# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Romans 13 (Perspective)

## pcosmar

This may be controversial to some. But this chapter has been a point of controversy for years and I am simply offering a perspective on it.. Please contemplate and pray,,,  because everyone's lesson plan is unique.

Read it as an indictment. All the nations will be judged.. Read it as an Indictment. 

We are to give no reason for them to attack us (they will anyway) but live within the system as much as possible..

We will be witnesses to the crimes when we stand in Judgement..

Romans 13 is an Indictment. Read it that way and contemplate.




> For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

----------


## pcosmar

Luke 4.. Christ is tempted.



> The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.  And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.  If you worship me, it will all be yours.”


The devil said.



> * it has been given to me*, and I can give it to anyone I want to.


Christ referred to him as Prince of This World.



> I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me,





> I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming, and he has no claim on Me.





> Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.


Some translate "ruler"



> I will not talk with you much longer, because the ruler of the world is coming. He has no power over me.





> "I don't have much more time to talk to you, because the ruler of this world approaches. He has no power over me,


and yet some still question this. and when you stop questioning and accept the reality,,
 it answers a lot of questions.

----------


## RonZeplin



----------


## pcosmar

> And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azâzêl: to him ascribe all sin.


Government has been Evil since History has been recorded.. The first in Scripture was Nimrod..

A half Human Abomination, and against God was the first ruler.. A one world Government.

Romans 13 is not a lesson for believers as much as it is an Indictment against every government ever.

It is not a blessing on Government.. it is an Indictment upon them.

Paul was a skilled in the Law,, and was an inmate in prison when he wrote this.

----------


## pcosmar

I realize that this is meat that needs to be chewed on,, and not simple milk..

The second half,, he speaks of the Law believers are under.. The perfect law of Love..


Chew in it..it is strong meat..
But if you see it ,, everything changes.

Let him who has eyes see, and ears hear.

----------


## pcosmar

> Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.


Most have read this as an endorsement of Governments... 

God took Responsibility when the Devil tormented Job..
The Devil is His creation and will be judged,, but He did put him here.

Read it as Indictment,, and it will change your perspective.

----------


## pcosmar

> Read it as Indictment,, and it will change your perspective.


bump

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This may be controversial to some. But this chapter has been a point of controversy for years and I am simply offering a perspective on it.. Please contemplate and pray,,,  because everyone's lesson plan is unique.
> *
> Read it as an indictment. All the nations will be judged.. Read it as an Indictment.* 
> 
> We are to give no reason for them to attack us (they will anyway) but live within the system as much as possible..
> 
> We will be witnesses to the crimes when we stand in Judgement..
> 
> Romans 13 is an Indictment. Read it that way and contemplate.


I already read it that way. :thumbsup:  I used to keep that quote in my sig when I had more room.

----------


## wizardwatson

[I just bumped the most recent Romans 13 thread I could find.]

I said-long before seeing this-that in the U.S., the Constitution is the "governing authority".  David Knight gives a great rundown of Romans 13 boot-lickers.

Very relevant in Marxist/Covid hysteria we are all engulfed in.

Not sure I can embed the video:
https://ugetube.com/watch/vaccine-ma...stCS5VUtE.html

...but here's the tweet:

----------


## Invisible Man

> "Standard" is relative. I'm willing to bet all or nearly all Catholic or Orthodox scholars (the two largest and oldest branches of the Christian church) would have no idea who Cranfield was...


I have studied quite a bit with and under Roman Catholic scholars specializing in biblical studies and early Christian literature, and can tell you that all of them (at least if their field is the New Testament) are well familiar with Cranfield. And I would be shocked if any Orthodox scholars with that same specialty were not familiar with Cranfield's Romans commentary. If they have done any serious academic level of study of Paul's epistles, which must include familiarity with the state of scholarship concerning them, they know this work. And it's also worth pointing out that Cranfield is not some off-the-wall innovator who made a name for himself by coming up with new ideas. He was always judicious, careful, cautious, and conservative (in the sense of avoiding radical new scholarly ideas). He's not representative of someone out on the margins on almost anything when it comes to the book of Romans, but rather of someone who stays pretty close to the middle of the road.

----------


## ClaytonB

> I have studied quite a bit with and under Roman Catholic scholars specializing in biblical studies and early Christian literature, and can tell you that all of them (at least if their field is the New Testament) are well familiar with Cranfield. And I would be shocked if any Orthodox scholars with that same specialty were not familiar with Cranfield's Romans commentary. If they have done any serious academic level of study of Paul's epistles, which must include familiarity with the state of scholarship concerning them, they know this work.


 It's all anecdotal one way or the other. One thing is for sure --- theology and theologians are pretty siloed, at least, in the non-ecumenical (meaning, non-liberal) churches. What is considered "standard reading" at Reformed Theological Seminary will likely be unheard of at Notre Dame Seminary, except for the classics (e.g. Aquinas, Augustine, etc.)

What you're trying to suggest (without having the balls to actually come out and say it), is that I am unfamiliar with the broad body of Christian theological literature. I am not seminary trained, and I will not pretend to be. So we got that out of the way. But I'm quite familiar with the broad body of Christian theological literature, all the same. In any case, my specific qualifications (or lack thereof) are irrelevant to the actual topic of discussion, which is whether "the powers that be" includes muggers/etc. under any reasonable construction of the text. Let's see what your champion Cranfield actually says and then we'll start analyzing his arguments and chasing references, which is how real scholarship works, whether in a seminary or on an Internet discussion forum...

----------


## Invisible Man

> What you're trying to suggest (without having the balls to actually come out and say it), is that I am unfamiliar with the broad body of Christian theological literature.


I'm only saying that you are not familiar enough to be able to make sweeping statements to the effect that "you cannot find a single scholar in 2,000 years to have said [X]."

It seems to me that, between your attempts to do just that, you've admitted this much.

----------


## ClaytonB

> I'm not so sure that that's "the standard Christian view." Undoubtedly most Christians have never heard of it.


You mean "most _Protestant_ Christians". It's common-knowledge* among Catholics (asterisk regarding the much stronger distinction between clergy/laity in the Catholic Church... please don't cite the ignorance of devoutly Catholic Mexican street hoodlums as "evidence" that not all Catholics know about the Great Chain of Being...) In respect to the structure and nature of the divine hierarchy, both East and West agree:




Protestant theologians obviously won't put as much emphasis on the hierarchy but, as I said above, Romans 13 (and its connection to the divine hierarchy) is non-controversial and you will find the same view affirmed among the various branches of the church, despite their different emphases.




> But to your question, where would Aquinas put muggers? He would put them on the level of humanity, being that they're humans. That is the same place he put human kings and other rulers, being that they were also human. And this also applies to the powers that be in Romans 13, which Aquinas also interpreted to be humans. This is not to be confused with angelic powers (although in my own view, Paul's use of the word "powers" for both those on the human level and those on the angelic/demonic level intentionally implies an interrelationship of those beings).


Of course it is an interrelationship. The State is a visible manifestation of the (corrupted) heavenly order. Adam was appointed to rule over the birds, the animals, the fish, and so on. When he fell, that order was inverted and corrupted because now you have the ruler (Adam) doing the bidding of the ruled (the Serpent). So the existence of rulers-and-ruled, which is the essence of hierarchy, is just an extension of the divine hierarchy which was manifested in Eden in its pristine condition. But note that while Adam (and Eve) ruled the earthly creation, and was the head of his wife, _Adam did not rule Steve_. So man ruling over his fellow man is one of the manifestations of the corruption of the divine hierarchy that was present in Eden (as well as the confusion in the home with Eve ruling Adam, and so on), and which will be restored again in the New Earth (and New Heavens).

Cain's murder of Abel was not an expression of hierarchy or rulership at all (not even in corrupted form), it was just violence. Violence and war are the inevitable consequence of the upsetting of the divine hierarchy, which is inherently harmonious and peaceful. For example, Romans 13 is not suggesting that Abel was obliged to "submit" to Cain's murderous attack. It simply has nothing at all to do with that. Rather, Romans 13 is putting the State in its proper perspective as _subject to God_. The State can become so corrupt that it is indistinguishable from a mafia or roving warlords. In that case, it is every man for himself, and Romans 13 once again has nothing to do with what is happening. Romans 13 is talking about the upsetting of the vestigial remnant of the divine hierarchy which is present in the State insofar as its servants are, indeed, subject to God. They may be heathens, yet subject, so this is not talking about them being believers or unbelievers. We are to follow the example of Messiah: "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out" -- that is, if there is _any_ possibility, however remote, that the State could be acting as a servant of God in the divine hierarchy, then we must defer to it. When there is no possibility whatsoever, because the State itself has devolved into running violence in the streets, then Romans 13 does not apply and we should follow our conscience and the guidance of relevant Scriptures in how we are to relate to our fellow men (even in situations of dire emergency).

While kings are humans (like those they rule), the existence of king/subjects is a material template that pictures the divine hierarchy of heaven (God/angels, Adam/earthly-creatures, etc.) It is _for this reason_ that Paul is making the argument he is making in Romans 13, which is why he specifically notes that the earthly powers are "appointed". When we attack earthly rulers or engage in open melee against them, we are attacking this vestigial remnant of the Edenic order. Instead, we should be opposing sin within ourselves, which is much harder (hence, why it is so tempting to distract ourselves with political problems instead).

Muggers are not part of the divine hierarchy. In fact, the only proper place to mark them on the chain of being would be down in hell, see for example, Rev. 22:15, "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." Of course, I do not mean to deny the possibility of salvation... but then, those who were once muggers and who are now saved are no longer what they once were... they have abandoned that former person in hell, and have rejoined those who are coming to life in Christ...




> On the subject of Aquinas' interpretation of Romans 13, note especially these words of his, which he wrote in his commentary on that chapter:
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/aquina...-12/chapter-13 (see paragraph 1030).


There is nothing in that paragraph that deviates at all from what I've said in this thread.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Of course it is an interrelationship. The State is a visible manifestation of the (corrupted) heavenly order.


This is exactly my view. What exactly do you disagree with? Just that I include smaller criminal gangs in the same category as the bigger ones?




> There is nothing in that paragraph that deviates at all from what I've said in this thread.


Nor with what I've said.

----------


## ClaytonB

> This is exactly my view. What exactly do you disagree with? Just that I include smaller criminal gangs in the same category as the bigger ones?


The State explicitly commands the conscience because its courts, statutes and various orders/decrees use moral language. "Should" "shall" "injury" "wrong" "right", and many more. The mafia-don or warlord makes no such argument... he simply waves a gun and demands prostration. That is the defining (and only) distinction between the State and mafia/gangs/warlords. Size/scale is actually irrelevant.

----------


## Invisible Man

> The State explicitly commands the conscience because its courts, statutes and various orders/decrees use moral language. "Should" "shall" "injury" "wrong" "right", and many more. The mafia-don or warlord makes no such argument... he simply waves a gun and demands prostration. That is the defining (and only) distinction between the State and mafia/gangs/warlords. Size/scale is actually irrelevant.


But Romans 13 says nothing about the distinctions you're drawing. It only refers to the superior powers that exist, these superior powers not being some ontological category, but humans like all other humans, differing from them only in the amount of power they have to compel others by force. And in this passage Paul explicitly says that the claims he makes apply to all such powers, and that there are zero exceptions. All superior powers have been established by God, and are used by God as his servants whether wittingly or not, and this is true regardless of either their morality or their claims of morality. He isn't talking only about those powers that use their power in accordance with God's laws, nor about some ideal. Nor does he give any prescriptions of what the powers that be are supposed to do, but only descriptions of what they actually do in practice, and in his own words, his descriptions are applicable to all superior powers 100% of the time no matter what they use the power that God gave them to do. Waving a gun and demanding prostration (i.e. bearing a sword and not in vain) is the defining property of these superior powers. The fact that some such people add the window dressing of the language of moral legitimacy to their actions is not mentioned by Paul and has no effect on what he says.

And let us consider the distinction you're making a little more. If that use of moral language is really essential to being one of the superior powers, then wouldn't that mean that any time those people that we tend to think of as mafia/gangs/warlords decide to use such language, then by virtue of doing that it would move them into the category of "powers"? If size is irrelevant, then this would seem to be a necessary consequence of your position.

Finally, you are focusing on what for me was only a side point that I'm fine with totally setting aside. If you agree that Romans 13 applies to all examples of the institution of the state (i.e. those that use the kind of legal language to which you allude), including wicked examples (which I would submit are all of them--but this too is beside the point), then as I see it you agree with me on the main point I was making (a point which Aquinas also agreed with as I've already shown, and which Augustine did too, as I will when I get the chance). The bit about this including muggers in alleys was only something I said in order to drive home the point in what I see as taking it to its logical conclusion. But if you don't want to go that far then fine.

----------


## oyarde

I probably look at it differently . First I accept that God Loves me and wants me to be happy. That in itself supercedes any of those other pesky problems like govt rules . Granted , it didnt make getting through school particularly easy but it just honed my resolve not to let others steal my joy.

----------


## ClaytonB

> But Romans 13 says nothing about the distinctions you're drawing. It only refers to the superior powers that exist, these superior powers not being some ontological category, but humans like all other humans, differing from them only in the amount of power they have to compel others by force.


From your standpoint, you do not see the distinction. From my standpoint, it's not only a distinction, it's _the_ distinction. To be part of the heavenly hierarchy is to be in submission to God's order. So our submission to the State (even in its fallen/corrupt manifestation) is actually a symbolical enactment of the submission of all Creation to God. That's not my invention or my words, that is established dogma going way back. I'm not sure who was the first to draw this parallel but I would guess it goes back before Augustine. So the entire drama of the Bible is actually contained in this microcosm of submitting to the State  (that is, the king, the President, the representatives, etc. etc.) or rebelling against it. Looked at from the flip-side (this is rarer, I'm not sure of any place where it is discussed by the theologians), we can say that the consistency or coherency of the State with the divinely appointed order is itself a microcosm of Adam's fall from grace. When the State is evil, it is a living, present instance of the Fall... I do not mean that it merely pictures or symbolizes the Fall, but that it is an actual instance of the Fall-in-itself. Thus, every inversion of the created order, wherever we find it in life, is the Fall-as-such. When parents do not train their children, when a man is not the head of his household, when you do not maintain the property you own, when fail to develop your innate talents (instead burying them in the ground like the lazy servant), and so on and so forth, these are specific instances of the Fall.

When the mugger attacks me in the back-alley, he is not manifesting the Fall-as-such, except insofar as he is manifesting violence, ala Cain's murder of Abel. And the reason for the distinction is in the word "appointed" -- God has not appointed the mugger to anything, the mugger is just an attribute of the Abyss, the primeval chaos, hell itself. So his actions are not the inversion of the divine order, they are simply the absence of any divine order at all. It's like the difference between desecration and blasphemy. The Nazis entering and ransacking the church merely desecrate it; but it requires someone who dons the clerical robes and apes the lingo of faith and takes on all the other trappings of faith to blaspheme; they must first make the pretense of sincerity before they can blaspheme in substance.




> And in this passage Paul explicitly says that the claims he makes apply to all such powers, and that there are zero exceptions. All superior powers have been established by God, and are used by God as his servants whether wittingly or not, and this is true regardless of either their morality or their claims of morality.


But this cannot be understood outside of the context of the very all-inclusive hierarchy you are invoking! Specifically, we must look at Lucifer's fall from heaven and the rebellion of a third of the angels who fall with him. This is not just "footnote history", this is the sum and substance of the eschaton. So the fallen State is a material picture of the heavens, including Lucifer's fall. So those rebels and traitors within the ranks of the State who abuse the authority which is conferred upon the State (by God) are committing the very same sin as the fallen angels, only in microcosm. We can argue that the random crook holding up a liquor store is also "falling", but it's not in the same sense. There is a certain element of formal symbolic structure that is missing and this is why (in my view) Paul distinguishes spiritual evil from the heavenly realms (the divine hierarchy) from spiritual evil from the earth. I'm not going to look up all the references at the moment because I have to run a bunch of errands, but suffice it to say that the text amply supports this distinction which, to my knowledge, is not widely discussed. Spiritual evil from the earth is more like the primeval abyss over which the Spirit of God hovered in Genesis 1, whereas spiritual evil from the heavenly realms is an internal rebellion within the throne-room of God himself... divine intrigue, basically. Both are evil, but they are a very different kind of evil (and not merely a distinction without a difference).




> He isn't talking only about those powers that use their power in accordance with God's laws, nor about some ideal.


Of course not. In fact, God's laws are entirely out-of-view. I think the story of Jesus healing the centurion's servant is a great illustration of the relationship between God and the fallen world order. By virtue of its fallen-ness, its existence is intrinsically reprehensible to God; however, the State exists as a kind of "sub-organism", that is, it cannot exist on its own right, but it exists by virtue of subjugation to the power (might) of God. This might is what the centurion understood when he said, "I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” (Matthew 8:9) This amazed Jesus because the centurion understood the essential nature of the divine hierarchy as its authority presses down upon the fallen earthly hierarchy. None of this has anything to do with "right" or "wrong" but, rather, with *command* (might). God does not need the fallen earthly order to be holy in order for it to be useful, that is, in order for it to implement his commands. But the key is to realize that what makes it fallen is that it exists _only_ by command (might). There is absolutely no right involved. Either the commands are followed, or those who disobeyed are clubbed over the head. It's very simple... it's just military discipline, basically. So the rebellion of those who are servants within the apparatus of the State is dealt with in the military fashion. This has nothing to do with salvation or any of that because, apart from Christ, all of these people are damned.




> Nor does he give any prescriptions of what the powers that be are supposed to do, but only descriptions of what they actually do in practice, and in his own words, his descriptions are applicable to all superior powers 100% of the time no matter what they use the power that God gave them to do.


Superiority within the hierarchy of might is a strictly amoral consideration. We don't have to waste even a single drop of sweat worrying about what those who operate under the hierarchy of might could do to us because of Matthew 28:18. If their argument for what they intend to do to us is based purely on their supposed strength/might, it's already a lost cause. They are powerless. Only God has power.




> Waving a gun and demanding prostration (i.e. bearing a sword and not in vain) is the defining property of these superior powers.


I don't agree with this reading of "not in vain." It has nothing to do with the muscular strength of the wielder and everything to do with the purpose/decree of God -- the one who bears the sword "not in vain" meaning "not for no purpose" meaning "for God's purpose". The executioner's sword will simply clatter to the ground the moment God stops causing his heart to beat. We are all dangling by the thinnest of threads. It is merely the ego that conceals that from our constant awareness.




> The fact that some such people add the window dressing of the language of moral legitimacy to their actions is not mentioned by Paul and has no effect on what he says.


One word: "appointed"




> And let us consider the distinction you're making a little more. If that use of moral language is really essential to being one of the superior powers, then wouldn't that mean that any time those people that we tend to think of as mafia/gangs/warlords decide to use such language, then by virtue of doing that it would move them into the category of "powers"?


The language is not the thing-in-itself but, rather, it points to the thing-in-itself. We all know what a government is. It's like defining porn... you know it when you see it. What really sets a government apart from other kinds of mafia-like organizations is its symbolic significance. It is filling a void caused by the absence of _legitimate_ power. So it is its resemblance (even if only slight) to that legitimate power that makes the State a State at all. Even Somalis know the difference between a warlord and a legitimate government structure[1].




> Finally, you are focusing on what for me was only a side point that I'm fine with totally setting aside. If you agree that Romans 13 applies to all examples of the institution of the state (i.e. those that use the kind of legal language to which you allude), including wicked examples (which I would submit are all of them--but this too is beside the point), then as I see it you agree with me on the main point I was making (a point which Aquinas also agreed with as I've already shown, and which Augustine did too, as I will when I get the chance). The bit about this including muggers in alleys was only something I said in order to drive home the point in what I see as taking it to its logical conclusion. But if you don't want to go that far then fine.


There is a certain amount of unavoidable fuzziness involved in this discussion because what _anybody_ means by "the government" is slightly different, depending on who you ask. A non-negligible proportion of Americans legitimately believe thtat Donald Trump is still President and that Biden only got into office through external interference in the 2020 election. Whether or not they are right, the point remains that they see our government in a _fundamentally_ different light than, say, Democrats in 2021 do. Maybe the tables will be flipped in 2024, who knows. I agree there are not a lot of absolutes to grab onto in this particular space because highly politicized subjects tend to corrupt the very language in which they are being discussed. That said, I still hold that it is important to maintain the distinction between the divine hierarchy and how the State symbolizes that, versus warlords, muggers or other violent criminals who really symbolize the chaos of the Abyss.

[1] -- Not to go on a rabbit-trail but they actually have a highly sophisticated and ancient system of distributed governance through the system of Xeer law... another topic for another thread...

----------


## Invisible Man

> Superiority within the hierarchy of might is a strictly amoral consideration. We don't have to waste even a single drop of sweat worrying about what those who operate under the hierarchy of might could do to us because of Matthew 28:18. If their argument for what they intend to do to us is based purely on their supposed strength/might, it's already a lost cause. They are powerless. Only God has power.


This paragraph is a good paraphrase of Romans 13:1-7. It is a passage in which Paul instructs believers concerning how to deal with those who position themselves above them in the hierarchy of might, and encouraging them to take the attitude that you present here, and for the same reason that you give here.

The rest of what you say in this post is systematic theology, or, to use your words, "established dogma," which is all fine for what it is. But it tells us nothing about what Paul meant when he wrote Romans 13 without any knowledge or concern on his part about all of those ideas that would not become established dogma until centuries after his time.

And again, the distinction or lack thereof between organized criminal gangs and the State is a side point. The more central point, as far as understanding Romans 13 goes, is the recognition that Paul's words about the powers that be, though they superficially may appear to be an endorsement of the powers and a positive description of them as servants of God, are given by him as a description not only of good powers who use the sword in righteous ways, but of all powers without exception, including (or even especially) wicked powers who use the sword in wicked ways such as persecuting the faithful and punishing them for doing what is right (e.g. Pharaoh, Nero, Hitler, etc.). Even these powers are used by God as his servants to accomplish his purposes with the result that those who do good will garner praise and those who do evil punishment. This praise and punishment may be the exact opposite of what the powers themselves intend, but God will use the actions of the powers to bring this about whether they participate wittingly or not. Jesus himself is the most perfect illustration in that he was crucified by the powers, which they intended for evil, but which became for him ultimate glory.

----------


## ClaytonB

> This paragraph is a good paraphrase of Romans 13:1-7. It is a paragraph in which Paul instructs believers concerning how to do with those who position themselves above them in the hierarchy of might, and encouraging them to take the attitude that you present here, and for the same reason that you give here.
> 
> The rest of what you say in this post is systematic theology, or, to use your words, "established dogma," which is all fine for what it is. But it tells us nothing about what Paul meant when he wrote Romans 13 without any knowledge or concern on his part about all of those ideas that would not become established dogma until centuries after his time.


Fair enough.




> And again, the distinction or lack thereof between organized criminal gangs and the State is a side point. The more central point, as far as understanding Romans 13 goes, is the recognition that Paul's words about the powers that be, though they superficially may appear to be an endorsement of the powers and a positive description of them as servants of God, are given by him as a description not only of good powers who use the sword in righteous ways, but of all powers without exception, including (or even especially) wicked powers who use the sword in wicked ways such as persecuting the faithful and punishing them for doing what is right (e.g. Pharaoh, Nero, Hitler, etc.).


Let's get down to brass tacks -- many of us have been in a situation of abuse by the State or an agent of the State, and we've let our emotions get the better of us, and we've lashed out at them. What happens in most of these cases is that, contrary to our naive expectations that they would feel ashamed of themselves for mistreating us, we get hit over the head twice as hard. The problem is that the believer who lashes out at the abuses he is suffering at the hands of the agents of the fallen State is misunderstanding the power-relations involved, which Paul clarifies in Romans 13:1ff.

"They are God's servants" doesn't mean they command some special hold on our conscience. Being fallen, they command no hold on our conscience (in the act of abusing us, that is). Rather, we must keep in mind that the wicked (among the populace, who are not a part of the State) face the same conundrum that we do when dealing with the abuses of the State but, unlike believers, they have no recourse in the restraining power of God upon the abuses of the State. So when we are abused by the State, it is always a _restrained abuse_, whereas when the wicked are abused by the State, it is a manifestation of the damnation of God insomuch as the wicked do not repent --- they are first abused, then killed, then judged by God himself.

So the abusive State official who might be tempted to quote Romans 13, "see, I am God's servant" is particularly pitiable, because he is just one trumped-up charge away from being ground up by the very machinery of which he is currently a part. He is not only under God's condemnation (so long as he remains unrepentant), but he is completely blind to the fate that is awaiting him. So the feeling that "the wicked are getting away with murder!" (via the State) is not only unfounded, it's precisely the opposite of the real state-of-affairs. The State (even in its fallen condition) is but the forefinger of God and those who are seized by it (and are outside of Christ) are being dragged away to a fate far worse than anything the State itself could ever impose.




> But as for me, my feet had almost slipped;
> I had nearly lost my foothold.
> For I envied the arrogant
> When I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
> They have no struggles;
> Their bodies are healthy and strong.
> They are free from common human burdens;
> They are not plagued by human ills.
> Therefore pride is their necklace;
> ...





> Even these powers are used by God as his servants to accomplish his purposes with the result that those who do good will garner praise and those who do evil punishment. This praise and punishment may be the exact opposite of what the powers themselves intend, but God will use the actions of the powers to bring this about whether they participate wittingly or not. Jesus himself is the most perfect illustration in that he was crucified by the powers, which they intended for evil, but which became for him ultimate glory.


Exactly!

In addition, we can take comfort in the crucifixion in that the evils of the State are restrained by virtue of the saving grace of God made possible in the sacrifice of Jesus. Without this grace, the State would be unrestrained, it would be the agent of (universal) destruction that it intends (but fails) to be. So while we may suffer at the hands of the State, that suffering is circumscribed by the limits of God's redeeming purpose in history. Our suffering at the hands of the wicked (whether in the State or elsewhere) is permitted by God precisely to the extent that it furthers his redemptive purpose, and not one millimeter beyond that. This dovetails perfectly with Romans 13 because, as long as we remain circumspect regarding the significance of our unjust suffering, we will never have reason to fear the worst, that is, to fear that the State will be given license to do whatever it pleases to us, no matter how desperately it salivates for that outcome. This is precisely the situation in which God himself clubs the rebellious servants over the head and casts them out of heaven along with Lucifer; see 1 Corinthians 6:3.

----------


## pcosmar

> Well, I don't have that $75 commentary and it appears not to be freely available online. Feel free to share a screenshot of the relevant section, in particular, I am curious what _his_ references are.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not aware of any place that Augustine wrote on this specific topic (but it appears from web search that he has some letters discussing a variety of political issues) but it is unlikely the Church of Rome -- the most Augustinian of all churches -- would disagree with Augustine; see Civil Authority in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
> 
> 
> 
> (Emphasis mine)
> ...


That is a common view,,and one in error.. Scripture as a Whole does not support such..And Paul himself repeatedly defied "authorities.".

He was one of the "Authorities" when he Persecuted Christians. and repented of it.

Like I said,,there is a different perspective on this..

----------


## ClaytonB

> That is a common view,,and one in error.. Scripture as a Whole does not support such..And Paul himself repeatedly defied "authorities.".


I don't think you've understood the view I've presented here because I'm not condemning just any disobedience to authorities, such as Paul engaged in many times.

The mainstream view of Romans 13 (which I'm defending) is uncontroversial. This is one of Paul's most straightforward passages. And the authority within us to defy the decrees of men in order to obey God is founded on the principles Paul explains in this passage (and elsewhere).

Romans 13 is not talking about disobedience to civil authorities when they overstep their bounds and try to issue commands that contradict the authority of God (from which their authority is derived). Rather, Romans 13 is talking about submitting to the State as it is an extension of the authority of God, _including_ the "ordinary" abuses of the State. When the State upholds an unjust lawsuit against you, or fines you for a non-infraction, or trumps up charges out of its endless lexicon of "laws", and so on, these abuses are part of the suffering that we are to patiently endure as believers. The proper rule to apply to these situations is going the extra mile and turning the other cheek. We are not to become egotistical, self-righteous and confrontational because this is how worldly people -- whose only hope is in the things of this life -- behave.

Rather, we are to look beyond these abuses to God's purpose in the State, which is to be a terror to the evil. Paul's meaning is crystal clear; those who would murder, steal, and so on -- but for the fear that the cops will find them, beat them, arrest them, charge them and imprison them -- are _restrained_ by this fear, and that's exactly what God intends! At least for now, in this fallen world. We need to acknowledge that enduring the abuses of the State is part and parcel of passing through this fallen world. It's not our job to "fix" the State and it is unfixable in any case. There is coming a greater Kingdom which will be a Kingdom of peace and true justice and righteousness. But we can't let our idealism get the better of us, this is where God has placed us for now. For many believers, enduring the abuses of the State is the single heaviest cross they must bear. And bear it we must.

"Then he said to them all: 'Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.'" (Luke 9:23)

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't think you've understood the view I've presented here because I'm not condemning just any disobedience to authorities, such as Paul engaged in many times.
> 
> The mainstream view of Romans 13 (which I'm defending) is uncontroversial. This is one of Paul's most straightforward passages. And the authority within us to defy the decrees of men in order to obey God is founded on the principles Paul explains in this passage (and elsewhere).
> 
> Romans 13 is not talking about disobedience to civil authorities when they overstep their bounds and try to issue commands that contradict the authority of God (from which their authority is derived). Rather, Romans 13 is talking about submitting to the State as it is an extension of the authority of God, _including_ the "ordinary" abuses of the State. When the State upholds an unjust lawsuit against you, or fines you for a non-infraction, or trumps up charges out of its endless lexicon of "laws", and so on, these abuses are part of the suffering that we are to patiently endure as believers. 
> 
> *The proper rule to apply to these situations is going the extra mile and turning the other cheek.* 
> 
> *We are not to become egotistical, self-righteous and confrontational because this is how worldly people -- whose only hope is in the things of this life -- behave.*
> ...


Well, there you have it.

We can all go home now...nothing more to be said or done.

Except suffer, of course.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Well, there you have it.
> 
> We can all go home now...nothing more to be said or done.
> 
> Except suffer, of course.


Suffering is what Jesus did. It worked out alright for him.

----------


## ClaytonB

> Well, there you have it.
> 
> We can all go home now...nothing more to be said or done.
> 
> Except suffer, of course.


Romans 13 (and related passages) are not a call to idleness and apathy. There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits believers from participating in peaceful, orderly methods of political involvement and even redress against abuses. That said, the Scriptures _do_ call us to refocus our attention and energy away from the window-dressing (the political regime _du jour_), and onto the foundations of things. The spiritual war is the only war that matters. The enemy (the real enemy) knows this, so he doesn't care what color of political party holds power, red or blue, it's all the same. The real revolution is the revolution that can only occur in the hearts and minds of people. That's why the Gospel is addressed to the heart & mind... that's where the real war is and always has been. Jesus understood that 2,000 years ago. It's time for us to catch up.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Suffering is what Jesus did. It worked out alright for him.


Yes, for the literal son of God.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Romans 13 (and related passages) are not a call to idleness and apathy. *There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits believers from participating in peaceful, orderly methods of political involvement and even redress against abuses.* That said, the Scriptures _do_ call us to refocus our attention and energy away from the window-dressing (the political regime _du jour_), and onto the foundations of things. The spiritual war is the only war that matters. The enemy (the real enemy) knows this, so he doesn't care what color of political party holds power, red or blue, it's all the same. The real revolution is the revolution that can only occur in the hearts and minds of people. That's why the Gospel is addressed to the heart & mind... that's where the real war is and always has been. Jesus understood that 2,000 years ago. It's time for us to catch up.


That's not what you said.

You said:




> When the State upholds an unjust lawsuit against you, or fines you for a non-infraction, or trumps up charges out of its endless lexicon of "laws", and so on, these abuses are part of the suffering that we are to patiently endure as believers.
> 
> The proper rule to apply to these situations is going the extra mile and turning the other cheek.
> 
> We are not to become egotistical, self-righteous and confrontational because this is how worldly people -- whose only hope is in the things of this life -- behave.


We are supposed to supposed to "suffer", "patiently endure", "go the extra mile" and "turn the other cheek".

We are not supposed to become "confrontational".

Because none of *anything* in this fallen world matters or makes any difference, even including the taking of your life, the lives of those you love and the lives of fellow citizens.

Right?

Because you can't have it both ways.

Either resistance to tyrants is obedience to God or it is not.

----------


## Invisible Man

> Yes, for the literal son of God.


If you truly believe that, then you should also trust his promises that it will also work just as well for all who are united with him.

----------


## ClaytonB

> Yes, for the literal son of God.


"Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." (Romans 8:17)

----------


## ClaytonB

> That's not what you said.
> 
> You said:
> 
> We are supposed to supposed to "suffer", "patiently endure", "go the extra mile" and "turn the other cheek".
> 
> We are not supposed to become "confrontational".
> 
> Because none of *anything* in this fallen world matters or makes any difference, even including the taking of your life, the lives of those you love and the lives of fellow citizens.
> ...


You and I have gone back-and-forth on this very subject several times already. The Gadsden flag ("Don't Tread On Me") is a perfect example of what the believer is called _not_ to be. We are _not_ to be the coiled-serpent, ready to strike any who dare cross our path. I sympathize with the spirit in which most libertarians sport that flag (as a symbolic warning against tyrants, not as a literal call-to-arms), but following the mindset implied within that flag through to its logical conclusion is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus.

The bigger question is whether the suffering of the saints is meaningless, i.e. happens for no reason (just randomness). The police officer could have pulled me over, or the car just in front of me. It was a flip of the coin, since we both fell into the speed-trap. Or whatever example you choose. But this outlook is a worldly (fleshly) outlook, and it is diametrically the opposite of the teachings of Scripture. In fact, every interaction we have -- whether with those in authority over us, our peers, or those over whom we have authority -- is spiritually significant. There is nothing whatsoever that happens on earth that is not witnessed in heaven. "For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him." (2 Chronicles 16:9) Every abuse of believers by the wicked is allowed to occur for a reason. For the damned who abuse us, they are simply tying the noose with which they will be hanged on Judgment Day. For those who abuse us and are yet to be saved, it is simply part of the suffering which we must endure on the behalf of the kingdom. Not one of us is innocent, not one of us can say we have never inflicted suffering upon others that they did not deserve. It's the hard truth, but it's the truth.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Every abuse of believers by the wicked is allowed to occur for a reason.


So again, I am right, there is nothing for a believer to do but pray for the souls of your enemies, evangelize and suffer.

All suffering is foretold, is part of God's plan, and you are sinful for opposing it.

This is why I do not care for Paul, I think he is in error, a smart Jew lawyer with a silver tongue that teaches passivity, submission and surrender, while not abiding by those principles in his own life.




> I sympathize with the spirit in which most libertarians sport that flag (as a symbolic warning against tyrants, not as a literal call-to-arms), but following the mindset implied within that flag through to its logical conclusion is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus.


It is not a symbol to me.

I am in earnest, there are edicts, now coming into place, that I will *not* comply with.

I am no longer a young, strong man, who was able to lift a barrel of chain at 375 pounds.

I am old, riddled with ailments, slow and fat.

My enemies may get the drop on me, they may raid my home at oh dark thirty, I may not be able to effectively resist.

But I will try.

I really mean it..._molon labe_ tyrants.

And if the fates or God or Odin favors me, I will take as many to hell with me as possible.

----------


## donnay

> *Christians Follow Righteous Laws, Not Mandates*
> 
> First off, there are no laws that state we have to take the vaccine.
> 
> There are mandates which are not laws, but decrees. We do not follow decrees which go by the whims of men, but Christians do follow the laws of the land, being, the Constitution, (see: Should Christians Obey The Laws Of The Land?).
> 
> The Bible does not say we have to take a vaccine, in fact, quite the contrary as we will learn.
> 
> We are going to cover Romans 13:1-4, these Scriptures are being used by Christians (Pastors) as justification to adhere to government vaccine mandates. We also tie in other Scriptures as well.
> ...


https://worldeventsandthebible.com/c...ther&utm_term=

----------


## ClaytonB

> So again, I am right, there is nothing for a believer to do but pray for the souls of your enemies, evangelize and suffer.
> 
> All suffering is foretold, is part of God's plan, and you are sinful for opposing it.


I specifically repudiated the idea above that the mugger, or any crook, for that matter, falls within "the powers that be", which command a hold on our conscience by virtue of being subject to God (the divine hierarchy). So, no, not all suffering must be unopposed. In fact, Nature (which also reveals God to us, to the extent it is not corrupted by the fall) teaches us that suffering is abhorrent to all life. It is so terrible that we cannot even endure the cries of an animal in pain and we are moved by its cries to either free it or put it out of its misery. The commands of Scripture simply assume all of this... it goes without saying that everyone will avoid suffering as much as they can. But yes, for the believer, there _is_ unavoidable suffering. So, while most suffering is (and ought to be) avoidable, some suffering is not avoidable, even if it is inflicted at the hands of our fellow men. In particular, the believer must be willing to suffer "for the name of Jesus." This is not really defined to the letter in Scripture but the living testimony of the Holy Spirit to his heart makes it abundantly clear to each believer which suffering he is to bear as a cross, and which suffering he may escape by whatever means he has available.




> This is why I do not care for Paul, I think he is in error, a smart Jew lawyer with a silver tongue that teaches passivity, submission and surrender, while not abiding by those principles in his own life.


It is Jesus who taught, in his own words, that we are to turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, deny ourselves, take up our cross (suffering) daily, and so on. Paul elaborates on the teachings of Jesus, but doesn't add much of anything that you can't unpack from the words of Jesus themselves if you read the gospels closely.




> It is not a symbol to me.
> 
> I am in earnest, there are edicts, now coming into place, that I will *not* comply with.
> 
> I am no longer a young, strong man, who was able to lift a barrel of chain at 375 pounds.
> 
> I am old, riddled with ailments, slow and fat.
> 
> My enemies may get the drop on me, they may raid my home at oh dark thirty, I may not be able to effectively resist.
> ...


The intolerance of evil is, of course, virtuous. The key is that our intolerance must be consistent (we must be as intolerant of sin within ourselves as we are of sin within tyrants.) But the problem with the "I'll take as many down with me as I can" perspective, is that it misunderstands the actual power dynamics involved -- it presupposes that the State is powerful, and we are weak. In fact, it is precisely the opposite, at least, in the case of believers. God has all power (no one else has any power at all) and, if we are in Christ, then we are heirs of the crown of heaven itself, meaning, we have at our disposal legions of angels, (Matthew 26:53). The fallen State, being hostile to God and outside of his blessed order, is powerless and defunct. It has to put on a big show of strength to compensate for its powerlessness...

----------


## Invisible Man

> It is Jesus who taught, in his own words, that we are to turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, deny ourselves, take up our cross (suffering) daily, and so on. Paul elaborates on the teachings of Jesus, but doesn't add much of anything that you can't unpack from the words of Jesus themselves if you read the gospels closely.


This is a key point.

It is impossible to point to Romans 13 as a departure from the teachings of Jesus on Paul's part. There is nothing in Romans 13 that differs from what Jesus taught, and not only what he taught, but the relationship to the powers that be that he exemplified with his life, death, and resurrection.

But right along with this, I must point out that there is also nothing either in Romans 13 or in the teachings of Jesus that teaches a divine right of kings, or that endorses the rule of some people over others by force as something that is ever morally right.

----------


## ClaytonB

> This is a key point.
> 
> It is impossible to point to Romans 13 as a departure from the teachings of Jesus on Paul's part. There is nothing in Romans 13 that differs from what Jesus taught, and not only what he taught, but the relationship to the powers that be that he exemplified with his life, death, and resurrection.







> But right along with this, I must point out that there is also nothing either in Romans 13 or in the teachings of Jesus that teaches a divine right of kings, or that endorses the rule of some people over others by force as something that is ever morally right.


Certainly not the divine right of human kings. We see from Phil. 2:5ff that the monarchs during the Christian age are obligated (if they want to claim moral right in ruling) to acknowledge that Jesus is their Lord. In itself, this does not confer upon them some kind of unqualified, personal "right to rule" (let alone to rule however they please), it is only a minimum bar to remove them and the crown they inherited from the roster of rebels who will be destroyed by the rider on the horse in Rev. 19:21.

Given the inherently criminal nature of the tax-and-plunder State, I view the monarchs of history (or present times) as something like the (non-criminal) heirs of, say, a mafia don -- they are the heirs of the proceeds of crimes they did not themselves commit and may not be able to rectify. The most upright course of action is for them to use their inheritance in a manner consistent with the teachings of Jesus (to spread the Gospel, heal the sick, care for those in need, and so on.) And of course, they should right any specific wrongs that they can. This principle holds whether the inheritance be wealth, political power, or any other kind of influence.

But when they follow in the footsteps of their ancestors and begin to commit fresh crimes with the wealth and power they have inherited, we can no longer hold them to be the innocent victims of circumstance. Believers have no special role in righting these systems of corruption because they are too entangled -- as soon as you start pointing one finger, a million fingers start pointing in every direction, each one fully justified. And that's precisely the "moral ball-of-yarn" that Satan has carefully preserved over the ages because he stands back of that ball-of-yarn with this simple disclaimer: "before anyone points the finger at _me_, let him first untangle the ball-of-yarn..." And that's precisely what the crucifixion and resurrection do -- they untangle the ball-of-yarn (or cut the Gordian-knot, whichever way you want to think about it.)

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The intolerance of evil is, of course, virtuous.


Define "intolerance".

Does this mean tut-tutting at a wicked government official or cop?

Does it mean actively resisting?

Something in between?

And how does that jibe with with what you already stated?




> When the State upholds an unjust lawsuit against you, or fines you for a non-infraction, or trumps up charges out of its endless lexicon of "laws", and so on, these abuses are part of the suffering that we are to patiently endure as believers.
> 
> The proper rule to apply to these situations is going the extra mile and turning the other cheek.
> 
> We are not to become egotistical, self-righteous and confrontational because this is how worldly people -- whose only hope is in the things of this life -- behave.


 @donnay posted a piece where the author uses Romans 13:4 as escape trunk:




> For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.


But this is a misreading. Paul is not talking of an evil government, he is talking of an evil man doing evil things who should be justly afraid of the government's power and wrath against him.

I know we have been around and around on this, but this is a question I have yet to get an acceptable answer to, and I've consulted friends, bible study groups, the wife and I have fought over this almost to the point of divorce:

*Is a Christian believer justified in rising up and using force to topple or depose or fight back against an evil government?*

If the answer is no, then it seems to me there is no qualifications that would lessen the impact of God's law on this: you are not allowed to hamstrung or disturb government in any way, as it is ordained by God to be there, and serves his larger plan.

----------


## ClaytonB

> Define "intolerance".
> 
> Does this mean tut-tutting at a wicked government official or cop?
> 
> Does it mean actively resisting?
> 
> Something in between?


A Christian friend of mine, an older gentleman, took me out to lunch one day (this would be about 7 years ago). The topic of 9/11 somehow came up and I joked about how some people believe 9/11 was an inside job -- of course, I also believe that, but I did not mention it, since I usually don't offer that specific idea unless the other person does first. Anyway, we had also been talking about the Gospel during the same conversation and he made the most amazing _double entendre_: "Clayton", he said, "the Gospel is an inside job."

And that's really the whole kit and kaboodle summed up in six words: the Gospel is an inside job. The Kingdom of God cannot be properly understood until you understand the _conspiracy_ of the Kingdom of God. The prophets, the 12, the Church Fathers, the saints, the martyrs, etc. etc. ... these people _knew_ what they were in on, meaning, they understood the long-game. The martyrs were not blindly stumbling into the circus to be fed to the lions without any clue as to why this was happening to them... they knew and understood its long-run significance and how their testimony plays into the whole conspiracy.

"Well, how come I haven't been initiated into this secret?" It's not like that. The Holy Spirit _is_ the secret, and God reveals this to each believer in his own way and in his own time. This is why there is no single path that we all walk. Each of us walks a unique path on our journey towards the city of God. But I think the error of many Christians is to attribute far too much randomness to the circumstances of life. You can go too far the other way, and blame God for the evils that happen in the world. That's obviously wrong, God does not cause evil. But it is almost certainly the case that you attribute far too much randomness to the things that happen to you in your life. Start by imagining yourself as a character in the story of the world, a story that God himself is writing. Ask yourself why he has written your character the way that he has. I won't try to lead you any further down that path, I will merely point the way to it for your meditation. It wouldn't be too far from the truth to imagine every moment of your life as having been chiseled by the hands of angels, bathed in their tears. It is easy to lose sight of the immensity of God and whenever we truly focus on it, it is always unsettling. God is boundless, not as a platitude, but as an actual fact.

We do not resist because God does not _need us_ to resist. Any question of force/might is trivial for God. It is no-contest. I always found it interesting that the final showdown in Revelation is not actually a war, it's just a slaughter (see Rev. 19:21). A war would suggest that the wicked are somehow able to actually challenge God. In fact, they cannot and will not.




> And how does that jibe with with what you already stated?


I love reading articles by Austrian economists and one of the themes you run across constantly in their writings is this idea that the most effective way to defeat tyranny is simply to do peaceful trade with other citizens. "Yeah, but the State interferes!" True, it does interfere. But so long as its interference isn't able to reach the point of total suffocation of the economy, there is still enough wiggle room to just keep working around them. "Well, they've done it a thousand times before, and they want to do it again, so they'll succeed this time, too!" Maybe, maybe not. In the meantime, we can absolutely resist evil without indulging in evil.

Bitcoin is a great picture of how this could work. I'm not saying Bitcoin in itself is the answer. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But it's a good _picture_ of what the answer looks like, either way. The Bitcoin network doesn't need to "End the Fed". It threatens the Fed by simply _ignoring_ it. The more of the services that government provides through its monopoly powers -- whether that be money, electricity, roads, security, etc. -- that we can produce on our own (in the private market), the less dependent we all, as a society, become on the government, and the less it is able to use the choke-collar of "cutting services" as a way to retaliate for non-compliance to its diktats. "Well, guess what, they totally understand that, and every time somebody tries to do an end-run around their system, they just close that loophole, too. And so it goes."

While this is true, we don't necessarily need them to "give up", we only need to be able to outrun them faster and faster over time, until their attempts to close all the loopholes turns into an unwinnable game of Whack-a-Mole. Because that's precisely in what the power of the people really consists -- there are 100 of us for every 1 of them. As a question of violent contest, they never stood a chance. Even now, with all this modern technology, they wouldn't stand a snowball's chance if literally all 99 of us became fed up and stormed them. But that's also completely missing the point in what is the real problem with society. Because there is no clear "us" versus "them". It's all entangled. Is the USPS delivery guy really my blood enemy? If you follow down that path, sooner or later, you're going to run up against this paradox.

So wherein lies the power of the masses? It's in the inherent un-governability of the masses. "Oh but they have spy cameras and facial-recognition blah blah blah." All of that stuff is just more infrastructure that requires more maintainers, manufacturers, operators, etc. etc. In short, it's really just a bigger paper-tiger... the same paper-tiger as 100 years ago... just with more paper. But before we get from here (the suppressed masses under the exultant State) to there (the freed masses under a purely symbolic and impotent museum relic by which we remember what "the State" once was), we need to first become _freeable_. To be freeable means there must be broad competency in the masses to manage their own affairs without nannying. There are multiple paths to this goal, so the "form" of the solution is not interesting to me, only its "function". In other words, whether States are federalized or confederated, whether you have a representative republic or a constitutional monarchy, etc. etc. all of these things are just implementation details. What matters is that the social order itself must become "competent from within". This is just another way of saying we need the hearts and minds of the broad mass of the public to change. _The Gospel is an inside job._




> But this is a misreading. Paul is not talking of an evil government, he is talking of an evil man doing evil things who should be justly afraid of the government's power and wrath against him.


You are correct.




> I know we have been around and around on this, but this is a question I have yet to get an acceptable answer to, and I've consulted friends, bible study groups, the wife and I have fought over this almost to the point of divorce:
> 
> *Is a Christian believer justified in rising up and using force to topple or depose or fight back against an evil government?*


In 2021 America, no. At least, not yet. Please see my previous post, because I am not an absolutist on this point -- when the government breaks down to the point of running violence in the streets (warlords, gang-lords, etc.) then the believer must simply use the rule of prudence (preserve safety, etc.) and follow his conscience. For example, the believer would be justified to fortify his home against invasion (up to and including the use of deadly force) in the event his neighborhood was targeted by Antifa. But he would not be justified to go out into the streets and gun down Antifa, even if they "started it". And he certainly would not be justified in using force against the police, even if they stand by and do not do their sworn duty. In that case, the State's actions are that of eviction or eminent domain (using Antifa as proxies to handle the dirty work for them) and the wisest course of action would be to flee. And yes, you can be certain that the provision and protection of God would be especially upon anyone in such a situation. We must use our best judgment, but it is never the case that it's all up to us. It often feels that way, but it's never actually true. God's grace is the ultimate safety net. This is an absolute fact, not just some supposition based on reading a text.




> If the answer is no, then it seems to me there is no qualifications that would lessen the impact of God's law on this: you are not allowed to hamstrung or disturb government in any way, as it is ordained by God to be there, and serves his larger plan.


You should try looking at this through a different set of lenses.

Let's rewind 200+ years back to England/Europe. The biblical view of the common man's situation in the world is much more easily understood on this backdrop. You and I would have been relatively typical commoners -- perhaps tradesmen or small-time merchants. Above us would have been the aristocracy -- the nobility and above them the royals. There would also have been the churchmen who wielded a small amount of earthly authority but mainly laid claim on our conscience -- priests, bishops, and on up to the Pope. But was that the end of it? No, certainly not for the medieval mind (which would have permeated most commoners well into the 18th century or even later). Above the King and the Pope were the heavenly beings -- angels, seraphs, cherubs, etc. And above all, is God.

Treachery in these times was common, despite the terrible risks to traitors (torture, public execution). That's because there was often a real chance at deposing a sitting king and taking the throne. The dread punishment of traitors is something that many medievals would have witnessed firsthand -- racking, drawing and quartering, breaking on the wheel, and so on. It was acutely understood in those times that these punishments were a living picture of the tortures of hell. It's notable that these punishments were practiced in the open, even under the auspices of the Christian church (which, despite the modern, often exaggerated view of the Inquisitions, never practiced such tortures with its own hand). There were many other barbaric practices that the church halted completely as soon as Christianity gained any foothold at all; but public torture and execution of traitors was one of the last pre-modern practices to really be abolished from Western society. And that is because the churchmen understood (and wrote to this effect) that, as horrific as these sights are, they are still of some social value in edifying men about the fate that awaits those who are traitors to God, that is, those who rebel against God and work to overthrow the divine hierarchy (whether secretly or openly).

And that last point is the key -- God does _not_ ordain the traitors that are hiding in the heavenly hierarchy, rather, he opposes them. And the most important way he opposes them is through _us_, specifically, through the testimony of Jesus within us. That's the nuclear weapon in the spiritual war! Everything else is just tiddly-winks. And human weapons like guns? Please, these things are not even tiddly-winks -- they're nothing but a joke in respect to the scale and sweep of the spiritual war. So another way to understand "turning the other cheek" is that it is actually a _weapon_ and not just any weapon, but the most powerful weapon of all; far more powerful than tanks, artillery, aircraft carriers and nukes... combined. Because the enemy is at war with God, our opposition to him is as implacable as the Allied soldier invading Nazi Germany. We do not resist evil until it becomes too inconvenient; we resist evil with prejudice. To those who are being saved, the message of the Gospel is the dripping dew of salvation; but to those who are perishing, it is the first licks of the unquenchable flames of eternal hell. I don't think we should bring back the breaking-wheel, but I think that there is edification in meditating on why God allowed this material picture of the fate of traitors to exist for many centuries. Maybe there's something important about the dread fate of the wicked that we ought to carefully contemplate.

Revelation 2:5

----------


## Anti Federalist

> In 2021 America, no.


I appreciate the work to flesh out a detailed response, but this is all I needed to know.

What you are describing sounds like Quakerism to me, and I come from a long line of Quakers. Great Uncle Smedley was called "The Fighting Quaker".

But he understood there are two legitimate reasons to go to war: to defend your home and the Bill of Rights.

I cannot be part of a faith that says I must stand down and submit to clear, deadly, tyranny.

And in 2021 America, that is what we have.

It's just working up momentum to the killing fields.

----------


## donnay

2 Corinthians 4

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2 Peter 3:3-4

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Faith:
Psalms 23:4

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.



PSALM 46:1-3 

1  God is our a refuge and strength,

A very present help in trouble.

2  Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed,

And though the mountains be carried into †the midst of the sea;

3  Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled,

Though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah.

----------

