispels this belief. For example, was the Roman government, during Yeshua’s ordeal, God fearing? The answer is NO. But yet Yeshua subjected himself to Pilot’s authority, and why? Well let’s take a look at what Yeshua said in John 19:10-11,

So Pilate *said to Him, “You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?” Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”

Thus, Paul clearly delivers The Word of God without any controversy to his audience when he says in verse 1, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” Therefore, as a Christian, we should not be confused that ALL authorities exist only by God’s sovereign will. They serve God’s purpose; Yeshua’s plight was a shining example that should give clarity, well, at least for me.

Of course, not all rulers and governments up and down the spectrum are GOOD, but some are. This does not erase the fact that they exist ONLY because God has given them the authority to rule. We see horrible rulers all throughout the Bible who served God’s purpose—that we know God raised-up! These are hard truths, but God is much larger than our comfort zones as HE works throughout all of mankind, dealing with trillions upon trillions of free-will agents’ complex issues on a daily basis.

Keep me in check, but I contend to let God be God and let us be subject to the governing authorities. Whether we live or die, God’s authority is what ultimately matters. I’m not going to complicate it more than I have too. Your thoughts?

God Bless

[thrombomodulin]

That's a good question about whether we need to submit to rulers who became such by brute force. My first thought is we should until they tell us to do something that violates God's word. But that would be the same for any ruler.

Does it violate God's word for this kind of ruler to collect taxes? Would he be stealing, or would such be justly acquired gain for him? Consider this quote:

Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What do you mean by seizing the whole earth; because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor"

I think the view that we must obey such a ruler suffers from the problem that is there is not a good way to distinguish the morality of the two men in the quote above. We need only tell the robber, who is to be condemned for his crime, that he did not steal on a large enough scale, and that he did not impose enough brutality, to deserve our agreement that his acts were justified so that we must obey him.

[Paidion]

Interesting quote from Augustine, Peter.

However, although Alexander the Great may have been a robber on a grand scale, does this imply that this is universally true of government leaders?

[robbyyoung]

That's a good question about whether we need to submit to rulers who became such by brute force. My first thought is we should until they tell us to do something that violates God's word. But that would be the same for any ruler.

Does it violate God's word for this kind of ruler to collect taxes? Would he be stealing, or would such be justly acquired gain for him? Consider this quote:

Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What do you mean by seizing the whole earth; because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor"

I think the view that we must obey such a ruler suffers from the problem that is there is not a good way to distinguish the morality of the two men in the quote above. We need only tell the robber, who is to be condemned for his crime, that he did not steal on a large enough scale, and that he did not impose enough brutality, to deserve our agreement that his acts were justified so that we must obey him.

Hi Pete,

It is good to converse with you again, its been awhile. Whether good or bad, christians must be in subjection to God's authority; who has given authority for man to rule over man in the various governments established on the earth. We obey the rule of law until it conflicts with God's law and most likely suffer persecution for it. Irregardless, God's purpose is served ALL OF THE TIME. Yes, we may suffer and die, but that's nothing new in God's dealings in and around free-will agents. If you except the premise, God establishes ALL authority, then it's not that complicated. Yeshua led the way on how this is possible and just. Taxes or otherwise, subject until there's a moral conflict with God's Word. Your thoughts?

God Bless!

[thrombomodulin]

However, although Alexander the Great may have been a robber on a grand scale, does this imply that this is universally true of government leaders?

Yes. One person taking ownership of another persons property, without their consent, would seem to be a good place to start for a definition of robbery. Trade through voluntary exchange is not robbery because each participant is consenting to the transfer of ownership for the items sold in that exchange. Taxation would not fit this definition because it is property taken without the owners consent. Taxation is theft, and all rulers impose taxes.

The point Augustine makes is a general one, that goes far beyond the particular example of robbery. The State imposes its will on its citizens by the enforcement of laws and regulations that are far too numerous to count. After all, what a ruler does is to rule others in some way. I think you would agree that if a person, who is not an establish ruler like the robber in Augustine's quote, declares an arbitrary rule and threatens harm to you if you will not obey it, that you would not be under a moral obligation to obey him. He should be regarded as a criminal or bully. If, however, that same person is able to marshal a greater amount of credibility to his threats (like Alexander), then the ethics of the situation somehow mysteriously change as a Christian might consider him to be a ruler deserving of obedience per Romans 13. When he crosses the line from criminal/bully to ruler is not entirely clear.

Peter