Obey the authorities or you will be punished!

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

"Hello, is that the Weather Centre?
I want to complain.
You promised it would be a fine day today, and we had some showers in the afternoon."

As I said, erring on the side of optimism.
The alternative to some kind of government is anarchy, which would mean a complete nightmare of domination by the men of violence.
As you know, using your common sense, the principle of cooperating with the prevention of genuine wrongdoing is sound.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Read verse 4. You're ignoring the point.

Was Paul wrong when he said the authorities did everything for your good? Was he wrong when he said the authorities were servants of god and did his will (goodness) for you?

How could Paul have "erred" if the Holy Spirit was guiding him? Are you saying the Holy Spirit is fallible?

Use your common sense.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Paul was laying down a basic principle.
You want to haul him over the coals because you notice exceptions.

You are being amazingly legalistic about this.
The basic principle is still sound, that co-operating with the prevention of genuine wrongdoing is a good thing.

reply to post by DISRAELI


What principle? That governing authorities do everything for your good? Is that true or not? Simple question, no need to dodge it, a yes or no answer will be enough.

Just to clarify: Do our governing authorities do everything for your good? Do they have your best interests in mind? Do you believe they are servants of god who do his will? If Paul erred, does that mean the Holy Spirit is fallible?

Again, simple yes or no answers will be more than enough.

reply to post by DISRAELI

If I didn't think you were Anglican, I would have thought you were Lutheran.

Here's The Three Uses of the Law by Reformed Reader

When the Reformed and Lutheran scholastics talked about God’s moral law (lex moralis), they taught that there are three basic uses of the law (usus legis). They are:

1) The civil use (usus politicus sive civilis). That is, the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin. This falls under the general revelation (revelatio generalis) discussion in most of the scholastics as well as natural law (cf. Rom 1-2).

2) The pedagogical use (usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus). That is, the law also shows people their sin and points them to mercy and grace outside of themselves. In Muller’s summary, this is “the use of the law for the confrontation and refutation of sin and for the purpose of pointing the way to Christ” (p. 320). This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 2-4.

3) The normative use (usus didacticus sive normativus). That is, this use of the law is for those who trust in Christ and have been saved through faith apart from works. It “acts as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom the grace of God works the good” (p. 321). This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 32-52.

Does the Westminster Confession follow 3 uses of Law too?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I mean the basic principle that, on balance, the existence of government which punishes wrongdoers is better than otherwise.

You are obviously a fundamentalist.
You want to read the Bible with fanatical literalism.
Those of us who are not fanatical literalists are content with understanding what Paul was getting at.

Originally posted by pthena
If I didn't think you were Anglican, I would have thought you were Lutheran.

This is a case of "common descent".
If I draw my thinking from the New Testament, and Luther draws his thinking from the New Testament, there are bound to be similarities.

P.S. The Westminster Confession is not Anglican.
It belongs to the Kirk of Scotland, ye ken?
You're thinking of the 39 Articles (Article 37)

reply to post by DISRAELI


You dodged the questions again. Are they too hard for you? Or do they make you uneasy?

Romans 13
4 For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Paul says quite emphatically that the one in authority --IS-- god's servant for your good, meaning he was making a definite statement about the governing authorities.

Paul says that they --ARE-- servants and agents of God, another definite statement that is very clear.

Are these two statements true today or not?

If so, why did the governing authorities not bring punishment on the bankers after 2008? Was what they did not wrong?

Your unwillingness to answer my questions shows that they make you uneasy and that you are nervous about answering them.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You want to read the text with fanatical literalism, in the hope of tripping up fanatical literalists (a very common, if paradoxical, strategy of sceptics).
Not being a fanatical literalist, I don't have to take the bait.

As someone who is "enlightened", you have enough common sense to know that the basic principle is sound- that co-operation with the prevention of genuine wrong-doing is a good thing.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Paul says that they --ARE-- servants and agents of God, another definite statement that is very clear.

Are these two statements true today or not?

If so, why did the governing authorities not bring punishment on the bankers after 2008? Was what they did not wrong?

He isn't an American. I am. According to the Christian God, We The People are the authority. If we keep electing criminals to office and don't fire them and jail them when they fail at justice, it's on we the people.

I just listened to an interview with Dr. Cornel West, professor at Union Theological Seminar. I'm still a bit under the influence so to speak. Especially after hearing about former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels removing Howard Zinn’s work from state classrooms

reply to post by DISRAELI

P.S. The Westminster Confession is not Anglican.
It belongs to the Kirk of Scotland, ye ken?
You're thinking of the 39 Articles (Article 37)

Yes I was thinking of 39 Articles, but I couldn't remember the name. It should be easier to remember than Westminster. It must be that pain medication, dulls the brain a bit.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by borntowatch

 

According to scripture, everything the government does is for your good.

The Patriot Act? That's for your protection.

The NSA illegally spying on you? For your safety.

The Federal Reserve? Working to keep money in YOUR pocket.

Citizens United? Upheld so that YOUR voice can be heard, not corporations.

Make sense? I didn't think so.

Wrong country and render to Ceaser what is Ceasers.
Quote mining they call it

Make sense? I didn't think so

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Not a Christian, so I'd approach this matter in a different way.

First off... the words of God, Jesus and the prophets take precedence over Paul.
Paul is shaky in the sense he also taught some bizarre things about women, and the law... so his teachings on blindly obeying the government come as no surprise. Or perhaps he was referring to a best case scenario.

However, when in doubt refer to Jesus and the Old Testament prophets.

Micah in chapter 3 calls out the corrupt and unjust leaders of Israel. He also differentiate Gods people from the corrupt leaders... he addresses the corrupt leaders as if saying "watch out". His message isn't directed to the people, telling them to be "good sheep" and follow their leaders regardless of what they do.

LOL. Are these verses really that far beyond your understanding?

It's clear that Paul is simply saying, obey the law of the land, because if you don't you'll most likely be punished. There is not a civilization on earth that isn't governed by some kind of ruler or whatever you want to call the person in power. Heck, even animals have rulers amongst themselves.

Paul is simply saying that whoever is in power is only there because God has allowed it. Those who are allowed this power are free to rule how they chose. Some rule with an iron fist, some don't.

Naturally if a ruler was to implement a law that went against the laws of God we are to resist such a law.

Matthew 22:18
Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? 19 Show Me the tax money.”

So they brought Him a denarius.

20 And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?”

21 They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”

And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

It's not that hard to understand is it?

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

When he comes down to claim his property, then we'll talk.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker

 

And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

When he comes down to claim his property, then we'll talk.

Stop trolling bro, your just embarrassing yourself. That's sad, you couldn't make a better rebuttal than that?

reply to post by pthena


The thing is, Paul says rebelling against the authority is rebelling against god, because god puts in place all governing systems. It's a catch-22.

reply to post by RealTruthSeeker


Jeez, are you guys this stubborn?

Romans 13
For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Whatever law the government passes is for your good according to Paul. The Patriot Act if for YOUR good, Paul says so. Citizens United is for YOUR good, Paul says so.

Romans 13
2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

To resist a law the government is trying to implement is to rebel against god's will, and according to Paul, doing that is only bringing judgement on yourself. Isn't god the only one who can judge?

Are these verses really that far out of your comprehension level?

reply to post by borntowatch


So god has changed since Paul wrote this? Now governing authorities aren't put in place by god? When did this happen? I thought god never changed.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Personally, I believe that this is one of those biblical segments that has been "interfered" with, in an attempt to pacify the stirring masses. It's a biblical extension of the "emperor is God's son" theme prevalent throughout the world.

That being said, there was a strong belief that the coming messiah would liberate the Jewish nation from the Romans, and reinstall the Jewish throne. There may have been a faction of Paul's church "hell bent" on pushing that agenda, that he was trying to quell.