Upcoming Election

[Soulsnaxx]

As the upcoming election draws near, the political fires are getting hotter. For Christians, finding the right balance between politics and theology is often not easy. A caller to a recent broadcast of The Narrow Path radio program asked host Steve Gregg, "Is Christian-Democrat an oxymoron?"

Steve's answer explores the dilemma some Christians deal with when they question whether they should align themselves with a political party that proudly promotes abortion, homosexuality and socialism? Furthermore, is it necessary to align with any political party at all?


https://youtu.be/snGrufZySBM

[Paidion]

The only way one can rebel against God is by not submitting to their legitimate governing authority

So if a person refuses to go to war when conscripted, is he rebelling against God?

[thrombomodulin]

Pacifist or not ...

Robby,

I'm not seeing how the answer you gave addresses, or provides any way of resolving, the problem that I was pointing out with your position. That problem was that a person (or even a ruler himself) can never be sure in an ex-ante sense that he is not rebelling against God by opposing any particular State or insurrection. I would say my preference for this interpretation of Romans 13 is based on two factors: (1) the conclusion that the problems I've raised in this thread, about the view you are advocating, are impossible to resolve in a satisfactory way, and (2) the observation that God preferred that OT Israel had Himself as their king, rather than a man as their king. I consider this interpretation of Romans 13 to be a weak point in my position, however, I personally find this weak point to be less disconcerting than the troubles that are present in your view.

Best Regards,
Pete

P.S. I like Paidion's question - do you have an answer for it?

[robbyyoung]

The only way one can rebel against God is by not submitting to their legitimate governing authority

So if a person refuses to go to war when conscripted, is he rebelling against God?

Hi Paidion,

God is the source of all authority. God told children to obey their parents. If the parents are evil and tell the child to commit wicked acts, obviously, the children are to obey in all things righteous and suffer the consequences of the parents for going against their wishes. The child isn't rebelling against God, even though God has given the parents the authority over him/her. Therefore, If a person decides not to go to war because of conscience, if any evil befalls him by the governing authority then so be it. Just like the child, he is not rebelling against God. Again, I believe God is the source of all authority.

God Bless.

[robbyyoung]

I'm not seeing how the answer you gave addresses, or provides any way of resolving, the problem that I was pointing out with your position. That problem was that a person (or even a ruler himself) can never be sure in an ex-ante sense that he is not rebelling against God by opposing any particular State or insurrection.

Hi Pete,

If my position is "God is the source of all authority" then this addresses your question and resolves all problems. Authority over another does not equate to blind submission. If "The Authority" violates your conscience towards God's higher principals, then exercising civil disobedience and suffering the consequences is not rebelling against God. How God deals with each and every authority in this world is His responsibility. As Christians, we are always guided by what is righteous. Individuals will make their own decisions regarding their conscience. But the source of authority is from God--good, bad or indifferent, I acknowledge this perceived truth of scripture.

God Bless.

[dwight92070]

[quote="Soulsnaxx"]As the upcoming election draws near, the political fires are getting hotter. For Christians, finding the right balance between politics and theology is often not easy. A caller to a recent broadcast of The Narrow Path radio program asked host Steve Gregg, "Is Christian-Democrat an oxymoron?"

Steve's answer explores the dilemma some Christians deal with when they question whether they should align themselves with a political party that proudly promotes abortion, homosexuality and socialism? Furthermore, is it necessary to align with any political party at all?

Dwight speaking: It may not be necessary, but as Christians, why wouldn't we? If a Christian is a Calvinist, then everything that happens is God's will - at least that's what they believe, so it wouldn't matter if you got involved or not. But if we believe that man has free will, which the Calvinists deny, then we should do everything within our power to elect people who will be most likely to promote righteousness and punish evil, including voting ourselves.

A political philosopher, Russell Kirk, said: "Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems." I think he was right. As believers, we are commanded to be continually engaged in good works. One of those can certainly be to attempt to get persons in office who will promote righteous behaviour and punish evil.

[jasonmodar]

But if we believe that man has free will, which the Calvinists deny, then we should do everything within our power to elect people who will be most likely to promote righteousness and punish evil, including voting ourselves.

If that's the case then I don't need to align with a party. I can align with individual politicians who would best promote righteousness and punish evil.

A political philosopher, Russell Kirk, said: "Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems."

I'm interested in an expanded explanation by Kirk. Does he mean that a political issue, like abortion, is a moral issue that has been politicized?

[dwight92070]

Yes you could align with individual politicians, but what chance do they have of actually winning? It comes down to common sense. The candidate that most stands for righteousness and that actually has a chance to win is the best choice, isn't it?

[thrombomodulin]

Robby,

I agree that a person may always follow his conscience, but since the conscience is not an infallible guide about conduct, with respect to any given ruler, the problems are not resolved. I'm not sure I can offer a better explanation of the problem than I already have, but I will give it one more try by way of example.

Consider the war which formed the United States: The British citizens who were living in the North American colonies rebelled against their ruler, king George. Some citizens sided with the rebels, but others sided with the British. During the fighting neither side could know who would ultimately win the war, and therefore both sides were ignorant of which authority was the one "established by God", or if the rebels were any sort of authority at all. The rebels might well have been regarded as just another gang of criminals.

Those who chose poorly and ended up on the loosing side of the war turned out to be rebelling against a God ordained authority. We know the USA authority was established by God because the rebels won (an ex-post insight). Those who chose well and found themselves on the winning side did their duty in submission to the new authority (paying taxes, etc.,), which is tantamount to obedience to God himself (Romans 13:2).

However, had success in the war gone the other way, then the moral status of the groups is reversed. Those who would otherwise be exonerated, are now guilty of rebellion against king George and hence God himself (Romans 13:2), and those who had turned out to be guilty of fighting the new authority are exonerated in the situation that would have occurred if King George was successful in war.

The observation that a person is free to follow their conscience doesn't, to my mind, really help him in being able to discern which authority is going to be established by God and which is being destroyed by God. Hopefully if you are right, we will be lucky enough to have guesses well, lest we find ourselves in rebellion against God and subject to the guilt of disobeying Him as per Romans 13:2. As far as I am aware, there is no solution to this problem with your view.

Pete

[robbyyoung]

I agree that a person may always follow his conscience, but since the conscience is not an infallible guide about conduct, with respect to any given ruler, the problems are not resolved.

Hi Pete,

The above quote contradicts the biblical principle that mankind's conscience can and will resolve issues of righteousness in God given authority throughout the world. Again, I believe God is the source of all authority. Therefore, the problem is resolved for me.

Romans 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves

Not to mention the charges laid out in Romans 1:18-32, in which verse 32 states, "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things are worthy of death, they not only continue to do these things, but also approve of those who practice them."

Consider the war which formed the United States: The British citizens who were living in the North American colonies rebelled against their ruler, king George. Some citizens sided with the rebels, but others sided with the British. During the fighting neither side could know who would ultimately win the war, and therefore both sides were ignorant of which authority was the one "established by God", or if the rebels were any sort of authority at all. The rebels might well have been regarded as just another gang of criminals.

Pete, God is the source of ALL authority. The Colonists acted within Britain's Law to protest taxation. What emerged from this injustice was a new governing authority. God say's he raises them up and puts them down. Christian or not, God says mankind inherently knows his laws of righteousnesses. Conscience determined if the men and women was to obey either authority. Since God is the source of both, blind submission to evil practices is were the sin resides. There is nothing to figure-out concerning who has legitimate authority, they both do! And, it's God's business concerning his reasons. We simply follow the rules of righteousness, whether we are Christians or not!

Those who chose poorly and ended up on the loosing side of the war turned out to be rebelling against a God ordained authority.

No. Not in my view. God is the source of all authority. The question is, did the men and women follow the laws of righteousness for either side. If conscience demanded some to not participate in war, then so be it. If they were persecuted for this, then so be it. God was still the source behind this authority. Christians and non-Christians alike are not immune from the evils of the world. The bible teaches that innocence is sometimes caught in events that takes lives.

The observation that a person is free to follow their conscience doesn't, to my mind, really help him in being able to discern which authority is going to be established by God and which is being destroyed by God.

Pete, this is your inherent problem, but not mine. Again, God is the source of ALL authority. Therefore, I'm in the business of acting upon the laws of righteousness inherent in all mankind.

Hopefully if you are right, we will be lucky enough to have guesses well, lest we find ourselves in rebellion against God and subject to the guilt of disobeying Him as per Romans 13:2.

Pete, there is no guessing on my end. God is the source of ALL authority. The only rebellion that exist is not exercising the laws of righteousness inherent in us all.

As far as I am aware, there is no solution to this problem with your view.

Pete, as outlined above, the is not true. IMHO, only by not acknowledging God is the source of all authority would you be without resolution.

God Bless.