Upcoming Election

[darinhouston]

People could move into my home and become a part of my family if I chose to let them. In fact, I have two adopted children. Likewise, I had a displaced family living in my home for an extended time. They were not permanent, but it could have been, theoretically. I think it's a good analogy, regardless if it's a perfect logical syllogism. Perhaps more parallel, however, would be a gated community or a condo with doormen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thrombomodulin]

Dwight,

If God has not ordained any authority today, then how can there even be authority to despise? And how can He condemn anyone who despises authority, if He has not ordained that authority?

Regarding both 2 Peter 2:9-10 and Jude 1:8, I am not certain that the rulers of earthly kingdoms were the intended reference of these authors. In the context of the chapter the kind of wrongdoing that is being addressed is focused on the flesh (sarx). Jude's examples from this chapter include fornication, lasciviousness, and denying Christ. Peter's examples from this chapter include heresies, greed, fabricated stories, adultery, lusts of the flesh, and boastful words. These are matters of obedience to Christ and, while examples exist to the contrary, these kinds of sins are of the type that do not strike me as the kind which a secular king would be concerned about enforcing. The NIV continues in both cases with a statement about angels ("and heap abuse on celestial beings", etc,.). On this basis it appears to me to be plausible that the dominion in view in these references is that of the rule and reign of the Lord, rather than earthly rulers, where angels are the ones who do His will in executing judgement on the disobedient. That authority does exist today and it can be despised.

1 Timothy 2:1-2 " ... I urge that ... prayers ... be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority

Indeed we should pray for those who have assumed the position of being a ruler. They excercise authority over other men (Matth 20:24), but not it is not always a valid authority.

1Pe 2:13 - So the Bible calls the governorship or the kingship of a land a "human institution" that He (God) has sent. If He sent them, then are they not ordained by God?

Yes. I take this passage, and the parallel in Romans 13, to indicate that Caesar was ordained by God.

Has God given authority to police officers?

No authority has been explicitly granted governments of our own time, so I would not affirm that He has given this authority to them.

Do they not generally punish evildoers and praise those who do right?

Sometimes they do - the police have apprehended a large number of criminals such as thieves and murders.

Often they do not - Here in Indiana it is a crime to sell alcohol if the sale takes place on Sunday. Are officers who prosecute the violators of this law punishing evil doers, or are they punishing those whose conduct is blameless? And what happens on Saturday, do these officers suddenly fail to punish the evil of selling alcohol (if indeed it is evil)? Does morality change by the day of the week? Many other examples could be given as the numerous laws that exist cover areas they go far beyond what can biblically be defined as wrongdoing, but if we wish to find the opposite extreme we can look to the KGB's actions during the cold war, or Nero's persecution of Christians.

Pete

[dwight92070]

Now 65 countries are building or have built walls and/or fences to keep illegal immigrants out. Apparently the Republicans are not the only ones who believe open borders is a bad thing. This is 4 times the amount of countries that had walls/fences when the Berlin Wall came down. Illegal immigration is a growing global problem and needs to be stopped.

[dwight92070]

Pete,

If God wanted to show us that there is a difference between "valid" authority and "invalid" authority, then He could have used those terms in the Bible, but He does not. You have added those terms in your own mind to line up with what you want it to say, but we are not to add to or take away from scripture.

Dwight

[thrombomodulin]

Dwight,

If God wanted to show us that there is a difference between "valid" authority and "invalid" authority, then He could have used those terms in the Bible, but He does not.

The thing I find perplexing is that you agree with ideas of valid and invalid authority, and yet despise me for believing in it. Since you are not a pacifist, I will again provide this example: If the United States were to declare war on a foreign power (e.g. ISIS), I think you would be disappointed if it happened that when the US soldiers crossed the border line into the foreign country that they began to submit to the foreign ruler in deference to his God given authority on that side of the border. Surely you believe that for the US solider there is one man who is his valid authority, and another man who is an invalid authority for him.

Pete

[dwight92070]

If God wanted to show us that there is a difference between "valid" authority and "invalid" authority, then He could have used those terms in the Bible, but He does not.

Pete: The thing I find perplexing is that you agree with ideas of valid and invalid authority, and yet despise me for believing in it.

Dwight: I do not despise you. I take it that you assumed that from my statement about your adding to the Scripture in your mind. I will be the first to admit that I have done the same thing, probably many times, in my years of trying to understand the Bible. I only meant it as a gentle warning that we are not to do that. I believe that it would take far more than adding words to the scripture in our minds to actually violate that warning - like publishing a new version of the Bible with added or subtracted words. But as we grapple with understanding the Bible, we all probably inadvertently add or subtract a word, thinking that will give us a clearer understanding.

Dwight: I don't know why you say that I agree with the ideas of valid and invalid authority. There is more than one possible meaning for the expressions: Valid authority and Invalid authority, But when you say "invalid" authority, it appears to change the meaning to no authority at all. I believe there are real authorities (i.e. individuals) that God did not put there, but maybe even saying that does not line up with Romans 13:1.

[robbyyoung]

Dwight,

If God wanted to show us that there is a difference between "valid" authority and "invalid" authority, then He could have used those terms in the Bible, but He does not.

The thing I find perplexing is that you agree with ideas of valid and invalid authority, and yet despise me for believing in it. Since you are not a pacifist, I will again provide this example: If the United States were to declare war on a foreign power (e.g. ISIS), I think you would be disappointed if it happened that when the US soldiers crossed the border line into the foreign country that they began to submit to the foreign ruler in deference to his God given authority on that side of the border. Surely you believe that for the US solider there is one man who is his valid authority, and another man who is an invalid authority for him.

Pete

Hi Pete,

As you know, for those who believe God is still in the business of ruling over the kingdoms of humanity, there is undeniable proof texts that will confidently support the claim. There is no confusion on our part. For example, if the U.S. invades Syria to destroy ISIS--both kingdoms are sanctioned by God--Dan 4:17 "the Most High has power over human kingdoms. He gives them to whomever he wishes." Therefore, whomever emerges as the victor, so be it--Dan 2:21 "…he removes kings, and sets up kings…" Thus, Paul, in Rom 13, wasn't speaking on his own accord??? You and I both know he was well versed in "Daniel" and was applying this biblical principal. Thus, the discussion is not at all confusing on our part. But when you take the approach "this doesn't apply anymore" without clear scriptural support that relents these verses, a suspect apologetic on the issue is warranted. But if you are comfortable in your belief, then feel good about it, and own it. But I don't think there are any misconceptions on why the opposing view is widely accepted. Simply, "it does apply today", so wish us well in our belief.

God Bless.

The king’s heart is like a stream of water directed by the LORD; he guides it wherever he pleases.
— Proverbs 21:1

[thrombomodulin]

Dwight,

It is always hard to inference tone in a text only format and I perceived it as a stronger statement than you intended (I thought about editing the post to switch the word despise to criticism, but left it undone). I agree, of course, with not adding or removing words and consider the scripture to be authoritative. Nonetheless, some things are ambiguous and require interpretation.

I don't know why you say that I agree with the ideas of valid and invalid authority. There is more than one possible meaning for the expressions: Valid authority and Invalid authority, But when you say "invalid" authority, it appears to change the meaning to no authority at all.

My explanation probably lacked sufficient clarity. What I am saying is that you would (I think) recognize and agree that in certain situations a particular ruler does indeed have "no authority over all" over a particular person. The example I provided is a US solider inside the territory of an enemy state in a time of war. Although he is in a rulers territory, he would consider that ruler's authority to be invalid over himself. Since we live in a world with multiple men who seek to rule, one inevitably has the burden of trying to work out which ruler(s) one is subject to and which one is not subject to. We have common ground in that we both see certain rulers, despite any claims they might make, as having no authority over ourselves. Hence, I think it was a mistake to dismiss the category of "invalid authority" as being something that cannot exist.

If we can agree on that, then the next step in applying Romans 13, etc,. is to resolve the question of how we might know which subject goes with which ruler in particular circumstances. How are the bonds between ruler and citizen created or dissolved? Can this action be taken unilateral by either party? Does it depend on border lines? etc,. The possibility, at least in theory, would remain open that a person might not be bound to serve any ruler. Or a would be ruler lacks any bonds to subjects.

Pete

[thrombomodulin]

As you know, for those who believe God is still in the business of ruling over the kingdoms of humanity, there is undeniable proof texts that will confidently support the claim. There is no confusion on our part. For example, if the U.S. invades Syria to destroy ISIS--both kingdoms are sanctioned by God--Dan 4:17 "the Most High has power over human kingdoms. He gives them to whomever he wishes." Therefore, whomever emerges as the victor, so be it--Dan 2:21 "…he removes kings, and sets up kings…"

In your view, If one supports a war (e.g. by participating in it) he will yet not know which side will be victorious in the conflict in the end. The same applies to anyone who attempts to either help, or to oppose, an insurrection. This person bears the risk that he rebelled against the God ordained authority, and this tantamount to rebellion against God (Rom 13:2). A pacifist can solve this difficulty by affirming no support for any war, but how do you solve it?

[robbyyoung]

As you know, for those who believe God is still in the business of ruling over the kingdoms of humanity, there is undeniable proof texts that will confidently support the claim. There is no confusion on our part. For example, if the U.S. invades Syria to destroy ISIS--both kingdoms are sanctioned by God--Dan 4:17 "the Most High has power over human kingdoms. He gives them to whomever he wishes." Therefore, whomever emerges as the victor, so be it--Dan 2:21 "…he removes kings, and sets up kings…"

In your view, If one supports a war (e.g. by participating in it) he will yet not know which side will be victorious in the conflict in the end. The same applies to anyone who attempts to either help, or to oppose, an insurrection. This person bears the risk that he rebelled against the God ordained authority, and this tantamount to rebellion against God (Rom 13:2). A pacifist can solve this difficulty by affirming no support for any war, but how do you solve it?

Hi Pete,

Pacifist or not, scripture declares that it is God who exercises His will in these matters. Yes, death may come either way for the believer. Christians have answers to the purpose behind why kingdoms, rulers, and authorities rise and fall. Yes, believers are sometimes caught in the wake of such transitions. My view is not convoluted against the backdrop of the textual evidence. The only way one can rebel against God is by not submitting to their legitimate governing authority; working within the confines of established laws to effect change. Again, this may cost them their lives and freedom if they opt to exercise civil disobedience to preserve the love of God towards their neighbor. What is clear to me is that live or die, God is ruling over the affairs of man. This is a great comfort. Incidentally, what scriptures are you referencing that voids Paul understanding of the law and the prophets regarding authority?

-Robby