mosto wrote:
What teaching of Romans 10? That salvation comes by faith and believing and confessing, and not by tithing or anything like that? I would agree wtih that.
My mistake....Romans 13.
Quote:
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. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 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. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
- KJV
Government in the US has been harping on this scripture to quell dissent from Christians, but it there is a severe flaw with their rationale. As Greg Dixon explained in an excellent World-Net-Daily article....
Quote:
In recent years, Christians have interpreted Romans 13 as a command for unlimited submission to government by God. Many proponents of this belief have sat passively by, in the soft pews of their place of worship, while evil has triumphed in most areas of family and church life. In our pacifistic smugness, many have allowed government to become god without even knowing.
Yet, when confronted with the true meaning of Romans 13, absurd accusations are shouted in religious rhetoric toward those who would dare to break an unjust law or even to question the almighty government. The opponents of unlimited submission to government are deemed as rebellious, anarchist and disobedient. However, there is no practical, historical or biblical consistency in the shallow agreements of these simpletons.
First, unlimited submission to government is not practical. For a philosophy to be a valid philosophy, it must be consistent. As a result, it does not make practical sense to blindly obey a tyrant like Adolph Hitler or deem a law such as abortion-on-demand a legitimate law just because one's government says it is public policy. However, if Romans 13 teaches unlimited submission to government, then we must obey and acknowledge all laws, good and bad, as the will of God. If all governments are of God, then all laws are of God. This in not practical from any point of view.
Second, it is not historical. Our founding fathers recognized and understood tyranny and despotism. They perceived the ultimate end of the king's actions. Thus, they besought George III to relent in his persecutions and implored him to uphold his covenant agreement.
In July of 1774, our forefathers met in Fairfax County, Va., and considered ways of forcing Great Britain to redress American grievances. George Washington and George Mason were the instrumental agents in drafting what has come to be known as the "Fairfax Resolves."
Ponder for a moment Resolves five and six:
"Resolved that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament, of making all such Laws as they think fit, to govern the people of these colonies, contrary to the first Principles of the Constitution, and the original Compacts by which we are dependent upon the British Crown and Government; but is totally incompatible with the privileges of a free people, and the natural Rights of Mankind; will render our own Legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and happiness to slavery and misery."
"Resolved that Taxation and Representation are in their nature inseparable; that the right of withholding, or of giving and granting their own money is the only effectual security to a free people, against the encroachments of Despotism and Tyranny; and that whenever they yield to one they fall prey to the other."
All of the Resolves are loaded with bullets that explode against a tyrannical and despotic government. The "shot that was heard around the world on Lexington green was loaded in the "Fairfax Resolves." How can one make that statement? After pleading with George III to uphold his covenant agreement and after seeking for a redress of grievances, the "coup de grace" is plainly stated in the 23rd Resolve:
"Resolved that it be recommended to the Deputies of the general Congress to draw up and transmit an humble and dutiful petition and remonstrance to his Majesty, asserting with decent firmness our just and constitutional Rights and Privileges, lamenting the fatal necessity of being compelled to enter into measures disgusting to his Majesty and his Parliament, or injurious to our fellow subjects in Great Britain; declaring the strongest terms of duty and affection to his Majesty's person, family and government, and our desire to continue our dependence upon Great Britain; and must humbly beseeching his Majesty, not to reduce his faithful subjects of America to a state of desperation, and to reflect, that from our Sovereign there can be but one appeal."
In simple terms, the Resolves offered George III two obvious choices. One was to fulfill his covenant obligations and be the king and ruler to the American Colonies that he had agreed to be or, second, to prepare for war. George III was asked to reflect upon the fact, that if he did not keep his end of the covenant, there could "be but one appeal."
Last --and most important -- it is not biblical. Daniel disobeyed Darius and went to the lions den. The three Hebrew children broke the law for not bowing. The parents hid baby Moses from Pharaoh. Rahab lied to protect the Hebrew spies. The Apostles went to prison for preaching Christ in the authority of Heaven. Paul and his followers in Acts 17 did contrary to all the decrees of Caesar in order to make Jesus the King. Even Jesus lived in direct opposition of the political religious leaders of his day and went to the cross for us.
Romans 13 is a treatise by Paul and the Apostles on the institution of model government. As we rightly divide the word of truth and take this passage in its total context, we will discover seven truths:
1. Good government is ordained by God.
2. Government officials are to be good ministers who represent God.
3. We the people must obey good and godly laws.
4. As we relate Romans 13 to America, our Constitution is the higher power -- not the IRS tax code.
5. Good government is not to be feared.
6. In America, we are to pay honor and custom and constitutional taxes to whom it is due.
7. Government is to protect the righteous and punish the wicked.
As a result, we have a practical, historical and biblical mandate to fervently disobey any unconstitutional laws and all government officials who cease to be good ministers of Jesus Christ. God almighty is the only power that deserves unlimited obedience.
[emphasis mine]
And not to derail this thread, but between private research and my legal education, I can tell you that even IF Romans 13 was to be taken literally, it was written in a time that does not apply to us today in the USA because no nation like the USA existed when Romans was written. In America, we are a republic. The full sovereign power of America is vested in THE PEOPLE, not any institution of government. The Constitution of the united States is the FOUNDATION of our system of government and the highest authority. Anything that exists in contradiction to the Constitution is invalid as a matter of law. Elected and appointed officials exist as servants of the people...possessing only the ENUMERATED powers needed to do the task for which they hold office, and they are accountable to THE PEOPLE. So, even if Romans 13 was to be taken literally, YOU and I would be the highest authority, not the President, not the Congress, not the courts.
And that the US Government is doing many, many things that blatantly contradict the Constitutional limits on its authority means that there is no moral obligation to render fealty to the state. America embraces the "social contract" theory of governance. There is a deal between the governed and the governing authority. Loyalty in exchange for the faithful performance of duties. Just as the Founding Fathers rebelled against the Crown because it had ceased performing its obligations to the colonists, we now have a government that holds that it owes no duty to the people at large. The contract is broken, and no duty of loyalty is required until the contract is restored.
mosto wrote:
Yes , hence the reason I have come to this web site and created this thread. I hope to come across some other Christians like you who can help me guide me in my faith with both an understanding of God and of Aspergers.
I'll help where I can.
mosto wrote:
....as for drinking, I don't drink alcohol. Well, I have maybe half a standard drink per year on average. If you feel the pastor is preaching heresy, Absolutely, confront him about it! (in a respectful tone of course) If they say you have a "lack of faith" or a "spirit of doubt" etc, then find another church ASAP!
Churches that adhere to "holiness standards" seek to live as priests to Jesus Christ....a devout walk with God. I suppose you can say all should be doing that, but I find that the more one grows as a Christian, the more devout they become...it's not something you can do by just following rules. I'm not surprised that many Christians from these churches wind up falling away....too much pressure to be something that hasn't developed naturally. Some churches have learned to not push people, but to encourage natural growth...some have not.
mosto wrote:
I have been like that through much of my Christian life, and even now the situation is I would sometimes skip church if it wasn't for the fact I am interested in a girl there and want to keep up appearances. Listening to a sermon at my church, I get almost nothing out of it, but from email and facebook correspondance with other pastors I know and trust better, I can apply more. (The pastor of my congregation has only one year theological training in "youth ministry", and the senior pastor, emphasises humanitarian work as more important than salvation)
Sounds like you are in a poor church for your needs. I know it sounds sanctimonious, but I've always denounced the "social gospel" (doing good works, helping the poor and needy, etc.) as heresy, because God supplies all needs, and while is it a good thing to help those in need, the first and foremost priority for any Christian is to preach the gospel and live as a disciple of Christ. Most places that embrace the social gospel trust good deeds to "win over" people to Christ, but ultimately, all they really do is increase church membership. Those converted know little to nothing about what it means to be Christian.
02 Jun 2009, 12:03 am
